"Negative rights restrict liberty"

Economics Political Theory
121

Dude I don’t have a clue what you are talking about>>>>

that much has been obvious from the start, but I am glad to see you drop the arrogance and condescension. I am more than happy to explain things to you.

Please clarify. What does this derelict weapons facs have anything to do with my assertion that statists have effectively used coercive means to obtain desired ends?>>>>

you seem to think that control over saddam’s wmd was a desired end obtained with the means operation iraqi freedom. My question to you is that, if the aggressive violence of the state is effective, why are the wmd unsecure?

Indigenous people lived in an inferior system that was immediately destroyed by statists from Europe.>>>>

on what timescale does “five hundred years and counting” equate to “immediately”?

How was their system inferior, aside from lack of a state?

It was neither prosperous, stable, or free since it was a failed system doomed to predation and extinction.>>>>

support this assertion.

In addition, the life expectancy in this ‘paradise’ was probably less than 40 years.>>>>

Support?

The technological inferiority of these failed collectivist societies was palpable.>>>>

indigenous tribes cannot be broadly categorized as “collectivist.” however, you finally got one thing right when you identified that the difference between aborigines and totalitarian agriculturalists is technology.

True, which begs the question (snip)>>>>

no it does not. Read posts more carefully in this forum so we dont have this kind of miscommunication.

you mean the societies that crumbled like a house of cards from the first European intrusions ?>>>>

why would the liberal democracy of the united states have to carry out a program of extermination if the indigenous tribes had “crumbled like a house of cards” 200 years prior to that? You are ignoring history because it completely undermines your argument. Hahahahaha a troll that doesnt believe in indians? Thats noteworthy!

Representative government is the vehicle that enables capitalism to flourish in the absence of coercion because liberal democracy specifically forbads violence against like minded citizens and societies.>>>>

So are you suggesting that absence of coercion alone is not sufficient for capitalism to flourish?

Are you suggesting that “violence against like minded citizens and societies” is impossible because it is forbidden?

How does the anarchist presume to take power from the statist who uses coercion to hold you under his thumb ?>>>>

If I were “under (someone’s) thumb” I might have an answer for you. If you can find it within your capacity to rephrase your question in a manner that does not assume anything crazy or weird about me, I will answer it. That limitation is designed to exclude the projection of your dominatrix fantasies, among other non sequitur you have employed.

122

@ Autolykos

" I don’t make monkeys, I train them" – Pee Wee Herman, 1985.

123

Of course Argentina was an autocratic regime during the Falkland Wars since there were no free elections and free speech rights in that nation. And of course the USA was a liberal democracy during the Iraq War since there ARE free elections and free speech in that nation.>>>>

there were free elections and free speech in iraq in 2003?

Projecting your moral repulsion of the war in Iraq (despite tens of thousands of innocent lives saved and the removal of a brutal miscalculating despot) does not change the fact that the US was a liberal democracy in 2003 and Argentina was not in 1982.>>>>

are you suggesting that the united states military occupation in iraq was a liberal democracy? Your statement is unclear as to the geographic location to which you refer. You seem to be confusing elections and free speech within the united states with the military occupation within iraq.

Equally important is that the Authorization to use force in Iraq was approved by Congress in 2003 AND the war continued to be funded by that elected body. Argentina had no such mechanism for balancing power and funding of military missions.>>>>

iraq had a congress that approved the invasion?

But the motivation behind the attack was primarily to remove a brutal, miscalculating and destablizing despot near a high percentage of the world’s most accessible oil reserves. A secondary goal was the establishment of a democratic government.>>>>

I see that you omit the weapons of mass destruction that are still at large.

Would you mind explaining why they did not have a plan to meet that secondary goal prior to the invasion, during the invasion, or in the genesis of the military occupation? Would you mind explaining why elections occurred in january 2005 but we still have americans in iraq today?

The end result even at this early stage is far more preferable than (1) continued sanctions that were killing innocent Iraqis or (2) do nothing (advocated by anarchists) that would allow Saddam to reconstitute his WMD program or (3) support Saddam to promote US interests.>>>>

funny how option four [(4) topple regime, hold elections, and leave asap] never made it onto your list.

YOur logic is flawed since a third option of supporting Saddam to protect American interests would indeed represent the USA supporting a autocracy.>>>>

like during the iran-iraq war? Have you considered the fact that the us military dictatorship in iraq is an autocracy that USA supports?

It is illogical that you are criticizing the Iraq war as support for absolutism when the exact opposite was the rationale for the war.>>>>

I believe that many if not most americans wanted the best for the iraqi people, myself among them, which is why I enlisted and went to iraq. So you see, I have no problem with the motives. My problem is with the conduct of the war.

Familiarity with a situation gives rise to a broader, more nuanced perspective. This is why you should read my posts carefully and ask questions when you do not understand, instead of jumping to conclusions.

While Iraq is not a higher order democracy, it has far more optimistic future than previously under Saddam.>>>>

and it is such a shame that iraqis had to endure a totally unnecessary, absurdly expensive, and terrifyingly violent and oppressive foreign military dictatorship for years after optimism should have been warranted. I know, I was there.

124

Nice try, troll. You’ve trained nothing. I post entirely of my own volition.

However, you’ve just revealed how much you want to feel like you’re controlling others (no pun intended) and therefore powerful. Sorry dude, you lost before you even began.

125

there were free elections and free speech in iraq in 2003?-- Malachi

Go back and read the posts, I stated that liberal democracies don’t wage war against each other and you incorrectly cited the Falkand War as between democracies. I pointed out that Argentina was a military dictatorship and now your response diverts to something totally unrelated to my original statement.

I never stated or implied that Iraq was a higher democracy in 2003.

Essentially, I don’t see your point and how it detracts from my original assertion that higher order democracies dont fight each other and later that Argentina in 1982 was not a democracy.

are you suggesting that the united states military occupation in iraq was a liberal democracy? Your statement is unclear as to the geographic location to which you refer. You seem to be confusing elections and free speech within the united states with the military occupation within iraq.–Malachi

I am suggesting that Iraq, while not a higher order democracy in 2011, has considerablly more political and civil rights today than in 2003 during Saddam’s reign. More importantly, the destabilizing and dehumanizing presence of the sanctions, Saddam’s repeated provocations and the threat of WMD proliferation necessitated action to remove this statist from power.

I am also suggesting based on empirical evidence that tens of thousands of lives have been saved by removing Saddam from power.

iraq had a congress that approved the invasion? – Malachi

This is where your anarchism fails, namely you require statist permission to remove him. This is illogical.

Liberal democracies don’t ask genocidial statists for permission before attacking.

If removing one a the most genocidial and destructive dictators in history is consider immoral by anarchist standards, it is no surprise that lesser statists in the USA will forever dominate anarchist ideologues

I see that you omit the weapons of mass destruction that are still at large. --Malachi

Provide your source, and please make it objective, reputable and independent.

Would you mind explaining why they did not have a plan to meet that secondary goal prior to the invasion, during the invasion, or in the genesis of the military occupation? Would you mind explaining why elections occurred in january 2005 but we still have americans in iraq today? – Malachi

Primarily mistakes in planning contributed to the destablizing situation in the aftermath of the initial invasion.

It does happen.

We still have Americans in Japan and West Germany too. They provide deterrence and stability for democratic institutions to strengthen.

funny how option four [(4) topple regime, hold elections, and leave asap] never made it onto your list. – Malachi

If your criticizing the war because it was not 100% effective than you have an argument. If you are criticizing it relative to the costs and outcomes of virtually every other war – then your argument is on shaky ground. Remember even 99% of private sector enterprises ultimately fail, yet their creation was beneficial to society.

So 2 out of 3 is not bad and soon that will be 3 out of 3.

like during the iran-iraq war? Have you considered the fact that the us military dictatorship in iraq is an autocracy that USA supports?–Malachi

It seems that you oppose everything the USA does to protect its interests. When it involves balancing power by supporting a despot as was the case in 1980-1988, you oppose that on moral ground. When it involves REMOVING the same despot, you oppose it on MORAL grounds.

What action do you support to remove statists from power save idealistic rhetoric and criticism of liberal democrats who have been successful at removing the most heinous genocidial statists?

I believe that many if not most americans wanted the best for the iraqi people, myself among them, which is why I enlisted and went to iraq. So you see, I have no problem with the motives. My problem is with the conduct of the war.-- Malachi

Mistakes were made in planning and execution.

However, the end result is that tens of thousands of innocent lives have been saved based on empirical analysis of pre-2003 and post-2003.

Indeed, when has armed conflict ever been without mistakes or costs?

History will note that rarely has a war been fought for more just motives, achieved greater humanitarian outcomes, and been executed by the victor with as much restraint as Iraqi Freedom.

Thousands of innocents saved, absolutism removed, while tragic less US casualties in 8 years of war to free 25 million than was lost in one month fighting for a 10 sq. mile of volcanic ash of dubious strategic value at Iwo in 1945

Significantly the Arab Spring may have been inspired by the example of the removal of a formerly all powerful desport and the installation of representative governance in Iraq.

Familiarity with a situation gives rise to a broader, more nuanced perspective. – Malachi

It also creates personal bias that clouds objective and independent thinking judgment. I have supported most of my arguments with empirical data including the casualty figures pre and post Saddam.

Stalin understood this dynamic when he stated that a single death is a tragedy and one million deaths is a statistic.

Likewise my former service as a Marine NCO does nothing to add or detract from my arguments in the absence of logic and empirical evidence.

and it is such a shame that iraqis had to endure a totally unnecessary, absurdly expensive, and terrifyingly violent and oppressive foreign military dictatorship for years after optimism should have been warranted. I know, I was there.–Malachi

Your opinion is based on personal observations.

Likewise, read this from a thoughtful and interested Iraqi:



Khudayr Taher: An Apology to the Valiant American Soldier



In an April 8, 2008 article titled “Apology to the Valiant American Soldier,” Iraqi liberal Khudayr Taher bemoaned the ill treatment the U.S. army received from those it liberated:



"We forsook you and betrayed you – we, whose history is an expression of massacres, conflagrations, and ruin. We killed you, and we killed our dream and aspiration of reaching the sun, the moon, and the stars – [we killed our dream] of availing ourselves of the opportunity to live as true humans, thanks to your presence.



"My dear, brave American soldier, you noble individual who traversed land and sea in order to write the story of Iraqi freedom for the first time in its modern history – you believed, in accordance with logic, self-evident truths, and rational thought, that a people who had been subjected to repression, starvation, and killing would dance for joy, and would thank Allah who sent you to them as a liberating angel. [You believed that] they would strew flowers and break out in songs of joy that would smash the chains of slavery, ignominy, and humiliation.



"Not even a writer of surrealistic [literature] or [theater of] the absurd would have imagined that the Iraqi people would revolt against their liberator and would rush ardently back to a new bondage of a different kind – that of the religious cleric, the tribal sheikh, and the gang leader. It was unthinkable that the people would go against logic, rational thought, and self-evident truths, in a mad rush towards the abyss and total ruin.



"My beloved, brave American soldier, we apologize to you, and we are saddened at our wretched and miserable selves. Since we are a people that slaughters itself, and kills one another, cutting off heads, what can you expect from us other than ingratitude, perfidy, and stabbing you in the back for the benefit of Iranian and Syrian intelligence and Al-Qaeda?.."[4]

Btw, thanks for your service – it was not in vain.

126

@ Centinel

I noticed you didn’t reply to my question, so it seems you may have missed that I responded to you. I’ll ask it again:

127

Go back and read the posts, I stated that liberal democracies don’t wage war against each other and you incorrectly cited the Falkand War as between democracies.>>>>

go back and read the posts yourself. I baited you with a question about the united kingdom and argentina. You actually took the bait, brought up the falklands, and admitted that a military dictatorship is not a liberal democracy. This was my intent when I asked about argentina, I had to trap you into admitting that “military dictatorship =/= liberal democracy” and it worked. Now tell me how the us military dictatorship in iraq was legitimate, given that you have admitted that military dictatorships are different from liberal democracies. Or do you wish to redefine the terms of the debate?

I pointed out that Argentina was a military dictatorship and now your response diverts to something totally unrelated to my original statement.>>>>

now I am pointing out that the united states military dictatorship in iraq was a military dictatorship and your response diverts to an incorrect, deceptive, and unhelpful summary of our discussion. This is not the first time you have accused me of claiming something I did not claim. Do you have a reading comprehension problem, an integrity problem, or both?

I never stated or implied that Iraq was a higher democracy in 2003.>>>>

good, now you can explain why you consider the united states military dictatorship in iraq to be a legitimate form of government, given its authoritarian and aggressive nature and complete lack of iraqi representation.

Essentially, I don’t see your point and how it detracts from my original assertion that higher order democracies dont fight each other and later that Argentina in 1982 was not a democracy.>>>>

my point is that you are contradicting yourself when you say that it was moral for the united states military dictatorship to invade iraq in 2003. I am sorry that I had to trick you into admitting that a military dictatorship is not a liberal democracy, but based on your performance in this thread I had very little chance of getting you to answer a direct and pertinent question. Making you jump through my hoops like a trained monkey was just a bonus.

I am suggesting that Iraq, while not a higher order democracy in 2011, has considerablly more political and civil rights today than in 2003 during Saddam’s reign. More importantly, the destabilizing and dehumanizing presence of the sanctions, Saddam’s repeated provocations and the threat of WMD proliferation necessitated action to remove this statist from power.>>>>

so according to you, political and civil rights do not include representative government, the right to own weapons, the right to remain secure in one’s own property, and civilian control of the government? Do you believe that a MILITARY INVASION was necessary to remove the sanctions?

Do you believe that the wmd that formerly belonged to saddam are more secure or less secure today than in 2003?

I am also suggesting based on empirical evidence that tens of thousands of lives have been saved by removing Saddam from power.>>>>

yes you are but you argument is very weak. Perhaps you would be so kind as to address my criticisms.

This is where your anarchism fails, namely you require statist permission to remove him. This is illogical.>>>>

where did I say that I required permission for anything? You are the one who is claiming that the iraqi people approved the invasion through some mechanism that you refuse to discuss except by alluding to legislative bodies half a world away with no constituency in iraq. I would like to learn more about this mechanism where I can sit in my living room and somehow obtain consent from millions of people whom I have not met and share no culture or language with in order to destroy their government and institute one more to my liking. This doesnt seem like something you might have to explain one day in between military campaigns? Just endless war, no explanations, no justifications except some questionable statistics that say we killed fewer people than the last guy to do the same thing.

And while you are explaining all of that, why dont you explain how you can justify overthrowing someone who was re-elected with 100% of the vote? Just how exactly do you define “democracy”? Since a bunch of guys in this country can vote to overthrow this other government that also has elections.

Liberal democracies don’t ask genocidial statists for permission before attacking.>>>>

so aggressive violence is moral in your book?

If removing one a the most genocidial and destructive dictators in history is consider immoral by anarchist standards>>>>

that was a mighty big “if” but your refusal/inability to answer a few simple questions is making it smaller all the time. It is no wonder you consider aggressive violence to be an essential part of your toolkit, since you dont seem to be very good at convincing anyone of anything.

Provide your source, and please make it objective, reputable and independent.>>>>

Muthanna chemical complex, Iraq military occupation zone, 33 deg 52’ 28" N, 43 deg 50’ 29" E

Primarily mistakes in planning contributed to the destablizing situation in the aftermath of the initial invasion.>>>>

Do you consider “failing to plan” to be a “mistake in planning”? If not, do you claim that prior to the invasion, the administration had a plan for the occupation that was sufficiently developed such that the authors of the plan had fulfilled their responsibility to the iraq people? By that I mean was the plan an actual plan? or did they plan to figure everything out when they got there and you call that a plan?

We still have Americans in Japan and West Germany too. They provide deterrence and stability for democratic institutions to strengthen.>>>>

how many generations must pass before a people develop the ability to live their lives in a way that pleases you, without an agent of the united states present to enforce your morals? Also, why does the united states sanction the restrictions on freedom of speech in japan? Doesnt the fact that there is such a thing as “illegal information” in japan mean that they do not fit your definition of a liberal democracy?

If your criticizing the war because it was not 100% effective than you have an argument. If you are criticizing it relative to the costs and outcomes of virtually every other war – then your argument is on shaky ground. Remember even 99% of private sector enterprises ultimately fail, yet their creation was beneficial to society.>>>>

I am observing that your worldview sees endless war as a good to be promoted. A quick war with quick political reforms and a quick withdrawal DID NOT EVEN MAKE THE LIST! I evaluate the means (8 years of expensive, aggressive, paternalistic and foolish war) against your desired end-state and find them wanting. My questions regarding your ends are a separate issue.

I also take issue with your assertion that 99% of private sector enterprises fail. I think you might be extrapolating based on your own personal experience, when your experience is not relevant because you are not very smart or talented, and so fail a lot more than other people. Or else how did you get the 99% figure? Wouldnt everyone be dead if 99% of their attempts to buy food or sell labor were failures?

It seems that you oppose everything the USA does to protect its interests. When it involves balancing power by supporting a despot as was the case in 1980-1988, you oppose that on moral ground. When it involves REMOVING the same despot, you oppose it on MORAL grounds.>>>>

it seems that you have a problem explaining your position, because your “arguments” often seem to involve what you think I believe. Just explain yourself. When is it good and moral to threaten, hurt, and kill people, and support dictators, and stifle free speech, and confiscate weapons, and support dictators, and when is it bad and evil to do those things?

What action do you support to remove statists from power save idealistic rhetoric and criticism of liberal democrats who have been successful at removing the most heinous genocidial statists?>>>>

well stalin died in power. So I guess you think saddam was more heinous than stalin? As for your question, I favor rational discourse and voluntarism. Power is largely a function of ideology, and ideology can only be changed by superior ideas. Rational discourse is the contest of ideas. Ideas shape actions and life is the contest of actions. So I attack the root of the problem, and the idea that aggressive violence is “ok sometimes,” the idea that values are objectively defined, and the idea that “other people should live like I want them to live” are a few of the more common roots.

However, the end result is that tens of thousands of innocent lives have been saved based on empirical analysis of pre-2003 and post-2003.>>>>

when you confine your empiricism to the most optimistic data, sure. You still have not answered my question: what is life without liberty?

Indeed, when has armed conflict ever been without mistakes or costs?>>>>

when an entrepreneur goes into business, he and the investors bear the costs and the consequences of the mistakes fall on everyone who chooses to participate. When a country goes to war, one group of people makes the decision and reaps the financial benefit, another group bears the cost, and still another group bears the consequences of the mistakes. This is why we should be EXTREMELY RELUCTANT to commit to violent acts and RUTHLESS in our post-exercise evaluations. You have been dancing for days to avoid answering some of the tough questions involved in this excessively long, violent, and costly war. Your attempt to marginalize any utilitarian and moral criticisms of your holy war to bring elections to everyone who happens to survive the occupation is transparent.

History will note that rarely has a war been fought for more just motives, achieved greater humanitarian outcomes, and been executed by the victor with as much restraint as Iraqi Freedom.>>>>

those all are matters of opinion, subject to debate even among those who share the same values, and appear very different when viewed in person versus through propagandic media and state. hence, the attempts at engaging you regarding your morals and values. How unfortunate that you seem unable to rationally examine your own beliefs on the matter, we could have some fun.

Thousands of innocents saved, absolutism removed, while tragic less US casualties in 8 years of war to free 25 million than was lost in one month fighting for a 10 sq. mile of volcanic ash of dubious strategic value at Iwo in 1945>>>>

hahahaha I knew a sicko like you would eventually bring up some battle from long ago in an attempt to marginalize the Three thousand, five hundred, and thirty Americans who have sacrificed their lives on your secular altar.

Even mentioning such a thing is offensive because it involves multiple logical fallacies, which suggests that you have not seriously considered the subject at hand, the loss of human lives. If you had given this some thought, you would realize that the ends are different, therefore the means cannot be equated, any more than you could say that a $80,000 toaster was “inexpensive” because it costs one twentieth of the price of a lambo reventon. I might as well say “you think iwo was of dubious strategic value, see peleliu!” but obviously mentioning peleliu doesnt make iwo jima strategically necessary.

And apparently you think humans are fungible. So you are pretty much beyond the pale here, and I only debate with you further because I want to make sure no one is exposed to your drivel without something that makes sense right above or below it.

Significantly the Arab Spring may have been inspired by the example of the removal of a formerly all powerful desport and the installation of representative governance in Iraq.>>>>

I am impressed that your arrogance allows you to give credit to the us for anything you want, no matter how far removed geographically and chronologically from state actions. You have defined the beer-can patriot with these last two remarks.

It also creates personal bias that clouds objective and independent thinking judgment. I have supported most of my arguments with empirical data including the casualty figures pre and post Saddam.>>>>

so, just to clarify, you think that bias is created by personal experience and familiarity with a subject. You believe that people who have no first-hand experience with an issue are neutral.

As for your data, I am still waiting to see you justify your decision as to which data you chose. This shouldnt be hard, if you objectively reviewed all the available data and chose that which seemed most correct from your disinterested, objective living room. Please provide the audience with your thought process during this selection.

Stalin understood this dynamic when he stated that a single death is a tragedy and one million deaths is a statistic.>>>>

How do you hope to pass yourself off as a classic liberal democrat when you cite stalin as justification for your belief that the cost in human life is best understood from a distance? Or is that tiny human mask not enough to cover your enormous troll face?

Likewise my former service as a Marine NCO does nothing to add or detract from my arguments in the absence of logic and empirical evidence.>>>>

Prior service marines generally have experience to draw upon. Yet you refuse to refer to your experience in asia and south america to justify your assertions.

Your opinion is based on personal observations.>>>>

so is yours. My observations have a much higher probability of accuracy, 100% in some cases. Without further investigation, no statistics have a 100% probability of accuracy. Without investigation (i.e. more observations) nothing in the newspaper, not even the masthead, has 100% prob of accuracy. Your overreliance on the propaganda machine is telling, and your belated attempts at justification are for nought.

Not even a writer of surrealistic [literature] or [theater of] the absurd would have imagined that the Iraqi people would revolt against their liberator and would rush ardently back to a new bondage of a different kind – that of the religious cleric, the tribal sheikh, and the gang leader. It was unthinkable that the people would go against logic, rational thought, and self-evident truths, in a mad rush towards the abyss and total ruin.

My beloved, brave American soldier, we apologize to you, and we are saddened at our wretched and miserable selves. Since we are a people that slaughters itself, and kills one another, cutting off heads, what can you expect from us other than ingratitude, perfidy, and stabbing you in the back for the benefit of Iranian and Syrian intelligence and Al-Qaeda?..>>>>

It would appear that khudayr taher has observed what you have not: different people from different cultures have different values and so your holy war to force iraqis to live in a way that you want them to live was not the most popular idea in iraq.

Given all of this, would you now like to explain your thoughts on why it is appropriate for the united states to invade countries and kill people based on an article of faith?

128

@ gotlucky

civil and political rights have increased dramatically since 1776 both in the US and abroad.

The metrics are universal sufferage, civil rights for minorities, political participation of minorities, unchecked string of fair and free elections and changes of power, significant decrease in conflict among most liberal democracies, and increase in civic organizations unparalleled in human history among other factors.

this is because liberal democracy espoused by classical liberals is dominating the geopolitik and it is responsible for increased freedoms, prosperity, peace, and stability for those that practice it.

Yes, the 1900s has seen an increase in civil and political rights – although in certain quarters economic rights have declined in some areas.

Classical liberals certainly oppose the welfare state, fiat money, military adventurism and the like as unsustainable models for growth and societal living standards.

Unfortunately, statists have exploited deficiencies in the Constitution to engage in economic coercion – that is why I favor an economic bill of rights to complement our already effective civil and political liberties.

The disagreement is that I believe in a vigorous pursuit of liberty using coercion when necessary, particularly since the statists are expert in the use of this means.

Leftists claim that the Constution is a ‘living and breathing’ document – fine than I say use it to aggressively advance individual rights and responsibility as intended by our founding fathers.

As I stated in an initial post, the primary means to an end is based on the will and means available to societal actors.

129

@ malachi

Observation and question starting with what I consider to be the most unusual and cryptic of your assertions:

Muthanna chemical complex, Iraq military occupation zone, 33 deg 52’ 28" N, 43 deg 50’ 29" E-- Malachi

I asked you to clarify what you are talking about regarding muthanna and you give me a GPS coordinate?!

Please explain.

When is it good and moral to threaten, hurt, and kill people, and support dictators, and stifle free speech, and confiscate weapons, and support dictators, and when is it bad and evil to do those things? --Malachi

When the dictator is responsible for the following it is necessary to use coercive means to remove him:

  • Murdered over 600,000 of his own people,
  • used WMD to murder tens of thousand of his own people,
  • lobbed ballistic missiles into the population centers of non-combatant nations,
  • committed the worse case of environmental terrorism in history,
  • started two unprovoked wars, resulting in the violent death of over 1 million,
  • funded Palestinian youth suicide bombers in order to murder Israeli children,
  • conspired to obtained WMD,
  • maintained high level ties with numerous anti-Western groups, including al Qaeda,
  • repeatedly attempted to shoot down our airmen enforcing a humanitarian “no-fly” zone,
  • undermined U.S. credibility and Western security by continually disregarding U.N. brokered 1991 cease fire accords.

My guess is that you don’t consider these issues as justification for the use of force.

If not, what would be your justification to use force ?

Also, I am curious to know what you would have done in 2003 in the absence of sanctions and/or armed force in Iraq.

Lets move on after resolving these issues.

130

What does political participation, “significant decrease in conflict among most liberal democracies”, or “increase in civic organizations unparalleled in human history” have to do with rights?

Can you support this assertion of “[an] unchecked string of fair and free elections and changes of power”?

Finally, can you provide an exhaustive list of the “other factors”?

Please explain how this is necessarily the case. This means providing logical reasoning, not empirical evidence.

What about habeas corpus?

You mean military adventurism of the sort going on in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya?

So now you agree that the US Constitution is flawed. Thank you. Now then, what would you like to see in this “economic bill of rights”?

Regarding “our already effective civil and political liberties”, see my question about habeas corpus.

What kind(s) of coercion do you think is/are currently necessary to “pursue liberty”?

How can aggression advance individual rights when aggression necessarily means violating them? Or do you mean something else when you say “aggressively”?

Oh sorry, was I supposed to shut up already?

131

Please explain how those things make it necessary to “use coercive means to remove him”. Also explain how they justify the theft of US citizens’ wealth for that nebulous purpose.

Oh sorry, was I supposed to shut up already?

132

I asked you to clarify what you are talking about regarding muthanna and you give me a GPS coordinate?!

Please explain.>>>>

I will gladly explain. My original claim was that the weapons of mass destruction were left unsecure and publicly accessible in contravention of one of the stated ends of the war. You asked for an objective, reputable, and independent source. Did you think I would reply with a person’s opinion, written down, with various references to other people’s opinions interspersed throughout? saddam made and kept chem and bio weapons at muthanna. The united states invaded iraq and failed to secure the facility. Various unknown persons subsequently entered and departed. This has all been observed by numerous american men-at-arms and documented in print and online. None of those sources are objective or independent. However, forensic evidence of all my claims is present at the site. so that is the source you asked for

When the dictator is responsible for the following it is necessary to use coercive means to remove him: [list omitted]>>>>

Please explain in a little more detail. For example, are all the items on your list necessary, or would several of them be sufficient? How did you arrive at this list of criteria? Does the environmental terrorism have to exceed the previous “worst case” or is it sufficient to meet the amount of damage caused by saddam?

I might add, your list seems post hoc.

My guess is that you don’t consider these issues as justification for the use of force.>>>>

perhaps if you read more carefully you would not have to guess. Your list includes frequent mention of aggressive violence and crimes against property. I find it hard to believe that you think these acts are acceptable to ancaps after over 100 posts on this forum, unless you are not reading carefully or are simply a troll.

Also, I am curious to know what you would have done in 2003 in the absence of sanctions and/or armed force in Iraq.>>>>

what is so special about 2003? We certainly could have removed him earlier, according to you we would have saved lives, but apparently the united states liberal democracy was too busy ignoring those poor iraqis! Oh teh noes!1!1!1

I mention this because it is plain that you want me to say “hurr durr done nothing hurr durr” so you can point the finger and play the lame blame game, as in “you were too lame to do what I want so you are to blame durr hurr!!”

In the year we invaded iraq, 848,163 humans were legally murdered in the united states. All of these involved conspiracy and parental malfeasance, and the vast majority were for hire. But that probably doesnt even register on your give-a-fuck meter because it isnt a totally badass military adventure that involves kicking in doors and shooting people in the face!

So do not even bother with the riding boots, your moral high horse skipped town long ago. There are plenty of people in plenty fucked up scenarios all over the world, it is the height of foolish arrogance to borrow a shit-ton of money from china and piss it away because just invading afghanistan wasnt hollywood enough for you.

There are many things I would have done in 2003 if I had known what I know now and somehow been potus. Starting with an afghan withdrawal and a focus on dismantling the domestic police state. I would have opened diplomatic relations with saddam and removed all sanctions, and if he had committed aggressive violence I would have responded according to the dictates of the situation. I certainly would not have allowed aggression towards americans. As for my admittedly low priority goal of foreign intervention, my primary response would have been demonstration of how a nation can be prosperous and free without a state by gradually privatizing state functions. Second, I would have waged unrestricted economic warfare on all states by exporting ideological/religious literature, weapons, electronics, and luxury goods.

Now, a critic is likely to observe several things. First, saddam might still be in power today, if we had followed my plan. Well, yes, perhaps. Perhaps we start my plan in 1954 instead of 2003 and avoid military adventurism, then we bankrupt the soviets ahead of schedule and a wealthy private citizen hires a private military firm to remove the ba’ath party from power. Perhaps perhaps perhaps.

The second criticism I usually hear is “that would never work!” perhaps they are right, but I would like to hear some reasoning. The critics never seem to have any.

The third criticism usually goes something like “well what happens when a bad guy pays a security firm to [do something bad]?” hey that would suck, but what happens when a government does something bad? You pay them, right? Both before and after the fact. So right now you are the bad guy, unless you arent paying any taxes. Huh.

When a criminal gets caught, who gets paid? The state. But when a criminal escapes, who gets paid to hunt him down? The state. So if the criminal ultimately evades capture, does the state stop getting paid? No, they get paid MORE because they need more money to prevent further escapes. And the state does [something bad] [an undefined period of time ranging from “sometimes” to “frequently” to “always”] so what is the argument? Those same private citizens considered “bad guys” can and do get jobs in government where they have superior legal status and the funds for their wages are supplied by the threat of violence and sovereign debt.

There should be a theorem: “any criticism applied to a firm in anarchocapitalism is equally or more valid when applied to the state”

133

@ Malachi

I will gladly explain. My original claim was that the weapons of mass destruction were left unsecure and publicly accessible in contravention of one of the stated ends of the war. You asked for an objective, reputable, and independent source. Did you think I would reply with a person’s opinion, written down, with various references to other people’s opinions interspersed throughout? saddam made and kept chem and bio weapons at muthanna. The united states invaded iraq and failed to secure the facility. Various unknown persons subsequently entered and departed. This has all been observed by numerous american men-at-arms and documented in print and online. None of those sources are objective or independent. However, forensic evidence of all my claims is present at the site. so that is the source you asked for-- Malachi

First of all – since you claim that there was/is WMD in Iraq then presumably you are not one of those in the anti-war crowd who believe that Bush misled the American public on Iraqi WMD. Hence, one of the primary causa belli for the war was justified and confirmed (based on your ‘evidence’)?

I for one believe that the sanctions had effectively removed the WMD threat and that the only WMD materials still not destroyed were pre-1991 agents of dubious lethality. Hence, the intel was wrong and one of the justifications for invading Iraq was based on flawed intel.

Second, you claim that you have sources – produce them. And, no I am not convinced by, your response is neither credible, valid or reliable:

This has all been observed by numerous american men-at-arms and documented in print and online. None of those sources are objective or independent. However, forensic evidence of all my claims is present at the site. so that is the source you asked for.–Malachi

134

First of all – since you claim that there was/is WMD in Iraq then presumably you are not one of those in the anti-war crowd who believe that Bush misled the American public on Iraqi WMD. Hence, one of the primary causa belli for the war was justified and confirmed (based on your ‘evidence’)?>>>>

The purpose was to SECURE the wmd, the mere existence of wmd does not justify the war. Unless you think china would be justified in invading the united states based on our stockpiles of wmd.

Now you are revealing just how weak your argument truly is. Originally you said that coercion is justified because it is effective. The aggressive violence of a military invasion was not sufficient to achieve the stated end in question, the security of saddam’s wmd. In fact, security of the wmd became nonexistent after operation iraqi freedom. Your mention of totally irrelevant arguments from ignorance that, prior to your mention, had not been advanced in this thread is a futile attempt to distract from the real discussion.

Now, explain why you support military intervention based on its effectiveness when it is clearly ineffective at achieving the stated goal.

I for one believe that the sanctions had effectively removed the WMD threat and that the only WMD materials still not destroyed were pre-1991 agents of dubious lethality. Hence, the intel was wrong and one of the justifications for invading Iraq was based on flawed intel.>>>>

I am sure your beliefs are much more comfortable for you than the truth. Your comfort is of no concern to me. however, I am quite concerned with the truth.

Second, you claim that you have sources – produce them. And, no I am not convinced by, your response is neither credible, valid or reliable:>>>>

Why dont you tell me what you would consider to be an “objective and independent” source? Physical evidence is by definition objective and independent, but you reject it because it contradicts your faith-based belief.

My source for the claim that wmd were/are extant, accessible to the public, and potentially lethal is the location in iraq where all of these claims can be verified objectively and independently. However, if you write all of this down and put it online (as the cia has done and a cursory google search would reveal) it ceases to become objective and independent. This is fundamental to the craft of rhetoric, so I am not surprised that you find it difficult to grasp.

135

Just a question: When I abandoned this thread, it had gone off-topic. Is it back on topic or did you homestead it for other purposes?

136

I am fighting the terrorists in this thread so we do not have to fight them at home.

137

Carry on then, soldier.

138

Originally you said that coercion is justified because it is effective. The aggressive violence of a military invasion was not sufficient to achieve the stated end in question, the security of saddam’s wmd. – Malachi

Hearsay.

Again provide substantive, objective and rational evidence to support your assertion that WMD has not been secured.

And no, the following is not an objective, rational and substantive source or excuse to avoid debate – absurdly you are using yourself as a source in the absolute absence of any corraborating evidence or citation AND you are blaming the CIA for the absence of this evidence:

My source for the claim that wmd were/are extant, accessible to the public, and potentially lethal is the location in iraq where all of these claims can be verified objectively and independently. However, if you write all of this down and put it online (as the cia has done and a cursory google search would reveal) it ceases to become objective and independent. This is fundamental to the craft of rhetoric, so I am not surprised that you find it difficult to grasp.–Malachi

Btw, my dentist stated unequivocally that there are absolutely no WMD in Iraq.

139

Hearsay>>>>

no, you need to look up the definitions of these terms before you throw them around. My telling you what is on the ground in iraq is testimony. If you related my testimony to someone else, that would be hearsay. It was hearsay when I told you was the m.a.d. servicemember said about the bodies, but it is pretty easy to verify.

Again provide substantive, objective and rational evidence to support your assertion that WMD has not been secured.>>>>

again, the only objective evidence that I am aware of is on the ground at muthanna. You need to stop throwing around words you dont understand.

And no, the following is not an objective, rational and substantive source or excuse to avoid debate – absurdly you are using yourself as a source in the absolute absence of any corraborating evidence or citation AND you are blaming the CIA for the absence of this evidence:>>>>

again, your reading comprehension leaves you arguing against ghosts. I told you that the cia report substantiates my claims, I simply did not reference it earlier because you asked for “objective” and “independent” evidence which a report by the cia is not.

And a troll like yourself has no standing to accuse me of avoiding debate, shall I list some of the questions and arguments to which you have failed to respond?

quoting myself now:

Now tell me how the us military dictatorship in iraq was legitimate, given that you have admitted that military dictatorships are different from liberal democracies.

explain why you consider the united states military dictatorship in iraq to be a legitimate form of government, given its authoritarian and aggressive nature and complete lack of iraqi representation.

so according to you, political and civil rights do not include representative government, the right to own weapons, the right to remain secure in one’s own property, and civilian control of the government? Do you believe that a MILITARY INVASION was necessary to remove the sanctions?

Do you consider “failing to plan” to be a “mistake in planning”? If not, do you claim that prior to the invasion, the administration had a plan for the occupation that was sufficiently developed such that the authors of the plan had fulfilled their responsibility to the iraq people? By that I mean was the plan an actual plan? or did they plan to figure everything out when they got there and you call that a plan?

how many generations must pass before a people develop the ability to live their lives in a way that pleases you, without an agent of the united states present to enforce your morals? Also, why does the united states sanction the restrictions on freedom of speech in japan? Doesnt the fact that there is such a thing as “illegal information” in japan mean that they do not fit your definition of a liberal democracy?>>>>

There are plenty more of those, but since you are not likely to answer any of them I dont see the point in additional proof that you are a troll who refuses substantive debate and falsely accuses others.

Btw, my dentist stated unequivocally that there are absolutely no WMD in Iraq.>>>>

is he the one who told you that a liberal democracy is something different from a state?

140

@Malachi

It is a waste of my time to engage trolls who are unable to provide a shred of corraborating evidence to support your conspiracy theories and phantoms.

Lastly, your ‘military dictatorship’ angle is exposed and debunked – at least by objective and rational observers.

Iraq a sovereign nation that will no longer provide immunity to US troops – hardly an indication of an occupying power with dictatorial powers. As a result, the US is removing the last few remaining conventional troops from Iraq by the end of the year.

You are going to have to find another poster board mantra/slogan to troll with.

Good day.