so when someone abstains from stealing because they think its immoral they stand outside of the universe because their actions are the effects of something that cannot cause ( moral precepts)
an odd view.
Well, I totally disagree with you.
It is Palestinian land. Has been for centuries. Still is. The fact that they have to import poor Russians because their are so few people who actually want to be Israeli Jews is pretty good evidence to me that a bunch of european Jews never owned that land.
Reason discerns cause and effect. It is not itself cause and effect. Cause and effect throughout our evolution has created our moral instincts.
You have a very slippery handle on terminology: more evidence of lack of deliberation.
here morality is a useful pedagogical tool since
-
free markets composed of moral agents acting morally are efficient and optimizing. but the definition of political action is immoral, the political means is opposed to the economic means. Wikipedia and look up ‘public choice’ for political theory if you need to.
-
the LvMi is not bankrupt.
if you had paid attention whilst you were supposedly learning to love and understand capitalism, you may have been instructed through the writings of Adam Smith that the ‘invisible hand’ can turn private interest into public interest. or private vice into public good. of course this is only remarkable because it is counterintuitive, and also oppossed to the political means, whereby private vice leades to public ruin. stalin, mao, hitler, fdr, hoover. etc etc.
so our system is perfectly consistent theoretically contra your hysterics and is as practicable as anything else.
this is a very very poor argument, but i don’t want to derail the thread over it. just saying…
It’s reactionary feelings like that, which justify genocides. But you’re right, in the scheme of things, might makes right. So as long as Israeli Jews exist, Palestinians are in the right to blow them to pieces. Until every last one is gone.
why are you focused on israeli jews and not israeli arabs or israeli christians or israeli atheists or israeli agnostics?
is this cover for antisemitism or was it just a loose choice of words in furtherance of sounding controversial?
Sorry, I said nothing of the sort. I’m just showing that the concept of ‘country’ is flawed. This is about basic definitions. It has nothing to do with deciding policy, markets or fools. Not a single word of what you wrote in your last post addresses what I said.
I’m saying that collective decision and action are meaningless - not inefficient - but meaningless.
If all members of group X choose Y then you can metaphorically say that group X chose Y (in reality the individuals did). BUT if there’s no unanimous agreement then saying that the group chose Y is nonsense.
The idea that the tens or hundreds of millions of individuals who compose a country decide things collectively and by unanimous consent is a joke. So, there’s no country to speak of.
I wouldn’t consider myself anti-semitic, for the simple fact that I don’t lump people who are ethnically Jewish into one group who think collectively. That said, I’m not entirely thrilled about Israeli Jews or Israeli supporters in general. I say Jew specifically because Israel is a zionist occupation, equating Israeli with zionist; the culture is thick with zionist Judaism, so much so that anyone, regardless of practiced religion who calls themself an Israeli national and who is not treated as a dog under the apartheid state is, at least partially, a zionist. To state the fact, I don’t like zionist Judaism; I don’t enjoy the culture, I rarely enjoy the people who exercise and display the culture; it is a dirty, selfish, merciless culture for dirty, selfish, merciless people.
Maybe zionist would have been more appropriate, but oh well.
so you arent anti-semitic, but you are…
well you might consistently argue that israel is a zionist occupation, if you will also argue that the USA was a european occupation and australia etc. also you would be somewhat overlooking the legitimate means for jewish ownership in the territory, private individuals historically plus the jnf purchases etc.
I find the use of the term ‘apartheid’ problematic, given that is a south african name for a system of racial segregation within the borders of south africa, whereas there is no system of segregation within the borders of ‘israel’, though you may argue differently for west bank and gaza etc.
pollution problems due to lack of proper private property rights are everywhere a problem, selfishness is a virtue, the ‘jews’ were loathed by Nietschze for elevating the concept of ‘mercy’ and compassion into the modern liberal consciouscness. (slave morality)
Can you explain this please? Not sure what you mean. Thanks.[:)]
I googled and found a rabbi to quote
Same Europe and Australia.
Those who happened to own land in Israel pre-zionist occupation would have it legitimately. Until they supported the zionist conquest.
You have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about as far as apartheid goes in Israel. Really, no clue. If you had actually walked the streets of Israel and seen what I’ve seen, you’d understand. Bishop Tutu of South Africa plainly calls Israel an apartheid state because of the similarities that Muslims in the Israeli state - never mind those forced into refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank - have to Africans in South Africa during apartheid.
They are routinely treated as second class citizens. They are bullied and harassed by the police openly. I know, I’ve seen it.
i have walked the streets of israel…
if Bishop Tutu calls the system under which israeli arabs live ‘apartheid’, he is either misinformed or playing down the distinguishing features of apartheid. If you are consider palestinians/arabs outside the borders of israel who do not have citizenship and are under occupations, then whilst they are unjustly occupied they are still not racially segregated in an apartheid fashion, since there is not ‘another’ seperate but different class residing in the territory. if you put that aside and consider citizens of israel, there is not segregation of the african kind.
apartheid in south africa wasnt merely being bullied and harrased by police, under that definition there is apartheid in the USA, in the UK, all over europe, and of course, presently in south africa
That’s very interesting. Thanks. I don’t think one has to be a slave to have compassion, but that doesn’t mean a master will either. In liberty I can be compassionate. Didn’t know if that’s the way this was going or not. I understand Rand’s self-interest and find that moral too. I haven’t read Rand’s writings, but I’ve picked up on it in this forum and during that clip in the one thread Poptech posted the Freedom Watch link with Peter Schiff explaining his monetary fine. The president of the Rand Institute discussed Rand’s concept of self-interest in that clip and I agree with what he and thus Rand meant.
yes, I think of Neitsczhe like an Ayn Rand that went a step too far. he’s so committed to ‘narrow’-self-interest that concepts like ‘justice’ dont matter a damn, one should abandon the slave morality that says justice is important etc etc.
Oh please. Now look who is the one pulling a neocon classic: criticism of certain Jewish people = automatic antisemite.
i didnt pull any neo-con classics, he said he wasnt ant-semitic, but he didnt like israeli jews ‘in general’ . and i criticised certain jewish people myself. are you paying attention?
In that case, nothing is going to change your mind about the situation in the occupied area of Palestine known as Israel. You’re obviously blind to the situation there.
I’m just thankful that most people will take a Nobel prize winner who actually suffered through apartheid in South Africa more seriously about what is and isn’t apartheid than someone who can’t see the obvious.
And also, the UN defines apartheid as institutionalized or systemic oppression and domination of one ethnic group by another with the intention of maintaining that regime. It lists qualifying crimes as including depriving of liberty, forced relocation, collective punishment, etc. All of which Israel is documented to be guilty of without question.
To the last post, however, I did say that I don’t like people of the zionist Jewish culture in general. As I’ve said before, zionism is a dominating philosophy that has no compatibility with basic human decency, let alone libertarianism.
How you can defend a zionist is beyond me.
What can I say? I am no ex-neomarxist, nor am I former progressive yet the clueless like Juan like to call people who disagree with them neo-cons not understanding the meaning or origin of the word.
Please stop lying about Jacob as he made no endorsement of murder. No matter what your distorted view of the military is.