Your opinion about the Hiroshima And Nagasaki bombings

Miscellaneous History
361

@E. R. Olovetto

Finally, this has been one of the most useless discussion threads ever.

However it has clearly illuminated the anarcho-capitalist position as a pure idea, no use what so ever in real life and approaching real life situations.

It can only approach what ought be, not how to approach what is.(Education is not an approach to solve an ongoing aggression) It can only criticize others actions but cannot propose an action plan of their own to get where they want to be.

Anarcho-capitalism seems much like the Swedish saying:

If only the hill hadn’t been in the way I would have shot the bear with my wooden stick.

362

@Rettoper,

An-caps believes as long as you own property you can set all rules yourself i. e. contract anything and the owner of the property has arbitrary right to do what he sees fit.

Personally I beg to disagree, a property owner cannot arbitrarily change the contract, the terms of usage after the first use.. The rules of the contract must be clearly stated and abided by. In both Common Law and Civil Law as regards to contracts you cannot uphold a contractual obligation that you haven’t enforced, if you allow somebody to break clauses continuously without penalty that particular clause becomes a nullity.

Technically they can censor, an-caps almost always censor when they run out of arguments like E.R Olvetto and Cain. It happens to me regularly. They call it that I misrepresent their views and opinions and therefore I must be banned from saying such blasfemous things.

It is very clear to me that most posters have no comprehension on how contracts work, it’s very strange since they base their whole philosophy on mutual contracts and mutual agreements. They have very little comprehension of how to enforce contracts and to amend contracts as well as no comprehension that multi party agreement demands that all party agree on how to amend it. The discussion on the multi lateral treaty of Potsdam is illuminating. They seem to think that the US could change the terms of the unconditional surrender without a amendment of the treaty. To breach a mutual contract should be anathema to an An-cap.

In fact I think that a perfect example of an anarchist society is war and International law. Mutual agreements that are only upheld by voluntarily Protective Agencies, NATO, and the only remedy is diplomacy i. e. contractual negotiations with a continuance of diplomacy by war. (Von Clausewitz)

International law and politics is in my opinion a prime example, of how an anarchist world would look like. There would be enclaves with social liberal values and a fully free market, there would be enclaves with extreme social conservative values with ultra free markets, their would be enclaves that were statist but not authoritarian and there would be enclaves with statist that were authoritarian. All competing and having their own protective agencies and contractual law. Just because a statist society from an an-cap and minarchist position is immoral wouldn’t mean that they wouldn’t exist. There are always going to be humans that puts security above freedom.

363

This is wrong. You don’t know what ancaps believe.

Its probably because you do. My conversations with you have been completely unproductive. You don’t rebut any arguments I make in favor of anarchism.

Right because STATES have an incentive to uphold the rule of law even when it doesn’t suit them.

We don’t argue like this. You seem to be grossly misinformed about what ancaps believe, possibly sharing something in common with Rettoper’s condition that stops him from comprehending or engaging his opponents.

364

‘The surrender of Japan was not negotiable for US diplomats’

Well it started off as a discussion over conditional surrender, not unconditional. Some form of bargaining must have taken place.

‘It was not a bilateral treaty. The US, Roosevelt, had signed a multi lateral treaty with Stalin and Churchill. The fate of the Axis powers was decided in Potsdam, hence the Potsdam Declaration (Ultimatum) i.e. sign whatever we put on the table or else we annihilate you and your people.’

So you think that negotitations were non existent until Potsdam?

‘The Allies choose to do the sham Nuremberg trials and because of Soviet expansion plans decided they needed Japan as an ally and left the Emperor and all Japanese War Criminals alone while going after the Nazis.’

Actually Japanese officers were tried for war crimes. Hirohito wasn’t because McArthur deemed him necessary for the continued running of occupied Japan. Something the Japanese were willing to surrender on.

‘America First movement I know very little about but I know a lot about the European movement to make Europe a nuclear weapon free zone. It was riddled with communist infiltrators and activists working for the better of the Soviet Communist empire.’

And how does that have anything to do with anti-WWII advocates?

‘Pacifist and Isolationist have always been used as tools by totalitarians regimes to undermine non-totalitarian and non-authoritarian regimes.’

Explain the logic of that. If one is an isolationist then how can one undermine foreign nations?

‘How do you stop an ongoing war? We where discussing the situation in 1945 i.e. how to get Japan to unconditionally surrender?’

You stop war like wars have been stopped before. Negotitations, which cease hostilities.

’ No negotiations were possible because of multilateral treaties. So how would you have stopped the war in 1945? ’

Well that’s an absurd comment considering we are talking about the Potsdam conference which the Japanese attended. Your basically saying that negotiation was impossible because there were already negotiations.

365

‘Your programmed to oppose war in all instances irrespective of its utility in saving lives, promoting long term peace, increasing stability, and promoting freedom. FOr example, I challenged you to cite a war that resulted in a net increase in peace and freedom and you could not.’

Because you cannot quantify such a thing. How do you calculate the subjective utility of each individual and put it into an objective number? Are we going to talk about utils?

'My assertion was that the successful and brutal execution of war in destroying the axis powers led to the most peaceful, prosperous, stable, and free europe in history. ’

Right, the Cold war didn’t happen.

'Moreover, japan was transformed from an violent and expansionist empire to a prosperous, peaceful engine of consumer goods. ’

It was relatively peaceful before western powers forcefully opened it up. Again, you miss cause and effect.

‘moreover, I challenge you to cite the quote where I claimed to "welcome war’

That’s easy:

‘Your programmed to oppose war in all instances irrespective of its utility in saving lives, promoting long term peace, increasing stability, and promoting freedom’

'Lastly, your emotional invective threatening to “throw you out of here” and calling me a “petulant child” is as amusing as it is self-indicting. ’

Well it wasn’t a threat.

‘but this is noteworthy, since it proves that a peaceful anarchist society is fantasy, even among fellow anarchists.’

We are peaceful. Not one forced you to be here and no one is forcing you to stay. Anarchists do follow rules, it just depends on how they are constructed and under what conditions. Take the forum rules for example. Trollish behavior will be banned.

‘Cain in a moment of excitable weakness proves this with his emotional threat to “throw you out of here” Highly contradictory and amusing to be threatened with censorship by an anarchist ?!’

I will instruct you on the rights of property.

366

@Andrew Cain,

I’m not talking about the negotiations before Potsdam but after the ultimatum was stated, The Potsdam Declaration. You can always speculate what if.. the Allies had granted Emperor pardon would the Japanese have signed a surrender?

But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the situation after the Potsdam Declaration (Ultimatum) and its consequence the atom bombings i,e, how could you get the Japanese to surrender after the Potsdam, no further negotiations were possible unless the US would make concessions to the USSR an Britain.

We are not discussing counterfactual history but discussing what is. We are not discussing what ought to have happened, but what actually happened. You can Ad Nauseum discuss what if…

  1. England and France had let Hitler and Stalin get away with dividing Eastern Europe between them after Poland was attacked 1939, would Stalin and Hitler have stopped?

  2. What would have happened if any of the assassination attempts on Hitler or a coup in Russia succeeded?

  3. What would happened if the US agreed to the demands of the Japanese before Pearl Harbor? After Pearl Harbor?

But we are not discussing this. We are discussing facts on the ground. The Potsdam Declaration and the subsequent atom bombing.

The Nuremberg trials and following prosecution and purging of Nazi officials was on a massive scale in Germany and on a very small scale in Japan. I stand corrected when I said none.

The comparison between the America First movement and the European movement for a nuclear free movement as well as Code Pink, Pat Buchanan et al. is if you read my following post made very clear. They have both real concerned citizens with legitimate demands but most often are run by individuals that are against the very fabric of a liberal democracy such as the US. (In fact Anarcho-capitalist are also against the very fabric of the liberal democracy. F.A. Hayek clearly stated that a prerequisite for a free market society is the the foundations of the liberal democracy, its institutions.)

Charles Lindbergh America First foremost spokesperson is a perfect example, a proto-fascist and racial supremacist that belived in the idea of the strong national authoritarian leader in the fascist tradition, Il Duce and Der Fuhrer translated means The Leader. America First and the European movement was riddled with spies, Fellow Travellers, Useful Idiots and gullible do-gooders/pacifists but also real patriots. They however were not the spokespersons nor leaders. In that way they by their support helped and is helping authoritarian leaders such as Stalin, Hitler, Tojo, Saddam and now Ahmedinijad , Putin and Communist China.

The isolationist position is that if my neighbor is attacked is not my business is a principle I can’t abide by. If my neighbors wife is being raped I’ll stop the rape even at the risk of my own life. If I suspect that my neighbor is beating his wife I will intervene if I know that my neighbor has gotten a gun and has told me that he is going to kill me I intervene. I know that I’m very unique in that since I believe I have a responsibility to help my fellow man. Maybe its because I know what isolationism cost my relatives in the Baltic States, my uncles death and the extermination and/or deportation of nearly 2/3 of the population. I also know that if my birth country Sweden hadn’t had the (non written) guarantee from JFK that the US that it if attacked have made NATO intervene after 3 days Sweden and Finland would have been the Soviet Republic of Sweden and the Soviet Republic of Finland.

Ideals are nice but useless when trying to defend yourself or others from aggression.

367

‘I’m not talking about the negotiations before Potsdam but after the ultimatum was stated, The Potsdam Declaration.’

Well then you aren’t discussing what I am. The point was that Japan would have surrendered conditionally if allowed to by the western nations. If your interest is the end of the conflict then surrender would have given that.

‘You can always speculate what if.. the Allies had granted Emperor pardon would the Japanese have signed a surrender?’

Which is what we are doing.

‘But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the situation after the Potsdam Declaration (Ultimatum) and its consequence the atom bombings i,e, how could you get the Japanese to surrender after the Potsdam, no further negotiations were possible unless the US would make concessions to the USSR an Britain.’

Potsdam wasn’t brought up until you interjected. This whole discussion was how the war could of ended quickly if the Japanese were allowed to surrender. Please go back and read the replies.

‘We are not discussing counterfactual history but discussing what is. We are not discussing what ought to have happened, but what actually happened. You can Ad Nauseum discuss what if…’

Again, yes we are discussing counterfactual history and the validity of whether dropping atomic bombs on Japan was justified in the ceasing of conflict.

‘But we are not discussing this. We are discussing facts on the ground. The Potsdam Declaration and the subsequent atom bombing’

Then this is why we are having so much trouble because you are discussing something different then what I was discussing with someone else.

’ They have both real concerned citizens with legitimate demands but most often are run by individuals that are against the very fabric of a liberal democracy such as the US. (In fact Anarcho-capitalist are also against the very fabric of the liberal democracy. F.A. Hayek clearly stated that a prerequisite for a free market society is the the foundations of the liberal democracy, its institutions.)’

If what we reside in today is called a ‘liberal democracy’ then I knowingly stand against it with the scholars of LvMI. Also nothing requires that social institutions such as courts, law, police, etc. must be public institutions run by a monopoly power. I agree that law is necessary for dispute resolution concerning property rights but nothing requires there to be government in order to have law. In fact, I would argue that government works against law by establishing double standard behavior concerning the ruled and rulers.

‘Charles Lindbergh America First foremost spokesperson is a perfect example, a proto-fascist and racial supremacist that belived in the idea of the strong national authoritarian leader in the fascist tradition, Il Duce and Der Fuhrer translated means The Leader. America First and the European movement was riddled with spies, Fellow Travellers, Useful Idiots and gullible do-gooders/pacifists but also real patriots. They however were not the spokespersons nor leaders. In that way they by their support helped and is helping authoritarian leaders such as Stalin, Hitler, Tojo, Saddam and now Ahmedinijad , Putin and Communist China.’

People are not defined by the actions of a single man unless they explicitly agree with those actions. Even then our actions are our own.

‘The isolationist position is that if my neighbor is attacked is not my business is a principle I can’t abide by. If my neighbors wife is being raped I’ll stop the rape even at the risk of my own life. If I suspect that my neighbor is beating his wife I will intervene if I know that my neighbor has gotten a gun and has told me that he is going to kill me I intervene.’

World politics is so never so clear cut as to show who is the aggressor and who is the aggressed. If you see a man hitting his wife, why do you instantly assume that he is beating her? Perhaps he is defending himself from her attacks. If you say that can’t be true because she is a woman, then why do you submit to such sexist dogma? Women can beat husbands. And yet in your effort to supposedly do good, you could be doing more harm. Also missing is the element of personal responsibility. Say you want to help this husband beating wife, why should everyone else fund you and stand behind you? Should they be forced into war over what you perceive to be a threat? Sure you can convince them, pay them off, blackmail them but you can’t coerce them. That is essentially what happens when governments declare war. The citizenry is included as part of the war effort even though they may not wish to be.

368

@Andrew Cain,

Well then you and I are going to stop discussing the Hiroshima bombings. You choose a point in time to make a contrafactual discussion, why before Potsdam or during Potsdam? You missed my point in my last argument. Why not choose before Pearl Harbor, after Pearl Harbor or before 1865 when Japan was forcibly opened or before the creation of the militaristic and isolationist Japanese society the Shogunate.

Counterfactual arguments are interesting but only from a theoretical point of view and to learn for the future but in discussing what actually happened virtually useless. As useless as anarcho-capitalism is in creating changes in reality, real life. Brilliant ideas with high moral standards but useless since the ideas themselves negate the use of force for change i.e. the ideas cannot come to pass since no change is possible because the followers belive in education only. It is like the religious movement in the 19th century the Shakers that held that sexual intercourse was wrong and they therefore died out since they didn’t conceive any children.

Apparently you haven’t read the greatest rebuttal of the pure anarcho-capitalist position “Anarchy, State and Utopia” by Robert Nozick. I’ve yet to read a anarcho-capitalist of equal moral standing and as brilliantly arguing for the minimal state, Minarchism, as the outmost moral societies. Rothbard certainly wasn’t able to do it and I don’t think that any of the scholars at the LvMI either has.

People are not defined by a single man but if you join a movement that means that you share their ideas and are responsible for the action of that movement as were members of the Nazi party and the Soviet Communist party. If you do not want to be associated you don’t join the movement. That is taking personal responsibility.

I must say I’m confused. how does a Protective Agency differ from a State when it comes to external defense? International politics doesn’t change just because you voluntarily join a Protective Agency that then has to have a defense force, army. All other nations will not be anarcho-capitalist. i think this is a more viable discussion thread.

369

bwaahahahahahah

No you just evade debates and arguments you think you might lose.

370

And yet is was still “he most peaceful, prosperous, stable, and free europe in history.” That’s a historical fact.

Unless, of course, its done by the orthodox party-liners here.

371

Now there is an irony. We radicals are “orthodox party-liners” while you statists are what, original and free thinking?

372

‘You choose a point in time to make a contrafactual discussion, why before Potsdam or during Potsdam?’

Because negotations where happening before Potsdam and the Japanese were willing to surrender before then. Why have Potsdam if you already acquired surrender from the enemy. It’s like beating a sick horse.

‘Why not choose before Pearl Harbor, after Pearl Harbor or before 1865 when Japan was forcibly opened or before the creation of the militaristic and isolationist Japanese society the Shogunate.’

If you want to go that far back I will. However, I don’t think the Edo period has much relevance to this current discussion apart from the formulation of social norms concerning the Japanese people.

‘Counterfactual arguments are interesting but only from a theoretical point of view and to learn for the future but in discussing what actually happened virtually useless’

Obviously a discussion on the necesscity of the atomic bombings is counterfactual if you don’t take the side of what actually happened at the time.

‘As useless as anarcho-capitalism is in creating changes in reality, real life**’**

Are you saying that the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism has not changed anything in a forum that continually has members joining in order to better learn said philosophy? I think you’ve made a ridiculous statement. You seek validity through what is, irrespective of what should be.

‘Brilliant ideas with high moral standards but useless since the ideas themselves negate the use of force for change i.e. the ideas cannot come to pass since no change is possible because the followers belive in education only’

Then perhaps you should read Ludwig von Mises Theory and History. Ideas are what make humanity. They are the only thing that matters in guiding future human development.

‘It is like the religious movement in the 19th century the Shakers that held that sexual intercourse was wrong and they therefore died out since they didn’t conceive any children.’

But the idea lives on by the mere fact of you explaining. Yet more proof that ideas matter.

‘I’ve yet to read a anarcho-capitalist of equal moral standing and as brilliantly arguing for the minimal state, Minarchism, as the outmost moral societies. Rothbard certainly wasn’t able to do it and I don’t think that any of the scholars at the LvMI either has.’

Why is it just to have coercion through a monopoly power? What rights do governments retain? Why is small government better then big government?

‘People are not defined by a single man but if you join a movement that means that you share their ideas and are responsible for the action of that movement as were members of the Nazi party and the Soviet Communist party.’

Obviously not since I don’t agree with what some of the scholars at LvMI think concerning a list of issues. Being at the LvMI doesn’t make you solely a Misesian or Hayekian or Rothbardian unless you announce yourself as one. You can be in LvMI and not be an anarchist. You can be in LvMI and not be an Austrian.

‘how does a Protective Agency differ from a State when it comes to external defense?’

A state is a institution which seeks and largely gains a monopoly on legal services in a given area. A protection agency is a corporation which deals out services on a voluntary basis. A protection agency is a voluntary association, a state can be and for many is an involuntary one.

‘All other nations will not be anarcho-capitalist. i think this is a more viable discussion thread.’

We know aprori that voluntary exchanges are more profitable then involuntary ones. We know that free markets which is the sum of these voluntary exchanges are better then regulated ones. Therefore if a ‘country’ is a free market in the truest sense then there exchanges would tend toward a high standard of efficiency and cost effectiveness. A protection agency that is efficient that is voluntary is more productive/better financed then a government that is involuntarily.

373

@JonBostwick

You give yourself away immediately, anybody that is not a 100 % Rothbardian Anarchist is a “statist” even a Minarchist like me i.e. comparing me to a full blown socialist.

Radicals and especially extremely narrow minded and dogmatic ones like Rothbardian Anarchist become very much like “orthodox party-liners”. Anything not ideological pure and perfect is denounced, often banned. Anything but text book anarcho-capitalism is denounced, no arguement is made.

374

no arguement is made.

pure fantasy.

besides which you are a minarchist ‘radical’ and you denounce all that stuff that you denounce. If you think denouncing stuff is so bad maybe you shouldn’t do it so much. Rothbard was not ‘narrow-minded’, he read widely and had access to a wide range of knowledge, and engaged a vast variety of people in debate. Also, over the years his ideas developed and evolved. It seems like people who have other ideologies to you are easily labelled ‘narrow minded’ and ‘dogmatic’ so that you can cross them out and not worry about there actual arguments.

You object to being called a ‘statist’ because you only wish for there to be a relatively small state and you think only people that want a larger state than you would want should be called ‘statist’. I get it, I’m simply not swayed by your emotive plea.

375

Thanks for saving me the trouble Nirgraham.

376

@Andrew Cain and to some extent Nigraham/Jon Bostwick

Let stop this discussion it is completely meaningless. You talk about what if and what ought to be. I talk about what are, what happened.

In the discussion on anarcho-capitalism is as useless. You enjoy narcissistic introvert discussion with likeminded, only those that hold the extreme positions of Rothbardian natural rights anarcho-capitalism as you do.In fact you are a very small part of the libertarian spectrum.

I myself prefer a discussion on how to make the actual society more free going to the direction of anarcho-capitalism but from a pragmatic and consequentialist view. My guides are not Mises or Rothbard but Hayek and Nozick, nor do i hold a position i fsomeone can show me tht their position is of higher moral standing or mor ephilosphically viable, Rothbardai Anarcism compared to Nozicks Minrcism is not, nobody has yet rebutted Nozicks position.

You, Andrew Cain, seem to imply that there is a tolerance for Hayekaian and Nozickians at LvMI? And you claim that you work there and in the same breath as you strenuously denounce me and want to ban my opinions whilst espousing the tolerance of lvMI? So is it only you being intolerant or are you main stream lvMI? If NigrahamUK and JonBostwick are also working at or for the LvMI my case is made. There is but one ortordoxy and that is of pure anarcho-capitalims and Rothbard is it’s prophet

Because of my personal family history I disdain the pacifist and isolationist position. These might be morally more high sounding but if you’re oppressed looking for help they hinder your freedom and prosperity, as well as hinder you quest for outside help. Those that that haven’t had your property taken away by force, haven’t had relatives killed in the name of socialism and nationalism and haven’t had your home country invaded/occupied can talk blithely about the virtue of negotiations and isolationism. We can’t.

I don’t know if you do it by choice or if you are that obtuse? I asked you what the difference in action there is from a state and from a voluntary Protective Agency when it comes to international politics, diplomacy/war? In my opinion there is none since international politics, diplomacy and/war are universal irrespective if is done by a voluntarily or involuntary corporation. The aims and goals are the same, security and to make certain that you can support your population/members.

377

‘You talk about what if and what ought to be. I talk about what are, what happened.’

If you do not talk about what ought to be then you never have a goal or a theory of political philosophy. You are just a feather in the wind, moving day to day legitimizing what is.

’ You enjoy narcissistic introvert discussion with likeminded, only those that hold the extreme positions of Rothbardian natural rights anarcho-capitalism as you do’

Which is evident in the fact that we are discussing this with you.

‘I myself prefer a discussion on how to make the actual society more free going to the direction of anarcho-capitalism but from a pragmatic and consequentialist view.’

So wait, discussion concerning anarcho-capitalism is useless but you are working toward a society moving toward anarcho-capitalism? What happened to living in the now and not talking about oughts? What happened to the uselessness of discussion anarcho-capitalism?

‘My guides are not Mises or Rothbard but Hayek and Nozick, nor do i hold a position i fsomeone can show me tht their position is of higher moral standing or mor ephilosphically viable, Rothbardai Anarcism compared to Nozicks Minrcism is not, nobody has yet rebutted Nozicks position.’

Because it happened 30 years ago.

‘You, Andrew Cain, seem to imply that there is a tolerance for Hayekaian and Nozickians at LvMI?’

Does LvMI not sell Hayek’s works? Just because more people gravitate to Mises or Rothbard instead of Hayek doesn’t mean Hayek is intolerable en mass.

‘And you claim that you work there and in the same breath as you strenuously denounce me and want to ban my opinions whilst espousing the tolerance of lvMI?’

I don’t work at LvMI. I stand behind their philosophy. Peace, property and prosperity. Of course I strenuously denounce you because you divert the discussion into dead ends. This whole topic was about whether the Japanese could of surrendered which has its links to the bombing of their two cities. Then you bring up Potsdam and try to take this uppidty tone about how I don’t know international relations. I don’t ban people because they have different opinions. I ban people because they are purposely trolling to get a rise of emotion from disagreeing with someone. I know, when I was younger I use to be a troll.

'So is it only you being intolerant or are you main stream lvMI? If NigrahamUK and JonBostwick are also working at or for the LvMI my case is made. There is but one ortordoxy and that is of pure anarcho-capitalims and Rothbard is it’s prophet ’

And this, this is trolling. You call me intolerant and bash the LvMI. If I don’t ban you then you continue, if I do then I’m the monster.

‘Because of my personal family history I disdain the pacifist and isolationist position’

Well that sounds like a personal problem. I don’t know why you would come to a website forum which propounds US neutrality with the world.

‘These might be morally more high sounding but if you’re oppressed looking for help they hinder your freedom and prosperity, as well as hinder you quest for outside help.’

Sinn Fein..

'I don’t know if you do it by choice or if you are that obtuse? I asked you what the difference in action there is from a state and from a voluntary Protective Agency when it comes to international politics, diplomacy/war? ’

No you just don’t read my responses:

‘A state is a institution which seeks and largely gains a monopoly on legal services in a given area. A protection agency is a corporation which deals out services on a voluntary basis. A protection agency is a voluntary association, a state can be and for many is an involuntary one.’

‘We know aprori that voluntary exchanges are more profitable then involuntary ones. We know that free markets which is the sum of these voluntary exchanges are better then regulated ones. Therefore if a ‘country’ is a free market in the truest sense then there exchanges would tend toward a high standard of efficiency and cost effectiveness. A protection agency that is efficient that is voluntary is more productive/better financed then a government that is involuntarily.’

‘In my opinion there is none since international politics, diplomacy and/war are universal irrespective if is done by a voluntarily or involuntary corporation’

You see no difference between war finance by taxation and inflation rather then private funds? Tell me which style of finance will cause war to be more widespread? More devastating? Longer? Of course its the former because you can either involuntarily tax a whole population or print money to pay for the war machine.

378

That nobody has yet been able to rebut Nozicks’s Minarchist views in a comprehensive way from a moral and philosophical point of view has nothing to do with the book being over 30 years old. John Locke’s natural rights discussion still hold several hundred years later as does Nozick.

My point was the in the discussion on the bombings there is no what ought to be discussion. It is a discussion on what is (was). Not a contra factual discussion on what if but a discussion on what actually happened. Not what coudl ahve been.

On the larger issue of discussions I agree that you first must have a political philosophy of what ought to be. That said I political philosophy without a plan for what can be achieved and a subsequent plan for how to achieve that makes in my personal and most human beings view the political philosophy irrelevant. It takes the form of a secular pseudo-religious movement like Ayn Rands Objectivism. It is only relevant for those very few that share the same interest. Since as I understand it the only allowable tool to get the statist US society to become lees statist is education any hope of change is doomed to fail. You can only hope for the collapse of the US statist society by its own weight. Well let me tell you something. There has never been a change in any society without action, use of force in one way or the other nor have any society collapsed without (outside) pressures/force been applied.

No, you don’t engage in discussion. You engage in exchange of links and the repeating nonsensical statements when asked to answer specific issues. Especially in a discussion on facts, not contra facts. What I find most annoying is that you are unable to understand the difference of what ought to be instead of what is. These are separate discussions, not to be used at the same time. If used at the same time the correct way of addressing is saying: “This is the way I think it ought to be but I I can disuss what the fact are adn my take on it is…”

If my pointing out discrepancies in your views is called trolling I don’t know what, maybe your issue is that nothing is more infuriating than having your failures shown in broad daylights. As they say: “The is nothing more hurtful than the truth (facts)”. You seem to have the same issue as most intolerant people, you think it is a one way street. You demand tolerance from others bu tshow no restrictions on your on criticisms.

So neutrality means that you will not be attacked, that you will not have to engage in international politics? Well your barking up the wrong tree. I was born and raised in Sweden. We were neutral. We stayed out of the war but had guarantees to get help from the Allies if attacked and alter a guarantee by JFK to get assistance within 3 days. All Sweden’s defenses were in line with NATO. Everybody knew this but the Swedish people. Sweden as a result of its neutrality and its precarious situation had during the Cold War the second largest defense budget as a percentage of GDP after Israel. The US came third. Sweden had 6-8 % of GDP and I think the US now spends 4 %. So if the US was neutral it would probably have to have a defense spending in the region of 8-10 %. More than double what it is today. That the US could stay neutral is an impossibility. Sweden tried but in practice it couldn’t. You have to remember that Sweden is only 9 mn people and the US has more has more than 300 mn inhabitants. Further Sweden does not need to be a military superpower nor does it for its economy need vast supply raw materials and other resources such as minerals and energy, oil etc. Yet Sweden was militaries to it’s teeth. Sweden had a standing army of 1 mn ready to fight within 14 days. It’s like the US today would be able to t 50-75 mn troops ready to fight within 14 days That is what neutrality demands when defending yourself when faced by totalitarian enemies and their constant aggression .

You seem to think that if the US were a anarcho-capitalist state and had a voluntary protective agency as a defense force it would act any different that it does today. It is highly doubtful. International politics especially securing trade and access to raw materials differ very little of you are a voluntary Protective agency or a state. The only difference is that a anarcho-capitalist society would engage in trade wars instead of ideological wars. That said if you look upon the wars conducted by the US the underlying position is most often based on national interest in protecting trade and resources. You are only saying that the cost of running a voluntary agency would be lower than 8-10 % of GDP. I definitely agree that a anarcho-capitalist run army would be much, much cheaper to run but that wasn’t what I was discussing. I was discussing whether or not there would be policy differences, in my opinion they would only be cosmetic.

I fail to see what the reference to Sinn Fein (IRA) has to do with anything. Are you saying “your terrorist is my freedom fighter”?

379

You dodge debate like its the plague. I linked you Long’s response to Nozick’s objections. You seem content to merely toute his infallability so that you don’t have to do any analysis on what life would be like without a state. You can just pick and choose where you want government based on how easy it is to defend one position or another. Its intellectually lazy and exactly what the statists do: If you don’t understand something, draw up a model of the state to solve it. No one will question its practicality because we live in the age of the god state. Have fun with your fashion.

380

Once more I don’t debate by linking. I just scanned tie Long text on defending Libertarian Anarchism. It does not in anyway come close to refuting Nozick. Hes main arguments is in most cases. “..it’s not very likely..”.

If you want to use Longs text as rebuttal , copy and paste were you think he rebuts Nozick and/or me and we can have a discussion.

It’s not I that avoids debate as the plague but you guys…

I don’t propagate for the state. The state is a fact and those that want to propagate against it have to prove that:

  1. It is inherently immoral

  2. It’s inefficient

  3. Have a plan to abolish it

  4. Take action to do it (education doesn’t count)

So far Nozicks point of view is as yet the only one that holds…