I can’t exactly speak for the Israeli government side- but from the palestinian side it is not a religious conflict. It is a conflict due to occupation and territory. Religion only enters the picture because It is easy to recruit others and help them kill their emotions in prepration to fight by painting the other side as God’s enemies- but the conflict didn’t arise because Muslims hate jews or whatever. Islam is not a religion that “inevitably degenerates” - I could say that about nearly any ideology. Most muslim countries today have socialistic/facist economic and political models- and this is what leads to violence. If you take Islam as a religion then dictatorship is an utter sin. The fact that Saudi Arabia, which controls Mecca and Medina, is a monarchy is a complete embarassment for all Muslims.
Islam promotes private property, producing wealth, giving charity, and the Quran states quite clearly that there is no compulsion in religion. Thinking that what is practiced in Muslim governments around the world is “Islam” is much like thinking that the United States and the rest of Europe are pure-free market economies. It just isn’t.
The palestinians are oppressed every single day- what kind of backwards world are we in when a nuclear power military state like Israel is depicted as the innocent side and the oppressed shown as the evil side? The US doesn’t need to show strong support for any country- especially countries like Israel that actively engage themselves in disgusting civilian deaths time and time again.
It’s not mainstream to say that if you don’t like the rules you can always leave, it’s just common sense. You will need a majority to get this anarchy you guys all want. But you won’t get it. So you’ll always remain a minority! Which is annoying because I really thought the Austrian school was better than this.
There are two separate points. As a person, I have my own set of beliefs and practices, which frequently vary from mainstream Judaism. That’s part of being an individual. I don’t remember claiming that Judaism is such an awesome religion, just that it’s mine. I don’t hate my religion, I do hate murderous barbaric practices and believe that religious ideas can evolve over time. What I can’t do, though, is pretend that my reinterpretation of the religion is Judaism, and based on that, predict what a Jewish state will look like.
To answer your first question, no, I oppose all states. Is it as simple as that, though? I support vanilla ice cream. If Breyers stopped making it, it wouldn’t follow that I should support federal intervention to make them continue making it.
Then you are incapable of elementary moral distinctions. You can like something without stealing my money to keep it in place.
I have no doubt your government would be as small as the military is large. That was my point. You seems to believe in establishing a military and then calling it a government.
This store I am robbing is my house. You don’t like it, get out before I shoot you. Or, say and try to convince us robbers that we can live without rules.
What are these rules? Why do the rules not prohibit theft and murder?
How did it become our collective house? Surely there was land before the government. How did the government acquire the land from its previous owners?
Artscroll has done a great job producing all the major texts in English. You can create Tractate Makkos (from the Babylonian Talmud) or Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, the most authoritative codification of Jewish law in history (surpassed by the Shulchan Aruch on matters of everday life, but not surpassed in areas not covered by later codes.)
True, but irrelevant to this question. The question is “what will the police officer I hire do when I don’t need him?” The answer is exactly the same as for the gardener - he’ll work for his other clients. Why would you take private to mean “one customer only”?
My beliefs vary from mainstream Judaism too, but I still see most of my ideas as being of Jewish origin, despite the fact that I don’t believe in God. I don’t oppose states. You seem to have a problem with warfare, I think it’s emotional rather than logical. The Jews, as you say, have some horrible past of being a “barbarous, murderous” group. I don’t believe that at all. I’ve got a book on Jewish history, we’ve done all sorts of good things. Some bad too. And if Breyers stopped making vanilla ice cream, someone else would make vanilla ice cream.
Morality doesn’t exist. There is no way to enforce it. And if you don’t agree with the majority, then…either get the rule changed or leave or accept it. I mean…I want a military, you guys don’t. You will not convince me we don’t need one. I obviously will not convince you we do need one. This is ok with me. We still have a military. I don’t need your permission.
Alright, so let’s say I’ve got my company I pay for police protection from. Is this going to be a flat rate so we all play the same thing? Are the cops only going to guard houses that pay? What about the other houses? What happens if someone pays more than another person? Will the police now help that person more?
First, you’ll have to separate policy/morality from economic analysis. Second, your posts have led to a simple pattern - you reject any notion of being bounded by morality. You have no interest in the question of whether or not it is moral to make a club to do what you want, force the rest of us to join, and expropriate our land and property. Your only interest is in pointing out that a lot of brainwashed people like this idea too. Very well - if there is no morality, and majority is all that matters, how can you complain about bailouts or welfare policies?
No, I would shrink the government to the appropriate size and then keep the military as big as could be afforded. I’m not saying I wouldn’t cut military spending. I’d just cut other spending more. And then we could cut taxes down significantly.
I think there are other arguments to make against bailouts and welfare policies besides their supposed immorality. I argue that they simply do not work and are not as efficient as a market would be. Which is sort of the argument you are making as well.
Also, policy has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with effectiveness and efficiency. I don’t care what is done as long as its optimally effective and efficient. It’s been obvious to anyone watching that markets are more efficient at solving the issue of poverty and recessions than welfare and bailouts could ever be. This is not a moral issue. It has nothing to do with God.
Silly me, getting all emotional about a simple, rational thing like mass murder. What am I thinking?
Yes, many of my ideas, I’m sure, are of Jewish origin too. I don’t see why you feel justified in going from there to specific claims about how a Jewish state will behave.
What does your book say on the war with Amalek? Do you know that we took away the throne from a King for having the audacity to let two Amalekites go? Or that the Artscroll Chumash claims that this decision war borne out because, many generations later, an evil man descended from those two?
You don’t need our permission because you intend to steal from us until you have what you want. This is not a problem because nothing is immoral. All I ask is that people with such beliefs stay far away from my family.
Bailouts certainly enrich some at the expense of others, and those some have the majority behind them ( who don’t understand economics.) If I am, say, the CEO of Morgan Stanley, and have millions of dollars in stock, and I lose it because my company goes bankrupt, sure, the economy as a whole will do better, in the long run, than it would have if I had gotten a bailout. But I won’t - I’ll never do as well as I would have if I was bailed out by the taxpayers. On what basis do you conclude that long-run economic health is more important than my personal wealth if I can convince a majority to agree with me?
I’m not robbing anyone. I believe more people want a military than don’t. It’s unfortunate for you right now that you are in the minority.
The rules do prohibit theft and murder usually. Not always. No system is perfect.
It became our collective house when our parents and their parents all chose to live here and abide by the rules. And the government owns the land…realistically because the President commands the army, the army has the power to enforce federal rule. I, however, don’t think it has to come to that.
You are right, if the majority agrees with you, you will get what you want. And then people like me and even you will have to convince everyone that they were in fact not right to change the majority’s mind. That’s basically what I’m trying to do. I’m not going to leave the US though. I love this country. I’m going to stay and fight as I assume you are. But I have no illusions about what’s happened with the bailouts and socialism in this country.
What follows from this? More people want ice cream right now than not, so it’s not theft that I hold down you ice-cream-haters and take your money to buy it? The definition of theft has nothing to do with the number of people you take it from.
Unless you want the money to buy guns to carry out your murders.
How did this happen? As has been pointed out, people lived here before your club was formed. They owned the land. When was it expropriated, and by what right? By your standard “might makes right?” If your argument ends at the point of a gun, fine, no one can argue against it. Just stay away from my family.