What are the general thoughts on WWII here on Mises.org?
Were the Allies justified in fighting WWII?
What would have happened if the US wouldn't have gotten involved in the European theatre? Should they have?
I have always been interested in this time period, so I was curious what you guys thought on the issue. Any articles or books discussing the war from a Libertarian standpoint are very welcome.
Jacob Bloom:I still think the war in Afghanistan was absolutely the right thing to do.
Really? You think when one government asks another government to hand someone over, that the other government has no right to ask for evidence of guilt?
So you think if Pakistan asked the U.S. government to hand you over, and said if it did not that they would nuke us, that the Pakistany government would be justified in attacking the U.S. for not handing you over?
OK, so any other examples? Again, if the U.S. is your standard, God help us!
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Jacob Bloom: Because Israel is the bastion of democracy in the middle east.
Because Israel is the bastion of democracy in the middle east.
And...democracy is not some virtuous force.
Jacob Bloom:The existence of a democratic capitalistic market in the middle east will ultimately lead to trade with barrier countries, which will then make them want to institute free markets of their own
Individuals should enter the free market through voluntary consent. Running around the world freeing up markets through government [mercantilism] is a rather absurd notion. All the funds that are used for military purposes are just a drag on the economy. We could be utilizing them towards the private market and advance by leaps and bounds and THAT will certainly make them want a free market.
Jacob Bloom:Appeasement started the minute Obama said he favors the idea of a two state solution. Which is impossible.
Who are we to say which solution works and which doesn't?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Spideynw: Jacob Bloom:I still think the war in Afghanistan was absolutely the right thing to do. Really? You think when one government asks another government to hand someone over, that the other government has no right to ask for evidence of guilt? So you think if Pakistan asked the U.S. government to hand you over, and said if it did not that they would nuke us, that the Pakistany government would be justified in attacking the U.S. for not handing you over? OK, so any other examples? Again, if the U.S. is your standard, God help us!
We had evidence against Bin Laden. He said he was responsible for the attacks.
And also, for your hypothetical. Pakistan probably wouldn't do that because they know they'd lose a fight with the US.
1. Democracy is the ultimate in virtuous systems because it gives a chance for the metaphorical prisoners to vote the metaphorical guards out. Like a market does with companies.
2. Individuals will enter the market of their own volition, but they need an incentive. Your plan is a good plan, I like it, but I think there's enough money to both cut taxes significantly and still fund the military and give contributions to Israel.
3. I say that the two state solution won't work because from my point of view, you cannot negotiate with a people who maintain an extreme position. The Palestinians want the whole area. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.
Jacob Bloom:1. Democracy is the ultimate in virtuous systems because it gives a chance for the metaphorical prisoners to vote the metaphorical guards out. .
do the prisoners have a chance if there are more guards than prisoners? anyway it is a false analysis since in a democracy everyone that engages in the political system is both guard and prisoner.
Jacob Bloom:. I say that the two state solution won't work because from my point of view, you cannot negotiate with a people who maintain an extreme position. The Palestinians want the whole area. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.
i say that a statist solution wont work. as state solutions dont work. the USA is not working. the UK is not working. Israel is not working. the Palestinian state will not work.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Jacob Bloom:Democracy is the ultimate in virtuous systems because it gives a chance for the metaphorical prisoners to vote the metaphorical guards out. Like a market does with companies.
Tell that to the gay community who can't have rights because they aren't the majority.
Jacob Bloom:Individuals will enter the market of their own volition, but they need an incentive.
I view an unhampered productive market to be quite an incentive.
'Your plan is a good plan, I like it, but I think there's enough money to both cut taxes significantly and still fund the military and give contributions to Israel.'
Sustaining Israel on our foreign aid is like giving a weekly allowance to a 40 year old virgin living in the basement. Its time to kick the virgin out of the basement and tell him to get his own place.
Jacob Bloom:I say that the two state solution won't work because from my point of view, you cannot negotiate with a people who maintain an extreme position. The Palestinians want the whole area. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.
Not all Palestinians are extremists and not all Jews are moderates. Anyways its not the US's place to dictate what happens.
nirgrahamUK: Jacob Bloom:1. Democracy is the ultimate in virtuous systems because it gives a chance for the metaphorical prisoners to vote the metaphorical guards out. . do the prisoners have a chance if there are more guards than prisoners? anyway it is a false analysis since in a democracy everyone that engages in the political system is both guard and prisoner. Jacob Bloom:. I say that the two state solution won't work because from my point of view, you cannot negotiate with a people who maintain an extreme position. The Palestinians want the whole area. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. i say that a statist solution wont work. as state solutions dont work. the USA is not working. the UK is not working. Israel is not working. the Palestinian state will not work.
1. No, and the prisoners need to always have a means of changing out guards. And the guards need to be few in number. And it's not a false analysis because the state is the guard. The people are like prisoners (sort of) but ideally we would be able to vote our guards out and change them whenever we felt it necessary.
2. I don't want a no state. I want a diet state. Why can't we have a small state? And as far as Israel goes, they're being pressed into conceding territory that is rightfully theirs because the US is turning its back on Israel. And it's not right. I hate Obama for it.
Anarchist Cain: Tell that to the gay community who can't have rights because they aren't the majority. I view an unhampered productive market to be quite an incentive. 'Your plan is a good plan, I like it, but I think there's enough money to both cut taxes significantly and still fund the military and give contributions to Israel.' Sustaining Israel on our foreign aid is like giving a weekly allowance to a 40 year old virgin living in the basement. Its time to kick the virgin out of the basement and tell him to get his own place. Not all Palestinians are extremists and not all Jews are moderates. Anyways its not the US's place to dictate what happens.
1. The gay community is getting their rights, albeit slowly. However, my position has always been that the government shouldn't be in people's lives except to the extent that it has to be. So I'm totally in favor of gay rights or whatever.
2. You might be right. I still think maintaining Israel is a better way. And yeah, we give a lot of money to Israel, but I think we should.
3. No, but the Palestinian position is basically that the land is theirs. And that's all anyone needs to know.
1) yes, if the people could keep the government off their backs. government would not be an evil to them. but the idea of granting a monopoly of violence to someone and asking them not to misuse it is ridiculous. You are trying to win the argument by semantics. the government is not a guard. a guard would actually guard. governments are thieves. Do you believe that we need some minimal presence of thieves to protect our property from thieves?
2) a diet state is better than a bloated state. but compared to no state. it looks like a bloated state.
Perhaps you can tell me what territory is rightly owned by any state on earth(let alone israel). I have never come across any.
Jacob Bloom:2. You might be right. I still think maintaining Israel is a better way. And yeah, we give a lot of money to Israel, but I think we should.
You're use of the word 'we' in this context leads me to ask you whether you are familiar with the principle of Methodological Individualism?
If you are not, you may find it enlightening to read, http://mises.org/story/3409
I consider my own position to be informed by an acceptance of this principle.
If you are I wonder If you would justify your use of the collective term in your 2nd Point
nirgrahamUK: 1) yes, if the people could keep the government off their backs. government would not be an evil to them. but the idea of granting a monopoly of violence to someone and asking them not to misuse it is ridiculous. You are trying to win the argument by semantics. the government is not a guard. a guard would actually guard. governments are thieves. Do you believe that we need some minimal presence of thieves to protect our property from thieves? 2) a diet state is better than a bloated state. but compared to no state. it looks like a bloated state. Perhaps you can tell me what territory is rightly owned by any state on earth(let alone israel). I have never come across any.
1. The government is a thief. However, I'm willing to pay my taxes if I like what it's being spent on. I despise welfare programs. But I am pro military. So I don't mind my money being spent on the military. I should be able to vote out the people in charge of the military if I want. And yes, we need to have some kind of guard against thieves. See, the problem here, is you don't like the military. So you see them as thieves. I don't.
2. Define "rightly owned"? I think of ownership as "if you find it, put your name on it and can protect it, it's yours." If we eliminate the ridiculous government spending on social entitlement programs, taxes can come WAY down. And if we reinstitute some kind of sound money, governments will have a hard time inflating the currency to serve their myriad needs and whims. I mean, how high would the income tax need to be if it only funded the military? I'm thinking a ten percent flat tax would be acceptable. At that point, I'd stop complaining. They'd also need to get rid of capital gains taxes and property taxes and consumption taxes and death taxes. I just want a diet state.
1) perhaps the problem is that you feel that people who feel the government are thieves should be forced by the government to pay for the military that you are happy to pay for.
2) see my prior post on Meth Ind. The US government found stuff and put its name on it. did it really?.... oh my.
nirgrahamUK: Jacob Bloom:2. You might be right. I still think maintaining Israel is a better way. And yeah, we give a lot of money to Israel, but I think we should. You're use of the word 'we' in this context leads me to ask you whether you are familiar with the principle of Methodological Individualism? If you are not, you may find it enlightening to read, http://mises.org/story/3409 I consider my own position to be informed by an acceptance of this principle. If you are I wonder If you would justify your use of the collective term in your 2nd Point
I have read the link you sent me. I agree with what it says. I say "we" as the members of the US. I consider myself a member of that group. And as such I see myself and you as a part of that group. I am, however, my own person, I am at once separate from and a part of the US citizenry. So if you see yourself as separate from the US group, then I can understand why you would resent being placed in that group.
nirgrahamUK: 1) perhaps the problem is that you feel that people who feel the government are thieves should be forced by the government to pay for the military that you are happy to pay for. 2) see my prior post on Meth Ind. The US government found stuff and put its name on it. did it really?.... oh my.
1. If you don't feel the military is necessary, perhaps you shouldn't live in a country that uses your tax dollars to pay the military for protection? I'm not saying this to be mean, I'm just saying if I want my tax money to go to the military and you don't, then obviously, you are being forced to pay for something you don't want and as such, you shouldn't tolerate that kind of treatment.
2. We came here on a boat, founded some colonies, rebelled from our original owners, started a new nation, bought a lot of the land from the French and then we expanded westward...the land the US is currently inhabiting is owned by the US. Right?
1. if you dont like how you are abused here. go and be abused somewhere else.
2, equivocation on 'US'