The State is nothing more than the individuals that compose it. The crimes these individuals committ don’t magically transform because they do them in the name of the state.
Going to fight Iran for Israel is like stealing money from everyone in your neighborhood, using it to fatten the profits of the gun shop in your neighborhood, hiring brainwashed neighborhood muscle to go fight for you in the name of your neighborhood, and standing by while they kill off thousands of innocents in another neighborhood in an attempt to get some bad guy that might hurt or kill your friend.
Why not use your own money to go fight with people you hire yourself, or hire an assassin to do your dirty work for you? If you think that war is so just, why not use your own money, your own life?
The idea that Israel and Israeli zionists are anything but blood-sucking vampires on the land of the world isn’t well informed about the culture, history, or nature of the Jewish state. Now, I’m a very open minded person on pretty much everything, but on Israel - even I can see the net loss it causes everyone for that place to even exist.
"No, it wasn’t a just war. The holocaust didn’t began until 2 (or three?) years after the war. The final solution was only put on the table when Germany had essentially lost the war. Granted, by the beginning of the war Hitler had done some horrible things, but Stalin had killed 1000 people to Hitler’s 1 by the the outbreak of the war, and yet, the British thought it was acceptable to ally with Stalin.
Hitler was never going to attack Britian or France, in fact, he wanted an alliance with Britain. The British also initiated the bombing of the German cities.
Not to mention the whole thing was the result of the ridiculous ToV."
Two points I tink are worth mentioning. You confuse the ‘holocaust’ with the ‘final solution of the Jewish question’. For example, should the deaths caused in the 1938 pogrom not count as part of the holocaust?
Secondly the British only allied with the Soviets after the outbreak of war. Prior to the war they actually rejected Soviet proposals.
Btw, the U.S. should’ve never went to war against Hitler. Even if he was a bad guy. And you stating that that comes of as disrespectful is awfully… presumptuous.
And the U.S. military is a band of mercenaries. They just happen to be employed by an organization that excludes entry into the provision of arbitration services and unilaterally decides the level of payment for this service. It is not obvious why U.S.'s band of mercenaries would be better at providing protection than a band of mercenaries employed by a competitor. Also the fact that the state excludes competitors from entering into the protection services market implies that competitors would provide better better quality services, lower prices for those services, or both; since there would be no need to outlaw and exclude competitors if it could outcompete any potential newcomer.
Also, states are naturally aggressive relative to private individuals or organizations. They can externalize the costs of aggression onto taxpayers. Private individuals cannot do this. They have to pay the cost themselves of hiring fighters and purchasing equipment. They tend to be less likely to start conflicts.
And if you think markets are better than the government at providing services, why not also in defense? What makes defense essentially different from other goods and services supplied on the market, such that a monopoly provider is necessary?
Also, different states are in a state of anarchy relative to each other. When citizens from different countries get into conflict with each other, there are arbitration procedures which are set in motion. A judgement is given and enforces. All without a monopoly over both citizens. So when you say that you don’t see how it can work, you are ignoring the fact that it does work.
And as far as right being a matter of majority opinion and enforceability, you’re just plain wrong. If most of the people in a room thought that 1+1=3 and enforced it, it still wouldn’t change the fact that they are wrong. Truth is independent of what majorities and enforcers think. It is a matter of what can be proven.
If you think I’m being presumptuous, I think you’re being naive and arrogant and mean spirited.
Mercenaries are like individual players in the defense market. They think selfishly and as individuals. The US military trains its men to be soldiers. They do not ask questions, they do as they’re told. That’s a superior armed force.
As long as there are limited resources and unlimited wants and needs, there will be conflicts. The question is “is a private or public military better suited to handle these conflicts?” I think the answer is public.
When different countries get into a conflict, they really only have a limited number of things they can do. The first thing they do is try to cut off valuable resources via economic sanctions or embargos. Then if that doesn’t get the desired results, the armies are sent in. Now, my position is simply that publicly funded armies are better at handling wars than private ones are. And the wars will happen whether there are governments or not. War is part of human nature.
If EVERYONE agreed that 2+2=5 and had the ability to enforce that idea then for the time that they could enforce it they would be correct. Now maybe not theoretically correct, but no one is going to argue with them. This is the problem we have RIGHT NOW with Obama. Everyone thinks socialized medicine is a good idea. Right now, Obama is correct. But he’s theoretically wrong. Our goal has to be to convince the populace that he’s wrong, in which case, he will no longer have the majority or the means to enforce his opinion.
I want the dissolution of Israel. Am I a threat? No. And Israel has bitten the hand that feeds, viz. USS Liberty, an unproked and dastardly attack which killed US sailors.
Well…you’re not really a threat because you don’t possess the means to destroy Israel, nor do I think you will ever have the means to destroy Israel. Basically, you’re just an antagonist of Israel. And I think you’re getting a friendly fire accident confused with an actual intent to harm the US. Obviously, the attack was a mistake.
I rather have mercenaries. They are better trained to control potentially violent situtation than a bunch of yes-men soliders, not to mention that they are probably the most cool-headed and polite men in society. Plus, they actually have a record of fighting oppression.
Ever heard of the blood diamond war? A mercenary company called Executive Outcome, with only 200 men, managed to defeat thousands of bandit bent on plunder and murder within a fricking year.
What the UN do? They let innocent civilians get slaughtered.
No, Jacob does have an indisputable point here. War is something only states can engage in. War is everything the market is not..
The market is geared towards the satisfaction of individual needs. War and state are collectivistic enterprises based on turning human beings into machines “They do not ask questions, they do as they’re told”.
States can steal vast amounts of resources and conscript and murder their own subjects. A private enterprise can’t.
In a world based on private property war is a losing game, but in the kind of communist world that Jacob supports, public war makes sense (to statists of course).
Btw Jacob, before you complain about my calling you (again) a commie, please do realize that you support public ownership of the means of defense, and that you don’t recognize the property rights of taxpayers.
It’s relevant because Ahmadinejad actually has the means to carry out the threat. I mean if a little kid comes up to you on the street talking trash, you’re gonna tell him to run on home, you’re not going to fight him. But if a big dude with twenty friends tells you he’s going to kill you, you’re going to take that more seriously.
I have no reason to believe the Israelis would lie about something like that nor can I think of any reason why they would intentionally attack a US ship. So…it ends there for me. No amount of propaganda or doublethink is going to lead me to a different conclusion. You, however, can obviously believe whatever you want to to believe. They say “never attribute to conspiracy that which is easily explained by incompetence.”
See, again, war will not go away if you dissolve the United States. Someone else will just come over here with their tanks and their planes (all publicly financed) and kill every last used-to-be American and take the land which we were able to hold when we had a sufficient military. And also there are so many loaded statements in here like “conscript and murder their own subjects.” I mean…lots of people volunteer.
And see, in a world based on private property war is not always a losing game. Let’s imagine a scenario where you have the Region of Juan (formerly known as Connecticut) and I’m still part of maybe what’s left of the US. Now, you’ve got a good bit of land and some resources or whatever. We want to take them from you. So, we tax the people still living in the Former Republic of the US, build an army and go over and take your land. You put up a good fight, but you just weren’t able to afford enough mercenaries to keep us at bay. Now you’ve lost everything. This is a sad day for the former Region of Juan.