Political Theory

Re: Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons?

xahrx — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:46:49 GMT

filc:
Xahrx at this point your just arguing to argue.

Actually I thought it was pretty well implied in that post that I've kind of given up on this topic. I'm just disappointed that people who should understand the difference between marginal and categorical choices should be so demanding of others that they categorically reject any and all forms of and actions of the state when, if someone were to analogously ask them to choose between all water or all diamonds, their first response would be to point out how unrealistic and thus irrelevant such a choice is in the real world. People make political choices much as they do all other choices; on the margins. There is, at base, no difference between you, LS, or anyone else out there who advocates for a smaller state or none at all except the degree and scope of compromises you're willing to make to live in the world with some degree of comfort. To me it's analogous to steroid users who think weed smokers belong in prison, and weed smokers who think steroid users belong in prison. Both end up getting screwed by the same policy and enemy, but because each is so preoccupied with their differences and trying to rationalize their drug use while demonizing the use of another, they stay separated and ineffective rather than joining forces to fight a common enemy.

Re: Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons?

Juan — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:04:49 GMT

Not to mention that the talk about nukes is mostly irrelevant. Ordinary bombing done by the american military/government has killed way more people than atomic bombs.

But of course, since this is propaganda, nukes are a nice element that enhances "storytelling".

Re: Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons?

E. R. Olovetto — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:52:02 GMT

^^ Yup, he's blinded by his patriotic sense of moral superiority to the fact that his country is the largest terrorist organization in the world and only to detonate nukes in a metropolitan area.

It isn't worth it to argue with such irrational people.

Re: Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons?

auctionguy10 — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:41:26 GMT

xahrx:

And, if God or nature or random chance willing, some real freedom does come our way eventually, I don't doubt you'll be congratulating each other on your achievements while bitching and moaning about what imperfections remain in the world, while people like me bear the real scars of actually getting shit done and ending as much state lunacy as we can by engaging in the oh so horrible activity of working with people who we might not agree with one hundred percent of the time without villifying them as evil or 'statists' simply because they have a different take on life.

You're taking this way too personally. Although I admit maybe it sounds like me and others have been taking it personally as well during this thread- but lets throw that aside who cares. The argument is- it seems like you think the Iranian government is more dangerous and unruly than the US government- which is a point that people can't wrap their heads around. I definitely can't.

Re: Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons?

filc — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:32:26 GMT

xahrx:
Unforunately in your dictionary Red Herring seems refer to a point which is true but which you don't want to deal with. This thread is full of people asking me why I want to kill foreigners en masse, bomb foreign cities, etc., when I have specifically stated I want the exact opposite.

Xahrx at this point your just arguing to argue. And the point I was making is you are not directly responding to people's posts. I already pointed this out in my post above, anyone who's kept up with this thread can see that. You can see that for yourself. Some of your responses make no sense what so ever as they didn't have anything to do with the point at hand. I can only assume that your emotions have taken you to an unproductive level, or your deliberately evading points, or something else. But if your little one plus 3, two plus two analogy has any representation of how you think this discussion has gone then I doubt we will be able to continue in a constructive way.

My point is that 50% of this thread is wasted text and is garbage.

Re: Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons?

xahrx — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:51:59 GMT

filc:

xahrx:
Or, you can continue your outreach program of screaming "STATIST!" at every disagreement and then huddling in a corner to read the latest, most pure Anarcho Capitalist screed that sees circulation to all of a few hundred people worldwide. A recipe for success I'm sure...
Removing all the strawmen and red herrings from this discussion would seriously clean up this thread. It wuold also make the posts like 50% smaller and more directly to the point.

Unforunately in your dictionary Red Herring seems refer to a point which is true but which you don't want to deal with. This thread is full of people asking me why I want to kill foreigners en masse, bomb foreign cities, etc., when I have specifically stated I want the exact opposite. Which is then usually followed by a wholesale listing of every past US policy fuck up as if that constitutes making a point of some kind, and then once more either directly asking me or implying heavily that I should answer for such policies when I have flat out stated I am against them several times.

This is the substance of debate so far here...

Me: "Two plus two equals four, but so does one plus three..."

General Response: "How dare you suggest two plus two equals five!"

Me: "I didn't, I agree two plus two equals four, not five. I'm just saying you can add to four using one and three as well."

General Response: "The government tried to convince people two plus two equals fives many times in the past."

Me: "Yeah, got that. Not what I'm saying or advocating..."

General Response: "They also said seven plus three equals eleven, nine plus twelve equals thirty-two, etc. How could you be so dumb?!"

Me: "I'm just trying to point out..."

General Response: "You hate addition and want the government to destroy all adding machines and GAAP standards, admit it!"

So on and so forth.

And, if God or nature or random chance willing, some real freedom does come our way eventually, I don't doubt you'll be congratulating each other on your achievements while bitching and moaning about what imperfections remain in the world, while people like me bear the real scars of actually getting shit done and ending as much state lunacy as we can by engaging in the oh so horrible activity of working with people who we might not agree with one hundred percent of the time without villifying them as evil or 'statists' simply because they have a different take on life.

Re: Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons?

Marko — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:02:05 GMT

auctionguy10:

Why bring up suicide bombers at all in regards to Iran when there aren't any iranians engaging in that activity?

Well technically there are "Iranians" that are engaging in suicide bombings. They are the Sunni fundementalist and Balochi seperatist group Jundullah, from the east of the country which performs terrorist acts inside Iran and receives funding from the USA.

Fascinating really. The only Iranian (by citizenship) sucide bombers are at war with Iran and are being funded by the US. So by America`s own doctrine that bombing those who support terrorism is OK Iran would have every right to bomb the US.

Re: Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons?

auctionguy10 — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 03:33:33 GMT

xahrx:

auctionguy10:
There aren't any Iranians running into discos and exploding or flying planes into buildings. But of course they're all the same subhuman brown people so who cares.

Once more we have a moronic reply. No, the Iranians generally don't tend to do that. However there is somewhat of a divide between the Iranian people and THEIR GOVERNMENT, specifically the people at the top who tend to be more radical. If the people of Iran were the issue, there would be no issue. I could give a shit less if they had a reasonably representative democracy and had nukes. The problem is those at the top are not of a piece with the people they rule, and might not be against developing nukes and 'losing' one or two, said nukes ending up in the hands of those who would willingly explode in a disco.

Well maybe you should give some EXAMPLES of iranian government activities that you find so dangerous when it comes to the United States? Why bring up suicide bombers at all in regards to Iran when there aren't any iranians engaging in that activity? You're lumping everyone in the middle east into one category- so yeah its hard for me not to paint it as racist. You don't seem like an idiot so I don't think you are but what else am I suppose to think from what you just said?

Do you really think this country has a reasonably representative democracy? What makes iran more dangerous than any other country? if you're afraid of ANY country that had a nuclear weapon then you'd make sense. But you single out Iran. Why in heavens name would Iran give some fringe group a nuclear weapon? They're not idiots- you don't just hand over power like that to anyone. You're making up a fantasy scenario and then saying that's the reason to fear Iran. I could just as easily say that its possible the US can give nukes to some fringe group that would likely explode in a disco- especially since currently, the United States IS trying to bribe former iraqi and afghan insurgents with cash.

xahrx:
auctionguy10:
How many middle easterners are dropping huge payloads on villages killing men women and children, or traveling thousands of miles to bust into people's houses and taking them away for permanent imprisonment and torture...then after all that being big enough jerks to tell you its for your own good?

Again, and for the hard of sight on this board, I DO NOT SUPPORT THOSE FUCKING POLICIES SO WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF CONSTANTLY REFERRING TO THEM AS IF I DO?

How pathetically and ideologically blinded are you people?

Well that's all well and good if you don't support those policies. But with those actions going on right infront of you...how can you possibly think that the iranian government is more dangerous and "crazy" than the United States government? Do you understand why this is confusing to everyone?

xahrx:
[
auctionguy10:
I don't see how the last point about forcing women to wear certain clothes makes them more of a NUCLEAR THREAT. You have to be joking.

[Not noticing a somewhat medieval mindset among the culture at large with which you're dealing has to be a joke. If they were still using the iron maiden or thumb screws would that be relevant? I would sure as hell think so. Treating women like dogs and dogs like lunch is a problem. And yes that is rhetoric, not to be taken literally genius. The point is other cultures can be just as screwed up as western culture and worse. Stop bathing in the self righteous pleasure of rebelling against your own government for five minutes and take a moment to realize the problem with all governments, and then that practically speaking your only defense from an aggressive foreign government might be the one you currently live under.

Yeah forcing women to wear anything is immoral and I don't support it. But I'm from that culture- and no there isn't a medieval mindset. Here's the deal- a lot of those places are poverty holes and they aren't safe(just like anywhere with high crime)- women get raped and attacked if they go out. The clothing's purpose is to protect women from harrasment by getting rid of lust(whether or not it actually accomplishes that is a different question)- a lot of people would love to send their daughters to school- but they don't live in cushy environments like over here, and if a father has no way to protect his daughter on her way to school or back- and can fear a possible attack going on INSIDE the school- then he's not going to send her there. That's the mindset of the people over there. There's a huge difference between that and a damn Iron Maiden- that's just a silly comparison.

You say they treat women like dogs and lunch? Like we don't do that here? Women are objectified as pieces of meat in this country all day and only portrayed as sex objects and skin with no humanity. We don't have Pimps and hoes in this country? But I'm not gonna say that's the reason to fear American foreign policy- it has nothing to do with anything.

But anyway- the point is- how is IRAN an aggressive foreign government? They aren't. The US is the aggressor here and always has been when it comes to Iran...and I think you know that.

Re: Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons?

Juan — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:56:40 GMT

x:
Actually I stand by my original assessment: you're not worth responding to.

Translation : since I'm not buying your nonsense you take your ball and go play elsewhere.

The thing is, different audiences require different kinds of propaganda. If you were talking to randroids you would be saying something like "the morally right action is to nuke the whole middle east EXCEPT ISRAEL of course"

Now, no doubt you know that you can't use that sort of propaganda here - you need a different and more subtle tactic :

1) you say your ideal is a voluntary society (though you don't consider yourself a libertarian - pretty consistent)

2)you say that you even oppose american empire ! at least in theory...

3)...however, in practice you think that the american military should keep on invading the middle east (okay, maybe bring back say, 10 soldiers per year...)

4)...but here's the important thing : you parrot to a letter the bogeyman story about the evil iranian government and the crazy people who run it. In reality the people who run the iranian government are no crazier than the people who run the gov't of the place you live in. A government that you even call 'your own' no ?

If you were presenting your case to a bunch of neocons, I would consider you mistaken but somewhat sincere. However in the context of this forum your position is rubbish.

Re: Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons?

Spideynw — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:03:11 GMT

xahrx:

Spideynw:
More fear-mongering. Do you have anything with substance? Or is that all you do, is use fear-mongering? Because this is just opinion. Nothing else.

Did you completely miss their recent elections?

More fear-mongering and conjecture. You think spending tax-payer dollars to assuage your fear is OK huh? I mean, if we are just going to keep talking about hypotheticals here, I can just make the claim that the longer the U.S. government keeps its troops over there, the worse it will be for people considered U.S. citizens. At least my fear-mongering does not result in more tax payer spending.

Re: Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons?

K.C. Farmer — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:55:28 GMT

xahrx:

K.C. Farmer:
Even with emotions and imperfect information, your choice is to use logic and reasoning or not to use logic and reasoning. If you choose not to use logic and reasoning, don't try to justify your position from a stand point of logic and reasoning.

Insisting on one and only one possible approach out of many when there are a myriad of people in the world with varying degrees of disagreement with your principles is not logic, it is misanthropy. Which I'm all in favor of so long as it's admitted and not hidden behind a cloak of 'reason'.

Where have I insisted there is one and only one possible approach? There are many possible approaches using logic and reason, just as there are many possible approaches that do not apply logic and reason. Just because someone else disagrees with my principles, doesn't mean I have not used logic and reason. When you compromise your principles, abandon logic and reason, and act out of emotion with imperfect information you don't have a leg to stand on.

xahrx:

K.C. Farmer:
Big difference between abandoning your principles and living in State-occupied territory. I have a choice in diluting my political affiliations to attract others for potential political gain (although I question whether there even is political gain to be had by doing that). I have no choice in living under the oppression of a state.

Bullshit. If you wanted to you could get your own little anarcho capitalist paradise going somewhere. You choose not to because the cost is too high. Just like you choose to drive on government roads because flying in unsubsidized food using an all private air service that deliberately tries to avoid dealing with the government air traffic control rules simply to satisfy principle is ridiculously high cost for little return. You have not shown a difference, you've offerred an excuse for your compromises, nothing more. Either live by your own standards of purity or admit others with similar ideals may have differring priorities and degrees to which they are willing to compromise.

The State takes from me what you willingly give it. That is the difference. While your intentions may be good (or not), you have surrendered what little freedom you have to the State in exchange for an emotional feeling - so much to give in exchange for so little.

Re: Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons?

Pablo — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:58:32 GMT

liberty student:
Can ancap exist in a world where 99.9% of the population accepts not just the premise of the state, but that not having the state is immoral and unfair? I don't think so. In order for ancap to exist, we must have property. And we can't have property, if we have no means to defend it. And we can't defend property in the face of overwhelming force. However, if there was sympathy for ancaps, if there was sympathy for freedom, then there is a chance that the statists would not have the degree of consent they do, to attack anyone acting freely.

The challenge comes from removing the veil of ignorance from the average person. In order to do this, Ancap needs to be marketable. Watch some television commercials, movie previews, movies, or anything else that is trying to convince the average person of anything. The ones that fail are the ones that use logic to try and sell you on something. The most successful appeal to emotion. The reason a voluntary system has not arisen, is because of the failure of most voluntaryists/ancaps/etc. to realize that until someone's veil of ignorance is removed, they will despise logic. We need something simple, which appeals to the emotional side of people, and makes them feel like 'the bad guy in the movie'. (*The reason for religion and governments success is partially attributable to this.)

In my opinion, this can be done the same way that politicians have been doing it for centuries. Playing with words. I am not concerned with the sounds of a word, I am concerned with their meaning. If a WORD such as 'anarchy' brings about negative feelings and emotions in 95% of people- get rid of it- adopt a new word. If people fight to the end to defend the WORD 'government', why not utilize it? Why not build on it? Why not create a dichotomy between 'coercive governments', and 'voluntary governments'? Create an appeal which would demonstrate the coercive nature of 'regular governments' and show the morally superior nature of voluntaryism.

The 'libertarian movement' is divided. We have those who attempt (and fail miserably) to gradually change the system from the inside, and those 'purists' who are more radical, yet too have failed to bring about even a theoretical system which would bring about an end to 'coercive governments.' I am not suggesting this is the 'final answer' or even an answer. Rather, it is an approach. Much like in hand to hand combat, the more powerful will generally overpower the weaker. However, look at how jujitsu approaches it- rather than putting force against force, the goal is to utilize your opponents strength against him to achieve your goal.

We are on the teetering point of finding a system to dissolve the state for good. Lets put our heads together, think creatively, and beat this beast (or figure out how to) in our lifetime.

Re: Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons?

Zach_the_Lizard — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:44:30 GMT

xahrx:

Not that I have seen. All I have seen is repeated attempts to conflate a slower pull out than you desire with firebombing, from damn near everyone on this board.

To continue to keep troops there must necessarily result in there being yet more death and destruction by those troops, something you must implicitly accept if you want a slower withdraw.

And now let us return to Iran. I feel that no government has any right to possess weapons that cannot be used in any capacity save for widespread death and devastation, pollution, and irradiation. That being said, I do not see how another state ruled by psychotic fascists that have nukes can call the Iranian leadership crazy and demand that the Iranian government never acquire these weapons, especially when these same people would likely support Truman's decision in Japan.

Even if I believed the claims that Iran is a threat, I would not support a war that is sure to be financed with theft and will kill far more than the alleged men who want to use the red button.

Re: Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons?

filc — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:39:29 GMT

xahrx:
Or, you can continue your outreach program of screaming "STATIST!" at every disagreement and then huddling in a corner to read the latest, most pure Anarcho Capitalist screed that sees circulation to all of a few hundred people worldwide. A recipe for success I'm sure...

Removing all the strawmen and red herrings from this discussion would seriously clean up this thread. It wuold also make the posts like 50% smaller and more directly to the point.

Re: Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons?

wilderness — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:38:34 GMT

xahrx:

wilderness:
ok, good. except my little nit-pick is I wouldn't call such troops, "our troops". they are people with their own minds and hearts. but i think you would agree with me on this point. so no quarrel with that fact i'm sure.

Indeed, but nitpicks like that get you thrown out of debates in the real world. Yes, I agree, but can we skip the need of establishing our own little personal jargon for this discussion and use some common colloquialisms to make things flow a bit easier?

ok. we agreed on that little nit-pick. let's move on shall we. this is the REAL world. I'm not in a fantasy realm and neither are you. so let's not get caught up in red herrings shall we.

xahrx:

wilderness:
i answered.

Not that I have seen.

I said and I repeat, "ok, good". word for word. This was in reference to you saying you want the troops out - we agree. enjoy the agreement. i am.

xahrx:

if you for once admit that pulling out troops at a slightly slower rate than immediately isn't necessarily the same as carpet bombing entire countries and trying to establish a pax americana?

i'm not involved in that discussion. i don't think i can speak for the troops, but this is a whole other separate discussion than from i initially began our current dialogue upon. i'm willing to enjoy our agreement above, though, we may disagree on the means - the how we get from here to there.

xahrx:

Because you see, I would like to live in a more free world than we currently have, but the complete inability of anyone else on the planet to take people like you seriously because you lump anyone and everyone of differring opinions into one category, that being statist, is a major obstacle to even getting in to the debates. If there is going to be a freer world in the future it is not going to be just because you guys sat around with your thumbs up your asses and polished your consciences with your ideological purity. It is also going to be because of people like myself, who are willing to engage the world and take a few ideological punches if the end result is closer to the ideal we all want. There's nothing wrong with maintaining the pure position. There's everything wrong with vilifying people with the same ideals but more desire to compromise now for possible real results now.

'the pure position' will always battle the 'compromise(d) position'. I can't help that fact, but at least you know I will not initiate agression against you nor anyone else, and in the heart of hearts i don't think you want to either. so let's sleep easier please. i understand you're trying to find a way to 'stop the insanity' - and I am too. So there again, let's enjoy this second agreement shall we?

xahrx:

Or, you can continue your outreach program of screaming "STATIST!" at every disagreement

I never once called you a 'statist', let alone scream it.

xahrx:

and then huddling in a corner to read the latest, most pure Anarcho Capitalist screed that sees circulation to all of a few hundred people worldwide. A recipe for success I'm sure...

lol