Out of curiosity, what is the AE (and everyone here's) position on the State of Israel and the US relation to it?

JB31 · June 20, 2009, 2:09pm

Since when is a sense of purpose emotional nonsense? Do you think your life has a purpose? Did you arrive at the conclusion by emotions or by reason? Service to others, which I think is a…perfectly ok thing to value under certain circumstances has tangible rewards. I mean…I’d get paid to do it, people would respect what I was doing. All these things are good things.

JB31 · June 20, 2009, 2:18pm

Lilburne:

Microsoft’s survival is moral and conducive to the interests of all involved. The state’s survival is not. The state’s persistence isn’t about voluntary exchange of products. It’s about coercive power and brainwashing.

No, it’s impossible to reason an internal justification for your ultimate interests, therefore they must not be arrived at by reason, therefore they must be an unrationalized urge. You don’t seem to really be grasping what I’m saying, so maybe Hume himself will be more effective:

The understanding exerts itself after two different ways, as it judges from demonstration or probability; as it regards the abstract relations of our ideas, or those relations of objects, of which experience only gives us information. I believe it scarce will be asserted, that the first species of reasoning alone is ever the cause of any action. As its proper province is the world of ideas, and as the will always places us in that of realities, demonstration and volition seem, upon that account, to be totally remov’d, from each other. Mathematics, indeed, are useful in all mechanical operations, and arithmetic in almost every art and profession: But `tis not of themselves they have any influence: Mechanics are the art of regulating the motions of bodies to some design’d end or purpose; and the reason why we employ arithmetic in fixing the proportions of numbers, is only that we may discover the proportions of their influence and operation. A merchant is desirous of knowing the sum total of his accounts with any person: Why? but that he may learn what sum will have the same effects in paying his debt, and going to market, as all the particular articles taken together. Abstract or demonstrative reasoning, therefore, never influences any of our actions, but only as it directs our judgment concerning causes and effects; which leads us to the second operation of the understanding.

Tis obvious, that when we have the prospect of pain or pleasure from any object, we feel a consequent emotion of aversion or propensity, and are carry’d to avoid or embrace what will give us this uneasines or satisfaction. Tis also obvious, that this emotion rests not here, but making us cast our view on every side, comprehends whatever objects are connected with its original one by the relation of cause and effect. Here then reasoning takes place to discover this relation; and according as our reasoning varies, our actions receive a subsequent variation. But tis evident in this case that the impulse arises not from reason, but is only directed by it. Tis from the prospect of pain or pleasure that the aversion or propensity arises towards any object: And these emotions extend themselves to the causes and effects of that object, as they are pointed out to us by reason and experience. It can never in the least concern us to know, that such objects are causes, and such others effects, if both the causes and effects be indifferent to us. Where the objects themselves do not affect us, their connexion can never give them any influence; and `tis plain, that as reason is nothing but the discovery of this connexion, it cannot be by its means that the objects are able to affect us.

Since reason alone can never produce any action, or give rise to volition, I infer, that the same faculty is as incapable of preventing volition, or of disputing the preference with any passion or emotion. This consequence is necessary. Tis impossible reason cou'd have the latter effect of preventing volition, but by giving an impulse in a contrary direction to our passion; and that impulse, had it operated alone, wou'd have been able to produce volition. Nothing can oppose or retard the impulse of passion, but a contrary impulse; and if this contrary impulse ever arises from reason, that latter faculty must have an original influence on the will, and must be able to cause, as well as hinder any act of volition. But if reason has no original influence, tis impossible it can withstand any principle, which has such an efficacy, or ever keep the mind in suspence a moment. Thus it appears, that the principle, which opposes our passion, cannot be the same with reason, and is only call’d so in an improper sense. We speak not strictly and philosophically when we talk of the combat of passion and of reason. Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.

You know what? I had this realization while I was out running today. It’s brilliant. Why don’t all you guys get together and start a little anarchist colony or whatever you want to call it? If it succeeds, people will see that it succeeds and join you. If you fail, no one will join you and your illusions of the functionality of anarchy will fade away just as people’s illusions about the functionality of communism faded away.

I think Hume has it backwards. Morals are something akin to emotions. A sort of “O, I don’t like that” that we justify by saying “because I don’t like it, it must be wrong” or “because I like it, it must be right.” But, if you step outside yourself for just one second, you will realize that everyone has these thoughts and is constantly trying to rationalize them into being something more than reflexive feelings that evolved as proxies to real calculation. Reason does not concern itself with right and wrong in a moral sense, but in a practical sense of “does this work?” “is it practical?” “is it necessary?” So, through reason, I am able to understand that functionality (effectiveness) is the ultimate good because it is sustainable whereas disfunctionality, no matter how moral it may seem, is clearly the ultimate bad. Therefore, I think you guys should start a little colony and if it dissolves or implodes because it can’t work or for whatever other reason, you will have tested your theories. Hume, incidentally, was one of the first empiricists. So I think he would be on my side in prescribing such a trial.

JB31 · June 20, 2009, 2:20pm

Well, I totally disagree with you. I think the Palestinians should go away, it’s not their land.

wilderness · June 20, 2009, 2:21pm

How do you know it’s not their land?

nirgrahamUK · June 20, 2009, 2:21pm

according to who?

JB31 · June 20, 2009, 2:24pm

Harry Felker:

Logical dissent, government means that markets are not free..

Yes

Jacob Bloom:

Totally free to do whatever they want without consequence of fear of reprisal.

No, you sir do not understand what anarchy means, you know what you were told, anarchy comes from an = no/archos = ruler not logos(?) = Law

Jacob Bloom:

I’m…beyond words right now, this is totally disconcerting. I am almost ashamed to admit that I was going to try to figure out how to go to a school where I was going to get to be a part of austrian economics. But I don’t want people thinking I’m an anarchist.

Straw… Anarchist is a dirty word now? Ah, yes, word redefinition…

Jacob Bloom:

convinced me austrian economics descends into anarchy where everyone thinks they own everything they pay for and where they have this right to not participate in any shape or form in productive society.

I convinced you of what my stance is in AE, it may not be everyones, but I speak for myself only…

If you do not own everything you pay for, you can argue that into slavery, slavery is unacceptable to me, maybe you are ok with it, I am not…

If the productive society tells me that if I do not participate in it as they choose I go to prison, then yes I have the right to refuse, freedom has more to do with voluntary action, unfortunately you have yet to prove that governemnt enables any such voluntary action, if I have a right to self ownership, I have a right to self determination, if I have a right to self determination the society has to prove advantageous to me to encourage my consent…

Jacob Bloom:

You do need me to fight for you because without a majority of people who believe Austrian economics makes sense, YOU’RE NEVER GOING TO GET THE CHANGES YOU WANT.

No, I do not, I need to wait, eventually the house of cards will fall, I have the means to survive in post government America, before civility is restored, and the means to dissuade government intervention when it decides to come tax me, just because I live here and survived the collapse. The changes will come, simply because of the unsustainability of the system, and when the system rebuilds itself, it will be more “suseptible” to the conscientious objectors, there are more than a few of us down here. Fight your fight to maintain your government, but remember the law down here says if someone is on an individuals property for the purpose of robbery, shooting them dead is self defense…

I also realized that I don’t have to prove anything. Because reality will prove it for me. If you think you’re right and that reason and morality and whatever else is on your side and that your system is the only system that could ever truly function and be sustainable then I think you don’t have to prove anything because your cause will be proved empirically. However, since there are no anarchist…regions and since most people seem to prefer having some sort of state and a military and all the rest, I am afraid that unless you change your message to something that actually…would seem to work or unless you can just show people that it DOES WORK, then you’ll be on this site forever complaining about how no one listens and you’re a victim of the tyranny of rotten statism.

JB31 · June 20, 2009, 2:26pm

Because they don’t own it now and can’t seem to take it. Israel has really been so nice. I mean…they could’ve just wiped the Palestinians off the map and been done with it.

Also, the Jewish Bible says so. But that doesn’t prove anything. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

sicsempertyrannis · June 20, 2009, 2:28pm

So I come to your neighborhood, ethnically cleanse it of you and all your neighbors, then call it all ‘mine’ is that OK?

JB31 · June 20, 2009, 2:35pm

That isn’t what happened. And yeah, I guess so. But I doubt you are capable of such a thing. But maybe you are. Should I buy more weapons?

You guys are so caught up with ok and not ok, you forget that…those things don’t matter. If you can’t enforce your opinion, it’s really kind of irrelevant because the next guy might be able to enforce his. And I’m trying to tell you that in your little anarchist village, not everyone is going to care about ok and not ok, they are just going to take advantage of your lack of enforcement and take things from you. And you’ll be stuck like “O man, you dudes are so bad!” but won’t be able to do anything about it.

wilderness · June 20, 2009, 2:36pm

Palestinians don’t own where they live?

Interesting moral statement, “nice”. Unless it’s not efficient for Israel to do so, but if so, then why not efficient for Israel to do so?

Vanilla pudding? I don’t know what you mean.

nirgrahamUK · June 20, 2009, 2:37pm

@Jacob ‘BadBoy’ Bloom

well, you can’t enforce your opinion on anything that you have discussed and argued on this forum. so maybe shut up about it then.

JB31 · June 20, 2009, 2:38pm

No, but you can, are you gonna silence me because you don’t like what I have to say?

nirgrahamUK · June 20, 2009, 2:40pm

if i did, it would not be bad.

JB31 · June 20, 2009, 2:41pm

Not if they can’t keep it. Which they are trying to, and admire that about them. But I think they’ll lose.
I dunno, I guess they are scared of the neighboring countries that might take offense to a more…hawkish action like just getting rid of all the Palestinians.
Lol, any kind of pudding that makes you happy bro. I prefer chocolate and vanilla swirl. What I’m saying is that it’s hard to argue with reality.

JB31 · June 20, 2009, 2:42pm

In my opinion, it would be undesirable, but you’re the boss, boss.

Juan · June 20, 2009, 2:42pm

this

is emotional - you are clearly stating it is a feeling. And it is total nonsense. “Served my country” means nothing - it is just a collectivistic (commie) bromide. In reality, there’s no such thing as a country. It does not exist.

So ? I asked, specifically, why join the military . You can join any business if you want to serve people - and you’ll get paid too. IOW you’re dodging the question.

The only ‘real’ reason you can provide for choosing the military is just this emotional bromide : “proudly served my country”

JB31 · June 20, 2009, 2:46pm

The country does exist. I can look outside and see it right now. I’m a part of it. It’s an observable phenomenon.
Yes, I could join anything I want to. I’d get paid to work for the military too, I think.
I considered it because I thought I’d be good at it.

wilderness · June 20, 2009, 2:47pm

Ah, so you’re not about dialogue and reason. You’re conclusions are based on ‘might makes right’. Well then if you can’t dialogue, then no point in chatting anymore I guess.

oh, that’s right, you’re a ‘might makes right’.

What reality, oh, since you have concluded ‘might makes right’, above, then that’s your irrational perspective. I’d rather dialogue and reason, so, you’re not up for that in your worldview apparently.

good day

nirgrahamUK · June 20, 2009, 2:48pm

if you were whisked back in time and looked out of where your window would have been 400 years ago, would you have seen the USA or not? moron

JB31 · June 20, 2009, 2:49pm

Wilderness, how can something be right if it doesn’t happen? If morals were laws then they’d have enforcers. But they don’t seem to. Why is this?

Might doesn’t make right. It simply makes possible.

Topic		Replies	Views
What should the Israelis do? Political Theory	10	1809	January 17, 2009
Opinion on the Israel lobby General	104	16568	June 4, 2010
Arab-Israeli conflict General	6	1861	January 5, 2009
Obama Sides With Palestinians — Endorses 1967 Border Demands Current Events	60	9201	June 2, 2011
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Current Events conflict , israel	6	1622	June 30, 2010

Out of curiosity, what is the AE (and everyone here's) position on the State of Israel and the US relation to it?

Related topics