Armed Chinese Troops in Texas


Libertarian Muslim

Recommended Posts

We are not the Soviet Union. They were the bad guys and they lost. Interventionism is neither good nor bad per se. It depends on who is doing what to whom for why.

--Brant

It's not good or bad? Tell that to the people who are victims of US interventionism..

You should have read my last sentence.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are not the Soviet Union. They were the bad guys and they lost. Interventionism is neither good nor bad per se. It depends on who is doing what to whom for why.

--Brant

It's not good or bad? Tell that to the people who are victims of US interventionism..

You should have read my last sentence.

--Brant

So, in foreign affairs, you want to give the U.S. Government the power to decide when and why we should do what to whom? Sounds like a blank check to me. You would not favor granting this vague power to government in domestic affairs. The same standard should apply to foreign policy, viz., the protection of U.S. citizens from the initiation of force. If another government does not threaten American citizens on U.S. soil, the American government has no right to intervene.

If you are alarmed by a foreign dictator or aggressor, then you and anyone else, qua individuals, have the right to intervene by hiring yourselves out as private mercenaries, or whatever. But as Rand made very clear, there is a crucial difference between individuals and a limited government. The latter functions as an agent of its citizens, and its only proper function is to protect the rights of its citizens. A government has no more business intervening for altruistic reasons in foreign affairs than it does in domestic affairs.

Noninterventionism -- which, as Ron Paul sees the matter, is not the same thing as "isolationism" -- simply means that the government should use its coercive power in foreign affairs only when the rights of its citizens are threatened or violated.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

I love the simplicity of this idea.

I just can't help but think about relevance. This is a system made for non-humans, where no one learned authority habits growing up and people are not innately tempted by power.

I prefer to stay with the notion of taming the authority by restrictions instead of redefining it and pretending authority is not embedded in human nature.

The problem, in my view, is that we cannot lobotomize the lower parts of our brains, which seek certain things like power and authority. We can pretend this don't exist, but every case where i have seen that put into practice did not end well.

Even on the simple level of productive projects I have built, every time I ignored the authority thing, other people showed up to destroy my efforts. Bad people act. They don't just react.

We can use the upper part of our brain to devise systems to restrict actions of authority systems, but we cannot blank the very nature of the human response to authority out of existence. It doesn't work.

Here's an interesting thought experiment. Suppose you took a group of criminals--say about a thousand--out of a prison, gave them classes in individual freedom, NIOF, etc., put them on a desert island, then came back in a year. What do you think you will find? Anarcho-capitalism?

Heh.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

I love the simplicity of this idea.

I just can't help but think about relevance. This is a system made for non-humans, where no one learned authority habits growing up and people are not innately tempted by power.

I prefer to stay with the notion of taming the authority by restrictions instead of redefining it and pretending authority is not embedded in human nature.

The problem, in my view, is that we cannot lobotomize the lower parts of our brains, which seek certain things like power and authority. We can pretend this don't exist, but every case where i have seen that put into practice did not end well.

Even on the simple level of productive projects I have built, every time I ignored the authority thing, other people showed up to destroy my efforts. Bad people act. They don't just react.

We can use the upper part of our brain to devise systems to restrict actions of authority systems, but we cannot blank the very nature of the human response to authority out of existence. It doesn't work.

Here's an interesting thought experiment. Suppose you took a group of criminals--say about a thousand--out of a prison, gave them classes in individual freedom, NIOF, etc., put them on a desert island, then came back in a year. What do you think you will find? Anarcho-capitalism?

Heh.

Michael

Do you also "love" the "simplicity" of the idea of a limited government? That's all that I have been talking about. Is this also a system made for non-humans?

As for your thousand violent criminals, many more than this are already loose. They work for the U.S. Government. They are a reality, not a hypothetical, and these are the aggressors that concern me. Freelance violent thugs are bad enough, but unionized violent thugs are far worse.

This stuff about the brain is getting tiresome. It has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of a limited government.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This stuff about the brain is getting tiresome. It has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of a limited government.

George,

This is where we disagree--strongly.

I hold the brain is where human nature is housed and that discussing the subject of a limited government without bothering about human nature--or simply speculating about it--is ignoring reality big time.

Maybe linking human nature to the brain and government to human nature is tiresome for you, but not for me. It's kinda obvious to me that we gotta to it for the issue to be valid, to be frank.

I think government applies to human beings, not Martians (or worse, disembodied abstractions).

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This stuff about the brain is getting tiresome. It has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of a limited government.

George,

This is where we disagree--strongly.

I hold the brain is where human nature is housed and that discussing the subject of a limited government without bothering about human nature--or simply speculating about it--is ignoring reality big time.

Maybe linking human nature to the brain and government to human nature is tiresome for you, but not for me. It's kinda obvious to me that we gotta to it for the issue to be valid, to be frank.

Michael

Are you for or against the Randian ideal of a limited government? I assume you have studied the brain closely enough to have reached a decision in this matter.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you for or against the Randian ideal of a limited government?

George,

I am obviously for it. However, I don't see any "ideal" anywhere. Not in consistency.

When Rand is solely talking about principles, she seems to promote an "ideal." But when push comes to shove and real danger arises, she generally has reacted with statements and attitudes that reflect human nature as it is--and she normally has been quite nasty about it. (For example, her justification for the conquest of America by European immigrants against the "savages.")

This has resulted in inconsistencies and given both Objectivists and libertarians heartburn for decades.

Let's say I am for fleshing out Rand's idea (not "ideal") of limited government with solid premises drawn from all areas where good observations about human nature can be drawn, demonstrated and repeated: i.e., history, philosophy, psychology and neuroscience.

I am absolutely against devising any sort of government or social organization, limited, totalitarian, anarchistic, whatever, where demonstrable human nature is ignored.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you for or against the Randian ideal of a limited government?

George,

I am obviously for it. However, I don't see any "ideal" anywhere. Not in consistency.

When Rand is solely talking about principles, she seems to promote an "ideal." But when push comes to shove and real danger arises, she generally has reacted with statements and attitudes that reflect human nature as it is--and she normally has been quite nasty about it. (For example, her justification for the conquest of America by European immigrants against the "savages.")

This has resulted in inconsistencies and given both Objectivists and libertarians heartburn for decades.

Let's say I am for fleshing out Rand's idea (not "ideal") of limited government with solid premises drawn from all areas where good observations about human nature can be drawn, demonstrated and repeated: i.e., history, philosophy, psychology and neuroscience.

I am absolutely against devising any sort of government or social organization, limited, totalitarian, anarchistic, whatever, where demonstrable human nature is ignored.

Michael

No political philosopher in history has ignored human nature. You don't need to know neuroscience to understand human nature. But we have been down this road before. If you want to believe that reading some books on the brain gives you superior insights into human nature, be my guest. Perhaps we should call for a new Constitutional Convention and permit only neuroscientists to be delegates. Given their superior knowledge of human nature, they would surely come up with a better document than those guys in 1787, who knew virtually nothing about the physical brain.

If I sounds like I am growing impatient, that's because I am. I will therefore stop here.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Excuse me, but where did you get the idea that the USA has profited from involvement abroad?

>It is the same old "it's for the oil" argument. So show us the oil - perhaps 'looted' from Iraq, for instance.

You are using "USA" as a collective, as though it is a single collective entity with a single self-interest. The "USA" consists of a national government, multiple state and local governments, and several hundred million individuals. There is no necessary commonality between the government and the individuals living under its rule.

Most Americans have suffered greatly as a result of the U.S. government's involvement abroad. In addition to the thousands of soldiers who have fought in these cruel and stupid wars, some who have paid the ultimate price for absolutely nothing, these wars will end of costing Americans trillions of dollars. They have already been a huge contributing factor toward devastating the U.S. economy. So, in response to your first point above, most Americans have not profited at all from our involvement abroad; instead, they have suffered major and sometimes catastrophic losses.

The government, on the other hand, has profited enormously from these wars. It has helped the government to expand its powers both internationally and domestically, and has provided its justification for slowly transforming the U.S. into a militarized police state. That may be a bad thing for us, but if you're a government official who wishes to greatly expand the power of government and to get Americans to submit to its authoritarian rule, it's a very good thing indeed. The many "defense" contractors have also profited handsomely from these wars. They are getting rich. The rest of us are paying.

Regarding your frequently repeated argument against the "no war for oil" thesis, this has been refuted many times. The purpose of these wars has not been to actually steal the oil directly, which would be quite impossible. Instead, it is to set up new military bases in the middle east so as to establish military control over the oil producing regions. It is all about expanding the U.S. empire. Once a U.S. military presence is established in an area, it almost never goes away. We still have troops stationed in Japan and Germany, 66 years after the end of WW2. We still have troops stationed in South Korea, years after the end of the Korean War. Like all government programs, once established, they are almost impossible to get rid of.

>Nope, the US has - largely - been a victim of its "I am my brother's keeper" mindset.

This whole idea that the U.S. government is fighting all of these wars out of an altruistic desire to help other countries at our own expense is ridiculous. These wars are all about extending U.S. government hegemony over all of the regions where the wars are being fought, even as these wars have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

>And yes - it would be "so bad". Actions should be initiated by principle, not forced by "economic decline."

Actually, it would be good, both for us and for the rest of the world, and especially for the many countries who are suffering mayhem, death, and destruction at the hands of the U.S. government and its endless bombing campaigns. And yes, it would be better if the withdrawal were done based on a principled rejection of violence and the murdering of innocent people. But if it's done due to our impending economic decline, it will still be a good thing anyway.

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you for or against the Randian ideal of a limited government?

George,

I am obviously for it. However, I don't see any "ideal" anywhere. Not in consistency.

When Rand is solely talking about principles, she seems to promote an "ideal." But when push comes to shove and real danger arises, she generally has reacted with statements and attitudes that reflect human nature as it is--and she normally has been quite nasty about it. (For example, her justification for the conquest of America by European immigrants against the "savages.")

This has resulted in inconsistencies and given both Objectivists and libertarians heartburn for decades.

Let's say I am for fleshing out Rand's idea (not "ideal") of limited government with solid premises drawn from all areas where good observations about human nature can be drawn, demonstrated and repeated: i.e., history, philosophy, psychology and neuroscience.

I am absolutely against devising any sort of government or social organization, limited, totalitarian, anarchistic, whatever, where demonstrable human nature is ignored.

Michael

No political philosopher in history has ignored human nature. You don't need to know neuroscience to understand human nature. But we have been down this road before. If you want to believe that reading some books on the brain gives you superior insights into human nature, be my guest. Perhaps we should call for a new Constitutional Convention and permit only neuroscientists to be delegates. Given their superior knowledge of human nature, they would surely come up with a better document than those guys in 1787, who knew virtually nothing about the physical brain.

If I sounds like I am growing impatient, that's because I am. I will therefore stop here.

Ghs

Well it's nice to know you can improve yourself mentally by the way you forcefully use your brain. There's a physiological reason London cab drivers have good memories. Before they can be cabbies they have to know everything there is to know about London streets and destinations. Their brains change. Studying a foreign language may help prevent dementia.

But I'm not refuting you, George. We now have two subjects on one thread.

--Brant

(I'm going to trash my collection of Libertarian Reviews soon--anyone want any?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to believe that reading some books on the brain gives you superior insights into human nature, be my guest.

George,

There you go with the contest again.

Insecurity, darling? :smile:

I said I would not repeat it, but I will. Knowledge to me is cumulative, not exclusionary.

I reject your implication that all that needs to be known about human nature is already known for discussing social issues.

I also reject your implication that adding to knowledge about human nature invalidates ALL previous knowledge and presents a SUPERIOR brand. Therefore, it is a threat.

I find that approach silly.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's nice to know you can improve yourself mentally by the way you forcefully use your brain. There's a physiological reason London cab drivers have good memories. Before they can be cabbies they have to know everything there is to know about London streets and destinations. Their brains change. Studying a foreign language may help prevent dementia.

Brant,

Someone has been doing some reading... :)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you for or against the Randian ideal of a limited government?

George,

I am obviously for it. However, I don't see any "ideal" anywhere. Not in consistency.

When Rand is solely talking about principles, she seems to promote an "ideal." But when push comes to shove and real danger arises, she generally has reacted with statements and attitudes that reflect human nature as it is--and she normally has been quite nasty about it. (For example, her justification for the conquest of America by European immigrants against the "savages.")

This has resulted in inconsistencies and given both Objectivists and libertarians heartburn for decades.

Let's say I am for fleshing out Rand's idea (not "ideal") of limited government with solid premises drawn from all areas where good observations about human nature can be drawn, demonstrated and repeated: i.e., history, philosophy, psychology and neuroscience.

I am absolutely against devising any sort of government or social organization, limited, totalitarian, anarchistic, whatever, where demonstrable human nature is ignored.

Michael

No political philosopher in history has ignored human nature. You don't need to know neuroscience to understand human nature. But we have been down this road before. If you want to believe that reading some books on the brain gives you superior insights into human nature, be my guest. Perhaps we should call for a new Constitutional Convention and permit only neuroscientists to be delegates. Given their superior knowledge of human nature, they would surely come up with a better document than those guys in 1787, who knew virtually nothing about the physical brain.

If I sounds like I am growing impatient, that's because I am. I will therefore stop here.

Ghs

Well it's nice to know you can improve yourself mentally by the way you forcefully use your brain. There's a physiological reason London cab drivers have good memories. Before they can be cabbies they have to know everything there is to know about London streets and destinations. Their brains change. Studying a foreign language may help prevent dementia.

But I'm not refuting you, George. We now have two subjects on one thread.

--Brant

(I'm going to trash my collection of Libertarian Reviews soon--anyone want any?)

Do you have early (pre-magazine) issues of LR -- the newsetter and, later, the newspaper format? If so I would very much like to get those.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to believe that reading some books on the brain gives you superior insights into human nature, be my guest.

George,

There you go with the contest again.

Insecurity, darling? :smile:

I said I would not repeat it, but I will. Knowledge to me is cumulative, not exclusionary.

I reject your implication that all that needs to be known about human nature is already known for discussing social issues.

I also reject your implication that adding to knowledge about human nature invalidates ALL previous knowledge and presents a SUPERIOR brand. Therefore, it is a threat.

I find that approach silly.

Michael

I frankly don't know what your point is. I read your posts carefully, and you appear to make straightforward claims. Then, when I respond to those claims, you say that you never said any such thing. C'est la vie.

Btw, putting a smiley face after condescending remarks doesn't make those remarks any less condescending I suggest that you read less about the brain and use your brain more. :smile:

See, I told you the smiley face doesn't help.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's nice to know you can improve yourself mentally by the way you forcefully use your brain. There's a physiological reason London cab drivers have good memories. Before they can be cabbies they have to know everything there is to know about London streets and destinations. Their brains change. Studying a foreign language may help prevent dementia.

But I'm not refuting you, George. We now have two subjects on one thread.

You never knew before that using your mind can improve your mental skills and ability? Seriously? I thought "use it or lose it" was common knowledge.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin:

O'biwan just announced that he dispatched one hundred (100) US troops to Uganda to "be peacekeepers" against the LRA [Lord's Resistance Army], http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army,a mystical Christian movement fighting to establish a religious state based on the Ten Commandments. This is in the security interests of the US according to the dictator in chief!

So does that make this the 5th or 6th war?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's nice to know you can improve yourself mentally by the way you forcefully use your brain. There's a physiological reason London cab drivers have good memories. Before they can be cabbies they have to know everything there is to know about London streets and destinations. Their brains change. Studying a foreign language may help prevent dementia.

But I'm not refuting you, George. We now have two subjects on one thread.

You never knew before that using your mind can improve your mental skills and ability? Seriously? I thought "use it or lose it" was common knowledge.

Ghs

To be clear, I don't wish to dismiss the significance of neuroscience for all branches of philosophy. It may (and I stress "may") have great significance for the "philosophy of mind," specifically, the debate between epiphenomenalism (according to which mental states are merely a byproduct of physical brain states) and interactionism (which posits a reciprocal causal relationship between mind and brain).

There is a problem even here, however, because the results reported by Michael (i.e., that thinking alone appears to cause physical changes in the brain) can be "explained" by either approach. The epiphenomenalist will simply claim that a physical event in the brain has caused the brain to change, and that our mental activities are merely the effect, not the cause, of this change. Thus, even with extensive scientific investigation, the ultimate conclusion will rest with philosophy, not with neuroscience.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even with extensive scientific investigation, the ultimate conclusion will rest with philosophy, not with neuroscience.

George,

Here is one big problem I have with your approach.

Who--but you--cares what you call it?

Knowledge is knowledge.

There ain't no such thing as philosophy trumping science or science trumping philosophy.

That's class warfare thinking and, frankly, has no legitimate place in the quest for truth.

(No smiley this time. I don't use smileys when I am being condescending.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I frankly don't know what your point is.

George,

You got that right.

I suggest a remedy.

I suggest a little reading. But you have to get over your Philism. You have to give up thinking it's not necessary to know what something is in order to evaluate it.

:)

(Not condescending in this one. Poke in the ribs playful. That's why the smiley is there.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin:

O'biwan just announced that he dispatched one hundred (100) US troops to Uganda to "be peacekeepers" against the LRA [Lord's Resistance Army], http://en.wikipedia....Resistance_Army,a mystical Christian movement fighting to establish a religious state based on the Ten Commandments. This is in the security interests of the US according to the dictator in chief!

So does that make this the 5th or 6th war?

Adam

I've lost track of the number of wars, but this sure sounds like another "Blackhawk Down" in the making.

Here is a tip for our Great Leader: When you are dealing with an organization that has a word like Lord, God, or Allah in the name, you are probably dealing with a bunch of fanatics who will not hesitate to sacrifice themselves in order to kill American soldiers.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even with extensive scientific investigation, the ultimate conclusion will rest with philosophy, not with neuroscience.

George,

Here is one big problem I have with your approach.

Who--but you--cares what you call it?

Knowledge is knowledge.

There ain't no such thing as philosophy trumping science or science trumping philosophy.

That's class warfare thinking and, frankly, has no legitimate place in the quest for truth.

(No smiley this time. I don't use smileys when I am being condescending.)

Michael

This is not a matter of anything trumping anything. It is a matter of relevance. The study of the physical brain has no fundamental relevance to ethics or political philosophy. As I said in my last post, it may be relevant to the philosophy of mind; and insofar as this is the case, neuroscience may have an indirect and rather remote relevance to ethical and political theory. But that is about it.

Consider a theory of individual rights. Now, give me one -- just one -- example of a discovery in neuroscience per se that would either refute or confirm such a theory. This is impossible, because any such discovery would itself need to be interpreted in philosophic terms. And this means that a defender and a critic of rights theory would interpret the scientific results differently, each according to his philosophic presuppositions. This happens all the time in physics, and the case is no different in neuroscience.

No discovery in any "hard" science "speaks" for itself in philosophy. Only through philosophical reasoning can scientific knowledge be applied to philosophical problems. This is what you don't seem to understand.

As for who cares about this stuff -- anyone interested in accurate reasoning should care about it.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a matter of anything trumping anything. It is a matter of relevance.

George,

Well, you certainly don't act like it. Every time I bring up something about human nature that doesn't fit your preconceptions and say I got it from my readings, you start saying that philosophy trumps science. You use other words, but that's the gist of your argument.

Sorry, but that only has relevance to your preconceptions. Not to human nature or government for that matter.

The study of the physical brain has no fundamental relevance to ethics or political philosophy.

I'm glad you know enough about this topic to say that. You seem to know enough to constantly mischaracterize my focus as "study of the physical brain."

It's not just that. But if you really need a strawman, keep repeating it.

It's more and you know it. The big issue is the study of human behavior and capacities--including values.

If fact, that's where I feel you detect a threat and refuse to look.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I frankly don't know what your point is.
George, You got that right. I suggest a remedy. I suggest a little reading. But you have to get over your Philism. You have to give up thinking it's not necessary to know what something is in order to evaluate it. :) (Not condescending in this one. Poke in the ribs playful. That's why the smiley is there.) Michael

I will agree to read some books on neuroscience if you agree to read some books on chess. Both are equally relevant to this topic.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a matter of anything trumping anything. It is a matter of relevance.
George, Well, you certainly don't act like it. Every time I bring up something about human nature that doesn't fit your preconceptions and say I got it from my readings, you start saying that philosophy trumps science. You use other words, but that's the gist of your argument. Sorry, but that only has relevance to your preconceptions. Not to human nature or government for that matter.
The study of the physical brain has no fundamental relevance to ethics or political philosophy.
I'm glad you know enough about this topic to say that. You seem to know enough to constantly mischaracterize my focus as "study of the physical brain." It's not just that. But if you really need a strawman, keep repeating it. It's more and you know it. The big issue is the study of human behavior and capacities--including values. If fact, that's where I feel you detect a threat and refuse to look. Michael

Stop with the psychobabble. The only "threat" I feel here is a threat to my sanity.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider a theory of individual rights. Now, give me one -- just one -- example of a discovery in neuroscience per se that would either refute or confirm such a theory.

Which theory of individual rights?

The one that starts with we are endowed with them by God?

That obviously doesn't have anything to do with neuroscience.

I, too, could ask you irrelevant questions, ask for just one example of something that has little to do with the issue, and pretend this proves something. But I don't have to prove that science trumps philosophy or vice-versa.

My thing isn't winning and argument. It's probing ideas and getting to the truth. That's my only agenda.

Knowledge is cumulative.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now