ProudProfiteer: Not sure where I said a utopia would exist. Ok, so let me walk through this and you can straighten me out. Having a law, say that you can't murder anyone, would in my opinion benefit everyone. So you say this could be created voluntarily. What about with a serial killer? He may not agree with this. Am I to believe that killing would not be a little more accepted and happen more often if there was no law prohibiting it? Obviously laws do not stop something, but they do dissuade the action. I think this would be a perfect example of a good place to force those who disagree. How do you propose this protection without government? If someone decides to kill someone what are the repercussions?
Not sure where I said a utopia would exist.
Ok, so let me walk through this and you can straighten me out. Having a law, say that you can't murder anyone, would in my opinion benefit everyone. So you say this could be created voluntarily. What about with a serial killer? He may not agree with this.
Am I to believe that killing would not be a little more accepted and happen more often if there was no law prohibiting it? Obviously laws do not stop something, but they do dissuade the action. I think this would be a perfect example of a good place to force those who disagree.
How do you propose this protection without government? If someone decides to kill someone what are the repercussions?
I'm sure this topic is covered on other threads. Not sure this relates to when to go to war.
ProudProfiteer:Maybe I'm just ignorant and you can enlighten me.
You're not ignorant. You have simply come across what we all come across eventually. The fact that government is illogical.
ProudProfiteer:Well, I think the key word is cooperatively. Am I to believe everyone will behave cooperatively?
No, but do you have a right to force other people to cooperate against their will if they are not interfering with you?
ProudProfiteer:If not, are we supposed to each have our own police forces? Who says what's justified for that police force? Again, I must admit I haven't read the docs on private defense yet, but if this is what it is I don't see how it could work.
Check out Bob Murphy's "Chaos Theory". It is a short essay here on Mises.org
ProudProfiteer:So how do you stop coercion?
Voluntarism.
ProudProfiteer:I agree that maybe in some cases people don't get the same legal defense because of their financial status, but I'm not sure how that means you should not have laws or government.
Order and law originate in the market, not in government. Government is not necessary to have law or order. My point is, what you consider a fair tax, may not be fair for the next person. What you consider to be theft, may not be considered theft by the two parties making a transaction. There is no such thing as objective law. There is a brilliant long essay on this, if you're interested let me know. I'm warning you up front that it is around 15,000 words, so it might take you a little time to read through it.
ProudProfiteer:I don't know this to be true or false, so i won't make a claim either way. You make it sound like it's a military strategy though, and it is not.
It is true. I think if you google "rape of okinawa" you will find info on it. I don't think it is a military "strategy" per se, but I do think it is a consequence of armed occupation. Has been throughout history.
ProudProfiteer:You can't claim we do this as a country because of someone's actions.
Well then you can't claim to invade Afghanistan because of what some Saudis in Afghanistan did. You can't claim to invade Iraq because of what Saddam Hussein may or may not be doing. I agree whole heartedly on this. I oppose collectivism. I prefer to deal with individuals.
ProudProfiteer:We will never agree because you believe we are mass murders.
You just abandoned "we" and now you pick it up again. The US military and government mass murder. That is empirically true. The US military and government have committed war crimes. That is empirically true. I'm not saying anything controversial here, that I am saying it is controversial.
ProudProfiteer:There is always collateral damage in any war whether even when it's agreed its a justified war.
When muslims kill Americans with a suicide bomb, it is terrorism. When Americans kill pakistani women and children with predator missle drones, that is collateral damage. When muslims attack american civilians, it is unjustified. When Americans attack civilians, it is justified.
It's not consistent and whether you realize it or not, it is self-serving to see the actions of your side this way.
ProudProfiteer:We are not systematically mass murdering people.
Right...
ProudProfiteer:Yes, I do believe it's ok in self defense. If someone is trying to kill me, should I just say I don't believe in killing and they'll stop?
I just wanted to clarify that. You said you didn't think killing was ok, then you said it was ok under certain circumstances.
ProudProfiteer:no I am not ok with torture, but that is a sticky issue too. Torture can be classified many different ways.
Equivocating.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
K.C. Farmer:Agreed, but I think you'd see people pool together and buy "insurance" against military invasion.
Military's fight governments, not individuals. There would be no need for invasion insurance.
K.C. Farmer:You assume that the capture or elimination of Osama bin Laden would stop al-Qaeda.
Expand it to $100 billion for all of the known al-Qaeda people. You don't think that would have worked better than spending hundreds of billions of dollars on wars?
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
ProudProfiteer:Wikipedia definition = A free market describes a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud.
Question, do you think government is more or less efficient than the market? Second question, if you think it is less efficient than the market, then why would you trust it with a monopoly on courts, cops, and military?
JonBostwick: Second, this might be hard for you to believe, but there was a time when everyone liked the US. Even Nazis and Muslims!
Second, this might be hard for you to believe, but there was a time when everyone liked the US. Even Nazis and Muslims!
Time that was so short-lived
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied: It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.
In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.
Haha, I'm going over to the Huffington Post. You guys are too good using logic and all.
liberty student: ProudProfiteer:Well, I think the key word is cooperatively. Am I to believe everyone will behave cooperatively? No, but do you have a right to force other people to cooperate against their will if they are not interfering with you?
No, you don't have a right if they are not interfering with you, but what if they are interfering with you. I guess I better go read Bob's essay. Hopefully, it's easy to find.
liberty student:I just wanted to clarify that. You said you didn't think killing was ok, then you said it was ok under certain circumstances.
Sounds like you were saying I was wrong to believe it's OK if you must take a life in self defense. I'm not saying it's something to relish, but I think it's necessary for survival. Am I wrong here?
liberty student: ProudProfiteer:no I am not ok with torture, but that is a sticky issue too. Torture can be classified many different ways. Equivocating.
Not equivocating, but stating how I see it. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's torture to make someone a little uncomfortable (and I am not talking about waterboarding).
Go ahead and send me that long essay. I'll read Bob's essay first.
Spideynw:Question, do you think government is more or less efficient than the market? Second question, if you think it is less efficient than the market, then why would you trust it with a monopoly on courts, cops, and military?
Very good point. I may be wrong. I just can't get my head around it, so I'm going to have to do some reading to see if I agree as far not have a state at all when it comes to law and war.
ProudProfiteer:Haha, I'm going over to the Huffington Post. You guys are too good using logic and all.
I'm on Huffpo too! lol
ProudProfiteer:I guess I better go read Bob's essay.
http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf
ProudProfiteer:Sounds like you were saying I was wrong to believe it's OK if you must take a life in self defense.
No. I just wanted to clarify your position. We're good.
ProudProfiteer:I'm not saying it's something to relish, but I think it's necessary for survival. Am I wrong here?
I don't think so. Some here may differ.
ProudProfiteer:Go ahead and send me that long essay.
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
You're a good sport. I appreciate that. Thanks!
ProudProfiteer:Not sure where I said a utopia would exist.
You didn't, I just sensed that you believe that the gunvernment can make the world a better place for you and for me and the entire human race... rip mj
ProudProfiteer:Having a law, say that you can't murder anyone, would in my opinion benefit everyone. So you say this could be created voluntarily. What about with a serial killer?
So under the law it would be wrong to murder a serial killer?
ProudProfiteer:Am I to believe that killing would not be a little more accepted and happen more often if there was no law prohibiting it?
According to the boyz in the hoodz of Chicago, no difference whatsoever, perhaps it might be less cool if it wasn't illegal? The qty of unjust killings is more related to unjust situations than just laws.
ProudProfiteer:How do you propose this protection without government?
This works pretty good, best defense is to first avoid dangerous shituations like the gunvernment run housing areas and redneck bars after midnight..
ProudProfiteer:If someone decides to kill someone what are the repercussions?
Anywhere from a round of applause to a head full of lead.
You've had all night and day toConsider and prayYou've brought fire on my head andNow you must pay.
Babylon makes the rules where my people suffer
The only time war is justified is in defense. In WWII, we initiated sanctions against Japan, an act of war, and thus we were attacked. We had no right to sanction Japan (or anyone for that matter). If we cut off trade with Japan unilaterally, that would be different.
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
Cam Nedland: The only time war is justified is in defense. In WWII, we initiated sanctions against Japan, an act of war, and thus we were attacked. We had no right to sanction Japan (or anyone for that matter). If we cut off trade with Japan unilaterally, that would be different.
We? As in the U.S. government?
Spideynw: Cam Nedland: The only time war is justified is in defense. In WWII, we initiated sanctions against Japan, an act of war, and thus we were attacked. We had no right to sanction Japan (or anyone for that matter). If we cut off trade with Japan unilaterally, that would be different. We? As in the U.S. government?
Sorry, yes, that's what I meant.
Spideynw: K.C. Farmer:Agreed, but I think you'd see people pool together and buy "insurance" against military invasion. Military's fight governments, not individuals. There would be no need for invasion insurance.
That would require no government anywhere, which would make warfare probably nonexistent. The military's true purpose is to keep individuals from stopping the Government (or those running the government). It's second purpose is to defend the Government against foreign governments.
An invading army, unless restrained by its own command (if it can), will violate the property rights of individuals (including killing, raping, stealing, etc.) in a more direct way than the "friendly" military of the home Government.
Spideynw: K.C. Farmer:You assume that the capture or elimination of Osama bin Laden would stop al-Qaeda. Expand it to $100 billion for all of the known al-Qaeda people. You don't think that would have worked better than spending hundreds of billions of dollars on wars?
Hard to say whether that would work or not given the way they've survived the onslaught. I don't think their motivation is based on money, especially money from the U.S. When you're offered n-many virgins in paradise the old greenback faces some stiff competition. Maybe we can have them trade Osama for Obama or Bush (or even just Krugman).
K.C. Farmer:When you're offered n-many virgins in paradise the old greenback faces some stiff competition.
It's not as simple as that. Suicide terrorism in particular is a result of occupation. This is from a study done by Robert Pape, which he also published in "Dying to Win" one of the books Ron Paul suggested that Rudy Giuliani read. Dr. Pape did the research IIRC as part of a Pentagon project.
So even the military knows that these guys don't blow themselves up for virgins. They do it because they are occupied. But like the "they hate us for our freedoms, they stone women, they hate us for our blue jeans" silliness, it gets perpetuated, over and over.
The only folks who believe this stuff about virgins, are the most uneducated idiots, incapable of flying airplanes, or getting a passport. In nearly all cases, where this extremist nonsense is preached to foot soldiers, the people being preached to, are illiterate.
I'm not saying there are not bad and dangerous muslims out there. But it is incredibly naive to believe they only fight because they think it will get them laid in heaven. It is part of the same dehumanization propaganda that America used against the Nazis and Japanese, and the Soviets used against the west. Make your enemy a maniac or crazy, and then it is easy to galvanize people to kill them.
I think someone wrote in this thread, most muslims are just like everyone else. They want to raise their kids, retire comfortably, and live a life of decent quality. The extremists in the muslim world, are only as dangerous as the extremists at the pentagon or in the US government. I dare say, the western secular (non-religiously motivated) extremists have been much bigger killers over the last 200 years.
K.C. Farmer:That would require no government anywhere, which would make warfare probably nonexistent.
Why would a government invade a land populated by peaceful people, most of whom they are trading with, many of whom are armed, not only with pistols, but bazookas, tanks, and other military goods, and have done nothing, as a group, to threaten the other nation?
Thanks. I will be reading these here shortly. I just watched a video on youtube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN-yWT86Ztw that I think argues what you are saying very well. It's really got the old brain cells thinking. I still have some concerns about the feasibility of this, but will continue to dig. I like this guys analogy of the "Will Kill", but I'm not sure how it would work unless all governments were abolished tomorrow.
Stef is very good. His videos are solid indeed.
ProudProfiteer:I still have some concerns about the feasibility of this
That is most everyone's hangup. It was mine. The reason why we argue for free markets, is that no one can predict how all of humanity should be organized. We use the market to test approaches, and the best ones (by whatever metric of value we apply) carry on, and the ones that fail get dropped.
So I really don't know how things will work, but I trust that the market will make it work, like I trust that the market will delivery electricity and food.
Ultimately, it is a moral argument for me. When we see the humanity of the people we tax, or the people we arrest or the people we kill, we have to address the moral implications of involuntary society.
Just so you know Profiteer, there are individuals who believe in objective law. Natural law and rights to be specific. If you want some sources on this then you can send me a message.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Laughing Man:Just so you know Profiteer, there are individuals who believe in objective law. Natural law and rights to be specific. If you want some sources on this then you can send me a message.
Sure, send me that as well. I'm glad I put this question out there. I have been sitting here reading and watching Youtube videos for hours. I probably should get some work done, but it's hard when you mind is fascinated with new ideas.
What's the old saying about the more I learn the more I realize I don't know? My wife is definitely going to be mad at me before the weekends over.
liberty student: K.C. Farmer:When you're offered n-many virgins in paradise the old greenback faces some stiff competition. It's not as simple as that. Suicide terrorism in particular is a result of occupation. This is from a study done by Robert Pape, which he also published in "Dying to Win" one of the books Ron Paul suggested that Rudy Giuliani read. Dr. Pape did the research IIRC as part of a Pentagon project. So even the military knows that these guys don't blow themselves up for virgins. They do it because they are occupied. But like the "they hate us for our freedoms, they stone women, they hate us for our blue jeans" silliness, it gets perpetuated, over and over. The only folks who believe this stuff about virgins, are the most uneducated idiots, incapable of flying airplanes, or getting a passport. In nearly all cases, where this extremist nonsense is preached to foot soldiers, the people being preached to, are illiterate. I'm not saying there are not bad and dangerous muslims out there. But it is incredibly naive to believe they only fight because they think it will get them laid in heaven. It is part of the same dehumanization propaganda that America used against the Nazis and Japanese, and the Soviets used against the west. Make your enemy a maniac or crazy, and then it is easy to galvanize people to kill them. I think someone wrote in this thread, most muslims are just like everyone else. They want to raise their kids, retire comfortably, and live a life of decent quality. The extremists in the muslim world, are only as dangerous as the extremists at the pentagon or in the US government. I dare say, the western secular (non-religiously motivated) extremists have been much bigger killers over the last 200 years.
Sorry, I should have added this...
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap