I find that many people brush off an argument that totally destroys their worldview by saying that they “disagree.”
I’m currently taking a class on history of economic thought in my college. The prof is a hardcore leftist, and, to his credit, he admits it.
His whole worldview is based on the idea that- self interest=don’t give a shit about anyone else. Based on that, he presents leftist type thinkers like Marx, Polanyi, and Hirschmann who are the idealists who bravely attempted to rescue mankind from the unfortunate inclination of self interest. Then he presents the so-called defenders of capitalism like Smith, Keynes, and Hayek (well, hayek is OK) as the wise thinkers who also hated self interest, but knew it’s an unavoidable human trait.
The thing that annoys me more than anything is when someone misrepresents other people’s position. I could easily see how this type of deception could easily make the soft minded students become anti-capitalists forever.
Well it was.
Scineram, I am telling you this to help you, but you could not be more wrong. You believe what your mainstream left wing textbooks tell you. It was not caused by slavery at all, that just happened to be a beneficial bi-product. I am sure there are plenty of good articles on it on this website, and you should also read Tom DiLorenzo’s book The Real Lincoln. The Civil War was a completely useless war that damaged our country greatly, just because the South followed Jefferson’s writing in the Declaration of Independence and succeeded, because of big government tariffs and more from the North.
Al Qaeda was founded by a Marxist that amalgamated Marxism and Islam to form a radical movement to stop the spread of commerce and decadence in the middle east. What would you call that?
Really Caley? I would call it a government, mainstream, and Neocon exucuse as to why we invaded, when we shouldn’t have in the first place. I am humored that you can use the internet and find the definition on wikipedia, but I am sorry to inform you it is false. A few weeks ago when I attended the Campaign for Liberty Rally for the Republic Regional Conference in Atlanta, Georgia, Ron Paul explained himself what I said, but you would rather listen to Glenn Beck’s definition wouldn’t you. I am not trying to be mean, I am just frustrated that someone like you with 600 posts on Mises follows the Neocon view on Al Qaeda, and that scineram thinks the Civil War was caused by slavery.
P.S.- Our government is the biggest terrorist group I know of, and they do alot more harm to us than Al Aqaeda supposively does.
So what’s your definition of a terrorist?
Ron Paul, Glenn Beck and you share a common ignorance of the fact that Al Qaeda was founded for the sole purpose of preventing the industrialization of the middle east and has no other goal whatever.
Someone who radically attempts to gain power over people and do harm on them. e.g., our government.
Explain to me how Al Qaeda doesn’t fall into this definition.
Glenn Beck? I was comparing you to him. Learn reading comprehension skills. You have the same view as him on Al Qaeda. You now are speaking out of ignorance considering you just labeled me as agreeing with Glenn Beck based on your misinterpretation of what I wrote, showinig you had no prior knowledge and did not research it either. I came on here to post what I thought was a major issue in our society, to make constructive conversation. If people like you are going to start fights out of ignorance and then accuse me of it, that is just completely hypocritical, and it makes me doubt the credibility of the information I get off here. I may have to go back to just reading the articles on the main page…
How much harm have they done to us? We went over there in the 90s, murdered innocent children, and tried to force our ways on them. I would be a little pissed too. Compared to our government who damaged them more, and our country the most, Al Qaeda is the Child Fund. That is how “Josh”.
So Al Qaeda is not a group that “radically attempts to gain power over people and do harm on them”?
Considering they formed, or at least grew to the large size they are today, because of our government doing that in large numbers to them, and considering our country does harm to us everyday, I am just saying they are hardly terrorists. I never said they were the “Jesus Foundation”, I juust said they were hardly terroritsts. Accept your defeats man, I am really just trying to educate myself on here and learn, I want to be friendly, but if you challenge me I am going to have to respond.
You said Al Qaeda was hardly a terrorist organization yet the fit your definition of a terrorist organization perfectly and you want me to accept my defeat?
Just making sure I follow your logic.
Christian,
Unfortunately, mises.org is littered with know-it-alls such as some people in this forum.One of the many reasons these people have a lot of posts is because they spend all their time in forums making useless, nonsensical comments, rather than reading the works of GREAT minds such as but not limited to: Mises, Rothabrd, Block, Hayek, Huerta de Soto, Tom Woods Jr., etc.. Don’t confuse quantity of posts with education and knowledge, Christian. Also, why waste your time with these neocons and I-spit-out-what-I-learned-in-state-regulated-schools, who argue you about whether or not someone is a “terrorist”.
Note to these aforementioned know-it-alls.
Has Al-Qaeda acted in aggression and trespassed and infringed on your private property, first? If not, then why are you even talking? I can’t help to recall the long history of the united states disturbing habit of trespassing and aggression on others private property, and not just in its own territory. Therefore, it could be logically deduced who started it first.
Let’s see:
Boxer Rebellion, China, 1899 - 1901
Philippine-American War, 1899 - 1913
Japanese Conflict, 1863 - 1864 (time span of U.S. involvement)
World War I, 1917 - 1918
Korean War, 1950 - 1953
Vietnam War, 1962 - 1975 (time span of U.S. involvement)
Second Korean War, 1966 - 1976
Iran-Iraq War, 1987 - 1989 (time span of U.S. involvement)
Persian Gulf War, Iraq, 1991 (time span of U.S. involvement)
(Please note:
somewhere in the two preceding mentioned wars involving Iraq – over half a million civilians were killed. Which is important to know because it might just be one motive out of the numerous that the United States was attacked by Al-Qaeda. Do you think they came to “terrorize” because they hate stoplights and red hair? I hardly doubt it.)
Iraq Conflict, 1991 - 2003 (time span of U.S. involvement)
War on Terrorism, 2001 - present
(Again who trespassed first first?)
Also, an additional word:
The above wars and conflicts that I mentioned are just a very abstracted and bias list by me. Now, you can go here and see the entire, sickening list:
Addendum:
Christian is being argued because his words were misinterpreted. He merely made the point that compared to the United States, Al-Qaeda are hardly terrorists. His conclusion is correct because “terrorists” aren’t some fixed entity, you can be more of a “terrorist” than someone else. Although, a chosen agreed upon definition can be used concurrent, a “terrorist”, is subjective. Christian believes (and has much evidence to hold that belief) that the United States commits more “terrorists” acts and on a much greater level than Al-Qaeda ever has. Can we gather evidence and prove him wrong? Most likely not; because the United States has been “terrorizing”, using the words of the giant Rothbard, “century after century, year after year”, everywhere. He never said that they were not “terrorists”. If he did, then we could argue him and hopefully lead him to reality.
best,
MLG
edit pointless comment
I said that they do not due it much or nearly to the extent as terrorists groups like our government, and we are the reason they formed. Considering they are trying to protect their people, be it in a Marxist inefficient way or not, from our intrusion and plans to force democracy through brutality, they are hardly terrorists compared to others like our government. We slaughter innocents and intrude for years, they defend themselves, and we label them radical muslims. I am not sure if you are old enough to follow my logic, I am pretty sure my 3 year old brother understands this right now. It is alright though, keep defending your neocon mainstream views.
You said “Al Qaeda is hardly terrorists.”.
Your logic = “Al Qaeda isn’t terrorist even though they fall into the category of terrorists based on my definition, therefore I win and you lose and you can’t follow my logic (followed by some disguised ad hominem)”
Please point out where I posted my view? All I asked you was what your definition was for a terrorists, and if Al Qaeda did not fit that definition. If you can know my views based on those questions you might just be a psychic.
Yes I am saying that organizing to counter bigger terrorist groups has some good intentions and more sense then terrorist groups like our government have. In my definition, they do some terrorist acts but they have motives, if they over react or not, they did not instegate it. Considering they do some terrorists acts but based on motives of larger and more threatening ones intruding, I would say they were hardly terrorists. I do not see how hard that is too follow, which supports my claim of
, which was taken out of context, because I said orginally that my 3 year old brother can understand partial truths and different extents, and if you could not, you must no be old enough. I stand by that claim. My logic is “Al Qaeda was prevoked by a larger terrorist organization going into their country killing many and trying to enforce their beliefs and trying to make them gauk at their power. The acted radically back, but it was instegated by our government, and 9/11 was most likely an inside job anyway to promote wellfare/warfare state in our country, and distract the public. In this definition, comparing them to other groups and looking at their motives, they are hardly a terrorist group.” You seem to be the one here who is trying to be physcic and guess my logic, when you clearly had it all wrong. And lastly, can one not infer a point of view. You were challenging my opposing view that you and the mainstream seem to share on Al Qaeda, and based on that, and your strong defense of it, I infered logically your view. If I came on here trashing Universal Healthcare, and you defended it and countered my arguments and explained how it would work ( even though it would not), I could probably infer you supported it. Sorry for using logic “Josh”. I respect your opinion though and thanks for the argument, I am not trying to be mean or start fights on here, I am just defending my view. A little heated debate is good for everyone.