I wonder if Panamanians worry about what Syria and Iran do. I wonder if Singaporeans worry about what Syria and Iran do. Since when did Americans start thinking of themselves as grandmasters sitting at the Grand Chessboard of Global Politics?? If we defend our borders and observe the civil and economic rights of Americans like we used to do back when we were actually prosperous, we can be prosperous again and there’s not a damn thing Syria, Iran or even China can do about it.
That was the whole idea of classic American non-interventionism: Leave the Old World imperialism to the Old Worlders, let them squabble over the ashes of European colonial “glory” while we harness the power of capitalism - freedom - to build prosperity based on productivity instead of theft and machination. The Old World is a zero-sum world. The more you take from others, the richer you are. America was supposed to be built on a new idea: that productivity, not politics, is the true basis of wealth, propserity and invidiual freedom. We lived it for nigh on a century (with the exception of the blackest mark on our history, the North-South War) but we were eventually defeated and shackled back into the Old World system by the Federal Reserve.
With the power to print money, the political means has become the most enriching line of activity and like a big magnet it has sucked out all the intelligence and dilligence of our once-great nation. Our brightest individuals go into “the public sector” where they perform some task that contributes to more deeply enslaving the American public. The producers are punished with ever higher taxes and every shrinking buying power with the dollars that, when spent, are worth half what they were worth when they were paid. Meanwhile, police are one of the fastest growing population of millionaires in America. The average income of a Federal worker in Washington, DC is more than twice the national average household income.
It’s time to end the insanity. Who gives a shit what people do in Syria or Iran or Timbuktu. As long as we defend our borders and don’t start shit with other countries, it doesn’t matter.
(Its like looking in mirror talking to guys sometimes)
Nice answer Clayton, but my question still stands. Do we prevent genocide, do we have zero alliances and are there times when it is appropriate to take preventive action?
Sigh. I’m sorry that you misunderstood what I wrote, but I never said something was unconstitutional because it was forced. The mandate is unconstitutional because it is just that…against the Constitution. The Consitution enumerates specific powers to the federal government and explicitely states that any powers not specifically delegated are left to the states or the People. Nowhere does the Constitution say anything about the federal government mandating the purchase of healthcare. (or anything else for that matter).
Oh, so you mean it’s not a tax? Thanks.
Why not toasters?
I believe Friedman was correct on most things…that doesn’t mean I go around trying to defend my positions by claiming “Friedman said so.”
It does if you’re arguing social policy.
You could also argue that the sky is green and the universe began 4000 years ago. What’s your point?
Technically never, because a State military is illegitimate. But if you’re asking when can you legitimately go to war, the short answer is when you are legitimately threatened. But for a true answer, many others have written on this. Here’s a few samples:
For one thing, you personally can do whatever you want. Just don’t force me to do anything…including pay for your choices. But for another, you might want to consider the real-world implications of humanitarian war.
My point was Mr. James, if you agree that health care, eduaction and security are minimum things that the government should provide and if Romney really does put a cap on the GDP, then is the individual mandate such as Romney’s justifiable? You said it is against the constitution because issues like these should be left up to the states, but this was a state mandate and is congruent with Romney’s rhetoric.
I wasn’t defending my position on the basis of Friedman said so, but because I am in agreeance with Friedman. Wouldn’t you agree that some form of minimual sustenance should be provided to the poor or unemployed? Do you think the government should not have any health care system?
If you could elaborate why social policy has to be libertarian?
(I could be imaging things as I can’t see how hard you are pressing your keys, but you seem agitated. I am going against my ideas, to provide a sparing partner, which just like in the division of labor is mutally beneficial to the sparing partner and the prize fighter. If this is not the correct topic for this forum, let me know and I’ll stop)
Mr. James, I am aware of the consequences of blowback. I am asking though if there was a village of talking puppies in central Africa, who like to wear funny hats and a rival funny hat manufacturer is about to cross a bridge to exterminate the talking puppies, would you blow up that bridge or not? If you say no okay, but if Romney and Santorum say yes does that make them wrong? Is is never okay to to intervene, even to protect a passive unarmed group? I understand we don’t have to, I understand it is not beneficial, but is there something innate in us that when we are on top we desire to protect talking puppies and to say otherwise would be in a desire to make things more black and white then they really are?
This brings up a good question from me, John. If a State military hypothetically kills a murderer, is that immoral by Libertarian theory? I understand that the military and government are illegitimate in themselves, but does that per se make any of their actions illegitimate?
To use a more extreme example, if murderer X kills serial killer Y to punish him, is murderer X’s action then immoral?
And don’t worry, I am certainly not wavering in my ardent advocacy of isolationism. I am merely asking a hypothetical.
I would say Rothbards disciple, that depends on the situation. If murder Y is a threat to others, then he could be killed. If he unarmed, then one should attempt to take him in to custody, unless they feel legitamately threatened. Legitamately threatened is a gray area and needs to be looked at individually. Using that logic I would be against the death penalty, as the murder no longer poses a threat.
Murderer Y can be killed in any case. I am assuming a knowledge of proportionate punishment in posing my question. (Murderers can always be killed, not to say that they should be. I think murderers of lesser threat should be enslaved to do something productive for the private sector in a Libertarian society). However, I was asking John if murderer X is illegitimate in his action of killing murderer Y solely by the fact that he is a murderer?
I don’t agree that it is justifiable for anything to be “provided” at the point of a gun, so no.
I said nothing of the kind. You can go right up and read it. I said it is unconstitutional because it defies the Constitution. I don’t know how to make it any simpler.
First of all, Romney said it was a good plan for all states, or that it should be adopted everywhere or something to that effect, I do not recall the exact wording. Second of all, you may have to forgive me but I don’t particularly believe this guy would honestly be saying that “it’s okay when I was governor cuz it was just in the one state, but on a federal level, I would never do that.” Third, I would love to hear an explanation on why such a socialized system is good for one state and not for all the others. Fourth, I personally don’t give a crap why he thinks it was good for Massachusetts or any other state because he was (and is) wrong. And the MA budget and health insurance premium costs prove it. Fifth, it’s wrong on a moral level.
Uh. Great. So when you say “and Hayek argued that everyone should be given the very minimum needed for survival. Friedman also argued for a negative income tax”, I’m not supposed to interpret that to mean you’re implying that those things are valid because those guys believed them…but rather because you agree with them?
I really don’t see how this is helping your case.
Provided by whom? On what terms?
Yes, I do not.
Because there is no way to logically justify aggression.
If lets say somehow Syria and Iran can send buckets of money to Hezbollah and Israel is attacked, what would you say is the appropriate action? If Israel is losing do we allow their defeat? and if we do intervene then wouldn’t the problem not have been solved by our absence?
They have done this. Why is that the US may give Israel nukes but Syria and Iran can’t give some missiles to Lebanon. Israel is a terrorist state that has broken more international laws than that of every other country in the world combined. The continue to steal land, and this is why they are hated. Why sho anyone help them. If the US should help anyone it is the Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, and Jordanians to get their land back.
This is fun argument Mr. James, but I have to wake up for work. The one position I really am arguing based on my beliefs is the negative income because there exists the unemployed person, who has no family or friends. I would like to continue this discussion another time and if anyone could add more reasons to like and/ or disklike Romney and Santorum it would be greatly appreciated. Especially if someone could tell me Santorum’s response to his debt ceiling increases, while at the same time being for a balanced budget.
Quickly in response to Mr. Ulyanov, I was giving a hypothetical situation were the shoe is on the other foot. Say the Israelis are Palestinians and Palestinians are Israelis, or better yet do you the think the government should intervene in Palestine now, for the Palestinians?
Proportionate punishment seems like a wrong moral base. If someone attacks civilians does that make it alright for you to attack their civilians.
Proportionate punishment does NOT say it is OK to attack innocents. The theory states that the aggressor can be retaliated against proportionally. If person X killed 5 members of person Y’s family, that does not mean person Y is justified to kill 5 innocent members of X’s family. Rather, he is justified to kill person X himself. (If it were possible, he would be justified to give person X five deaths).
Attacking the innocent civilians would NOT be proportionate because they have not aggressed. However, you could proportionally attack those who attacked the civilians, i.e., the aggressors.
Quickly again, its a bit different with human life, let me use a different example. If someone killed 5 of your hamsters, are you allowed to kill 5 of their hamsters?
Quickly again, its a bit different with human life, let me use a different example. If someone killed 5 of your hamsters, are you allowed to kill 5 of their hamsters.
Yes. Or otherwise get restitution for the 5 you lost. Killing them would be legal, but it might make more sense just to take them to be your new pets. Amongst other options such as monetary restitution. However, you would not be allowed to, say, kill the man who killed your hamsters, because that would NOT be proportionate.
Libertarian justice is about reciprocity in property not actions. If someone damages your property they must replace that property and whatever costs you incurred as a result of their damaging it. In the case of kills 5 of your hamsters, justice would dictate that they replace those hamsters.
If an arsonist burns your house down, they must reciprocate the value of your home and belongings lost as well as your lost productivity. You are not granted the right to become an arsonist yourself.
You can’t take them as your new pets because that would be dishonarable to your old hamsters and restitution would give you the value for your hamsters, plus damages, but that is not proportionate, it is an attempt at being proportionate. Killing a murder is not proportionate. You spouse of the murdered did not value the murder’s life equally. Value is subjective and I don’t feel it is an adequate basis for the death penalty. I would love to continue this conversation another time. Thank you for your response.
I believe that you could burn down their house to punish them. So long as you are not aggressing upon any innocents inside. That’s not to say you should burn their house down. It’s merely the legal maximum.
And you say “Libertarian justice.” Well, there are many Libertarian theories on justice out there. I adhere to the Rothbardian version, obviously. (I mean, just look at my username! xD).