NationStates Jolt Archive

I guess in many ways I'm old school. I believe in the idealism of a generation we seem to have lost some where along the way. A time when people truly cared about affecting change in a meaningful way. A time where war was a last resort, not a race to the finish line. A time when we got our news without the editorial to go with it. A time when we knew the difference between separation of church & state. A time when progressive thought was the norm and being a liberal wasn't a dirty word.

It seems to me that the world did in fact change on 9/11 for my American friends, but not for the better, not by a long shot. It seems to me that 9/11 made a whole lot of people forget the values we here in the west stand for and have always prided ourselves on. It seems to me that if we let these values fall a long the waste side, then yes, the people who would wish us harm, have surely won.

This is an mp3 file that I appeal to all Americans and non-Americans to listen to. Yeah, I admit it's pro-Kerry.. However, there is a deep seeded message in this that would be good for all people every where to remember, not just about who Americans are, but about what we all should strive to be again.

What's It Worth (http://www.johnkerry.com/audio/whatitsworth.mp3)

(It takes about 2-5 minutes to load. Perhaps longer if you're on a dial up. I believe it's worth the wait, don't forget to turn your speakers up)

Pro-Kerry? It takes the piss out of both of them. It's funny though!

I believe in the idealism of a generation we seem to have lost some where along the way..... A time when progressive thought was the norm and being a liberal wasn't a dirty word.....

If you want to forge your "ideals" do it with your own money, thief. You denounce violence abroad but cheer it on at home as anybody who refuses to be a brick for you to build a "better" tomorrow is thrown in jail. You don't know the meaning of the word "liberal", let me clue you in. It means "hands off", "laissez nous faire", "mind your own business", "leave me alone", "Don't tread on me".

If you want to forge your "ideals" do it with your own money, thief. You denounce violence abroad but cheer it on at home as anybody who refuses to be a brick for you to build a "better" tomorrow is thrown in jail. You don't know the meaning of the word "liberal", let me clue you in. It means "hands off", "laissez nous faire", "mind your own business", "leave me alone", "Don't tread on me".

Haha, what the hell are you talking about? :eek:

Pro-Kerry? It takes the piss out of both of them. It's funny though!

Sorry, I had posted the wrong link.. I have put the correct one up now.. Please try again.. Thanks ;)

Haha, what the hell are you talking about? :eek:

All the govt programs you "liberals" support depend on institutionalised agressive violence. Pay your taxes or else. Or else what? You go to jail for a long time, or maybe if you're lucky we just chuck you out your house and sell it. You claim to be against the agression of warfare but heartily endorse the use of overwhelming agressive violence when it comes to YOUR pet projects.

And why bother pretending there is any real difference between Bush and Kerry? The only difference is who they point the biggest guns at.

All the govt programs you "liberals" support depend on institutionalised agressive violence. Pay your taxes or else.

There is only two things certain in this life, "Death and Taxes"

There is only two things certain in this life, "Death and Taxes"
What are you trying to justify by this quote? Does this mean you think death is good too?

All the govt programs you "liberals" support depend on institutionalised agressive violence. Pay your taxes or else. Or else what? You go to jail for a long time, or maybe if you're lucky we just chuck you out your house and sell it. You claim to be against the agression of warfare but heartily endorse the use of overwhelming agressive violence when it comes to YOUR pet projects.

And letting the poor fend for themselves, starve, die from easily prevented diseases and be paid pittance wages is a better option than paying taxes?

And why bother pretending there is any real difference between Bush and Kerry? The only difference is who they point the biggest guns at.
I'll give you that one...rich guy and dumb rich guy.

Now, about the message in the MP3, it's unfortunately true that young people don't care. Politics isn't an issue for most, and the attitude towards things that *can* be changed is "eh, what can you do" I hope it changes one day...or else the future looks pretty bleak.

What are you trying to justify by this quote? Does this mean you think death is good too?

Just pointing out reality was all.. :headbang:

And letting the poor fend for themselves, starve, die from easily prevented diseases and be paid pittance wages is a better option than paying taxes?

False choice. Do you help the poor because you're forced to? Does charity have to be legislated? How did a nation of such monsters miraculously elect angels virtuous enough to help the poor? As for wages, I can't be bothered with giving another economics lecture. Says a lot about state education that these things need explaining at all.

If you want to eliminate poverty stop causing it by stealing peoples' money. Who's poor - China or Hong Kong?

Only if it wasn't Pro-Kerry

Most people are poor because they made a few bad decisions, I don't think I should have to pay for their bad decisions.

Just pointing out reality was all.. :headbang:
A strange thing for you to do in a thread mourning the loss of idealism. Do you have any argument in favour of taxation other than that they exist, because I already knew that.

Only if it wasn't Pro-Kerry

Most people are poor because they made a few bad decisions, I don't think I should have to pay for their bad decisions.
No. You think I should pay for their bad decisions. Thanks a bunch, mate.

I'm just not feeling the love here people!

Not all poor people are poor because they made bad choices. There are many factors in play.

No. You think I should pay for their bad decisions. Thanks a bunch, mate.
Ooops. Sorry. Misread your post. *hangs head in shame*

You don't know the meaning of the word "liberal", let me clue you in. It means "hands off", "laissez nous faire", "mind your own business", "leave me alone", "Don't tread on me".You're mixing up liberal as an economic theory and liberalism as a political ideology. They're entirely different concepts.

You're mixing up liberal as an economic theory and liberalism as a political ideology. They're entirely different concepts.

Indeed.. good point Holy Word..

"Of all the varieties of virtures liberalism is the most beloved" - Aristotle

False choice. Do you help the poor because you're forced to? Does charity have to be legislated? How did a nation of such monsters miraculously elect angels virtuous enough to help the poor? As for wages, I can't be bothered with giving another economics lecture. Says a lot about state education that these things need explaining at all.

If you want to eliminate poverty stop causing it by stealing peoples' money. Who's poor - China or Hong Kong?

China is the world's fastest growing economy FYI.

And yes, charity does have to be legislated, because without it, the only ones with money to give, are those who want all of it for themselves.
(By your comment about wages, yes, I do understand Fordism, don't treat me like an idiot with comments such as "state education" because you have no idea about me, where, or what I am studying. And for assuming people who take state education are inferior to your possibly silver spooned self, you are nothing but an arrogant elitist. I wouldnt expect you to give charity if you were a billionaire, thanks for proving my point. Anyhow, Fordism doesn't work on a global scale, so sorry.)

Oh yes, and what about people born into poverty and unable to afford an education to get a well paying job? They made a really bad choice, didn't they? What should they have done? Died at birth?

And The Holy Word is exactly right.

Now there is lots I could really go into
(I don’t generally take one side or the other)

I see things like over taxation as a general threat (Know personally it makes it VERY hard for me to make it through college because of what is taken out every two weeks … but yet truly because of upper middle class family don’t see anything back)

Though I do believe their SHOULD be something helping the poor of this nation I don’t see the current system (or implementation) as being fair or solving the issue … I see too many friends that have had bad luck in the past … been on welfare … but because of the ease of it have STAYED on it LONG past when they should be off of it

Don’t get me wrong I love my friends and their family’s but there is a point when they should be at least TRYING to get off of government supported programs

Right now there is no real incentive too … they have checks to make sure the right people are getting it but not that they are trying to do something to improve their own situation


Things like that

I see a lot of the programs proposed (generally by liberals) as generally GREAT intentions but tends to be implemented in a horrible and money consuming way.

It gets to a point where the machinery to manage all of these massive programs is becoming so complex that it is almost costing the same as is actually getting to the intended recipients


But I don’t see the other way is much better … being stingy on things and going to a more anamorphous control system

Balance as always is what is needed … programs that help … but are specialized to make sure the right people get it … and that the correct attitudes or expectations are implanted on the recipients (such as this is not FREE money and this is not meant for you to live the rest of your life on … but if you need help we are their for you)

Now this is not what I wanted to rant on (and probably sound like I have no position while trying to argue both at the same time lol)

Now, about the message in the MP3, it's unfortunately true that young people don't care. Politics isn't an issue for most, and the attitude towards things that *can* be changed is "eh, what can you do" I hope it changes one day...or else the future looks pretty bleak

Personally politics though can be changed … really is their any “better” choice

I mean with a whole “class” (for lack of a better word) of people dedicating their life’s to running for offices
Drawn almost completely out of rich families and born without having to worry about ever having to do real work

It is real easy to get into such things when ya never have to hold a part time job just to pay for books for school … when you don’t have to just find ANY job that comes along so you can eat even after collage

(sorry ranting again)
I just don’t see people that really haven’t experienced things that most of their constituents have as being very representative

It is ALWAYS a decision between the lesser of two evils it seems, hardly inspires faith in our system

Well back when clinton was in office and war wasn't a first choice We (america) was basicly walked all over. We did were the UN's guard dog. Not any more I am tired of us doing our peace keeping efforts getting out asses shot up cuase the Un needs us to enforce its emborgoes or what ever. Im tired of the world not at least saying thank you for the relief that we supply to nations who have gone through desasters. Take that earth quake in Iran a couple months back we were one of the first people in there and we still have to deal with their "holy worriors" In Iraq. Bosnia(i think thats right) we were there to help the UN with peace keeping efforts and our troops are killed and dragged through the streets. Does any body help us when we are in trouble? No. Where was the help when our embassies were bombed in africa? Where was the help on 9/11? We might not have desperatly needed it but it would have been great if we could count on ou "freinds" in a time of need and the world wonders why were are not listening to the UN much any more

I guess in many ways I'm old school. I believe in the idealism of a generation we seem to have lost some where along the way. A time when people truly cared about affecting change in a meaningful way. A time where war was a last resort, not a race to the finish line. A time when we got our news without the editorial to go with it. A time when we knew the difference between separation of church & state. A time when progressive thought was the norm and being a liberal wasn't a dirty word.

I don't think there was ever a period where there was true separation of church and state in any country, and never a state that had war as a genuine last resort (the hunter-gatherer lot didn't have war as such, but then they didn't have a state as such either.) The news in print form and on TV has always and will always be biased, if not by editors then by its reporters.

The righties always hated the lefties, nothing new there, you had the punks and the hippies and the anti-war lot and the homosexuals and the commies and the blacks (ironically saved from slavery by the liberals of their time, the Republicans,) and the rest of the lefties spit upon. Same works vice versa. The term "progressive thought" has been too often used and abused for it to be taken seriously again for a jolly long while, same as equality and freedom and liberty.

Oh, and in Aristotle's day "liberalism" meant a pure democratic system, not American-style neo-Liberalism, which to the rest of the world is just the American Republicans and Democrats.

All the govt programs you "liberals" support depend on institutionalised agressive violence.

Even the libertarians and the anarchists support some form of defensive agencies (the right in the advent of a non-voluntary contract being conducted, the left in the form of whatever the Hell they like since they're commies,) so all forms of society except the uber primitivists (who would one day be lost as they progressed into better socieities,) are guilty of this.

The libertarian righties were born in the 50s, if any faction has a claim to the lying or misleading sort of terminology as "liberal" "libertarian" "anarchist" and so on it is the extreme left, and frankly I think they can keep the whole ridiculous lot of it.

Well back when clinton was in office and war wasn't a first choice We (america) was basicly walked all over. How precisely?We did were the UN's guard dog. Not any more I am tired of us doing our peace keeping efforts getting out asses shot up cuase the Un needs us to enforce its emborgoes or what ever. Im tired of the world not at least saying thank you for the relief that we supply to nations who have gone through desasters. Take that earth quake in Iran a couple months back we were one of the first people in there and we still have to deal with their "holy worriors" In Iraq. What evidence do you have that the Iraq partisans were funded by Iran.Bosnia(i think thats right) we were there to help the UN with peace keeping efforts and our troops are killed and dragged through the streets. It was war and it wasn't just American troops.Does any body help us when we are in trouble? No. Where was the help when our embassies were bombed in africa? Where was the help on 9/11? We might not have desperatly needed it but it would have been great if we could count on ou "freinds" in a time of need and the world wonders why were are not listening to the UN much any moreLike your old friend Bin Laden you mean? Or your old friend Saddam. And your spelling is a damn good argument for the US spending money on the education system instead of wars.

Now there is lots I could really go into
(I don’t generally take one side or the other)

I see things like over taxation as a general threat (Know personally it makes it VERY hard for me to make it through college because of what is taken out every two weeks … but yet truly because of upper middle class family don’t see anything back)

Though I do believe their SHOULD be something helping the poor of this nation I don’t see the current system (or implementation) as being fair or solving the issue … I see too many friends that have had bad luck in the past … been on welfare … but because of the ease of it have STAYED on it LONG past when they should be off of it

Don’t get me wrong I love my friends and their family’s but there is a point when they should be at least TRYING to get off of government supported programs

Right now there is no real incentive too … they have checks to make sure the right people are getting it but not that they are trying to do something to improve their own situation


Things like that

I see a lot of the programs proposed (generally by liberals) as generally GREAT intentions but tends to be implemented in a horrible and money consuming way.

Welfare cheats are the bane of a fair system...but it is underlying materialism that causes this. People don't care about whether a job is rewarding on a personal level anymore...they rather look at the pay packet. Hence why lifetime welfare looks so attractive. That's something that needs to be fixed. It is possible, however...corporate culture doesn't own us yet...but thinking it's inevitable certainly doesn't help.

I can sympathise with the level of tax that you may struggle to pay, being a student myself I know it's definitely not easy to pay for a lot of things. However, what is more ethical, corporations making huge killings on everything you buy, and putting that money into making more profits, or tax that is actually going into something that helps people? Tax is an evil in many ways. Unfortunately, it's a necessary one and it comes down to the fact that it is saving peoples lives...which a totally laissez faire society will certainly do anything but.

Personally politics though can be changed … really is their any “better” choice

I mean with a whole “class” (for lack of a better word) of people dedicating their life’s to running for offices
Drawn almost completely out of rich families and born without having to worry about ever having to do real work

It is real easy to get into such things when ya never have to hold a part time job just to pay for books for school … when you don’t have to just find ANY job that comes along so you can eat even after collage

(sorry ranting again)
I just don’t see people that really haven’t experienced things that most of their constituents have as being very representative

EXACTLY right! Something that a lot of people don't see... In all of the major democracies, there are more than 2 parties! It just seems that we've reached a deadlock in western society, where we have "tweedle dum" and "tweedle dee" as our election choices. I think that there is a chance for these to become influentual. There are many issues that major parties (though i'm not American, think of Rep. vs Dem.) are Bipartisan on, for example environmental protection. These are issues that are largely ignored, and if the youth wake up, we can realise what a powerful political force we are...

Even the libertarians and the anarchists support some form of defensive agencies (the right in the advent of a non-voluntary contract being conducted, the left in the form of whatever the Hell they like since they're commies,) so all forms of society except the uber primitivists (who would one day be lost as they progressed into better socieities,) are guilty of this.
Yes, DEFENSIVE agencies.
You're mixing up liberal as an economic theory and liberalism as a political ideology. They're entirely different concepts.

Only due to a modern confusion of language. Real liberalism, Classic liberalism, opposes all forms of aggression.
China is the world's fastest growing economy FYI.

And yes, charity does have to be legislated, because without it, the only ones with money to give, are those who want all of it for themselves.
(By your comment about wages, yes, I do understand Fordism, don't treat me like an idiot with comments such as "state education" because you have no idea about me, where, or what I am studying. And for assuming people who take state education are inferior to your possibly silver spooned self, you are nothing but an arrogant elitist. I wouldnt expect you to give charity if you were a billionaire, thanks for proving my point. Anyhow, Fordism doesn't work on a global scale, so sorry.)

Oh yes, and what about people born into poverty and unable to afford an education to get a well paying job? They made a really bad choice, didn't they? What should they have done? Died at birth?

And The Holy Word is exactly right.

China is growing due to market reforms, as you well know.

First you assume that the state actually does redistribute from rich to poor. It doesn't. For every program that does there is one going the opposite way (govt contracts, military industrial complex, subsidised industry and agriculture etc). Second, many rich people are very generous with their money, check out the Bill and Martha Gates foundation for example. Historically people have provided charity when it was needed and private charity is more efficient and effective and would need only a fraction of what the govt spends.

I had a state education but most of what I learned I did on my own. If I only knew what the state told me I would know very little indeed.

Children born into poverty will always be able to count on the kindness (or at least the guilt) of those who are better off. I know this because it is always the first objection anyone has to freedom and this proves that people care.

The rest of your rant I ignored.

(some slight additions to what The Holy Word said)

Im tired of the world not at least saying thank you for the relief that we supply to nations who have gone through desasters. Take that earth quake in Iran a couple months back we were one of the first people in there and we still have to deal with their "holy worriors" In Iraq.
By "they" you mean islam, correct?
Anyhow, I for one was pleasantly surprised to see the US aid efforts, considering that I am normally a critic of the US, it was good to see.

Bosnia(i think thats right) we were there to help the UN with peace keeping efforts and our troops are killed and dragged through the streets. Does any body help us when we are in trouble? No. Where was the help when our embassies were bombed in africa? Where was the help on 9/11? We might not have desperatly needed it but it would have been great if we could count on ou "freinds" in a time of need and the world wonders why were are not listening to the UN much any more

*AHEM* Excuse me- but maybe you should look at the list of countries that committed troops against the Taliban. The first thing Australia did after 11/9 (thats right, 11/9 :p) was invoke the ANZUS treaty...nice to be noticed.

Libertovania , you're starting to become a little rude. I suggest you tone down the insults. Thank You.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

and don't forget that NATO invoked Article 5 of the NATO accord that says that an attack on one NATO nation is an attack on the rest and Australia did invoke that treaty (briefly heard but I did hear it).

However, the rest of the world did nothing! Only our allies did something. Yes the world condemned it and gave condolences to the US but where was the assistance? Only our allies assisted. It was mostly NATO and ANZUS that has helped the US!

and don't forget that NATO invoked Article 5 of the NATO accord that says that an attack on one NATO nation is an attack on the rest and Australia did invoke that treaty (briefly heard but I did hear it).

However, the rest of the world did nothing! Only our allies did something. Yes the world condemned it and gave condolences to the US but where was the assistance? Only our allies assisted. It was mostly NATO and ANZUS that has helped the US!

Keeping in mind that NATO invoked Article 5 ONLY for Afghanistan, not for Iraq. The world sees it correctly, as two separate wars that had nothing to do with each other. One a war on terrorism.. and well Iraq, we still haven't figured out, nor been told the truth about.

China is growing due to market reforms, as you well know.

First you assume that the state actually does redistribute from rich to poor. It doesn't. For every program that does there is one going the opposite way (govt contracts, military industrial complex, subsidised industry and agriculture etc). Second, many rich people are very generous with their money, check out the Bill and Martha Gates foundation for example. Historically people have provided charity when it was needed and private charity is more efficient and effective and would need only a fraction of what the govt spends.

I had a state education but most of what I learned I did on my own. If I only knew what the state told me I would know very little indeed.

Children born into poverty will always be able to count on the kindness (or at least the guilt) of those who are better off. I know this because it is always the first objection anyone has to freedom and this proves that people care.

The rest of your rant I ignored.

1. China- Yes, Reforms have helped open up the economic growth, but it remains an economy under very strong state control and economic initiatives that are necessary to spur growth (infrastructure, electricity...) still are solely created by the government.

2. No. I didn't assume that our current model delivers that. I simply think that if we're going to have a state, it *should* and it is possible. I considered responding to the rest of your points, which for the most part are irrelevant (where did i mention support for the military-industrial complex?!?), but I decided that if you weren't going to show me the courtesy in reading my post, why should I show it to you?

3. So...you went to a state school, but hold yourself intellectually and morally superior to everyone else who has to go to them because they can't afford private education? Makes a lot of sense.

4. Uh-huh. That logic makes much sense- why else would we have a third world today, and homeless in the streets of the first world?

Keeping in mind that NATO invoked Article 5 ONLY for Afghanistan, not for Iraq. The world sees it correctly, as two separate wars that had nothing to do with each other. One a war on terrorism.. and well Iraq, we still haven't figured out, nor been told the truth about.

Did I mention iraq? No I was talking about the response to 9/11! I never mentioned Iraq. Where did you get iraq from my statement? I would really love to know where?

Did I mention iraq? No I was talking about the response to 9/11! I never mentioned Iraq. Where did you get iraq from my statement? I would really love to know where?

Just making sure you weren't confused..last I checked about 40% of Americans believed 9/11 had some thing to do with Saddam and it didn't. ;)

EXACTLY right! Something that a lot of people don't see... In all of the major democracies, there are more than 2 parties! It just seems that we've reached a deadlock in western society, where we have "tweedle dum" and "tweedle dee" as our election choices. I think that there is a chance for these to become influentual. There are many issues that major parties (though i'm not American, think of Rep. vs Dem.) are Bipartisan on, for example environmental protection. These are issues that are largely ignored, and if the youth wake up, we can realise what a powerful political force we are...


I am an American and I completely agree

I believe the two party system is BS! But right now there is no feasible way to change it (at least to something BETTER)

For one we REALLY have to change over to a true democracy rather then a republic

Honestly technology has advanced enough that it would NOT be an issue to tally a true public vote and implement based on that.

I can see why the Electoral College was necessary in the past … just getting a good and true count was hard enough

But if we wanted to now it would be EASY to take a true pop vote


And yes youth have a MASSIVE political force

Even in my own small town last election for a mayor was completely thrown on its ear by the college student vote

The town is small 2500 people … a combination of OLD farmers and college students (there is a well established college there … like 100 years) BUT they have never voted in force

The incumbent was an old mayor … had been there for 2 terms (maybe more cant remember) but the new guy … only 23 years old went to all the bars and got the college students votes :)

Needless to say he WON over an incumbent with all the support of the normal residents

The youth do have POWER but we got to use it (and would help if that vote thing I mentioned before was implemented also)

Even the libertarians and the anarchists support some form of defensive agencies (the right in the advent of a non-voluntary contract being conducted, the left in the form of whatever the Hell they like since they're commies,) so all forms of society except the uber primitivists (who would one day be lost as they progressed into better socieities,) are guilty of this.

Yes, DEFENSIVE agencies.

Yes, same goes for all forms of law and even most military actions. All are "institutionalised aggressive violence" meant to protect (or defend, or maintain if you prefer,) the general morality of the state, such as it is. The defensive agencies of the anarco-capitalists just happens to be vaguely more democratic and less informed than the other two, all three wield an incredible influence due to their position in society and all three utilise violence on the behest of the state. You can't criticise one system for being basically the same as the others.

I am an American and I completely agree

I believe the two party system is BS! But right now there is no feasible way to change it (at least to something BETTER)

For one we REALLY have to change over to a true democracy rather then a republic

Honestly technology has advanced enough that it would NOT be an issue to tally a true public vote and implement based on that.

I can see why the Electoral College was necessary in the past … just getting a good and true count was hard enough

But if we wanted to now it would be EASY to take a true pop vote



There are virtues to the Electoral College besides making it easier to get a count of the votes. Without the electoral college, small states are pretty much totally ignored. All candidates would have to do would be to campaign in California, New York, basically the large coastal states.

I agree, in a solely majority based election, everyone's vote would be equal, but based on location, it wouldn't. I would more like to see a combination of the electoral college and a population vote. Maybe along the lines that both have to agree to have someone become president.

Or we could have the instantaneous voting where you rank the candidates.

Yeah, Upward Thrust, Direct Democracy via technology :) I think a "votebox" under the TV that gets used once a week, where you can place your vote on important issues, would be great!

Yeah, Upward Thrust, Direct Democracy via technology :) I think a "votebox" under the TV that gets used once a week, where you can place your vote on issues, would be great!

Libertovania , you're starting to become a little rude. I suggest you tone down the insults. Thank You.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

What insults?

What insults?

Read the entire thread..

I have read the whole thread and have now re-read all posts and cannot find any insult by Libertovania. An expression of frustration regarding not wanting to lecture people on economics but no insults.
The nearest thing to an isult I could find was this comment:

And your spelling is a damn good argument for the US spending money on the education system instead of wars.

made by The Holy Word to Dragoneia.

If you want to forge your "ideals" do it with your own money, thief. You don't know the meaning of the word "liberal", let me clue you in.

A tad rude, there was another one.. I only gave him some advice, it wasn't a formal warning..

Subject over please, please stick to the topic. Thank you.

Only due to a modern confusion of language. Real liberalism, Classic liberalism, opposes all forms of aggression. No. If we take John Stuart Mill as the father of classic liberalism (which strikes me as reasonable) at no point can I find indications that he supports liberal economics. Instead he typifies the problems with modern liberalism- the belief that the priviledged will give up their priviledge if you ask nicely, the tendency to fencesit, the dividing of the working class into deserving and undeserving poor etc. (See "Love me, I'm a Liberal" by Phil Ochs for more details ;) ) The nearest thing to an isult I could find was this comment:



And your spelling is a damn good argument for the US spending money on the education system instead of wars.
In the context I'd argue that was entirely justified. I'm shocked and appalled you could think such a thing of a delicate flower such as myself. :(

In the context I'd argue that was entirely justified. I'm shocked and appalled you could think such a thing of a delicate flower such as myself. :(

Well, I did not consider what you said to be an insult which was the point I was trying make about hypersensitivity to comments on the forums.
I would never dream of thinking that anything as vile as an insult would befoul your posts.... :eek:
Being a perpetrator of the occasional typo I tend not to pass judgement on others spelling on the forums because it always comes back to bite me on the arse. :D

I would have to say that my ideals are conservative, hence my nation's named after the British Conservative Party. I believe that the community should provide for social services like, education, welfare, and health care. I especialy believe that we should deal with the root causes of poverty not just the symptoms. And so I must say that I perfer the Bush over Kerry. If anyone wants to help me re-elect Bush, please e-mail me. My e-mail is redknight42972@yahoo.com

No. If we take John Stuart Mill as the father of classic liberalism (which strikes me as reasonable) at no point can I find indications that he supports liberal economics.
I don't, it isn't, and I don't know. I would take Locke and the Levellers (not the folk-punk group) as the originators of classical liberalism and Henry David Thoureau, Herbert Spencer and Murray Rothbard as it's most natural and consistent conclusion.

Yes, same goes for all forms of law and even most military actions. All are "institutionalised aggressive violence" meant to protect (or defend, or maintain if you prefer,) the general morality of the state, such as it is. The defensive agencies of the anarco-capitalists just happens to be vaguely more democratic and less informed than the other two, all three wield an incredible influence due to their position in society and all three utilise violence on the behest of the state. You can't criticise one system for being basically the same as the others.
Agressive violence = bad
Defensive violence = good (or rather, justifiable)

You use "State" and "anarcho-capitalism" as if they are compatible. The idea of anarco-capitalist defence firms is that they are not above the law but merely do for you what you'd have every right to do for yourself if you could. This is also in theory what the state does but the state steals from you in order to protect you from thieves!

1. China- Yes, Reforms have helped open up the economic growth, but it remains an economy under very strong state control and economic initiatives that are necessary to spur growth (infrastructure, electricity...) still are solely created by the government.

2. No. I didn't assume that our current model delivers that. I simply think that if we're going to have a state, it *should* and it is possible. I considered responding to the rest of your points, which for the most part are irrelevant (where did i mention support for the military-industrial complex?!?), but I decided that if you weren't going to show me the courtesy in reading my post, why should I show it to you?

3. So...you went to a state school, but hold yourself intellectually and morally superior to everyone else who has to go to them because they can't afford private education? Makes a lot of sense.

4. Uh-huh. That logic makes much sense- why else would we have a third world today, and homeless in the streets of the first world?

1. It is the liberalisation that generates Chinese growth. That the state provides power and roads is irrelevant as somebody else would - and better - if the state didn't

2. I never said you support what the state does merely pointed out that it does. The state does not redistribute from rich to poor, nor will it ever. The poor don't have the political clout. Expecting the govt to do this is a utopian fantasy (and would ruin everyone if it did).

3. You misunderstood what I said.

4. Voter Joe: "The govt is doing a bad job helping the poor. They should do better. What? Me? But I already pay taxes towards that...."

The ineffectual govt welfare displaces the private charity that could actually help people.

Arguing the definition of "classic" liberalism is a nice exercise, but rather irrelevant to what is commonly held to be the liberal viewpoint of today. Rather like complaining that today's Italians aren't Roman enough since they left the amphitheaters crumble.

But what I find hilarious is the precept that taxes equate to violence.

Even just leaving alone the social programs (which DO serve usefull purposes despite what you may think. Look at how those unemployed during a recession today fare compared to the days before social safety nets were in place. Perhaps a little reading on the Great Depression would help you out.), I suppose that you feel that there are no government programs that serve purposes? Or that governments should be registered charities that hope that people will contribute enough to do things like drug testing, border security, air traffic control?

Methinks that you are living in dreamland....

Which is NOT to say that governments do not squander money because clearly that is true. However that is an argument over implementation of policies rather than an indictment of the fact that some of these policies and programs are needed in some form.

and the Levellers (not the folk-punk group) "The earth was made a common treasury for everyone to share"- John Lilliburne. The Levellers were much more of a form of early communism if anything surely? And that's before we even look at groups like the Ranters and the Diggers.

Arguing the definition of "classic" liberalism is a nice exercise, but rather irrelevant to what is commonly held to be the liberal viewpoint of today. Rather like complaining that today's Italians aren't Roman enough since they left the amphitheaters crumble.
Not entirely. I do think that looking at the historical roots of political ideologies can help us understand why they've developed how they have.

Arguing the definition of "classic" liberalism is a nice exercise, but rather irrelevant to what is commonly held to be the liberal viewpoint of today. Rather like complaining that today's Italians aren't Roman enough since they left the amphitheaters crumble.

But what I find hilarious is the precept that taxes equate to violence.

Even just leaving alone the social programs (which DO serve usefull purposes despite what you may think. Look at how those unemployed during a recession today fare compared to the days before social safety nets were in place. Perhaps a little reading on the Great Depression would help you out.), I suppose that you feel that there are no government programs that serve purposes? Or that governments should be registered charities that hope that people will contribute enough to do things like drug testing, border security, air traffic control?

Methinks that you are living in dreamland....

Which is NOT to say that governments do not squander money because clearly that is true. However that is an argument over implementation of policies rather than an indictment of the fact that some of these policies and programs are needed in some form.

As to your first point I agree, I've had enough semantic quibbling for one day.

I have read up on the Great Depression. Guess what? It was caused by the govt. Friedman et al, "The Great Contraction" (i think that's what it's called) is the book to read (personally I got the account from his book Capitalism and Freedom). You've demonstrated that a govt might be necessary to solve the problems govt creates, hardly an issue I care about. Incidently, those "helpful" measures prolonged to depression by years.

Why would you want drug testing or immigration control? These are more forms of agression against peaceful individuals. Just a guess but I think airports would run air traffic control.

Government programs fall into 2 classes: those we can do without, and those that could be done better and more morally by uncoerced private citizens.

As for taxes and violence, have you ever tried NOT paying them? There's another organisation that does what the govt does, it's called the Mafia and they run a "protection racket".

Ahhh yes - the idealist stance. That those with money will provide all the services and do it in an altruistic and moral manner.

Bull-cookies!

Your concept would just go back to the days where services were provided by The Company. You lived in the company housing, shopped at the company store, and lived in fear of the company cop. And if you crossed the line, you were turfed from town and allowed to fend for yourself in the hopes that charities would provide to you a meagre survival.

You would revert to feudalism. Hardly a shining moment in our history.

As to your first point I agree, I've had enough semantic quibbling for one day.Before we stop semantic quibbling can you answer my point about your misrepresentation of the Levellers please?

Agressive violence = bad
Defensive violence = good (or rather, justifiable)

The difference is negligible (or does not exist,) as I demonstrated, you seem to be using "defensive" to mean any violence which is justifiable to you. Which is how just about everyone else uses it.

Laws, the police, citizens and judges which uphold it, and the military and politicians which direct it are all defending their own ideals. To them their actions are justifiable, good, necessary.

You use "State" and "anarcho-capitalism" as if they are compatible.

"The state" is the law makers, in anarcho-capitalism it can range from the so-called defensive agencies, the corporations who pay for them, a group decided upon by the people, a direct, general consensus of citizens...basically whoever defines "involuntary transactions" aswell as the ways by which said transactions are best dealt with.

but merely do for you what you'd have every right to do for yourself if you could. This is also in theory what the state does but the state steals from you in order to protect you from thieves!

Except the same is true of the defensive agencies, because they need means by which to prevent involuntary transactions (murder, rape, theft, fraud, kidnapping, involuntary imprisonment and so on.) The obvious preventative methods would be imprisonment, possibly execution, or taking money from the perpetrator of said crime. They would be just as guilty of your perceived double standards.

Why o why do I always know more about what anarchy proposes than the anarchists I meet seem to?

Your concept would just go back to the days where services were provided by The Company. You lived in the company housing, shopped at the company store, and lived in fear of the company cop. And if you crossed the line, you were turfed from town and allowed to fend for yourself in the hopes that charities would provide to you a meagre survival.

You would revert to feudalism. Hardly a shining moment in our history.

As far as I know, the United States has never existed under a feudal system during any stage of it's history, yet for many years the only major services that the government provided were local and national defence. I have never heard of a company which has done the things you've said. If you were refering to European Feudalism, I don't believe that there were any property rights, or companies for that matter, during that period.

Just pointing out reality was all.. :headbang:

It's not as good as the Einstein - "There are only two things that are infinite. The Universe, and man's stupidity. And I'm not sure about the Universe."

I guess in many ways I'm old school. I believe in the idealism of a generation we seem to have lost some where along the way. A time when people truly cared about affecting change in a meaningful way. A time where war was a last resort, not a race to the finish line. A time when we got our news without the editorial to go with it. A time when we knew the difference between separation of church & state. A time when progressive thought was the norm and being a liberal wasn't a dirty word.

It seems to me that the world did in fact change on 9/11 for my American friends, but not for the better, not by a long shot. It seems to me that 9/11 made a whole lot of people forget the values we here in the west stand for and have always prided ourselves on. It seems to me that if we let these values fall a long the waste side, then yes, the people who would wish us harm, have surely won.

The world is changing, because people have finally realized that after the fall of the Soviet Union everything wasn't lubby dubby. Fact of the matter is, there is a lot of people out there who don't care for the West, don't respect the power the West holds and overall denigrate and belittle our position in the world. This Earth of ours, for better or worse, is dominated by Western culture. The faster everyone realizes that and accepts it as fact the better we'll all be. For too long we've led our values/beliefs cloud our judgement on how to continue to live in peace (in the West). The fundamental duty of governments is to ensure that their citizens are safe and can get on with their lives; after the fall of the Soviet Union, most Western governments FAILED to live up to this duty.

Instead they embarked on far flung idealistic pursuits such as eradicating world poverty, eliminating racism or disarmament. Lofty goals no doubt, but completely unrealistic and impossible. Too many states nowadays ignore and posture against the West; Iran, Turkmenistan, Zimbabwe, Libya (less so today), etc...The use the U.N. to voice their grievances, attack their foes and make their issues legitimate. If we cherish democracies and liberalism so much then why in hell's name did we allow Libya to chair the Human Rights Commission? The Economist said it best about Libya, Ghoulish. Simply put, the U.N. grants them some measure of legitimacy while they butcher, murder and kill their own citizens. Do we admonish them? Do we threaten them? No. We stand by and talk about doing those things, but never get around to doing anything. The West is all talk and no action (excluding Afghanistan and Iraq).

9/11 brought home the message that there is a hell of alot of people out there that have decided that killing Westerners is somehow a good thing and we'll do nothing. They believe we'll sit idly by and "chatter" about root causes and how its our fault for supporting Israel (and thus antagonising them). As if supporting another democracy is inherently evil (I'm not commenting on the situation there, just on the fact that Israel is a democracy); they assume we should support them, because well, they'll kill us if we don't. Whether it was Hizbollah in Lebanon, or the Iranian Pasdaran, or Mugabe's thugs in Zimbabwe; there is one common theme: They don't give care what we think or say, they don't believe in our threats anymore, they don't respect the values/beliefs we've expounded and thrived on.


I've used "We" very liberally. If your offended: I don't care. I was born in Poland, I've lived in Canada for a long time. I served my country in Bosnia and I've seen the hate. The answer isn't dialogue, its a return to pre-WW1 tactics. Thus, they kill a citizen of Western country X, we annihilate city in offending state Y. Point final. Its unfair, its dirty and let me tell you, it'll work. It worked under Queen Victoria and it'll work here.

Bah I need coffee...

Well said Vorringia! To bad people on here don't recognize the facts that you have mentioned!

Well said Vorringia! To bad people on here don't recognize the facts that you have mentioned!Just like people like you refuse to take responsibilty for Pinochet, the Contras and selling arms to Iran. The answer isn't dialogue, its a return to pre-WW1 tactics. Thus, they kill a citizen of Western country X, we annihilate city in offending state Y. I suppose it's not surprising considering you praise a poster who believes in killing innocent civilians. As far as I'm concerned that puts you on precisely the same moral level as Bin Laden.

i. The difference is negligible (or does not exist,) as I demonstrated, you seem to be using "defensive" to mean any violence which is justifiable to you. Which is how just about everyone else uses it.

ii. Laws, the police, citizens and judges which uphold it, and the military and politicians which direct it are all defending their own ideals. To them their actions are justifiable, good, necessary.

iii. "The state" is the law makers, in anarcho-capitalism it can range from the so-called defensive agencies, the corporations who pay for them, a group decided upon by the people, a direct, general consensus of citizens...basically whoever defines "involuntary transactions" aswell as the ways by which said transactions are best dealt with.

iv. Except the same is true of the defensive agencies, because they need means by which to prevent involuntary transactions (murder, rape, theft, fraud, kidnapping, involuntary imprisonment and so on.) The obvious preventative methods would be imprisonment, possibly execution, or taking money from the perpetrator of said crime. They would be just as guilty of your perceived double standards.

v. Why o why do I always know more about what anarchy proposes than the anarchists I meet seem to?
Dear me!

i. I don't define defensive violence to be anything that's justifiable to me, I define justifiable to me to be defensive violence.

ii. Like Hitler?

iii. You can use the word state in that way if you want but you'll only succeed in creating confusion with your non-standard definition.

iv. Is killing a murderer in defence murder? Of course not. Neither is recovering loot from a thief theft. The state is funded by theft, protection agencies are funded by voluntary payment. They are limited to retaliatory violence which is perfectly justifiable.

v. You don't, duckie.

Just like people like you refuse to take responsibilty for Pinochet, the Contras and selling arms to Iran. I suppose it's not surprising considering you praise a poster who believes in killing innocent civilians. As far as I'm concerned that puts you on precisely the same moral level as Bin Laden.

I never denied anything Holy Word! I don't know anything about Pinochet or the other stuff you mentioned.

as for your last section, I don't think i've seen anything that Vorringia said that he hails a poster that believes in killing innocent civilians. I would like to know who your talking about! And comparing him to Bin Laden is way over the top!

I never denied anything Holy Word! I don't know anything about Pinochet or the other stuff you mentioned.

as for your last section, I don't think i've seen anything that Vorringia said that he hails a poster that believes in killing innocent civilians. I would like to know who your talking about! And comparing him to Bin Laden is way over the top!

Perhaps if you actually knew the history that Holy Word is talking about, which you clearly admit you don't, you might understand their point. Thus, no it was not over the top!

If you want to forge your "ideals" do it with your own money, thief. You denounce violence abroad but cheer it on at home as anybody who refuses to be a brick for you to build a "better" tomorrow is thrown in jail. You don't know the meaning of the word "liberal", let me clue you in. It means "hands off", "laissez nous faire", "mind your own business", "leave me alone", "Don't tread on me".I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out to you, since I only started reading this thread, so forgive me if this ground has already been trod, but you need to wake up.

Taxes are the price we pay for advanced society. If you use roads, if you drink clean water or eat safe food, use safe pharmaceuticals or your plane is mechanically sound and doesn't crash into another in a crowded sky, if you've gone to school and received a decent education, if you're using this nifty thing called the internet, you have government to thank for it.

In order for society to function, there has to be an enforcer of rules. Government serves that function. Without it, we'd spend so much time providing ourselves with the necessities of life that we'd never take the time to expand the base of human knowledge that allows us to advance society.

Ahhh yes - the idealist stance. That those with money will provide all the services and do it in an altruistic and moral manner.

Bull-cookies!

Your concept would just go back to the days where services were provided by The Company. You lived in the company housing, shopped at the company store, and lived in fear of the company cop. And if you crossed the line, you were turfed from town and allowed to fend for yourself in the hopes that charities would provide to you a meagre survival.

You would revert to feudalism. Hardly a shining moment in our history.

I will add on that worker safety laws and child labor laws didn't happen because of altruistic and moral businessmen.

As far as I know, the United States has never existed under a feudal system during any stage of it's history, yet for many years the only major services that the government provided were local and national defence. I have never heard of a company which has done the things you've said. If you were refering to European Feudalism, I don't believe that there were any property rights, or companies for that matter, during that period.

Well they sorta had one going back in the days of indentured servents. But true fudalism in the European sense? Not really.

Well you could look at the coal mines, etc before the unions. The company owned everything and you.

I find it funny that Steph can talk and talk all about how much she knows how 9/11 affects Americans all day long (This isn't the first time) and yet be a Canadian.

Steph, how do you know such things and be so sure? Do you get your opinions from face-to-face talks with Americans? Do you get your opinions from the media? Do you get them from the random people here in NS General?

I'm curious...

Just like people like you refuse to take responsibilty for Pinochet, the Contras and selling arms to Iran. I suppose it's not surprising considering you praise a poster who believes in killing innocent civilians. As far as I'm concerned that puts you on precisely the same moral level as Bin Laden.

Pardon what poster are you refering to?

Second, I don't particularly care about the Contras or Pinochet. Neither advocated the whole sale slaughter of Westerners. They've pushed me (and others) into a position where I no longer care how the problem is resolved. I simply want a resolution to this problem that plagues most world democracies and their allies.

The states were they reside refuse to aid the West in its struggle to eliminate them, hence, those states should be considered at the very least passive supporters of their actions.

Education is not the problem.
Religion is not the problem.

Talking about how "we" hurt them through colonialism or our support for Israel won't change the fact that even if we gave in to their demands they would find a new reason to continue their attacks. They are not interested in compromise, their not interested in talking, their interested in getting everything they want. And they don't care how many people they have to kill to get it.

If the governments refuse to actively aid the West, and I mean by this, arresting and deporting those who fund, participate, and shelter terrorists; then we should take the pro-active position of punishing them communally. Its not "nice", it violates their "human rights", but you know what? It'll work. It worked in the past and it'll work now. We have to drive it home that there is one thing that the West CAN do and they can't. We can obliterate their countries, their families and everything else about their civilization (Not just in the Middle East, anyone who actively attempts to usurp or destroy Western civilization).

None of what I said is PC, and I won't deny it. I just don't care about "their" human rights or grievances. I don't care about their positions. All I see is the West forgetting what made it possible for "Us" to dominate the world (culturally). We were aggressively expansionistic in the past, we've slowly mellowed over the decades.

I offered a workable and possible solution. Have you? Has anyone? I've seen people (and governments) beat the same old horse/bush. (i.e. Its our fault, we support Israel, we're dependent on oil, we're X, we're Y). I throw the gauntlet down to anyone; give me a workable/realistic solution to international terrorism and the abuse of the U.N. by illiberal and non-democratic nations. Start a new thread or continue it here.

I find it funny that Steph can talk and talk all about how much she knows how 9/11 affects Americans all day long (This isn't the first time) and yet be a Canadian.

Steph, how do you know such things and be so sure? Do you get your opinions from face-to-face talks with Americans? Do you get your opinions from the media? Do you get them from the random people here in NS General?

I'm curious...

I get my opinions from different sources.. media, sure, that's a small part, talking to Americans, again, sure.. a personal love of history.. yeah... reading, surely.. I also happen to be a political scientist. I have my Master's degree.. I am a year away from my Ph.D... I'd like to think I didn't waste almost $80,000 on schooling that taught me nothing.. ;)

I get my opinions from different sources.. media, sure, that's a small part, talking to Americans, again, sure.. a personal love of history.. yeah... reading, surely.. I also happen to be a political scientist. I have my Master's degree.. I am a year away from my Ph.D... I'd like to think I didn't waste almost $80,000 on schooling that taught me nothing.. ;)


These is why my idea for Post Count = IQ Level never take off popularly

*looks at Steph's post count*
*looks at self's count*

huh....well wha'd ya know?

Dear me!

i. I don't define defensive violence to be anything that's justifiable to me, I define justifiable to me to be defensive violence.

Oh dear. See below.

ii. Like Hitler?

Yes, just like every single human being in the world, people have always acted in a way they believe defends their ideals and beliefs. It's a logical impossibility to do anything else because you can only react according to your ideals, even if you are uncertain or have misled yourself about what they are. So all action can be described as "defensive", and by extension all violence. The ironic thing about your link to Hitler is that I'm not the person arguing that "defensive action" is automatically justified, you are.

iii. You can use the word state in that way if you want but you'll only succeed in creating confusion with your non-standard definition.

My definition is actually precise and correct which is why I used it; the state is described as
"the members or representatives of the governing classes assembled in a legislative body" (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=state&x=0&y=0) which means the people who make the laws. Like I said. Therefore in an anarchistic society it would be whoever decides how to direct the "defensive agencies". So there is no confusion for anyone who understands anarchistic theory or the term itself.

iv. Is killing a murderer in defence murder? Of course not.

"Murder" is defined as illegal killing, so it could well be. The fact remains that you are still killing another person, you just happen to think it's justifiable because it saves your own life. I'd kill another person to protect a friend of mine, as would a jolly lot of other people, even if I was never going to be endangered. This argument unfortunately legitimises murdering another person to protect a fellow, in doing so also legitimising the murder of a state executioner.

Neither is recovering loot from a thief theft.

Preventative measures, chuck, it would be rather a lot more in order to stop them from doing it again.

The state is funded by theft, protection agencies are funded by voluntary payment.

Sure, you just have to hope that corporations are perfectly willing to regulate themselves in order to hamstring their own profit margin. Or that other corporations would force it on them.

They are limited to retaliatory violence which is perfectly justifiable.

I have never heard of vengeance being described as "perfectly justifiable" but more a double standard of the state. Do go on, please, how is it justifiable?

v. You don't, duckie.

Then it must just be my flair for logic and debate which makes me consistently right.

I get my opinions from different sources.. media, sure, that's a small part, talking to Americans, again, sure.. a personal love of history.. yeah... reading, surely.. I also happen to be a political scientist. I have my Master's degree.. I am a year away from my Ph.D... I'd like to think I didn't waste almost $80,000 on schooling that taught me nothing.. ;)

Well I think I would ask for my money back! ;):P

I'm a history lover myself and it seems to me that our nation has only reacted to attacks before taking action against our enemies. Outside of the Revolutionary War, every war we have fought in started with an incident.

1812: British impressing our sailors into their navy. Violation of International Law. Declared War on Britian! War ended in a stalemate!

Mexican War 1846: Mexico continueing to violate the border established by treaty at the end of the Texas/Mexican War! US told them to stop, they didn't and killed Texans and the US defeated them!

Civil War 1861-1865: The south Split from the Union on Lincoln's victory. In April 1861, Fort Sumter was fired upon by the Confederatacy because the Union wouldn't give it up to them. Four Years later, the Confederacy ceased to exist with Lee's surrender and the fall of Richmond in 1865

Spanish-American War 1898: Cuba was in rebellion and asked continously for American help. We did nothing till the USS Maine blew up. At the time, it was blamed on a Spanish mine thus we got involved, Freed Cuba (now under Castro and tyranny, typical) and wound up taking Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Spanish Surrendered later that year.

WWI 1917-1918: America got involved because of a promise to return SouthWestern US to Mexico if Mexico sided with Germany and defeated us. That was just one of many reasons but we got involved! France was on the verge of Collapse and the war was stalled. With American help, the Allies and US (US was not part of any alliance in WWI) defeated the Germans and the Allies, not the US, placed on Germany a Strict Surrender announcement.

WWII 1941-1945: Europe was embroiled in WWII for about 2 years. France fell quickly! Poland fell first and rapidly too! Western Europe fell to the Nazis! England was ran out of Crete and France. US was supporting England with Lend-Lease! On December 7, 1941 US was brought into the War! In June 6, 1944, US and her allies landed on Normandy Beach. Most of the allies Casualties on that day took place at Omaha, a beach designated to the USA! 2500 plus Casualties. Patton during the campaign across Western Europe, took more ground and prisioners than anyother unit! In April 1945, Germany Surrendered to the allies. Four months later, US dropped the bomb on Hiroshima followed 3 days later by Nagasaki. Shortly thereafter, the Emperor of Japaned accepted the terms of Pottsdam Conference. During his address, not once did Hirohito mention the word Surrender.

Then there was Korea, a UN action that ended in an Armistace.

Vietnam: US goes in to bail out the French! American Government lied to the people and the Media misrepresented the war in which in every military engagement actually went to the USA including the defeat of the VietCong during the Cong's Tet Offensive.

Fast fowarding now!

1993: The World Trade Center was attacked by a suspected Al Qaeda terrorist in a truck bomb that killed 6!

1998: Two African Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania was bombed by Al Qaeda! Clinton's response was a cruise missile assualt! A couple hundred dead in the Car bombs and the missiles destroyed a empty Training facility.

2000: USS Cole Bombed by Al Qaeda! Clinton did nothing because he was waiting when everyone knew that Al Qaeda hit the Cole! 16 Service Personel died in the attack.

2001: 3,000 Dead in the largest terror attack on US Soil! War on terror begins in Afghanistan!

Now we are in 2004 and 2/3rds of Al Qaeda's leadership is either dead or captored. And that has been stated numerous times on numerous shows. No successful terror attack on American Soil! Terrorists are centered in the Middle East and attacking there.

Steph, if you are a year away from your PHD, why is it that America is always saving the butts of most of the planet from Western Europe, WWI, WWII and the Cold War, to the Western Pacific, WWII and the Cold War. US has freed more people:

In Eastern Europe, the policies of Ronald Reagan led to the freeing of at least 122 million people from Soviet domination,

More than 48 million South Koreans remain free because of American protection.

Nearly 23 million Taiwanese remain free because of American protection.

The state of Israel and five and a half million Jews would be crushed by its enemies if not for American aid.

By removing the brutal regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, America and Britain have given almost 50 million people at least a shot at some kind of self-determination. Also, the American-driven campaign against the butcher Milosovic in the Balkans saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, most of them Muslims.

These are facts Stephistan! Facts! Be advised that the Balkans was without UN permission as well. Did you condemn what Clinton did as illegal since it wasn't a UN action?

Taxes are the price we pay for advanced society. If you use roads, if you drink clean water or eat safe food, use safe pharmaceuticals or your plane is mechanically sound and doesn't crash into another in a crowded sky, if you've gone to school and received a decent education, if you're using this nifty thing called the internet, you have government to thank for it.

In order for society to function, there has to be an enforcer of rules. Government serves that function. Without it, we'd spend so much time providing ourselves with the necessities of life that we'd never take the time to expand the base of human knowledge that allows us to advance society.

Roads, clean water, safe foods, medicine, reliable machinery and education managed to exist long before they were regulated by government.

By rules I'm assuming you are refering to regulations and not just the rules which protect our rights. How did society manage to function properly and advance itself for more than a century without the massive amounts of regulations that exist today?

As much as I hate to agree with someone who wants the unregulated privilege to exploit the working class, he is right. Taxes are armed robbery, just as much as profit is, though he wouldn't admit that.

As much as I hate to agree with someone who wants the unregulated privilege to exploit the working class, he is right. Taxes are armed robbery, just as much as profit is, though he wouldn't admit that.

I agree about the Taxes. Lower taxes and everyone prospers! The people, the state and the federal government will all get richer!

Roads, clean water, safe foods, medicine, reliable machinery and education managed to exist long before they were regulated by government.

By rules I'm assuming you are refering to regulations and not just the rules which protect our rights. How did society manage to function properly and advance itself for more than a century without the massive amounts of regulations that exist today?Roads existed, but not in any organized sense or of any real quality until the state took over and started building them and caring for them--it's actually the smartest thing the auto industry ever did convincing the federal government it was a matter of national security to overhaul the nation's road system.

Clean water? Safe food? All I have to say is read The Jungle. Medicine? If you really want to go back to the days of laudanum, or hell, even thalidomide babies, then go right ahead. Safety standards on machinery and public education were non-existent before the government decided it was in the best interests of the nation as a whole to force it as an issue. Put your trust in the tender mercies of the free market if you wish, but I'll take my chances with a group of people I can at least vote out of office if the screw me over.

I agree about the Taxes. Lower taxes and everyone prospers! The people, the state and the federal government will all get richer!

Okay, this is coming from my rare moments when I ditch my crazy leftist idealism (heheh, only temporarily :p) and look at the world from a centrist point of view. As much as that sounds good to you in theory...it doesn't work that way. Unfortunately, the government spending money stimulates the economy- the government spending money on something such as defence is giving the corporations money to expand and the economy to grow, which would not have occured otherwise. Keynesian economics.(I don't support such a system, btw, but think about it, it's how western democracy operates)

Now- I'm not interested if anyone who has a hatred of Keynes wants to flame me...start a new topic if you hate him so much. I know it's coming, so just to keep safe :p

Letila and Incertonia are also both right.

as for your last section, I don't think i've seen anything that Vorringia said that he hails a poster that believes in killing innocent civilians. I would like to know who your talking about! And comparing him to Bin Laden is way over the top!
You've misunderstood. I was saying that, by hailing Vorringa, you were supporting a poster that believes in killing innocent civilians. Because Vorringa says:

Thus, they kill a citizen of Western country X, we annihilate city in offending state Y. Point final. Its unfair, its dirty and let me tell you, it'll work. The dictionary.com defination of terrorism is:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Still think it's unreasonable to compare him to Bin Laden?

I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out to you, since I only started reading this thread, so forgive me if this ground has already been trod, but you need to wake up.

Taxes are the price we pay for advanced society. If you use roads, if you drink clean water or eat safe food, use safe pharmaceuticals or your plane is mechanically sound and doesn't crash into another in a crowded sky, if you've gone to school and received a decent education, if you're using this nifty thing called the internet, you have government to thank for it.

In order for society to function, there has to be an enforcer of rules. Government serves that function. Without it, we'd spend so much time providing ourselves with the necessities of life that we'd never take the time to expand the base of human knowledge that allows us to advance society.
It would take all day to correct this. Let me just say I am aware of these points and they have all been addressed to my satisfaction. I'll direct my evangelism to those who've already figured most of this out for themselves and just need a little more prodding.

Yes, just like every single human being in the world, people have always acted in a way they believe defends their ideals and beliefs. It's a logical impossibility to do anything else because you can only react according to your ideals, even if you are uncertain or have misled yourself about what they are. So all action can be described as "defensive", and by extension all violence. The ironic thing about your link to Hitler is that I'm not the person arguing that "defensive action" is automatically justified, you are.

All action can be described as defensive and all rocks can be described as digestable. It's no excuse to start eating rocks.


My definition is actually precise and correct which is why I used it; the state is described as
"the members or representatives of the governing classes assembled in a legislative body" (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=state&x=0&y=0) which means the people who make the laws. Like I said. Therefore in an anarchistic society it would be whoever decides how to direct the "defensive agencies". So there is no confusion for anyone who understands anarchistic theory or the term itself.

That's not the standard defintion of the state. You can use the word that way if you like, I don't care. Play with labels all you like.


"Murder" is defined as illegal killing, so it could well be. The fact remains that you are still killing another person, you just happen to think it's justifiable because it saves your own life. I'd kill another person to protect a friend of mine, as would a jolly lot of other people, even if I was never going to be endangered. This argument unfortunately legitimises murdering another person to protect a fellow, in doing so also legitimising the murder of a state executioner.

Illegal according to what law? The state's law? I prefer the natural law as espoused by Rothbard et al.


Preventative measures, chuck, it would be rather a lot more in order to stop them from doing it again.

What? If someone took your money you'd stop them doing it again but you wouldn't take the money back? Well, that's up to you I guess.


Sure, you just have to hope that corporations are perfectly willing to regulate themselves in order to hamstring their own profit margin. Or that other corporations would force it on them.

Making safe reliable products isn't bad for profits. Pan-Am went broke if I remember correctly.


I have never heard of vengeance being described as "perfectly justifiable" but more a double standard of the state. Do go on, please, how is it justifiable?


How is it not? If someone doesn't respect my rights why should I respect theirs?


Then it must just be my flair for logic and debate which makes me consistently right.
Hmmm. Must be.

You've misunderstood. I was saying that, by hailing Vorringa, you were supporting a poster that believes in killing innocent civilians. Because Vorringa says:

The dictionary.com defination of terrorism is:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Still think it's unreasonable to compare him to Bin Laden?

Keyword: Unlawful.

The West makes the rules (more like guidelines anyway) and we enforce them when its necessary. That definition is also so broad that whenever the U.S. or Canada threathens retaliatory trade sanctions over softwood lumber or steel then were terrorizing each other...yeah right.

Again, I stated a position that would solve the problem. No one has proposed a different idea that is logical and feasible.

Treaties and the U.N. are not binding rules. The U.N. is not a police force. Laws need a state and police forces in order to be enforced. International Law is non-binding and they are guidelines to actions.

Yeah, Upward Thrust, Direct Democracy via technology :) I think a "votebox" under the TV that gets used once a week, where you can place your vote on issues, would be great!


Lol while that would be fun to see … really not necessary

Electronic poling at your standard poling place (such as town hall and what not) would be sufficient

Just the fact that it can do a direct tally (of course there is always worries about hacking and such … if there is THAT much of a worry hell the file could be encrypted and put onto physical media which is carried physically) that sort of thing, if it is never connected directly to any sort of network it complicates the task of “getting into” the machine

Anyways electronic tallying has allowed a fast and ACURATE count (no hanging chads or any sort of human count error)

Laws need a state and police forces in order to be enforced.
This is false and has been proven so by history.

http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm

Lol while that would be fun to see … really not necessary

Electronic poling at your standard poling place (such as town hall and what not) would be sufficient

Just the fact that it can do a direct tally (of course there is always worries about hacking and such … if there is THAT much of a worry hell the file could be encrypted and put onto physical media which is carried physically) that sort of thing, if it is never connected directly to any sort of network it complicates the task of “getting into” the machine

Anyways electronic tallying has allowed a fast and ACURATE count (no hanging chads or any sort of human count error)

True. It wont be long for that at least, I don't think.

All action can be described as defensive and all rocks can be described as digestable. It's no excuse to start eating rocks.

Wonderful. So now you've finally admitted it, this must mean that:

"i. I don't define defensive violence to be anything that's justifiable to me, I define justifiable to me to be defensive violence."

all violence and all action is justifiable to you. Well done, you've also established that state violence to collect taxes, uphold the law and so on are also justified. Oh and Hitler as you so succinctly mentioned. Sure you don't want to change your earlier argument?

That's not the standard defintion of the state. You can use the word that way if you like, I don't care. Play with labels all you like.

You can't really tell me that the dictionary definition of "state" isn't a standard one without sounding like a troll, which given your replies to others I'm beginning to suspect is likely.

Illegal according to what law? The state's law? I prefer the natural law as espoused by Rothbard et al.

What an amazing ability you have to ignore arguments which prove you wrong. You wouldn't happen to be a creationist would you?

"Murder" is unlawful killing by any law, governered by whomever, be it an unwritten law by society or one legislated and protected against by the state. The idea of "natural" law is nonsensical as everything in this universe is natural and the idea of inalienable rights ignores the ability of society and its ideas to change over time.

What? If someone took your money you'd stop them doing it again but you wouldn't take the money back? Well, that's up to you I guess.

What I was arguing is that in order to prevent further coerced transactions the "defensive agencies" would have to include more preventative measures such as fines; "it would be rather a lot more [money] in order to stop them from doing it again." Like it or not even in the most anarchistic of societies there are things the most of society will look down upon and wish to prevent, regardless of whether it's called "crime". In anarchy the most salient one is involuntary transactions which is why anarco-capitalists support so-called defensive agencies, you've yet to argue how crime will be stopped other than by saying that an action is justified if it is defensive and then by saying that all action is defensive. Which is just a nonsensical framework of ethics and unpractical - well impossible within a society as society will make its own rules, government or not, not that these rules will necessarily be nice ones.

Making safe reliable products isn't bad for profits. Pan-Am went broke if I remember correctly.

Cutting production costs (and lowering sales cost) is also good for profits, particularly if the company in question has a monopoly on a certain product.

How is it not? If someone doesn't respect my rights why should I respect theirs?

Because vengeance turns you into a hypocrite, how can you condemn a person's actions if you turn around and repeat the same offence against them? It means you're just as condemnable, just as bad and just as reprehensible as they are.

Hmmm. Must be.

On reflection it must be by default given the opposing viewpoints.

Wonderful. So now you've finally admitted it, this must mean that:

"i. I don't define defensive violence to be anything that's justifiable to me, I define justifiable to me to be defensive violence."

all violence and all action is justifiable to you. Well done, you've also established that state violence to collect taxes, uphold the law and so on are also justified. Oh and Hitler as you so succinctly mentioned. Sure you don't want to change your earlier argument?

No. I mean that just because some fool says that gassing the jews is an act of defensive violence does not make it so.

You can't really tell me that the dictionary definition of "state" isn't a standard one without sounding like a troll, which given your replies to others I'm beginning to suspect is likely.

Yes I can.

What an amazing ability you have to ignore arguments which prove you wrong. You wouldn't happen to be a creationist would you?

"Murder" is unlawful killing by any law, governered by whomever, be it an unwritten law by society or one legislated and protected against by the state. The idea of "natural" law is nonsensical as everything in this universe is natural and the idea of inalienable rights ignores the ability of society and its ideas to change over time.

That's not true. Gassing the Jews was not unlawful in Germany but by natural law it is obviously murder.

What I was arguing is that in order to prevent further coerced transactions the "defensive agencies" would have to include more preventative measures such as fines; "it would be rather a lot more [money] in order to stop them from doing it again." Like it or not even in the most anarchistic of societies there are things the most of society will look down upon and wish to prevent, regardless of whether it's called "crime". In anarchy the most salient one is involuntary transactions which is why anarco-capitalists support so-called defensive agencies, you've yet to argue how crime will be stopped other than by saying that an action is justified if it is defensive and then by saying that all action is defensive. Which is just a nonsensical framework of ethics and unpractical - well impossible within a society as society will make its own rules, government or not, not that these rules will necessarily be nice ones.

I don't understand this. Are you asking how the justice system would work?

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

Cutting production costs (and lowering sales cost) is also good for profits, particularly if the company in question has a monopoly on a certain product.

Yes. So what?

Because vengeance turns you into a hypocrite, how can you condemn a person's actions if you turn around and repeat the same offence against them? It means you're just as condemnable, just as bad and just as reprehensible as they are.

No it doesn't. Do you believe in jailing offenders? What is that but vengeance? Hey, lets just let all the serial killers loose!

A time when progressive thought was the norm and being a liberal wasn't a dirty word.
Since when is it a dirty word?

I didn't like the song; it was over-laden with quotes.

Thus, they kill a citizen of Western country X, we annihilate city in offending state Y. Point final. Its unfair, its dirty and let me tell you, it'll work.
Yeah, great idea. And it will work until every city is destroyed and every human of the third world is killed to protect freedom and liberty.

Sounds like Osama bin Laden.

The state of Israel and five and a half million Jews would be crushed by its enemies if not for American aid.
And what we have is so much better? Where Israel is crushing the Palestinians?

Since when is it a dirty word?

I didn't like the song; it was over-laden with quotes.

Well, it was the message in the song.. it certainly is not a song you'd go dancing to..lol It was a message.. more then a song. I personally loved it.

As for liberal being a dirty word, to most of us it's not. However the culture of fear and intolerence seems to have turned it into a dirty word in the USA.

Yeah, great idea. And it will work until every city is destroyed and every human of the third world is killed to protect freedom and liberty.

Sounds like Osama bin Laden.

You don't give them enough credit.

The average person doesn't give a damn about extremists one way or another and would be quite content to live out their lives in peace. You just got to drive the point home that if their brother, or cousin or neighbor is involved in such a group then he/she should be stopped before he/she pisses off the wrong state. I doubt VERY seriously that after carrying out the threat 2-3 times that people would continue to support them knowing full well state X would continue this policy. It worked perfectly in the past, why can it not work now?

The point is to make it a burden upon other nations to control their extremist elements so they don't harm your citizens. Protection of citizens and liberties is up to each individual state. State X doesn't have to give a rats ass about state Y's citizens; its citizens come first and foremost.

I guess in many ways I'm old school. I believe in the idealism of a generation we seem to have lost some where along the way. A time when people truly cared about affecting change in a meaningful way. A time where war was a last resort, not a race to the finish line. A time when we got our news without the editorial to go with it. A time when we knew the difference between separation of church & state. A time when progressive thought was the norm and being a liberal wasn't a dirty word.

It seems to me that the world did in fact change on 9/11 for my American friends, but not for the better, not by a long shot. It seems to me that 9/11 made a whole lot of people forget the values we here in the west stand for and have always prided ourselves on. It seems to me that if we let these values fall a long the waste side, then yes, the people who would wish us harm, have surely won.

This is an mp3 file that I appeal to all Americans and non-Americans to listen to. Yeah, I admit it's pro-Kerry.. However, there is a deep seeded message in this that would be good for all people every where to remember, not just about who Americans are, but about what we all should strive to be again.

What's It Worth (http://www.johnkerry.com/audio/whatitsworth.mp3)

(It takes about 2-5 minutes to load. Perhaps longer if you're on a dial up. I believe it's worth the wait, don't forget to turn your speakers up)
Hey, I agree with you 100% and I wasn't even alive back then

The average person doesn't give a damn about extremists one way or another and would be quite content to live out their lives in peace. You just got to drive the point home that if their brother, or cousin or neighbor is involved in such a group then he/she should be stopped before he/she pisses off the wrong state. I doubt VERY seriously that after carrying out the threat 2-3 times that people would continue to support them knowing full well state X would continue this policy. It worked perfectly in the past, why can it not work now?
Precisely Bin Laden's logic on the Twin Towers. It's interesting that not one of the "moderate" Republicans on here has dissociated themselves from your views. Still, I suppose they don't want to break party unity in the run-up to their conference.

And what we have is so much better? Where Israel is crushing the Palestinians?

Never said it was better. Frankly speaking, though Israel has the right to self-defense, I don't agree with how they go about it!

::Typed while on Vacation::

Never said it was better. Frankly speaking, though Israel has the right to self-defense, I don't agree with how they go about it!

::Typed while on Vacation::

Palestinians have a right to self defense too!

Palestinians have a right to self defense too!

They do and I agree that they do, but homicide bombings of civilians isn't the answer. There are better ways than killing Civilian Jews and Civilian Palestinians. If both sides agreed to the terms of the many proposals, we wouldn't be in this fix!

OOC: Last post today, i'm off! Still on vacation! :)

They do and I agree that they do, but homicide bombings of civilians isn't the answer. There are better ways than killing Civilian Jews and Civilian Palestinians. If both sides agreed to the terms of the many proposals, we wouldn't be in this fix!

OOC: Last post today, i'm off! Still on vacation! :)

They are not "homicide bombings".. they're suicide bombings.. "homicide bombings " is a catch phrase that Fox News came up with to make it sound worse.. I know, I learned it in the documentary I watched last night "Outfoxed" Trust me, you'll never hear it used any where else.

They are not "homicide bombings".. they're suicide bombings.. "homicide bombings " is a catch phrase that Fox News came up with to make it sound worse.. I know, I learned it in the documentary I watched last night "Outfoxed" Trust me, you'll never hear it used any where else.

NOt gonna trust you on this. I even heard the phrase used on MSNBC! Saying suicide bombing glorifies what they did. Homicide Bombing tells it for what it really is- MURDER!

At least Israel tries not to kill innocent men women and children. The terrorists don't do that! They find the most crowded place and blow themselves up killing dozens, including themselves, thus Homicide Bombings would be the proper word. I noticed more media organizations are starting to report it as homicide bombings, Not just Fox News.

Here's a few links:

http://www.petitiononline.com/bombing/petition
http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Articles/Ettinger-2003-08-19.asp
http://www.wordspy.com/words/homicidebombings
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0503/terrorism_2003_05_18.php3

OOC: Typed while on vacation!

NOt gonna trust you on this. I even heard the phrase used on MSNBC! Saying suicide bombing glorifies what they did. Homicide Bombing tells it for what it really is- MURDER!I can honestly say that I've never heard it referred to as that before today.

At least Israel tries not to kill innocent men women and children. According to all available figures, more Palestinian civilians are killed by Israel then vice versa.The terrorists don't do that! They find the most crowded place and blow themselves up killing dozens, including themselves, thus Homicide Bombings would be the proper word. I noticed more media organizations are starting to report it as homicide bombings, Not just Fox News.
And I condemn the attacks on Israeli civilians unreservedly. Will you do the same about Israel's attacks on Palestinian civilians? Couple of other points.

1. Hamas and Islamic Jihad were originally tiny groups with no popular support. It's been Israel's policys that have lead to their growth.

2. The last Israeli Prime Minister to be assassinated was killed by an Israeli right winger with links to Mossad, not a Palestinian attack.

3. If the Palestinians had fighter jets and tanks, they wouldn't carry out suicide bombings either.

4. To be evenhanded, if you're going to refer to suicide bombings as "homicide bombings", shouldn't you refer to Israeli military strikes in the same way.

http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/

What are you trying to justify by this quote? Does this mean you think death is good too?

From an evolutionary point death is not necessaraly "good" or "bad" it is however, ultimately neccessary. Death simply is.

As for taxes, I do not mind paying them if the money is being spent on worthwhile project and concerns.

[QUOTE=Formal Dances]NOt gonna trust you on this. I even heard the phrase used on MSNBC! Saying suicide bombing glorifies what they did. Homicide Bombing tells it for what it really is- MURDER!

At least Israel tries not to kill innocent men women and children. The terrorists don't do that! They find the most crowded place and blow themselves up killing dozens, including themselves, thus Homicide Bombings would be the proper word. I noticed more media organizations are starting to report it as homicide bombings, Not just Fox News.[QUOTE]

I generally do not take sides here. There are three sides to every conflict - your side, there side and the truth. The "truth" is a most elusive creature, yes?

In the end, what do we really know?

NOt gonna trust you on this. I even heard the phrase used on MSNBC! Saying suicide bombing glorifies what they did. Homicide Bombing tells it for what it really is- MURDER!

At least Israel tries not to kill innocent men women and children. The terrorists don't do that! They find the most crowded place and blow themselves up killing dozens, including themselves, thus Homicide Bombings would be the proper word. I noticed more media organizations are starting to report it as homicide bombings, Not just Fox News.

Here's a few links:

http://www.petitiononline.com/bombing/petition
http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Articles/Ettinger-2003-08-19.asp
http://www.wordspy.com/words/homicidebombings
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0503/terrorism_2003_05_18.php3

OOC: Typed while on vacation!

Okay, I'll correct myself, Fox News and Israeli zionist sites.

Okay, I'll correct myself, Fox News and Israeli zionist sites.

SOunds like you don't like israel judging from your post! I believe only one came from a legitament Israeli site. The others are a petition, a dictionary site, and something on the arab and israeli conflict.

Thus I'll stick to the term Homicide Bombing! That is what it truely is murder.

Now The Holy Word!

As for the stats, I can believe them. Here's why! Israel has an annoying habit, and one that they could do without, of targeting killings on top leaders of Hamas and other groups. Not to mention that many Palestinians get caught in the cross fire. Do I blame the Israeli Government? Yes! Do I blame Arafat, who turned down the greatest peace offer in history? Yes! Do I Blame the Palestinians? Not totally! Do I blame the Israeli people? not totally! Do I blame the UN? Yes and here's why! The UN isn't doing anything to try and solve it to the benefit of BOTH people! They want Israel to cede ALL the land! Now I can see why it should be done, but Israel, winner of every middle east war it has fought, won that land in battle. Should they give up most of it? Sure they should. but if they give up all the land, then Israel will be a much smaller nation than it is right now! That could weaken their right to self Defense!

::Typed while on Vacation::

SOunds like you don't like israel judging from your post! I believe only one came from a legitament Israeli site. The others are a petition, a dictionary site, and something on the arab and israeli conflict. The first site is the petition site. It doesen't say who's behind the petition so for all we know it could be anyone.

The second site attacks both the Oslo accords and the road map. It's opposed to peace.

The third site isn't working.

The fourth site says in an article "Two patterns have shaped Israel's history since 1992 and go far to explain Israel's predicament today. First, every elected prime minister has broken his word on how he would deal with the Arabs. Second, each one of them has adopted an unexpectedly concessionary approach." So they are against concessions. Does that sound like the talk of people who are interested in peace to you, or a far right Israeli pressure group? You'll also notice the reference to "Arabs" as opposed to the Palestinian goverment. Does that not sound a bit racist to you?

What did you think of the Israeli peace movement site I linked to?


Thus I'll stick to the term Homicide Bombing! That is what it truely is murder.
Why do you not use the same terms for Israel attacks on Palistinians?

As for the stats, I can believe them. Here's why! Israel has an annoying habit, and one that they could do without, of targeting killings on top leaders of Hamas and other groups. Not to mention that many Palestinians get caught in the cross fire. Again, this is double standards. Attacks on Israeli politicians- homicide. Attacks on Palestinian politicians- annoying. And do you recognise that Israel has used a tactic of attacking those of the Palestinians who are the best media spokespeople, for propaganda reasons. Despite the fact that those are the ones who tend towards the moderates.Do I blame the Israeli Government? Yes! Do I blame Arafat, who turned down the greatest peace offer in history? Yes! Do I Blame the Palestinians? Not totally! Do I blame the Israeli people? not totally! Do I blame the UN? Yes and here's why! The UN isn't doing anything to try and solve it to the benefit of BOTH people! They want Israel to cede ALL the land! Now I can see why it should be done, but Israel, winner of every middle east war it has fought, won that land in battle. Should they give up most of it? Sure they should. but if they give up all the land, then Israel will be a much smaller nation than it is right now! That could weaken their right to self Defense!
Your choice of language isn't neutral though, and it blames the Palestinians. I disagree that it would weaken Israel's right to self defense. It would reduce support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad. And they're trying to get the land back through battle. As I said before, give them the same planes and tanks that Israel uses, and they won't be using suicide bombings.

wow

i just read the first and last pages of this thread

from "we used to be nice" to "israel sucks" in 7 pages!

I fully agree with you, Stephistan. Young people need to wake up and rebuild our society and force through change.

It is the first duty of a citizen to be an activist for his or her ideals, either within the political process, or, as often works better, outside of it by convincing the voters of your ideas.

In addition, I just want to say something: Idealism does not necessarily preclude pragmatism or cynicism. I consider myself an idealist, a pragmatist, and a cynic, and I don't find anything dichotomatical in the least in that description.

No. I mean that just because some fool says that gassing the jews is an act of defensive violence does not make it so.

Except for the fact that all action is defensive insofar as it defends the ideals and beliefs of the person who commits them. I have pointed this out repeatedly and after a "like Hitler?" point (which is exactly what I was pointing out,) you then said, "All action can be described as defensive and all rocks can be described as digestable." Although your allegory was a ridiculously poor one you had basically admitted that it was true, especially combined with the fact that you had said all defensive violence was legitimate. My point is that you can't categorically declare all defensive action as legitimate unless you both recognise and accept every action as legitimate, which most people, and you if your comments about Hitler are any indication, is unacceptable. If you want a very obvious example, then an armed robber shooting someone when they try to forcefully stop the robbery is legitimate by your argument. So's Hitler as you admitted, but oh well.

Yes I can.

Fair enough, then you're wrong because you're standing in the face of what linguists agree is one of the standard definitions of the "state".

That's not true. Gassing the Jews was not unlawful in Germany but by natural law it is obviously murder.

Yes, it is actually true that everything in this world is natural. The concept of "natural law" is nonsensical, and often it's just Common Law for that nation trussed up as something it isn't. To nick your own example, the leaders of the Nazi Reich had no problem killing Jews, political opponents, homosexuals, Slavs, and so on. Even within a nation it's clear that ethics can be vary massively between two individuals, otherwise not only would all countries share exactly the same laws, but these laws would ultimately become unnecessary since we would all share the same sense of ethics and morality; the Ed Geins and Jeffrey Dahmers wouldn't be able to exist since they'd feel the same way about necrophilia, rape and murder as the rest of us. The idea of a universal code of ethics is therefore rubbish, or did I just drop a millivirtue by saying that?

I don't understand this. Are you asking how the justice system would work?

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

Ahahahahahaha! Oh my, I forgot how insane anarchists could get on the ol' political theory. "There could be competition among different brands of law, just as there is competition among different brands of cars."

"In such a society there might be many courts and even many legal systems."

Lord. :D

So first of all it agrees with everything I have said about force and coercion being an intrinsic part of having defensive agencies, and then for some reason forgets that often arbitration decisions which were unpopular amongst employers have led to employee lockouts in the past, notably in Weimar Germany, the UK, and the States. Nice how the article sidesteps admitting this with "Currently, arbitrated decisions are usually enforceable in the government courts, but that is a recent development; historically, enforcement came from a firm's desire to maintain its reputation."

This is how monopolies and cartels are formed, the bigger the company or alliance of companies, the more powerfully armed it is, the more able it would be to push around smaller companies regardless of arbitration. Why it asserts that war would necessarily be uneconomical is beyond me, small scale armament and lend-leasing to other warring companies is a fantastic financial booster. It's a major part of how the US became a superpower after all.

Yes. So what?

It shows that safe, reliable products aren't the end all and be all to making a profit and is only a problem to a company if their product can be proven to a sensible degree that it was the fault of their product which caused a problem. A rival company would find this grossly unprofitable, going through the entire legal process (whichever one they choose :D ) to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that such and such a product had such and such a definite effect on their employee. Now this rival company's employees are almost certainly going to demand investigations/arbitrations into all, if not most of these matters, and thus the company is going to be forced merely into sham proceedings, because a.) it's cheaper than legitimate investigations and b.) their employees are not going to know any different (how many open results court proceedings do you think companies are going to opt for when their own reputations are at stake?)

No it doesn't. Do you believe in jailing offenders? What is that but vengeance? Hey, lets just let all the serial killers loose!

There are four reasons for punishing crimes, of which vengeance is just one possibility. My ideals do not defend vengeace, thus I find, for example, putting criminals to death, or assaulting a person who assaulted you in the past when they pose no threat is unjustified barbarism. If however, you believe that someone should forfeit their rights upon encroaching upon yours, that they deserve whatever they have done to you, then you are guilty of double standards and are a hypocrite.

So what do I believe? I think that people should be removed from a society when they break its rules, or rather, that other people should be protected from things the law finds immoral; prevention and protection as opposed to vengeance. If imprisonment is the only way to do it then so be it, otherwise electronic tagging, fining or what have you is fine until the person has shown they are capable of not breaking the systems of laws of the nation.