Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons?

Economics Political Theory
201

Calling someone a ‘statist’ because they dare say a pure anarcho capitalist solution might not fly in the world at large is stupid.

Quite the contrary. I said if he wanted to maintain his ideological purity he was welcome to it. I would rather survive if it came down to that on this particular question.

Now you’re on the same bandwagon? Let’s go over the points I have made so far:

  • I want our troops in the area, in all areas, drawn down to nothing eventually.
  • I think a phased pull out with some negotiations over time is a better approach than just leaving.
  • I have said that if a threat arises it should be taken out at the individual level, like DinnerJacket.
  • I have said specifically I do not support sanctions, I do not support bombing.

Yet I am repeatedly asked why I want to not only keep troops there but escalate hostilities, bomb the populace, and hit them with sanctions… What haven’t I made clear here? Is a policy of using the state to murder individuals who may be a threat ideal? No. Compared to carpet bombing cities of innocent civilians while the actual individuals who pose a threat survive and even prosper, I consider it a bit better of a compromise. But hey, what do I know, I’m just a statist…

Which to turn your favorite debating tactic on you is the exact argument socialists use. The political system and the government would work great if it weren’t for all the politics… So congratulations, you’ve pointed out what I’ve been saying for the last 70 posts or so, that I am advocating a policy that at leaast has a snow ball’s chance in hell relative to yours, and which if adopted would at least get us closer to the ideal of nonintervention.

So do I, but to return to a point I brought up which you all conveniently ignored, why are marginal choices okay in the market but here we must decide categorically? Sure, in the ideal sense there’s no difference between killing one person vs one hundred or one million in the pursuance of such policy, but to claim there is no difference in practical impact between those three options is an act of lunacy.

Oooo. Nationalist rhetoric. May be so, but I also know a line of shit and a nutjob when I see one, and DinnerJacket seems a few fries short of a happy meal. Perhaps that assessment is in agreement with nationalist rhetoric or not, I don’t care. What I care about is a fruitcake with possible nuclear aspirations. And it’s well to keep in mind that just because a government’s policies aren’t tested for profit and loss, while that does mean they’ll destroy wealth over time, it doesn’t mean they do so in every single individual instance. The goverenment can get it right sometimes, it’s just not the tendency over time.

Then show why it is not necessarily the case. In doing so you make the same mistake socialists made with the incentive problem, and you ignore a huge and obvious tendency on the part of mankind toward central authority. To argue against the fact that the government is there, has been in one form or another for as long as most can remember, and that many if not most people seem to want it there to some degree, is ridiculous.

You presume I am not already doing so. Quite the contrary. On the issues of the drug war and road building specifically I’ve been very active, mostly in my college days but still to this day.

Are you really this dellusional? You honestly think everyone feels this is being forced upon them? If these institutionalized services were not the product of man then they should have pre dated man in their existence, which is insane. Indeed, some portions of government are forced on some by others. But even those who have aspects of control forced upon them have things they believe should be forced upon others, and they in fact do so. The truth is most people willingly engage in the act of institutionalized looting and killing called government. Now I understand that doesn’t make the statement about human nature needed for anarcho capitalism to exist one day, none the less it seems to be true.

202

Part of why I, personally, can’t take you seriously is calling Ahmadinejad Dinner Jacket. I had to google that to even figure out who you were talking about before. I think this type of thing just makes people sound dumb… like calling people teabaggers and they don’t know what that is slang for… I’m not a Tea Partier but hearing that does make me want to teabag the person.

For a serious response though: Iran has made it quite clear that they want nuclear weapons. Forget the real argument that nobody at all is justified in owning nuclear devices. Why is Iran “less of a country” than the US? What defines terror? Why is the US military not considered terrorists? A viable rationale might be stated intentions, but more important is a history of actions. The US has no standing to question another states possession of nukes, being the largest terrorist murderer with nukes in history; therefore I refuse to support the US military in anything it does, even if somehow its policy changed and it was, somehow, going to assassinate Ahmadinejad, versus all the sanctions and threat of large scale war.

203

A bit. With most western leaders, no. I don’t even think North Korea would be a threat. The middle east, yes. Maybe if McCain made it to the presidency then I’d be concerned because he’s crazier than a shit house rat.

I am concerned about nuclear weapons in the hands of someone who might use them against me.

Because I find the likelihood that the US will use nukes on anyone, and in particular me, low, despite past actions. Nuking other nations is at least not to date something like child molestation where you can say there’s a high a rate of recidivism. Get McCain in office, I will worry. The only reason I say pull out in phases rather than right away is that the majority of the world is concerned with things other than maintaining anarcho capitalist, non interventionist purity.

204

When? How? Can you substantiate?

I bet you you can`t.

205

True, but who has been doing the compromising? Two statist parties who don’t question the underlying fundamentals, which is why the healthcare debate in the mainstream right now is around what to do and how to do it, as opposed to what are we already doing and how do we undo it. And most people buy into that with healthcare. With foreign relations however, people are much more apt to buy into the idea that we’ve made our own bed and the underlying answer is to pull out. With healthcare, since most people seem to consider any market ‘free’ despite existing regulations, I support the socialists. It may be counter intuitive, but the more burden that’s put on our system, the quicker it will collapse. Which is why I also support the upcoming banking regs. The more people who view themselves as victims of the state as opposed to state benificiaries, the more they’ll be inclined to think the unthinkable and actually give the idea of dealing with each other as free adults a chance. Victimize the bankers. They’ve been using the state to whip people enough over time, no one will really mind them getting the bad end of the stick. And one way to win the war is to encourage the parasitic class to make itself unsustainable as they would anyway, but do it in such a way that their collapse comes when we still have a political system which ‘works’ somewhat so whatever revolution may occur, it doesn’t have to be bloody.

What environment do you think would be conducive to such sweeping changes though? Certainly not one in which the parasitic class is still seen as roughly contained and not much of a burden. Plus, as I asked before, who is doing the compromising? If you’re deciding on dinner between three people and the two who want fast food are the only ones in the debate compromising, you’re gonna end up with Wendy’s or McDonalds. You need someone in the debate who wants some high class dining but who is also willing to dumb it down a bit before you even have a hope of getting to a decent chain, much less occasionally a four star restaurant.

206

Your opinion. I’m all for derrision when it’s deserved. DinnerJacket is a moron, he deserves no respect. I sometimes call John McCain John McNutjob too where I think it will piss people off. Because he deserves it, the guy is a lunatic.

I never said it was. Ahmadinejad is less of a sane person than average though I’d wager. Iran with nukes doesn’t concern me. Iran with nukes and people like him in power does. Just like Russia with nukes doesn’t concern me, nor does China, etc. My concern is certifiable nut jobs getting their hands on nukes. One way is through the black market, the other way is through politics. There are crazy people in this world. Sometimes they have knives, sometimes they have guns, sometimes they have nations and armies.

What does terror have to do with this? The issue is simple: crazy person + nuclear weapons = bad situation.

They are by some. Quite a few actually, which is why I, once more and I don’t see how you could have missed this by this point, want a total end to hostile actions on the part of US troops and a phased draw down of our troops until there are finally none left in foreign countries. It’s only in the world of anarcho capitalist utopianism that this is considered ‘statist’ or somehow in line with current policies.

I disagree. I say no one is at the top of the moral heap, and as such being closest to the top can give you some leverage. Therefore if we do leave these countries and we do have a non interventionist policy, and Iran as a country gets nukes and some dipstick at the top of their power structure decides he doesn’t like the US and might want to melt a city or two, I say murder his ass. If they feel the same threat from us, feel free to kill our ‘leaders’. It’s only when their asses are personally on the line that we’ll get some common sense policies anyway.

207

source

There is a reason for them to claim peaceful purposes and covertly develop weapons.

Again, I don’t think that anyone has a right to own nukes basically. The US is hypocritical for trying to stop anyone from doing so though, within their own prescribed framework.

208

X, I don’t have time for this now. What qualifies you to say so and so is crazy, thus making them a threat?

209

Back to reality: our troops being stationed abroad has lead to a state of affairs that would have otherwise not existed. Pulling out immediately would in some cases lead to problems that the US would be blamed for, just as we are rightlfully blamed for the problems we’ve caused. My approach says try and identify those areas and, while we’re leaving, try and reach some peaceful agreement before we leave. If no peace is acceptable, make sure all people have the ability to defend themselves with guns, and then leave. If that’s not doable, finally just leave and let the situation go to hell and deal with any consequences should they come the way of the US down the line. To pretend simply pulling our troops out would have no negative consequences for the US is to bury your head in the sand.

210

Generally I would agree. However more than a couple of times now people from the middle east in general have demonstrated a certain To Hell With It attitude let’s say. Everyone has their share of nutters, but how many westerners are running into discos and exploding, or flying planes into buildings, or insisting women wear tarps in public?

211

Whatever you call it, it’s operative and a part of human nature. Busting each other’s chops seems to be hard wired to a greater or lesser degree into all of us.

212

Incorrect. But definitely the usual line handed out by people who have decided all their premises are the only possible correct ones. Logic may work for you, Spock, but the majority of the human race also has emotions and imperfect information to deal with.

Says the graduate student. Once you realize that every time you go to the supermarket you’ve ‘compromised’ because you’ve used government roads, you start to take a more realistic view of life.

213

Very good! Now please explain how you attempt such a marketing campaign with few to no actual products to sell?

If you’re selling vacuums and someone insists on using their old model but you know yours is better, are you going to say, “Ditch it and buy mine or nothing else, that’s your option,” or might you try a more tactical approach and say, “Give me the den, keep using your old one in the iving room, and let’s see which is better?” My guess is the second approach will, in the end, get you more sales. But you have to be willing to, God forbid!, compromise initially to show the superior performance of your product in an admittedly limited condition.

214

What qualifies anyone? Should I have him on a therapist’s couch for a while first? I spend a good portion of my time working on visas for foreign workers, I have more than a few relatives abroad, my company does business worldwide and Ii’m often in contact with the overseas people. Every one of them, especially those from the middle east, thinks DinnerJack’s brain leaked out of his head years ago.

215

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.

From you posts, I infer that you think it’s acceptable to react emotionally based on imperfect information. While I don’t disagree that many people may think this way, possibly even a majority as you suggest, it doesn’t justify the action.

Poor use of the fictional Spock in your ad hominem. He had emotions as he was half human, half Vulcan. He chose to act logically, most of the time. But then Star Trek also had some positions that were very non-libertarian.

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.

I am not a graduate student, so that ad hominem also fell short of the mark.

216

Appeals to public opinion are not valid.

You say it is “practical” as a means toward your own self interest to advocate that your rulers murder Ahmadinejad, because [he is a threat/crazy/whatever it is you are saying].

Pretend that I have put on my magic “rational statist hat” for a moment and we are talking about conventional international law. On what basis is one country allowed to own nukes for self-defense and another not?

217

So Mr xaxhr

  1. is a broken record.

  2. claims to be a libertarian but is not

  3. seems to be obsessed with the evil ‘iranian leadership’ and forgets about the fully deranged and criminal governmemnt and military of ‘his’ country.

[b]4) never managed to explain why the iranian government, which has zero nukes, should be ‘stopped,’ while, say, the american government which has thousands of nukes, should be left alone.

[/b]

218

anybody can be president, even a mccain. that is THE threat. you never know who’s going to jump out of that cake. ‘surprise!!’

McCain is a light-weight. I’m surprised you’re that concerned about him. There’s been far worse and the predators circle in D.C. all the time.

–

basically this is all about how you feel. you’re scared. yeah, fear does make nightmares.

219

Indeed. They would have good reason to want to develop them. But just because it makes sense for them to do so (from one point of view, from another point of view it would be sucidal) that does not mean that there is any evidence that they are. There is absolutely no evidence that that is true, or that they are in breach of the NPT.

The quote you brought forth I did not know of beforehand, but if accurate it only means that certain Mohammed Javad Larijani wants Iran to develop them. It does not prove anything else.

220

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.

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?

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.