I gotta go back to work, spent too much time on here today, but I have to leave with this thought.
xahrx, you don’t have better proof (I assume) than the UN weapons inspectors, the international atomic energy agency or the NSA. But you’ve already claimed that you would be willing to pre-emptively kill a man, for a threat, that as far as I can see, is completely unsubstantiated.
The reason why you would kill him, is because you feel he is a threat, and yet by taking such a stance, you become a threat to the Iranians. Who again, no one has any proof that they have a nuclear weapons program.
Think about how crazy that is for a minute. You would pre-emptively kill, without proof, to prevent being attacked, by a threat you can’t substantiate.
That is George Bush, ignoring the Weapons Inspectors, and going into Iraq, and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens if we assume he really believed there was a threat, and I think he has been shown to be disingenuous in that regard.
So really think about that. Are the Iranians a threat to you? Because you have just announced you are a threat to them. And so, we can expect escalation, back and forth, until thousands more people die, and untold amounts of property are destroyed as weapons and rubble, lowering the standard of civilization.
This is the insanity of mutually assured destruction. A self-fulfilling prophecy.
This is far worse than some people having utopian ideals. This is the real counter-force against liberty. The willingness to kill or use violence without just cause.
Calling them stupid and name calling people as “assbageryous” would provoke them would it not? It’s sad because it is only your opinion that is in conflict with their logic.
You made an argument that LS believes there are no vengeful people in the world. In doing so I think you missed his point.
I may be wrong. You seem to insenuate alot with “Us” and “Them”. Such is the language of a nationalist and is misleading or hard to follow. If it’s not an “us” “them” issue I’d recommend employing different language. Though to me it still sounds like your stuck on “us”/ “them” dichotomy. There are more dangerous people in the world, some of which have access to nukes. Not necessarily Americans. Our occupation over there is entirely arbitrary. Who will we go for next after Iran? Seems kind of unfair to isolate them out when several other countries are developing their own nuclear programs as well, or already have them.
I understand why you are afraid of certain individuals over there. What seems illogical to me is that there are probably 100 more of those types of people in the world, some of which have greater accessibility to nukes than iranians do.
At least your honest. [:(] I’d prefer not to have my tax dollars pay for someone else’s blood feud though. I think you’d agree to that.
I’d prefer to keep fairy tales out of this. If we’re going to go into what-ifs let me lay this one on you. The odds of you dieing tomorrow in your commute to work is extremely high by comparison. Perhaps you should employ that logic and start lobbying for a safer road system?
Yes I do.
Lets be clear here. It’s folly to argue that it’s not more efficient to leave the middle east at once in one fell swoop. It’s more effecient economically, it’s more effecient logisticly, and it’s more efficient in loss of life. There is only one reason why it is not ‘practical’. But for all intense purposes, from a pragmatic standpoitn leaving would be easy. The only problem is it’s not politically feasible. Primarily because people still hold true to the ideology you espouse. It is entirely more efficient in all ways accept politically to leave now.
Every day we are there we are effectively
Violating their sovereignty
Violating their property rights
Violating US property rights
Additional Loss of Life
Additional economic turmoil
Additional reasons created to stay
Everday we stay there is a day we are violating their sovereignty and property. Everyday we are there we squelcnh more capital and taxpayer dollars. Every day we are there more american’s die. How many more american’s need to die? How many more american’s have died passed the deathcount of 9/11?
I see lots wrong with it.
I don’t think your called a statist because you want a slow departer. Most disagree with you but people are calling you a statist because you are using alot of nationalist rhetoric to defend your case. It’s not the ultimate point your trying to make, it’s the details you used to come to that conclusion that people are attacking, and they most certainly are statist. For example…
Making such statements, especially on these forums, is an inventation to harsh criticism.
And on that note I’d like to add. It’s easy to come to the conclusion you just made when that “demand” is being forced apon you. If people truely wanted institutionalized services they would develop them so without the use of coersion.
On another note you seem to make many posts that fall off topic. Try making your responses not so long winded and stay OT. I don’t want to get into an argument on immigration or public schools.
he’s not arguing “forced” inaction or action. You seem to be confused on what he said. He’s arguing the removal of compulsion. I don’t know if you don’t understand what he is saying or if your deliberately trying to construct a strawman. I mean no offense.
You are the one that is afraid, not I. I have no qualms about the troops being recalled immediately.
Correct. Fear requires a government to station troops all around the world, and then to bring them home slowly. Self defense just requires allowing people to own guns.
Bringing the troops home immediately is a workable peace.
This was the only part I thought that actually touched upon the question. Obama is only in power for four to eight years.
1 - Are you concerned about nuclear weapons in general?
and/or
2 - Are you only concerned about nuclear weapons in the hands of somebody you assume might use them?
and/or
3 - The significant point is Obama is only in office most likely for a limited term. So here’s a government that could vote in anybody into office, ie. as hitler was voted in keep that in mind, and you only had eight words to comment upon the u.s. government and nukes. Yet you go on and on about Iran. I’m beginning to assume some things about you so please answer these questions and comment on this.
Does Iran have the right to nukes? I would have to answer that with a couple questions of my own. Does anyone have the right to be able to destroy the whole world? How do we decide who has more right to nukes than someone else? Because the US has nukes does that give us the god given right to decide for the rest of humanity what is right? (god given right/nuke given right… whatever)
Spideynw you made a lot of good points with your post of facts. I just may have to keep that somewhere and use it to make me look good (I wouldn’t really do that dude).
If I were in Iran’s position I would certainly get some nukes. To protect myself from the US if nothing else. (like spideynw said no country with nukes gets invaded) The US has made most of our enemies through our own fears. The US has become the schoolyard bully. People may fear the bully but no one likes them. If everyone teamed up and stood up to the bully then the bully goes down quick. Even those that pretend to be friends with the bully will turn on him.
So yes Iran has as much right as anyone else to nukes.
I’m pretty new here and read a lot more than I post so I want to just reply to the tone of the thread in general. Since the thread has kind of gone away from the original question just a bit…
“The biggest problem I deal with in trying to get people to even consider freedom as an option is that they think Anarchists are a bunch of naive utopian dipshits who are more concerned with intellectual purity and perfect, flawless logic than anything that might actually make a real difference for the better in this world.” [sic]
I see what you are saying and in a pragmatic way you are right. But pragmatism doesn’t always work. There is a problem in a lot of issues with trying to go in little steps. Using the current health care crap as an example: What we have right now is screwed up. We have either too many regulations, or not enough, depending on your viewpoint. If we take some of the crippling regulations off the insurance companies the free market should work the problems out. If we go to an all gov’t run system they might be able to get it running ok. But by all the compromising over the years we simply have a huge mess. Neither side is really happy with it, and the consumers, insurance companies, and health care professions are not being served as well as they could.
Perhaps a more ‘real world’ approach to politics and economics would be to make some sweeping changes and get it done. The long, painful, compromising way doesn’t seem very effective so far. If that makes them look like pie in the sky idealist, well maybe they are. But I like their views a lot better than anything we’ve ever had.
Too bad I am such a hypocrite. I’m one big comprising SOB! But then again I never really get anything accomplished either.
While I hate the idea, concept and fundamental purpose (mass destruction) of nuclear weapons, I think while they exist, and others are in possession of them, then everyone should have a right to possess them–but I also believe no one has a right to use them aggressively. I think the idea that a nation who does possess many nuclear weapons, being the only nation in history to have aggressively employed them… twice, has no right whatsoever to tell another country they cannot build them. I think their fundamental purpose (mass destruction) is not currently their primary purpose, as I think their primary purpose as of now is for protection, defense and posturing. Admittedly this is always subject to change, however I think so long as there are multiple countries or peoples in possession of nuclear weapons, the less likely they are to be employed aggressively. This is similar to the topic of gun control, in a sense. If gun control were less strict, more people may very well be in possession of guns–but that does not necessarily mean more murders or violent crimes would occur, and in fact an argument can be made to the contrary as I understand it.
Actually we have had some interesting discussions at work along these lines. A lot of the guys at work say they trust themselves enough for self government but it’s all the others you can’t trust, so you need a government. So… you don’t trust individuals… but you think a group of individuals you don’t trust would somehow elect a group you do trust… fear is a wonderful thing isn’t it?
At the risk of being late to the party, Liberty made an important gesture by asking for examples. The position you described is definately a minority opinion on this board, so if you believe it be common it could be that you are misunderstanding the positions of others on board. Liberty is striving for clarity, not nickpicking.
To say that a property right includes that right to do harm to others with that property is to ignore the entire point of property rights, which is to prevent harm.
While in the political mainstream you will find many instances of people saying that certain rights trump other rights, here you will find the community strives to recognize only rights that are universally compatible. That is, negative rights; the right to be left alone.
The conscientious here is any use of property which does not leave others alone is illicit, while any use of property which does leave others alone is acceptable; what is called the Non-Aggression principle. Where we run into disagreement is on what actions do or do not constitute aggression.
I happen to be of the opinion that owning nukes does not constitute aggresion, no more so than owning any bomb/weapon/potential weapon/natural weapon. I, however, am in favor of disarming all governments of all weapons, starting with our government, of course.
I’m talking about a Zimbabwe-esque economic crisis.
The U.S. Navy takes the most in terms of economic resources to operate and maintain.
Depending on the economic and military positions of each nation, hard to say exactly which nations would be in competition for U.S. resources. In addition, if things get bad enough the carve-up may not even come militarily. I can see the potential for the Federal Government to sell off territories - whether that’s constitutional or not hasn’t really stopped them so far. But one thing is for certain, the United States’ ability to project power would be nearly impossible in this scenario, which would open up the opportunity for annexation around the world.
You either follow logic and reasoning or you do not. Once you leave the discipline of reason, which both the Left and Right in this country (the U.S.) do all the time, it’s very hard to recover. Making libertarianism so that it’s more attractive for Republicans or Democrats doesn’t help even if you obtain a little ground. And if you’re an Anarcho-Capitalist, you’ve essentially abandoned not only your economic principles, but reason itself. A little death is death nonetheless.
To be an obedient servant of the truth in a world of lies has more honor in it than to be the king of the world.
Not saying that you do. This relates to an earlier post in this thread on what the U.S. Military is used for.
The inability for the U.S. to project power wouldn’t necessarily deter U.S. defense (although I’m not even sure the military is even structured for defense), but it may make the defense of other nations either very difficult or even impossible. On the flip side, it would also make the bullying aspects of the U.S. Government either very difficult or even impossible.
I would most definitely prefer that other nations provide for their own defense. If they want to hire the U.S. Military as a PDA, and all aspects of that were voluntary, then that might be O.K. But then that suggests that the U.S. Government doesn’t really need to be involved even in defense of the U.S.; privatization would cover it and you wouldn’t have this proclivity to grand expeditions into warfare.
Could you elaborate on this LS? I’m not quite sure what you mean by change the will of the people, or why changing that will is necessary for Ancap to exist?
It was poorly written. My point is, you can’t change the government, to make the people better, or make the people ancaps. If you took away the government today, there would be one tomorrow. People want government. People want a military. They like being able to vote on the redistribution of their neighbor’s property. They worship their politicians. Even if they get short changed, they believe government is better than no government.
The only way to change that paradigm, is to prove to them, convince them, market to them, lead them, to the conclusion that government is not in their best interest, ,and then things will change.
Do I have a right to change people? I can argue and debate with them, but ultimately the change lies with them.
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. A good example, is the difference between the Swiss and American people. Their governments are very different in tone and design, and those reflect the values of the people.
I don’t know. Much more than we have now. Maybe by a factor of 100,000 (globally) assuming there are 10,000 sincere ancaps.
I am of course, talking about a peaceful evolution.
The alternative, is that this particular discussion will become relevant when people are able to carry pocket nukes or nano-weapons instead of pepper spray (Diamond Age), and then it will be very hard to enforce monopoly law when each person is sovereign by virtue of their capacity for self-defense. But that is a little too Gene Roddenberry for me and well outside the scope of my lifetime (as this entire endeavour may be).
There is such a thing as common meaning, more useful than jargon. Common Sense 101.
Yup. I’m a statist who thinks the ideal world would have no state, and who is for a reduction of state power and a draw down of state troops, a removal of state regulations, etc., etc., etc., etc. [8-)]
Because I have already said that: one, I disagree with current and past US policy; two, I want to change current US policy; and three, what worries me is possible current and/or future Iranian policy.
What radicalizes ‘these people’ is our troops in their land and our policies, our constant imposition of western will on their sovereignty. I say that should end. I also say that since for the foreseeable future we are going to have a state, and so is Iran, we should change our state’s policy to one that does not piss off the native population and which does not target that same population when, if there is a problem and a likely threat to the US, it will be at the state power level.
Sure I can. I just don’t care because unlike you I do not live in a nonviolent utopia where my adherence to peace makes others throw down their weapons in shame and take up basket weaving. Violence is a fact of life, and it will be so long as humans exist I woudl wager. I want it minimized. If I thought there were a chance in hell of getting rid of it I’d gladly take the high road. But I don’t, so I don’t. I have no problem compromising my ideals to come up with practical solutions to problems which: one, might actually sell to people in this world who don’t share my ideals; two, at least move us closer to those ideals rather than further away. Now here in the real world, state leaders can be a threat to citizens of the US. Rather than the US using its military to bomb the citizens of another country into desperate radicalism, I suggest keeping our troops at bay and, if ever there is a threat, focussing on the individual(s) who truly comprise the threat. DinnerJacket being one of the likely ones in this case.
In your world there is no color, there is black and white. That’s not the real world. If everyone not as perfectly pure as you is a ‘statist’, you may as well give up. Oh, and I’m sure you have a private service fly your food in to you so you don’t have to use state roads, and all you consume is certified free of subsidization, and that if your home were burning down you wouldn’t call that horrible state run fire department, or if you were being robbed that horrible police force… And no, I am not saying those functions are necessarily government functions or that it is proper for the government to provide them. I think everything from security to fire fighting to road building can and should be handled privately. Unless however you are truly living your life without compromise, then you’re just as much a ‘statist’ as I am for using those roads, those fireman, the police, the internet, etc., etc., etc., etc. Unless of course there’s some reason why your personal judgement of the appropriate level of compromise that you deemed necessary to live comfortably in this world while still pursuing your ideals is somehow superior to mine for some reason you would like to explain.
If you look far enough into the past and deep enough into the structure of production of anything you, I or anyone else has made use of in this world, you’ll find a government sponsored murder or few. Does that make us all hypocrits and ‘statists’, or are we allowed to live in this world to some degree while fighting for the ideal of a stateless, voluntary society?
That’s nice. I don’t support the sanctions, so once more your point is? Perhaps I’d be less apt to resort to ad hominems if you would stop emmulating a pack of morons and begging the question of my ‘statist’ status by throwing the sins of the entire history of US policy on my back? It’s just something to consider.
Once more, I have said that our troops should come home. I have just said they should not do so immediately, all at once, right now. I think a phased pull out is less likely to stir up anti US sentiment than an immediate one and as such is better for every US citizen and for everyone in the middle east overall.
Nothing so presitgious, so reliable, so wonderful as… the UN. Funny how the ultimate central state organization is where you go to for info.
I’ve been to Utah. Plenty of places with no one to displace.