Always preferred them to Robert Kagan.
Bezeq?
This is precisely what I am talking about. You think that you have a free market now in telecommunications over there? This is a highly regulated industry. Every major move requires government approval. Competition is highly restricted by government licenses. You now have a government enforced Cartel being interpreted by the general public as free enterprise.
What form and shape this industry takes is not the product of just individuals conducting voluntary exchange on the open market by real property owners, but of government bureaucrats and officials who still maintain a great degree of control over the industry. Not only is competition restricted, but the industry is regulated at a level of types of service packages, charging methods, and you name it. You are free to conduct your own research to verify this.
The myth of private enterprise must be shattered if there is any progress to be made in the direction of freedom. It is extremely detrimental to your own cause that you do not understand or acknowledge that these privatizations are not real. This may not be socialism, but it sure ain’t Capitalism. This is the 3rd system that Mises referred to as Interventionism.
I didn’t mean to imply he’s Adam Smith. But the economy is much less socialist then it was before him.
It’s a myth. Just like the Laissez-faire bush years, or worse, the small government Regan myth.
-
Has government spending decreased over the years? Try spending relative to GDP or national income. Don’t forget to include deficits.
-
Has their been a relative trend in deregulation of industries?
-
Has the national debt been in decline (again, relative to GDP)?
I am willing to bet you that the answer to all 3 questions is NO, meaning their country has become more socialistic and not less. Go prove me wrong.
The important word here is plan. We as economists must understand the nature of unintended consequences. Thus we say that it doesn’t mater whether the commies had “good intentions”: they flopped big time and screwed entire generations. We just focus on their real-world “achievements”.
This very standard must not be denied to individuals. Sure, Kissinger might very well have been a fascist hell set on World Control, but hey, who cares? What did he factually do, bring about a World Government or (unintentionally) help to liberalize in order to achieve his goal? His factual record is way better than anyone else’s, notwithstanding his ideological views. In this sense, I don’t care what he wanted to do, to me it matter what he did. Any more ideological gems you might want to crack out?
Man, spending billions on conventional “self-dense” while having nukes would be like spending a million buck to buy a chariot and four thoroughbred horses while having a Nisan. could ‘self-defend’ very easily with ten Grippens, a hundred Merkavas and 300 Namers. I really don’t see what on earth they could buy all the stuff they do. Gosh, they even want the F-22 now. Its just one more case of how continuous war keeps the population quiet.
So you think that if the USA was justified in doing something about 9/11 [assume this for the sake of argument] they should have nuked someone. After all, no need for conventional weapons if you have nukes, right?
War here may keep the population quiet, because many people are pro war in principle. They see it as a good thing. You are a man, a defender of your country and of the American way of life, and if you die, well that’s the greatest sacrifice for the greatest cause. [Not to mention psycopaths who just love killing.] You personally Merlin may be one of the enlightened, but plenty of people aren’t. I know this from personal experience, and you can too if you go to the right places. Certainly the leadership here to a man talks like that all the time.
In Israel things are a bit different. Everyone is anti war. Everyone. And the reason is simple. It is a small country fighting large countries. Experience has made it very clear that a war will mean every single family will have someone dead when it’s over. No one has any illusions about this.
As for why they need all that stuff. In 1973 when the Egyptian Army attacked, it got to the gates of Tel Aviv because the Israeli Air Force literally ran out of bullets.
As for Gosh even wanting the F-22, I dunno. Can I ever explain that to someone who can estimate the military needs of a country surrounded by an ocean of enemies armed to the teeth as 410 weapons? Please apply for the post of Syria’s military advisor.
So uh, what specific errors did Rothbard make? He says May 15th for Israel declaring independence and wikipedia says May 14th.
Then the Dein Yassin/Deir Yassin Massacre seems okay…
Yeah, it’s wikipedia, but I am doubting your claim more. Since you obviously know a lot about this, care to educate us?
You bring about an interesting point. Should the have nuked some afghani city in (let us suppose) just rage? Of course not. But the most decent answer to this problem has been furnished by… itself.
You see, when some Latin American dictator harbors former Nazi officials and Israel’s request of extinction go unheeded (pretty much all of the time), Israel doesn’t go around bombing Buenos Aires, instead it sends a single, superbly rained agent incognito, to take out the target (in Dubai just the other week). That is precisely what should bee done in such cases. Wars as large-scale enterprises are always fightable with nukes. What isn’t is police action and special forces can handle that.
As for everyone in being anti-war, I don’t know, my brother is studying in and that’s not really his impression. But even if most people are, perpetual war is not meant to appease the war-loving public, but to create this image of perpetual risk from which only the state can save the people. Surrendering half of one’s income to the state and three full years to the military seems a light bargain in such circumstances. That’s why any country longs to achieve the “perpetual war” status, although only has succeeded so far (my own country’s socialist government also succeeded).
As for ’73, rest assure my friend that Lanchester’s square made it plainly impossible for to win that war. is still with us today only because at the last moment it made clear its possession of nukes (perhaps the American shipped a few warhead only then), and the Arabs turned tail.
There is no way a conventional army in , even in a 100% income tax is introduced, can sustain an attack of and at the same time. Only nukes keep alive. Thus every defense problem can be easily solved by having a nuclear arsenal and highly trained special forces. had both, and still wastes a vast majority of its military budget on senseless weapons.
You could start by educating yourself. The very snippets you quote show plainly he is lying.
Rothbard on Dir Yassin:
Wiki on Dir Yassin:
Note the difference in the Rothbard and the wiki version.
He lies about the numbers. According to Rothbard a hundred women and children were killed. But wiki has it that the hundred “included” women and children. How many women and children? Who knows? One? The end of this post will prove from an Arab source that not a single child was murdered.
You can further educate yourself if you read the rest of the wiki. Frinstance:
Even the number 100 is wrong. From the same wiki:
The Jewish Agency sent two doctors, Dr. Z. Avigdori, the chairman of the Jerusalem branch of the Palestine Physicians Association, and his deputy, Dr. A. Druyan, to examine the corpses, and to report any mutilations or other atrocities. Lapidot writes that the doctors asked to be allowed to move around the village freely. They walked from house to house, counting and examining corpses. Their report said they found 46 corpses. The cause of death had been injuries from bullets or bombs, and that, “all the bodies were dressed in their own clothes, limbs were whole and we saw no signs of mutilation.”
So it’s not a hundred, it’s 46.
Two factual errors so far.
Rothbard also gleefully accepts fairy tales from sources known to be liars, ignoring the reliable sources. From the same wiki:
The Jordanian newspaper Al Urdun published a survivor’s account in 1955, in which he said that the Palestinians had deliberately exaggerated horror stories about atrocities in Deir Yassin to encourage others to fight
A Jordanian newspaper. A survivor’s account. In 1955. Just the people and place to give the most slanted anti Israel opinion, and yet the Rothbard doesn’t bother with that unimpeachable primary source.
I dunno. He has an Arab resident of Dir Yassin to quote, someone who was there at the scene, and he omits him too.
Abu Mahmud, who lived in Deir Yassin in 1948, was one of those who complained. He told the BBC: "We said, ‘There was no rape.’
And how about:
Mohammed Radwan, one of the villagers who fought the attackers, said: "There were no rapes. It’s all lies. There were no pregnant women who were slit open. It was propaganda.
Contrast this with:
Hazam Nusseibeh, the news editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service at the time, gave an interview to the BBC in 1998. He spoke about a discussion he had with Hussayn Khalidi, the deputy chairman of the Higher Arab Executive in Jerusalem, shortly after the killings: “I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story. He said, ‘We must make the most of this.’ So he wrote a press release, stating that at Deir Yassin, children were murdered, pregnant women were raped, all sorts of atrocities.”[75] Gelber writes that Khalidi told journalists on April 11 that the village’s dead included 25 pregnant women, 52 mothers of babies, and 60 girls.
So that we know people are very interested in lying, and Rothbard is very interested in publishing their version.
I’ll end by giving you a hint for further study. Where in the previous paragrapgh is there an implication from an Arab journalist who was working at the time that not a single child was murdered?
C’mon logicians, you can find it.
sorry about the double post. my first one didnt get through, my computer told me.
How long has he been there? Does he speak Hebrew? Read the Israeli papers? Watch Israeli TV? Which elements of society does he come in cointact with? How many people has he spoken to about it?
Which country are you from?
Interesting indeed, but I don’t see the relevance. Link to this version of the victory?
I thought Israel has a peace treaty with Egypt.
And I think those nukes have to be defended from assault, no?
First of all, you made the claim that Rothbard concocted this fantasy then gave a “dog ate my homework” story. Download Lazarus add-on to firefox so you can recover text, and you can delete your own double post by choosing “more”^>. I didn’t read the Rothbard essay except to find 1948 which you first referenced and do some quick fact checking. I don’t know much about this part of history or how it relates to Kissinger so much even, so mods, please feel free to split this off into another thread. I also haven’t made up my mind and you certainly haven’t proven your case that Rothbard intentionally “lied”.
That citation (#3) is from 1987. When is Rothbard’s essay from [RAL? 3/3]? Is it possible that he didn’t have the same information we do now?
OK, this is from the criticism section… [underlines mine]
All citations from 1999/2007 after Rothbard is dead. The part you quoted of Jewish doctor’s accounts is at odds with #3 in the headline of 107 killed and it isn’t clear what year it is from. Maybe the doctors lied or got there after the other 73 who were women/children raped, mutilated, etc. Maybe the Israeli army never, ever did such things. They must hold themselves to higher standards of humane war.
Here you are again very selectively quoting from the section on propaganda. This newspaper account is based on a 2007 cite.
At best, all you have proven is that Rothbard was factually wrong based on information available now about this one set of atrocities (or fuzzy, friendly, war killings, depending what side you are on). Maybe he didn’t do enough research on this one specific little incident that I happened to pick out quite randomly and just take the headline as “close” (100~107).
Can you clarify, are you Jewish and pro-state-Israel? What is the exact proof that Rothbard had certain information readily available, like not from this one incident that both sides used as propaganda? What are you saying Rothbard’s intention of lying is? His states clearly that:
I will take issue with part of his conclusion:
I have seen a mosque in a Jewish quarter in Spain where the Star of David was hidden within the geometric Arab designs. There has always been animosity and persecution between differing religious ideologies. The fact is that modern states exacerbate this problem, rather than helping alleviate it as is their claimed intent.
About six months now, and he’s learned Hebrew remarkably well. His fellow Israeli students would seem to be more or less peace-loving people. But Diaspora Jews are by far the most disruptive and chauvinistic members of society there. While all the locals my brother knows are keen on avoiding war and meddling with neighbor’s affairs, it’s the American and French Jews who rabidly pro-war. Also from the 9oleder) Israelis I myself have know, they to are pro-war.
Albania
Egyptian hate the sh*t out of Israel, but Egyptian cities are so clustered together to be the perfect target for nuclear attack, thus Egypt, though by far the largest Arab army, has willy-nilly concluded peace with Israel. But make no mistake, should Israel somehow lose its nuclear capability Egypt will have its army in the Golan Heights (over horrendous losses) in a month. Basically a rerun of the 44-45 soviet campaign: a numerically superior army beats by attrition a better but les numerous one.
I’m afraid that is not the case. Massive armored columns are very, very easy to spot, and Israel can launch within minutes. Everything that moves would be pulverized within 5 km of even making it out of barracks.
And even if, by magic, some foes manages to know out BOTH the IAF (denying the ability to deploy aerial nukes) AND the land-based Jerichos, Israel has dolphin-class subs, armed with nuclear-tipped harpoons and there is no way on this earth in which a sub can be detected and done away with if it doesn’t attack surface ships. So, believe me, Israel’s defense is 100% safe. Why, then, do they deploy they bloated, fascistic, way-to-expensive and hatred inducing army than? Only to keep the locals in a perpetual state of fear.
Yes: you are apologizing & attempting to turn a clearly statist agent in to a libertarian of some sorts. This is incorrect, & similar to the errors found in idolizing other political figures, merely due to inference that their actions are libertarian like, & that they were less bad then others (ahh, lesser of evils).
He had a political agenda that most likely was not trying to liberalize China for the sake of creating a more libertarian world (hint: China would’ve eventually liberalized to compete with other governments in the statist-market for government, despite their traditional isolationism). It might’ve had more to do with what the US would gain from this.
China currently makes most of American products; not sure they could do that with a less “liberal” economy.
There is obviously no correlation there, & obviously the American government had nothing but libertarian ideas in mind in achieving this.
Let’s also cheer the government for being libertarian, because in some indirect way, doing anything to “liberalize” something (this term itself is being used in a relative sense; the ultimate “liberalization” would probably be the elimination of state regulation upon the economy) is sufficient grounds for being libertarian.
If you’re not a libertarian & approve of Kissinger’s actions, then this is a waste of time for me, & I apologize for lecturing you as this would more logically consistient then claiming Kissinger is a libertarian because he talked to China for the US government’s own aims.
I can’t wait to see people start rationalizing Bush II’s invasion of Iraq as the moment that eventually pushed Iraq to becoming more liberalized, & therefore, more libertarian, because it would be just as ridiculous as this is.
tl;dr: There is more to it then just analyzing an action that didn’t end up blowing up the world & calling it “libertarian”. This is an insult to libertarianism (or any ideology that one mis-identifies something as) as an ideology & strain of thought that has taken decades to become nuanced & will probably take decades more to become understood by more than a minority of the population.
BTW, this thread needs to be split where the tangent on how factual Rothbard is popped up. I will try to this in the next hour or two if no one else does.
If Kissinger cared something about liberalisation he would have allied the Soviet Union which at the time was a liberal paradise compared to China. After all the ideological backdrop to the Sino-Soviet split was the Chinese castigating the Soviets for renouncing Stalin and Stalinism.
**_
Only if you decide to cut it off with a quote box and not read it within context.
*__
That is questionable, just like it is questionable whether the Israeli invasion of Gaza really benefited Israel’s self-defense over the long-run.
That’s really great, but Israel needs more than just post office privatization. It needs a massive scaling back of expenditure, which means a dedicated reduction in size of the Israeli state. The problem is that this objective comes into conflict with Israel’s obsession for Zionism, or the welfare of the Jewish people, and its ridiculous nationalism. I have written about this before: Israel’s self-defense doctrine will not guarantee its independence over the long-run. But, its obsession with this notion of self-defense will prove quite an obstacle in the effort to scale back the size of the state.
I know this thread has drifited but are there any article links on Kissinger you would recommend?
Nitroadict,
I now se it’s my fault I didn’t make it clear: I don’t believe Kissinger was libertarian. Calling his that would indeed be insulting. I fully agree that he was a fascist very eager to promote supremacy. The only thing that I’m arguing is that, perhaps, in trying to do so, out of his statist motives, he actually helped achieve something good.
So, would have opened up without the hint that the was more favorably disposed towards it? That’s of course hard to say, but history would suggest otherwise. I know of no communist government which voluntarily relented controls prior to ’s big-bang.
As mater of fact I know of no government which eve relented to a considerable extent any kind of control. So, it would be far form self-evident that would have liberalized all by herself (my own government was started for funds and still managed to get going for 15 years! Commies are not the guys to accept defeat).
The reason I think the rapprochement helped is that any country going through that kind of changes is very vulnerable. The could have even managed to overthrow the government if it tried hard enough during the upheaval. By clearly stating that the viewed in a less confrontational way, Kissinger could have allowed Deng to eliminate the Gang of Four by gaining the loyalty of the army, free to turn its attention form defense. It could also have discouraged the soviets form attempting a coup in , which they would have absolutely loved to do. So, unintentionally to be sure, his policy could have helped the Chinese opening.
But if some guy X personally devised (if he did) a strategy that, for whichever reason, brought a fourth of the population of earth out form communist quagmire and into a more tolerable and prosperous regime, well, that’s what I call a valuable contribution. That is not to say that Kissinger was a libertarian, but I’d very much have had him where he was in the ’70 than any other politician I know . That’s all I’m saying.