jacob, in a week you’ll be as rabidly anti state as the rest of us, we’ve all been through the same process, “but what about?” huurrrrrrrrnnnnnh
for instance in my earlier days i used to get annoyed that rothbard called his book man, economy, and state, i used to think, “man, these guys have got to get over the state, its not that big a deal” and now i’m all like spitting venom at every news item i see thats got to do with politics. honestly australia’s turning into a socialist nightmare, i’m gonna have to bail out soon.
I don’t think I’ll ever be a 1 on the anarchy spectrum because it seems like the ideas of war here are…naive. I mean I’ve trained for years in the art of war (mainly Gracie Jiu Jitsu) and they taught me to NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES back down from a fight, especially if the guy who wants to fight me is clearly a bad guy. Hitler was a really really bad guy. I believe there are a few things the state is capable of handling and the state can be good for. One of which is the managing of the military and the fighting of wars. Now, admittedly, governments have, in the past, used their bloodlust to excuse massive inflation and recoinage and excessive taxation and rations and all the rest of the intrusions on the market that I so despise. However, under CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES wars become necessary. And if you guys seriously think Hitler wasn’t going to start killing Jews under any circumstances and that he just did it once he realized he was going to lose, then I think again there is some serious naivete there.
Really? Which war? I would love to see you justify any wars the U.S. has been involved in besides the revolutionary war. If the U.S. is your standard, then God help us!
I still think the war in Afghanistan was absolutely the right thing to do. It was kind of a joke that we didn’t get Bin Laden. He obviously had connections. I thought that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. Hussein was another one of those guys you just can’t allow to live. I think that if we hadn’t botched the Iraq war so badly, we would’ve been able to go into Iran and get Ahmadinejad. That guy is a serious threat to the state of Israel. But alas, it is not to be. Israel looks like it’s to be dismantled and given back to those lousy Palestinians. So it goes.
he was certainly a disgusting guy. I suppose to answer the question of whether he was bad, i would look to see what crimes he committed. On deep analysis it might turn out that individuals in the SS , army, private citizens, whom phsyically killed people and/or stole property in the spirit of the words that Hitler spoke were the really really bad people.
Well Israel isn’t the United States. Unless Ahmadinejad is going to gather together 500 Iranians to throw a nuke across the ocean, then what he does is really irrelevant.
It’s my personal opinion that the US and Israel are allies and as such an attack against one is an attack against the other. Therefore, what happens to Israel matters and the US must maintain a deep commitment to backing Israel. Plus, appeasement won’t work, it never has. Ahmadinejad has to be eliminated.
I dont really see the point of this metaphor. it is cliche and obfuscatory. and it will excuse critical thinking. Infections are undesirable because they phsyically damage peoples body properties.
The point I was trying to make is that the source of all that evil wasn’t the SS. It wasn’t Hitler’s generals. And it wasn’t the people of Germany. It was Hitler. And so to get rid of the disease one has to remove the cause. Not the symptoms. Hitler was that cause.
Because Israel is the bastion of democracy in the middle east. Now, I don’t believe you can spread democracy with a gun. But I do think that what Bastiat said about “where trade crosses borders, armies will not” is true. The existence of a democratic capitalistic market in the middle east will ultimately lead to trade with barrier countries, which will then make them want to institute free markets of their own. Appeasement started the minute Obama said he favors the idea of a two state solution. Which is impossible.
Really? You think when one government asks another government to hand someone over, that the other government has no right to ask for evidence of guilt?
So you think if Pakistan asked the U.S. government to hand you over, and said if it did not that they would nuke us, that the Pakistany government would be justified in attacking the U.S. for not handing you over?
OK, so any other examples? Again, if the U.S. is your standard, God help us!
Individuals should enter the free market through voluntary consent. Running around the world freeing up markets through government [mercantilism] is a rather absurd notion. All the funds that are used for military purposes are just a drag on the economy. We could be utilizing them towards the private market and advance by leaps and bounds and THAT will certainly make them want a free market.
Who are we to say which solution works and which doesn’t?
Democracy is the ultimate in virtuous systems because it gives a chance for the metaphorical prisoners to vote the metaphorical guards out. Like a market does with companies.
Individuals will enter the market of their own volition, but they need an incentive. Your plan is a good plan, I like it, but I think there’s enough money to both cut taxes significantly and still fund the military and give contributions to Israel.
I say that the two state solution won’t work because from my point of view, you cannot negotiate with a people who maintain an extreme position. The Palestinians want the whole area. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.
do the prisoners have a chance if there are more guards than prisoners? anyway it is a false analysis since in a democracy everyone that engages in the political system is both guard and prisoner.
i say that a statist solution wont work. as state solutions dont work. the USA is not working. the UK is not working. Israel is not working. the Palestinian state will not work.