JC:

Do you really think an infant's condition would be improved if you killed their parents in the name of non-aggression?

When they grew up, if they grew up, they would be within their legal rights if they decided to kill you for murdering their parents, and I'd be inclined to help them.

Only the victim can determine the punishment the the criminal receives. If the victim does not agree with a punishment you hand out on your own you are criminally liable for all of your crimes.

100 orphans might be thankful for their "liberation", but that won't protect you from the 1 orphan that declares you a murderer.

JohnSchreimann:

Weaker governments may seem easier to reverse or topple, but not really considering most of these governments are also related to the people and would require crushing all connections with their constituents (throwing them in prison or killing them).  As well as worrying about the consolidation of power by surrounding governments happening:  basically forming alliances or warring with one another over this newly toppled government and sovereignty.  And no one could argue logically that they'd give them anarchism but more statism and millions of deaths crushing opposition, put up walls, genocide.... every country would see it on CNN satellite feed and their states would panic and then trace it back to the US.  US would imprison you... or if they were stateless somehow they would not have the military might in order to fight the blowback that comes from such militious aggression on other countries.  Or if they did, you'd be up against a multi-state military force that would easily dispose of a private army by sheer numbers and force.  The league of all the remaining states would call the stateless regions "undemocratic and unstable" and then they would join together and making us into colonies of their states.  They'd steal oil or "nationalize" it, make us socialist, put in a puppet president to federate the Union back into existence.  And they'd get Canadians or Mexicans or something to run our governments.  Probably after cutting off all our trade with other nations via sanctions in order to starve us out of comfortable living conditions.  Making us submit to statism or else die.  Making it too difficult for many to resist such a situation.

 

Did you ever watch the show "Root of All Evil" on Comedy Central? Because what you've done here is a decent imitation of their "Ripple of Evil". In any case, let me repeat, I am not an anarchist. I'm not going to get into the strategies for making an empire work right now, it has been done, the US is just really, really bad at it. We tend to think of empires like the Romans had, but they actually kinda sucked at it too. The Persians did a pretty good job with it, and experienced very few rebellions. Look it up sometime. Of course, I wouldn't want to exactly imitate that, but it can be done. I actually think that many of these people are rather unhappy under their current governments. Most people are when they're miserable, abused and hungry.

It would not be any different for minarchism.  And did it ever occur to you that virtually all of these governments are the way they are because of empires (which I see you are not defending as positive) intervening?  I can't even think of a single exception.

JCFolsom:

I actually think that many of these people are rather unhappy under their current governments. Most people are when they're miserable, abused and hungry.

But not you obviously. You like this government so much you to make it mandatory for everyone in the world.

I hear the government they have in hell is pretty nice, too. Go check it out.

 

 

 

JonBostwick:

But not you obviously. You like this government so much you to make it mandatory for everyone in the world.

I hear the government they have in hell is pretty nice, too. Go check it out.

Well, of course, the overthrow of this government would have to be the first step for anything. You're such an ignorant and unthinking pile today, Jon.

JC, I think you pointed out somewhere else that the war on drugs and the jailing of hundreds of thousands people for victimless crimes is not...right.

Now, isn't jailing innocent people way worse than tattooing babies ? Shouldn't you first overthrow the American government before deciding what to do about other governments ? If western culture(to which I belong...) is judged by things like the war on drugs, or other wars, it can be easily and correctly regarded as very 'savage'...

edit : I see you answered the part about the American gov't before I posted my message. My timing wasn't that good...

 Clearly, there is no right way to deal with this problem. Personally, I do believe it is wrong to cut up babies or young females or females for that matter. I believe it is wrong to have a culture perform such barbaric acts. I find it horrendous. However, I also believe that I have no right to tell anybody what they should and should not do.

This is what makes this case and lots of other cases where different cultural views/traditions collide. I understand that parents are making the decision for their children and are mutilating them. The children are the victims.

The only way one could possibly fix the situation is by educating the cultures/groups/ethnicities that their practices are wrong and dangerous and barbaric. But then again, who are we to impose our views/thoughts on them?

katja328:

 Clearly, there is no right way to deal with this problem. Personally, I do believe it is wrong to cut up babies or young females or females for that matter. I believe it is wrong to have a culture perform such barbaric acts. I find it horrendous. However, I also believe that I have no right to tell anybody what they should and should not do.

This is what makes this case and lots of other cases where different cultural views/traditions collide. I understand that parents are making the decision for their children and are mutilating them. The children are the victims.

The only way one could possibly fix the situation is by educating the cultures/groups/ethnicities that their practices are wrong and dangerous and barbaric. But then again, who are we to impose our views/thoughts on them?

Who are they to impose them on their children? Children are not the property of their parents, they are their own people, created into dependency by the acts of their parents, and to whom the parents therefore have an obligation. We're not telling them what to do, we're telling them what they can't do. Are you saying that you would not feel justified in stopping a rape or a robbery if it were within your power? That's you telling the rapist or the robber what to do, as much as stopping genital mutilation is.

I don't have any stomach for allowing horrors just because they're culturally acceptable. As for "education", how do you plan on even getting your lessons to them? Do you really think their petty tyrants are going to let you teach them about human dignity and compassion?

JCFolsom:

Who are they to impose them on their children? Children are not the property of their parents, they are their own people, created into dependency by the acts of their parents, and to whom the parents therefore have an obligation. We're not telling them what to do, we're telling them what they can't do. Are you saying that you would not feel justified in stopping a rape or a robbery if it were within your power? That's you telling the rapist or the robber what to do, as much as stopping genital mutilation is.

I don't have any stomach for allowing horrors just because they're culturally acceptable. As for "education", how do you plan on even getting your lessons to them? Do you really think their petty tyrants are going to let you teach them about human dignity and compassion?

 

We don't know whether the parents even know they are tyrants. They might not know that what they are doing is wrong. They've been doing this for years and years and years. 

A robber and rapist do knew that what they are doing is wrong. And I would stop it because they know better.  If I had a simple solution to the dilemma of stopping genital mutilation I would.

Invading a country and overthrowing the government isn't helpful. Killing the parents isn't going to solve anything or making me any better than the parents are. The only solution I see, as stated previously, is assuming that these people are unaware of the fact that what they are doing is mutilation, barbaric and unsanitary and trying to educate them.

katja328:

We don't know whether the parents even know they are tyrants. They might not know that what they are doing is wrong. They've been doing this for years and years and years. 

A robber and rapist do knew that what they are doing is wrong. And I would stop it because they know better.

  

Bollocks. You don't know what's in anyone's head. You guess. If the screaming and blood and frequent deaths dont tip them off, than the only reason they keep doing it is because they refuse to think about it. And people (at least the women) do realize it, but the power structures of their cultures hold them down. So, we disrupt those structures. Arabs aren't stupid people, you know. They can read. This practice isn't even demanded by Islam, it's just a hideous old tribal tradition.

katja328:

Invading a country and overthrowing the government isn't helpful.

 

Why? That government clearly isn't doing it's job. Time for a new one.

katja328:

Killing the parents isn't going to solve anything or making me any better than the parents are.

 

Actually, I'd say that yes, killing people who mutilate infants in fact makes you way, way better than they are.

katja328:

The only solution I see, as stated previously, is assuming that these people are unaware of the fact that what they are doing is mutilation, barbaric and unsanitary and trying to educate them.

 

This practice is quite common in Egypt, for instance. They have the interwebs in Egypt. Not nearly so extensively as here, but still. This information is available, they just aren't interested; see, the Arab men, who by their precious religion can hate on women all day, think mutilated genitals makes sex better. So, the only way to stop this practice is to make it more uncomfortable to do than not to do. And you start by reaching out to the Arab women and men who know how wrong this is and have them be the vanguard of your takeover.

JCFolsom:

Why? That government clearly isn't doing it's job. Time for a new one.

What job is that? Defending individual rights? No government can ever defend individual rights since its very existence, based upon the social contract, makes it immoral and unethical. Thus, ethics and morality must be suspended when it comes to the government, and we create double standards within ethical systems which leads to moral relativism, and we all know how great that is...

Unless of course you're arguing for a voluntary government, but you can't really believe that. You should realise that these people, if asked to choose, would go for a government than conformed to their religious and cultural dogmas, including genital mutilation. Thus you're talking about creating a violent and coercive government substitute, with a naive hope that it would somehow defend rights and promote peace. How many times has that worked before?

We're forgetting that we have to enforce animal rights in the third world, too.  That will also go over well in the Minarchist One World Empire.

JohnSchreimann:

We're forgetting that we have to enforce animal rights in the third world, too.

 

Just as long as you do not complain about muslim practices in your home country, you should be save with such demands:

Former screen siren Bardot convicted in race case

19 hours ago

PARIS (AP) — Brigitte Bardot was convicted Tuesday of provoking discrimination and racial hatred for writing that Muslims are destroying France.

A Paris court also handed down a $23,325 fine against the former screen siren and animal rights campaigner. The court also ordered Bardot to pay $1,555 in damages to MRAP.

Bardot's lawyer, Francois-Xavier Kelidjian, said he would talk to her about the possibility of an appeal.

A leading French anti-racism group known as MRAP filed a lawsuit last year over a letter she sent to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. The remarks were published in her foundation's quarterly journal.

In the December 2006 letter to Sarkozy, now the president, Bardot said France is "tired of being led by the nose by this population that is destroying us, destroying our country by imposing its acts."

Bardot, 73, was referring to the Muslim feast of Aid el-Kebir, celebrated by slaughtering sheep.

French anti-racism laws prevent inciting hatred and discrimination on racial or religious or racial grounds. Bardot had been convicted four times previously for inciting racial hatred.

"She is tired of this type of proceedings," he said. "She has the impression that people want to silence her. She will not be silenced in her defense of animal rights."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ixP8XeA1fg-eeiNgRz_M4fBicPAgD912LDIG0

You can protest against animal abuse as long it is committed by people of your own ethnicity. Just be careful that you do not protest in favour of a France with a French culture, opposing the arabization of that country.  

 

 

 

Torsten:

You can protest against animal abuse as long it is committed by people of your own ethnicity.

You can protest anything you like. But thats not the issue at hand, we are talking about people's who reflex reaction is violence.

JonBostwick:

You can protest anything you like. But thats not the issue at hand, we are talking about people's who reflex reaction is violence.

 Mrs. Bardot was arrested for protesting against certain practices concerning the slaughter of animals in France. She was convicted for that, because these practices were performed by muslims, who are mainly ethnic Arabs or Negroes. If she doesn't comply with the courts ruling, violence is going to be used against her by the French government. Now I'm not sure how widespread the practice of female circumcision is in France and I'm wondering, what would be happening, if she protested against these practices, if they were performed in France. The Arabs in Negro in France are mainly from the former colonies of France that still have French as a formal language. An example is Mali, were this practice is according to the map quite common. So I wouldn't be surprised, if the practice did occur in France as well. 

 

The one issue was one whether one should invade Sudan and kill the local adults in order to prevent female genital mutilation. The other issue at hand would be about, what would happen, if this becomes common in ones own neighbourhoods. With the Bardot article I brought to light that Western governments actually try to silence opposition and protest against that kind of trends.

Torsten:

 Mrs. Bardot was arrested for protesting against certain practices concerning the slaughter of animals in France.

People get arrested for hiring prostitutes, that doesn't make prostitution a crime in a libertarian sense. Though I have a feeling Bardot used crime as her form of protest.

Torsten:

The other issue at hand would be about, what would happen, if this becomes common in ones own neighbourhoods.

 The state prevents cultural conflict by arresting agitators, as in your example. If not for the State it is likely that immigrants would not share communities with the French. If the state were to dissolve today ethnic conflict would likely follow, as the French seem eager to impose their laws on the immigrants already present. A system that does not provide for cultural freedom ensures cultural segregation.

You also have to remember that it is possible for parallel legal systems to exist in a single geographical location, so long as they can agree on basic rules of interaction between members of the different legal systems. Parental habits do not fall under this category; if one legal system tried to enforce its rules on the other then it would destroy market law and become a government.

This is true promise of libertarianism. It does not seek to provide some universal notion of justice. It seeks to resolve conflict, allowing a free society to replace a statist society.