impartial judiciary, equal protection under the law
protections for private property
active and unhindered opposition parties
acceptance of civil liberties for minorities
strong, active local and provincial governments
regular and peaceful change from established order to opposition
stable and impartial regulatory regime
peaceful and impartial elections
powers of the executive is limited or balanced
active and influencial private non-governmental organizations and political associations’
If that is your list of ‘higher democracy’ then I submit there is no such state which is a higher democracy since every western nation in some capacity transgresses every tenet you just supplied.
Again, the comparison is invalid, for a number of reasons, which I highlighted before. Total tonnage cannot be used to imply parity of individual yeild. The very fact that it took a sustained firebombing campaign to achieve similiar results bears this out. Such a campaign is prone to error (e.g., two bombs hitting the same place, thus rendering one of them moot), can be halted once the objective has been acheived, and allows for the human death toll to be reduced, even if the structural damage is the same.
The only way this tonnage could be used as an equivalent is if every single bomb were dropped simultaneously, each landing in a seperate place to yield maximum destruction of both structures and human life. The single bomb commits one to this maximum without the possibility of mitigation or cessation.
In short, (and indeed as you detail below) the single bomb is simply more efficient. It is that efficiency which provides the horror.
Again, only when we grant that the firebombing is as devastating as it possibly could be. That psychological effect is derived from the commitment to cause such maximum devastation without (presumably) remorse. Very well, you can handwave this away by stating that ‘we were at war’ and focus on winning the war, but as this thread appears to be concerned with the validity of the war itself, and the conduct of those participating in it, the individual yield of the two atomic bombs cannot be said to be ‘insignificant’, which is the statement by Caley McKibbins with which I took issue.
Such a statement attempts to hide the horror behind pure numbers, and renders the discussion of war to a mere mathematical equation.
Personally, I take offense at that, regardless of whatever other points of contention there might be (on which I have not commented). The question of war will never be solved if we do not explore the human factor as well as the sum total of destruction, and the horror implied by the indiscriminate and deliberate will to cause the maximum amount of death and destruction as one possibly can, is not ‘insignificant’. Indeed, it’s the very basis upon which you are justifying it’s use.
The western allies held back the ULTRA codes and never passed them on to the Soviets. Doing so would have shortened the war by many months and saved the Soviets thousands of lives.
Since I’m a pragmatic classic liberal, in Hayeks tradition, I as Hayek don’t want to be called either conservatives or libertarian for me they are misleading misnomers. Since in the US the term libertarian has come to be associated with die hard purist Rothbardian anarchists or a Teabagger social but fiscal conservatives I have chosen not to use the term libertarian. I don’t believe in anarchism on a societal and macro level, only on a micro level.
I’m also completely fed up with the fanatic Rothbardian follower that call me a statist like you do. Just because I advocate gradual change and compromises, nor am I such a purist that I equate 1 % force with 100 % force as most Rothbardians do. You might live in an Ivory tower of dogmatic perfection, I happen to live an work in the real worldly, pay taxes have my business regulated and have stupid laws applied to me. I work in the real world to become more freer, I have to make hard choices. So keep your statist remarks to yourself, I’m probably a truer upholder of the free market economy and follower of Austrian Economics than you. I’ve personally been responsible for planning away 100’s of millions in taxes and helping small business owners avoid laws and regulations on a massive scale. I created virtual tax and regulatory free structures without any other regulations than those for pure security reasons. It was all done within the system and completely legal and with the financial regulatory framework. What have you done?
You re correctly right about the Teabagger and fiscal conservative mantra of limited government, it’s just sham and a misunderstanding what it means. Teabaggers and social/fiscal conservative once they get into power will once again want to use the force and power of government to enforce their version o morality and their version of economic good they favor. They won’t want to cut government spending since the love the Military, cut regulations because they hate banks and unnecessary laws because they think they are need to keep us moral. They will just redirect the spending and create more laws and regulations.
When it comes to the question of WWII and whether or not Japan would have surrendered ti is an open question.I lean to that Japan wouldn’t have surrendered without the atom bombings. They were as I’ve stated before war crimes but I’ve also stated before that all war is crime and the only justification is if you win.
However I still haven’t gotten an explanation how WWII could have been avoided by an anarchist, you are just talking theory, not how to actually stop Hitler, Stalin and the Tojo. I didn’t know how many times I have to write this. UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER WASN’T AN OPTION AFTER THE POTSDAM DECLARATION (ULTIMATUM).
When I refer to utopianism I mean ideas that in theory could work but in practice won’t. Agorism (Anarchism) on a large scale i.e. changing a country like the US (+ 300 mn) is impossible to achieve even if it in theory would work. The state created some 10,000 year ago when we became agrarian is here to stay, most people will give up their freedoms for security and those that don’t are to few to matter. We can make a large difference and change polices but not fundamental change.
There’s been a link posted to several places showing that Japan had surrendered months before the bombs were dropped. The one, and only condition, was that the emperor remain at least a puppet in government. This is practically unconditional.
It would be ideal to change everyone all at once, but things like the seasteading institute and secession from governments are possible.
It is noteworthy and contridictory that the jihadist* anarchist’s cite the tremendous impact and terrible nature of the atom bombs, yet in the next posts claim they didnt have any impact on japan’s surrender !??!
This despite direct rebut of their flawed assertion by the emperor himself (in his first public statement to the japanese people nonetheless) who stated unequivocally a week after the nagasaki bomb that the rationale for surrender was to avoid total destruction from this new weapon.
(jihadist since they have a faith-based adherence to the supernatural, namely a purely anarchist society)
Question #1 to olevetto, snowflake, caley, et al ----- do faith-based, non-state anarchists advocate the manufacture and use of nuclear weaponry?
Question #2 to these faith-based zealots ----- if so, then do you advocate the use of these weapons and for what reasons would you consider their use valid?
Question #3 — if you don’t advocate the manufacture or use of these weapons, then how can you in all seriousness prevent your little anarchist enclave from being coerced or destroyed by less enlightened despotic regimes possessing nuclear weaponry?
In summary, autocratic, crony capitalist, socialist, and other statist nations will see a nascent anarchist society as a dangerous threat, pool their resources, and take appropriate actions to destroy it.
Who is faith based? Is the history I showed you a belief in faith? Is tossing a ball in the air and believing it will fall back down (law of gravity) faith?
When you make stupid comments like that it just makes me not want to bother with your idiocy. If you actually want answers, go back and read the disarmament thread I linked.
Moreover, I understand that the US is a federal republic. NOte that freedom house does not make a distinction regarding constitutional monarchies, federal republics, democracies, et al – it uses the methodology outlined in the link above to identify what it calls: higher order democracies or for the faith-based anarchist you can call them representative governments or whatever you like.
also, it is predictable that the faith-based mob of anarchists would challenge the validity of whether the 50+ democracies labeled by freedom house are actually free since they are not perfect ---- however, it must be explained to them that this research is not based on fantasyland criteria, but real world conditions that understandably are not perfect.
in summary, I challenged the anarchist zealots to develop a hypothetical case study involving one of these 50+ higher order democracies engaging in open conflict and that challenge remains unanswered.
however, I am hoping for the sake of comedy that they can identify a plausible example of a possible conflict among one of these nations.
Note that if the USA suddenly experienced a rightwing coup and then attacked canada, this is not an example of free nations engaging in conflict since the USA was no longer a higher order democracy prior to a hypothetical attack on canada.
Question #1 to olevetto, snowflake, caley, et al ----- do faith-based, non-state anarchists advocate the manufacture and use of nuclear weaponry?
Question #2 to these faith-based zealots ----- if so, then do you advocate the use of these weapons and for what reasons would you consider their use valid?
Question #3 — if you don’t advocate the manufacture or use of these weapons, then how can you in all seriousness prevent your little anarchist enclave from being coerced or destroyed by less enlightened despotic regimes possessing nuclear weaponry?
In summary, autocratic, crony capitalist, socialist, and other statist nations will see a nascent anarchist society as a dangerous threat, pool their resources, and take appropriate actions to destroy it. – rettoper
olovetto,
faith-based means you cant answer a few simple questions ?
This is a perfect example of the delusional nature of the faith-based anarchist view of the world.
citing an insigificant, irrelevent, tiny wind swept enclave thousands of miles from civilization over 750 years ago as proof that anarchist societies are not subject to predation from statist nations is neither valid or reliable proof of anything other than the fact that if you can find a barren hole somewhere far removed from civilization then that society might function without interference for a time.
Note that the world is far smaller and technologically advanced today. You anarchists cant run and you cant hide in today’s world. The moment you pitch your tent the “wolf” will smell your scent and come hither. Moreover, the more successful your nascent society becomes the more likely you will be plundered.
In summary, one of the points I was trying to make on this thread was that the USA has been the most productive force for limited government in the history of mankind. Moreover, within the framework of the Constitution and the Federal system is the best vehicle yet known to man for realizing the goal of eliminating most/if not all government. However, this goal cannot be realized as long as there is a strong statist global element still in power.
Hey Snowflake, you know how Rothbard talks about “if there was a button, I would press it” related to anarchy? That’s how I feel about banning this goon.
I would respect someone if they believed in the state but had good counterarguments and understanding of the ancap position. None of them seem to. Illuminatus?, Giles, Rettoper… (in no particular order)
The commander of tactical bombing of Germany and Japan, as well as General McArthur and others said that the a-bomb was not necessary. See quotes I posted earlier.–olovetto
I cited the solemn words of the emperor on his first speech to the japanese people – and you cite the lemay and mcarthur. Note that while lemay would understandably claim his “baby” conventional air power would conquer japan, the overwhelming majority of the military leadership, including the commander-in-chief believed that the bombs were necessary. Moreover, macarthur’s claim might be contextually flawed and most likely invalid since he later STRONGLY advocated dropping a series of atom bombs onthe yalu river in korea to check the red army. However, you are more than welcome to stand on this flimsy ground olovetto.
The US knew from intercepted Japanese/Russian messages that Japan wanted a conditional surrender. The declaration also wasn’t clear on the fate of the House of the Emperor, as long as a new government was peaceful and democratic. The emperor was never tried as a war criminal anyhow, but that was the condition holding Japan back from surrender.–olovetto
I have debunked this pacifist nonsense in previous posts. For example, with 85% of the American people supporting the dropping of the bombs and perhaps 95% supporting unconditional surrender and opposed to any alternatives — your assertion is only valid in fantasyland where the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of American heroes is to be denigrated and your example of well-intentioned humanitarianism will turn expansionist despots who murder their own people by the millions into peace loving neighbors. Moreover, this kind of geopolitical naivete is an example of how easy it would be to plunder an anarchist society that doesnt understand the nature of deterrence and application of brute force.
There is no possible justification for killing innocent civilians. It is possible that no judge would act on a crime though.–olovetto
this statement is typical of the primitive understanding anarchists have of conflict in today’s world. For example, war in the 20th century is total — the citizenry is perhaps the most important factor determining success or failure. An anarchist society that refused to attack enemy civilians who contributed to the war effort would never have a chance of winning any modern war. Thats why I have always stated that they would be perfect for plunder. Let the pacifists accumulate their booty and then plunder them. And laugh at their recriminations and condemnations as they call you brutal and evil from their jail cells.
Providing security is profitable. “Costs of (re)capture” is an aspect of proportional punishment theory.–olovetto
You obviously havent read machivelli. For example, history is chock full of mercenary defense establishments that sold out to the highest bidder. Autocratic states at war with anarchist societies need only to outbid the anarchist defense establishment. Thats why I have always asserted that the autocratic regimes need to be removed before any hope of establishing an free society can be realized. Of course, faith-based adherents like olovetto dont explain how to get from point A to point B – they simply assert that the 1st anarchist society will magically outfight an autocratic societies no matter how well armed or numerous. Moreover, these bleeding hearts dont have the heart to defend themselves with nuclear weaponry, as a result they would be either destroyed outright by these same weapons or coerced into capitulation because we know they wouldnt use them.
it takes alot of bandwidth to expose anarchist fantasy, I will respond to the rest later.
I would respect someone if they believed in the state but had good counterarguments and understanding of the ancap position. None of them seem to. Illuminatus?, Giles, Rettoper… (in no particular order)–snowflake
no facts or logic snowflake ?
simply another ad hominen jab.
I am always amused when the “tolerant” and “humanitarian” liberals on the leftwing blogs always, always gravitate to censorship and advocating violence against those that oppose their statist view of reality. It is interesting that the anarchists on this thread are very similar in manner.
I would like to straighten you out. I dont believe in the state. However, like our founding fathers, I do believe in the utility of using Constitutional powers to limit the expansion of the state. Moreover, I think that we may see in our lifetime Constitutional amendments to actually rollback the power of the state with the ultimate goal of drastically reduced government.
The alternative offered by faith-based, non-state anarchists is fantasyland. For example, the 1st anarchist society magically appears through cessation et al, it is omnipotent, and all of the autocratic powers disinegrate instantly and magically under market forces.
lets get real, liberal and islamic utopias are more viable than this nonsense.
For example, with 85% of the American people supporting the dropping of the bombs and perhaps 95% supporting unconditional surrender and opposed to any alternatives