I hear talks of decentralizing healthcare some is on the table for you guys and IIRC correctly hasn’t Canada changed their social security plan?
Hahaha. Actually made me laugh out loud. All I could hear was a smiling, excited politician saying that to a crowd and no one clapping.
I see what you mean. If Saddam Hussein had launched an effort to intervene in the US and UK and bring to justice the filth of the Earth in the White House and on Downing Street I would have been tempted to enlist.
Sorry to burst your bubble. Outside your cocoon Western imperialism is less popular than Saddam Hussein. In that war 4/5ths of the world were rooting for the Iraqi army.
Looks like we have a Holocaust denier, er, I mean someone who is just ‘asking questions’ and searching for ‘the truth’.
For the record, I’m not a holocaust denier, so keep your smear attacks to yourself.
I find it amusing that you clump holocuast denial as a BNP subject, like communism as a communist ideology!
And no, you didn’t just try to compare Keynesians & communists to neo-Nazis?
Don’t try to pull something out of context with what I said. You should know what I’m getting at. Some people will refuse to read something because of the ideological stance the author has. I think this is a bias, intolerent, and ignorant way of looking at things. People should be open to different views. It’s as simple as that.
The Holocaust deniers estimated Jewish losses from various concentration camps, and place it around 3 million Jews killed. Auschwitz alone has contributed to 1.1 million deaths. You go beyond that and declare none of those deaths happened (or rather, that they weren’t mass exterminated). Incidentally, who is the one making hasty accusations here? Figures are derived from Nazis paperwork and some from population demographics and ther are some academic disputes about that. However, all agree that 6 million Jews disappeared - i.e. negative evidence. The Red Cross reports on the number of corpses present at the time of the liberation of the camps, and doesn’t take into account mass graves and creamtions. The Holocaust deniers don’t deny the holocaust killings but rather the number of Jews killed!
3 millions Jews killed or died? Not all agree on the numbers. Those numbers were once 11 million, and at a time up to near 20 million. It’s as they killed off the entire European Jewish population. What you’re not taking into consideration is Jewish immigration. Take a look at rising Jewish numbers in surrounding countries. The link I provided goes into that.
As far as paperwork goes, I’ve read there is no official document that Hitler signed about the extermination of Jewish people in concentration camps.
Furthermore, the Jews were not simply a workforce, were you declared the Nazi’s would kill them! Ha! If they were then they’d have been working with the French labourers etc. who were transported to Germany in the form of forced labour. The Holocaust death toll is speculative and based upon actual documentation, bodies found, survivors and guards testimonies and inferences drawn from those and other sources. You’re trying to give excuses for the existence of the cremation chambers, and that is fine but how do you account for the photos, testimonials, Nazi official documents pertaining to medical torture (which can be found in the Harvard archives, Nuremberg trials section), the six million missing Jews etc … ? This might interest you. Moreover, why would such a huge number of Jews die at such rate? Auschwitz ovens could burn thousands every day (I’ve been there) and are you telling me that thousands died of natural causes at the same time?
I’m not here to act like the Nazi regime was a group of upright citizens who were the nicest people on earth. Our own military has tortured captured terrorists without reason. I’m pretty sure that wasn’t part of the strategy either. You sort of brought up a point subcounsciously, the amount of missing Jews. Again, if you are get past your bias and read the link I provided it goes into the amount of Jews who left Germany. At the rate you discuss the killing of the Jewish population they could have actually killed of the entire Jewish population, this didn’t happen.
You never think there might actually be a conspiracy to this? I’m not so quick to take the public school history book version of the world as fact. After the war Germany takes on all the losses, and Soviet Russia is next in line for control of Europe. I’m willing to believe there was a huge change of facts to bring Germany down further, and have any Zionist get the power they want.
If your avatar isn’t Stauffenberg what other SS officer is it? I want to know since you seem pretty hell bent on disproving my holocaust stance.
Also, Ernst Zundel, who simply published Did Six Million Really Die? has been listed as a national security threat and has been in prison for “hate crimes”. As far as I know he’s still not allowed back into Canada.
If the US didn’t intervene in WWII, I would think that Nazi Germany would have gone bankrupt in due time. Their Eastern front might have been even bloodier, which is hard to imagine, and the French resistance would have gnawed away at them on the West, all while living under some crazy economic central planning.
“In due time” could mean a lot of people dying, though. Assuming in a hypothetical situation that Nazi Germany is existing in an anarcho-capitalist society (as in it is the world’s exception). What would be done to save the lives of the people who would have otherwise been dying in the Holocaust?
I asked a question on page 1 regarding Person A, etc. that no one has answered yet. Kind of the same subject.
The only reason I’ve ever wondered if skepticism of the Holocaust might be justified is the fact that Holocaust denial is banned in various places (it’s an offense that can carry prison time in Soviet Germany).
Clayton -
Brian, think this one through for a minute. In a stateless society, what would individuals do? Well, you’re an individual, so picture yourself in a stateless society, and tell us what you would do.
Also, just because Nazis are killing people, doesn’t mean that everyone else has a moral obligation to stop them, intervene etc. That’s the impossible standard we addressed earlier. If you can justify one intervention as a moral necessity, then it becomes impossible not to justify them all, and be morally compelled to intervene everywhere, at all times.
Stuff like the holocaust sucks. But the answer is to structure society so that genocides dont happen, not so that we can deal with them better.
I would like very much to say that I would have went into Germany with other volunteers to fight back against the Nazis and help the people whom they were trying to kill. I don’t mean to say that in an “I’m so heroic” way, but that is what I would feel the need to do. Whether I would actually do that in this hypothetical situation, I don’t want to talk about that at all because none of us really knows what we would have done back then. Then again, the Nazis would have seen me as an individual attacking them instead of as a collective country attacking them, so - while I believe the Nazis easily had every hurt coming to them - nobody would be dragged into the situation that didn’t want to be in it, and the blowbacks (if any were to arise) would be harmful to me and my fellow volunteers. I guess that’s what would happen in a stateless society.
I like what you said here a lot. This is kind of what you were talking about when reversing the argument before regarding the Civil War. I always felt very defense when people bring this up, but I never stopped to bring up that this wouldn’t have happened in a stateless society.
Another thing I asked above, though. If I got in contact with the victims of the holocaust somehow, and they asked me to fight off the Nazis for them because they somehow weren’t capable of doing so on their own, would that be justified as a service transaction or would it be seen as me aggressively attacking someone (the Nazis) who haven’t done anything to me personally?
Some people may say that is a copout, and people will say ridiculous things like “be realistic” which is a non-argument, so thats the next level of arguing that without states it is hard to carry out genocides and that governments have committed more genocide against their own citizens than any private individuals have.
A lot of being a libertarian or anarchist is sticking to your guns when people dont like your point of view and staying optimistic while being realistic. We’re not pretending we can achieve utopia. We are only trying to avoid setting ourselves up in a system that is contradictory (defies logic) and self-defeating (moral double standards).
It would not be aggression if you were acting as the agent for the victim. Situations like this aren’t completely cut and dried. I am sure if you lead some sort of force to liberate people in a genocide condition without their explicit prior consent and didn’t act irresponsibly like kill German civilians or bomb schools, very few if any civilized people would have an issue with that.
Holocaust was an example of interventionism in the first place. There were only 240,000 Jews in Germany. So what is Nazi Germany killing Soviet Jews other than an itervention in the Soviet Union?
So I don’t see how Holocaust is an argument for interventionism rather than against it. No Nazi German interventionism, no holocaust.
Everyone knows that. We’re focusing on intervention by those wanting to help, not intervention by the criminals.
We are focusing on fairy tales? I thought we were focusing on history. No US interventionism, no 1 million Japanese and German civilians killed and 12 million made homeless by the allied bombing. What non-ciminals?
“We’re focusing on intervention by those wanting to help”
I suppose the millions drafted wanted to help. That’s why they had to be drafted.
"Also, if any actions were to be taken by the government when it comes to interventionism in general, what do you think would be the best way of doing things as opposed to sending in troops and setting up military bases?
Overthrowing themselves. Then there would be no reason for anyone to invade. People who wanted to “intervene” could go on their own instead of volunteering other people by gunpoint to intervene for them.
We’ve been talking about a hypothetical stateless society aside from the Nazis for a while. So… kind of.
I know that. All you mentioned before were the interventions by the Nazis, which is obvious.
I said ‘the ones wanting to help’, not the United States, which I’ll comment on below.
I don’t know if you two didn’t read all of the earlier posts or if this is just a communication problem, but we (libertystudent and I) have been talking about how people could help in an stateless society assuming the already-mentioned Nazi intervention in other countries and Holocaust. I don’t know why you guys jumped the gun and assumed I was talking about the United States entering WWII.
Funny. The reason the Nazi’s gave for invading Poland was the “ongoing holocaust” against Germans there.
Then get your terms straight. Interventionism is when the state does it. There is no interventionism by a stateless society by definition.
I think the 6 million number was inflated, but there is absolutely no reason to believe the extermination of 3+ give-or-take million didn’t happen.