"Israeli Raid: Statist Logic to its Deadly Extreme"

[Alfonso Jones]

Meanwhile, we must face it, this is the real world and it's all Statist. Unfortunately, the comparative degree of it has come to matter.

Anyway, I for one am confident that the US can recover its exemplary standard of liberty once again, and this time with more conviction.

Tony

Agreed, Tony. And to condemn the USA using the same sort of language one would use for Iran or North Korea is to demonstrate shockingly poor judgment, in my view.

Bill P

[anthony]

Bill,

Even Objectivists can lose perspective, at times I believe, and give in to despair - and these times are tougher than most.

I should add, especially O'ists, since they (we) are the ones with a clearer, uncompromising, idea of what could be, or should be.

Still, it is what it is.

Isn't life great?

L'Chaim!

Tony

[jriggenbach]

The crimes are extortion, enslavement, and murder.

I doubt the gang in question can be stopped. But I believe there is some value in calling it by its right name.

Jeff,

That's not what I asked.

I am interested in what law you want to use to define the crimes. I specifically asked for a criminal statute, not your opinion about what you think is a crime (which may or may not be correct, thus it is not a good standard).

Also, "stopping" someone is way too general for objective action. You can arbitrarily put a bullet in the person's head and you stop him. I don't know how you can resolve that within the context of "crime." So, let's stay within the confines of legality, shall we? Stay within some kind of guidelines other than a free-for-all where the strongest or meanest party always wins, even if it's wrong. I asked "by what means this gang can be apprehended and prosecuted? And who or what will do so?"

It's more than "stopping" them. It's setting a standard to law, using law enforcement agents to capture the alleged criminals, and using a legal system to prosecute them (and punish them if found guilty).

Who or what can or should do that?

That's my question.

Or do you simply prefer the bullet in the head solution?

I can't think of any other manner to "stop" a "criminal gang."

Of course there is a criminal gang calling itself the "government" of Iran. There is a similar criminal gang calling itself the "government" of Saudi Arabia. There is another one calling itself the "government" of Switzerland. Were you unaware of this?

I think I am starting to understand your criteria.

You apparently hold that every country on earth--and every country throughout all of human history--is--and has been--governed by "criminal gangs" that call themselves "government." Is that fair to say?

That raises some interesting issues to think about if a person is interested in why that has happened and continues to happen--original sin, man's innate depravity, the devil loose on the world, something like that. Or maybe social structures are not really made for human beings if the structure is to be non-criminal--at least not for the human beings that have presented themselves in reality to the world up to the present. Or maybe even a utopia--i.e., how people could be if only those little suckers would just act right.

(Oops, there I go...)

And you also hold that I am one of those who has a thick head for not being able to understand something rather simple. Correct?

Michael

Michael, I have neither the time nor the inclination to introduce you to anarchist theory regarding justice. Many more learned people than I have written extensively on this question. If you had any genuine interest in it, you would have read their writings long ago. If you did read them, either you comprehended them or you didn't. I didn't join this thread because I wanted to put together and present a lecture series on anarchism, but because I thought it might be helpful to remind people of the actual nature of what was going on halfway around the world.

Your main line of questioning is clearly based on the preposterous falsehood that the State - the criminal gang calling itself the "government" of whatever civil society it has fastened itself upon - provides criminal justice. On the contrary, the State *claims* to provide that service but does not, in fact, do so. Read Rothbard's discussion of State-provided "criminal justice" in For a New Liberty. Probably you already have. Why am I wasting my time recommending it to you? The State invests little or nothing in actually providing useful services of any kind. It invests all its effort and resources in expanding its size and power and in promoting its undeserved image as the essential institution without which civilization would be impossible. After many centuries of this, it has succeeded to the point that the thicker members of every society worldwide (the vast majority) cannot even imagine what life would be like, what we would do, without the State.

I wash my hands of it. Talking to religionists is always pointless - like talking to a wall and expecting it to move. Why do I get myself into these situations?

JR

Edited June 4, 2010 by Jeff Riggenbach

[jriggenbach]

Jeff: "You don't assume the criminal gang calling itself the 'government' of the United States should be financially propping up (and otherwise aiding) the criminal gang calling itself the 'government' of Israel?"

Do you care to put that question in a form that will make it possible for me to answer it?

Barbara

No. I think the question is clear in its present form. Feel free to reword it yourself, if you feel that would be helpful, in any way you desire. I won't whimper fretfully or bleat piteously about words being put in my mouth. I promise.

JR

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, I have neither the time nor the inclination to introduce you to anarchist theory regarding justice.

Jeff,

That's good because I don't really need any introduction. You are correct in imagining that I have read some of the literature. I totally disagree with the premise of ignoring human nature in formulating political theory.

In fact, if bullying and the following of bullies could be expunged from human nature, I would have no problem with anarchism. I would defend it myself. But reality is what it is and I find anarcho-capitalism to be a utopian dream, not a theory grounded in human nature. Thus I do not find the systems proposed in the works I have read really suited to human beings as they exist, not as they are imagined they should be.

If bullying and following bullies can be equated with evil (and I do so equate), I follow Thomas Paine's reasoning that society arises from man's good and government is necessary because of his wickedness. That's the human nature I see constantly ignored in anarcho theory.

I didn't join this thread because I wanted to put together and present a lecture series on anarchism, but because I thought it might be helpful to remind people of the actual nature of what was going on halfway around the world.

Really?

I thought it was to do this:

Feel free to reword it yourself, if you feel that would be helpful, in any way you desire. I won't whimper fretfully or bleat piteously about words being put in my mouth. I promise.

Please read the posting guidelines. They're clear enough about no Branden bashing. You do adhere to respecting property rights, no?

That means no more crap to Barbara about whimpering and bleating. That's totally uncalled for. I do not want to delete anything by you as I respect you greatly, but I will if this crap repeats.

(My premise is that you are not a stupid man and you know exactly what you are doing when you do it.)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Jeff: "You don't assume the criminal gang calling itself the 'government' of the United States should be financially propping up (and otherwise aiding) the criminal gang calling itself the 'government' of Israel?"

Do you care to put that question in a form that will make it possible for me to answer it?

Barbara

No. I think the question is clear in its present form. Feel free to reword it yourself, if you feel that would be helpful, in any way you desire. I won't whimper fretfully or bleat piteously about words being put in my mouth. I promise.

JR

Strike two, Jeff.

--Brant

[Xray]

Why do I get myself into these situations?

My guess is because you think you have all the answers plus the solutions to the problems.

You believe there exists any such thing as an "objective standard" of value. Which is why you label all those as "thugs" who don't fit the 'value profile' you have in mind. Disagreeing views seem to throw you off balance.

No surprise, for those who think they have all the answers plus the solutions are seldom skilled in dealing with dissent. They are often reluctant to enter in detailed debates because they don't want their opponents to check their premises.

JR: Talking to religionists is always pointless - like talking to a wall and expecting it to move.

In case you advocate uncontrolled capitalism: this would make you a 'religionist' too.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Xray

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Turkey has been and should be a natural ally to Israel. It is a secular representative democracy, a NATO member and has a terrorist problem with the PKK that is as bad or worse than the Israeli/Palestinian situation. The fact that there are Islamists in Turkey who want to carry out humanitarian flotillas should be irrelevant. Imagine if the United States had a group from Boston that wanted to provide humanitarian aid to poor Catholics in Northern Ireland and the British government boarded the ship in international waters and opened fire. There would be diplomatic hell to pay. The same thing is happening here.

Jim

[Brant Gaede]

Turkey has been and should be a natural ally to Israel. It is a secular representative democracy, a NATO member and has a terrorist problem with the PKK that is as bad or worse than the Israeli/Palestinian situation. The fact that there are Islamists in Turkey who want to carry out humanitarian flotillas should be irrelevant. Imagine if the United States had a group from Boston that wanted to provide humanitarian aid to poor Catholics in Northern Ireland and the British government boarded the ship in international waters and opened fire. There would be diplomatic hell to pay. The same thing is happening here.

Jim

You seem to be largely ignorant of Turkey today and even more ignorant about geo-politics. Eight years ago your Turkey comments would have probably passed muster.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

In case you advocate uncontrolled capitalism: this would make you a 'religionist' too.

Controlled capitalism is fascism. What is "uncontrolled" capitalism?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Why do I get myself into these situations?

My guess is because you think you have all the answers plus the solutions to the problems.

You believe there exists any such thing as an "objective standard" of value. Which is why you label all those as "thugs" who don't fit the 'value profile' you have in mind. Disagreeing views seem to throw you off balance.

No surprise, for those who think they have all the answers plus the solutions are seldom skilled in dealing with dissent. They are often reluctant to enter in detailed debates because they don't want their opponents to check their premises.

Jeff's question is rhetorical.

--Brant

[jriggenbach]

Michael, I have neither the time nor the inclination to introduce you to anarchist theory regarding justice.

Jeff,

That's good because I don't really need any introduction. You are correct in imagining that I have read some of the literature. I totally disagree with the premise of ignoring human nature in formulating political theory.

In fact, if bullying and the following of bullies could be expunged from human nature, I would have no problem with anarchism. I would defend it myself. But reality is what it is and I find anarcho-capitalism to be a utopian dream, not a theory grounded in human nature. Thus I do not find the systems proposed in the works I have read really suited to human beings as they exist, not as they are imagined they should be.

If bullying and following bullies can be equated with evil (and I do so equate), I follow Thomas Paine's reasoning that society arises from man's good and government is necessary because of his wickedness. That's the human nature I see constantly ignored in anarcho theory.

I didn't join this thread because I wanted to put together and present a lecture series on anarchism, but because I thought it might be helpful to remind people of the actual nature of what was going on halfway around the world.

Really?

I thought it was to do this:

Feel free to reword it yourself, if you feel that would be helpful, in any way you desire. I won't whimper fretfully or bleat piteously about words being put in my mouth. I promise.

Please read the posting guidelines. They're clear enough about no Branden bashing. You do adhere to respecting property rights, no?

That means no more crap to Barbara about whimpering and bleating. That's totally uncalled for. I do not want to delete anything by you as I respect you greatly, but I will if this crap repeats.

(My premise is that you are not a stupid man and you know exactly what you are doing when you do it.)

Michael

Unlike you, Michael, Brant understands who was the actual target of that comment of mine about whimpering and bleating. You need to keep an eye on Brant. He's a lot smarter than most of the people who regularly post on this board.

JR

[jriggenbach]

Why do I get myself into these situations?

My guess is because you think you have all the answers plus the solutions to the problems.

You believe there exists any such thing as an "objective standard" of value. Which is why you label all those as "thugs" who don't fit the 'value profile' you have in mind. Disagreeing views seem to throw you off balance.

No surprise, for those who think they have all the answers plus the solutions are seldom skilled in dealing with dissent. They are often reluctant to enter in detailed debates because they don't want their opponents to check their premises.

JR: Talking to religionists is always pointless - like talking to a wall and expecting it to move.

In case you advocate uncontrolled capitalism: this would make you a 'religionist' too.

I was winning trophies at college debate tournaments before you were even born, you ignorant little snit. As I've grown older, I've become less tolerant of stupidity and intellectual incompetence than I used to be, so I don't bother anymore.

JR

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Turkey has been and should be a natural ally to Israel. It is a secular representative democracy, a NATO member and has a terrorist problem with the PKK that is as bad or worse than the Israeli/Palestinian situation. The fact that there are Islamists in Turkey who want to carry out humanitarian flotillas should be irrelevant. Imagine if the United States had a group from Boston that wanted to provide humanitarian aid to poor Catholics in Northern Ireland and the British government boarded the ship in international waters and opened fire. There would be diplomatic hell to pay. The same thing is happening here.

Jim

You seem to be largely ignorant of Turkey today and even more ignorant about geo-politics. Eight years ago your Turkey comments would have probably passed muster.

--Brant

Brant,

I know that the 2007 Turkish presidential election shifted things somewhat but Turkey is still largely secular. Picking a fight with Turkey seems like a bad move for the Israelis. The government in Turkey used to be actively anti-religion, now they allow private religious groups and organizations which has resulted in things like this flotilla. So what is it that you specifically object to and maybe I can learn something?

I'm a Netanyahu supporter, but the Israelis seem to have a habit of stepping in it lately. The settler issue and now this. I don't mind if the Israelis build settlements in East Jerusalem, but they shouldn't do it and pretend to the United States that they want a negotiated solution right now. Netanyahu is the best prime minister Israel could have, but I'm afraid the missteps of his government have been rather glaring lately.

Jim

Edited June 5, 2010 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Unlike you, Michael, Brant understands who was the actual target of that comment of mine about whimpering and bleating. You need to keep an eye on Brant. He's a lot smarter than most of the people who regularly post on this board.

Jeff,

Insider games?

Heh.

I think my problem is that I come from hillbillies.

I know I shouldn't be reading what I couldn't possibly understand and trying to think for myself. I know it but I can't help myself sometimes. I get this craving...

On reflection, I think I shoudn't even have a brain. What the hell does a hillbilly need with a brain? My lot is to be duped by the mass media into stubborn complacency--or dazzled so much by my intellectual superiors that I run in shame underneath the first rock I can find.

Life's a bitch...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Unlike you, Michael, Brant understands who was the actual target of that comment of mine about whimpering and bleating. You need to keep an eye on Brant. He's a lot smarter than most of the people who regularly post on this board.

Jeff,

Insider games?

Heh.

I think my problem is that I come from hillbillies.

I know I shouldn't be reading what I couldn't possibly understand and trying to think for myself. I know it but I can't help myself sometimes. I get this craving...

On reflection, I think I shoudn't even have a brain. What the hell does a hillbilly need with a brain? My lot is to be duped by the mass media into stubborn complacency--or dazzled so much by my intellectual superiors that I run in shame underneath the first rock I can find.

Life's a bitch...

Michael

Oh, boy. Jeff is using me as a baseball bat.

--Brant

[jriggenbach]

Unlike you, Michael, Brant understands who was the actual target of that comment of mine about whimpering and bleating. You need to keep an eye on Brant. He's a lot smarter than most of the people who regularly post on this board.

Jeff,

Insider games?

Heh.

I think my problem is that I come from hillbillies.

Perhaps. In this case, however, I think your problem is not following the thread. Had you done so, you'd have known that the comment about whimpering and bleating had nothing to do with "bashing" anyone named Branden.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

Oh...

I did follow the thread.

You mean Phil!

I just had a senior moment...

My apologies.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Turkey has been and should be a natural ally to Israel. It is a secular representative democracy, a NATO member and has a terrorist problem with the PKK that is as bad or worse than the Israeli/Palestinian situation. The fact that there are Islamists in Turkey who want to carry out humanitarian flotillas should be irrelevant. Imagine if the United States had a group from Boston that wanted to provide humanitarian aid to poor Catholics in Northern Ireland and the British government boarded the ship in international waters and opened fire. There would be diplomatic hell to pay. The same thing is happening here.

Jim

You seem to be largely ignorant of Turkey today and even more ignorant about geo-politics. Eight years ago your Turkey comments would have probably passed muster.

--Brant

Brant,

I know that the 2007 Turkish presidential election shifted things somewhat but Turkey is still largely secular. Picking a fight with Turkey seems like a bad move for the Israelis. The government in Turkey used to be actively anti-religion, now they allow private religious groups and organizations which has resulted in things like this flotilla. So what is it that you specifically object to and maybe I can learn something?

I'm a Netanyahu supporter, but the Israelis seem to have a habit of stepping in it lately. The settler issue and now this. I don't mind if the Israelis build settlements in East Jerusalem, but they shouldn't do it and pretend to the United States that they want a negotiated solution right now. Netanyahu is the best prime minister Israel could have, but I'm afraid the missteps of his government have been rather glaring lately.

Turkey picked the fight. You have shown no real understanding about what is going on inside Turkey today and why and what it means for its foreign relations and future. You can kiss secular goodbye absent a military coup.

--Brant

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Turkey has been and should be a natural ally to Israel. It is a secular representative democracy, a NATO member and has a terrorist problem with the PKK that is as bad or worse than the Israeli/Palestinian situation. The fact that there are Islamists in Turkey who want to carry out humanitarian flotillas should be irrelevant. Imagine if the United States had a group from Boston that wanted to provide humanitarian aid to poor Catholics in Northern Ireland and the British government boarded the ship in international waters and opened fire. There would be diplomatic hell to pay. The same thing is happening here.

Jim

You seem to be largely ignorant of Turkey today and even more ignorant about geo-politics. Eight years ago your Turkey comments would have probably passed muster.

--Brant

Brant,

I know that the 2007 Turkish presidential election shifted things somewhat but Turkey is still largely secular. Picking a fight with Turkey seems like a bad move for the Israelis. The government in Turkey used to be actively anti-religion, now they allow private religious groups and organizations which has resulted in things like this flotilla. So what is it that you specifically object to and maybe I can learn something?

I'm a Netanyahu supporter, but the Israelis seem to have a habit of stepping in it lately. The settler issue and now this. I don't mind if the Israelis build settlements in East Jerusalem, but they shouldn't do it and pretend to the United States that they want a negotiated solution right now. Netanyahu is the best prime minister Israel could have, but I'm afraid the missteps of his government have been rather glaring lately.

Turkey picked the fight. You have shown no real understanding about what is going on inside Turkey today and why and what it means for its foreign relations and future. You can kiss secular goodbye absent a military coup.

--Brant

Brant,

I just disagree with you. You think that secularism left with Ecevit in 2002. They still can't wear headscarves in Turkey. Erdogan is a moderate. The previous Kemalists actually jailed him in 1998. That kind of secularism was never sustainable. If Erdogan was the Islamic firebrand you say, he wouldn't have normlized relations with Greece. Turkey is nonsecular in the same way Israel is nonsecular. There is a dominant reliqion, but religion doesn't dominate state institutions.

Jim

[Brant Gaede]

Turkey has been and should be a natural ally to Israel. It is a secular representative democracy, a NATO member and has a terrorist problem with the PKK that is as bad or worse than the Israeli/Palestinian situation. The fact that there are Islamists in Turkey who want to carry out humanitarian flotillas should be irrelevant. Imagine if the United States had a group from Boston that wanted to provide humanitarian aid to poor Catholics in Northern Ireland and the British government boarded the ship in international waters and opened fire. There would be diplomatic hell to pay. The same thing is happening here.

Jim

You seem to be largely ignorant of Turkey today and even more ignorant about geo-politics. Eight years ago your Turkey comments would have probably passed muster.

--Brant

Brant,

I know that the 2007 Turkish presidential election shifted things somewhat but Turkey is still largely secular. Picking a fight with Turkey seems like a bad move for the Israelis. The government in Turkey used to be actively anti-religion, now they allow private religious groups and organizations which has resulted in things like this flotilla. So what is it that you specifically object to and maybe I can learn something?

I'm a Netanyahu supporter, but the Israelis seem to have a habit of stepping in it lately. The settler issue and now this. I don't mind if the Israelis build settlements in East Jerusalem, but they shouldn't do it and pretend to the United States that they want a negotiated solution right now. Netanyahu is the best prime minister Israel could have, but I'm afraid the missteps of his government have been rather glaring lately.

Turkey picked the fight. You have shown no real understanding about what is going on inside Turkey today and why and what it means for its foreign relations and future. You can kiss secular goodbye absent a military coup.

--Brant

Brant,

I just disagree with you. You think that secularism left with Ecevit in 2002. They still can't wear headscarves in Turkey. Erdogan is a moderate. The previous Kemalists actually jailed him in 1998. That kind of secularism was never sustainable. If Erdogan was the Islamic firebrand you say, he wouldn't have normlized relations with Greece. Turkey is nonsecular in the same way Israel is nonsecular. There is a dominant reliqion, but religion doesn't dominate state institutions.

Jim

I said Erdogan is an "Islamic firebrand"?

As for the rest, we'll let it play out.

--Brant

[Xray]

I was winning trophies at college debate tournaments before you were even born, you ignorant little snit.

Boy am I impressed.

I'm also stand in breathless awe that you must have won those college trophies at the tender age of seven (or even younger!) , (since you claim you won them before I was even born).

Your premise was wrong. Checking premises is always so crucial, Jeff. How right AR was about that.

Accusing others in debates of "stupididy" and "intellectual incompetence", does not qualify as an argument.

Nor is labeling all members of a government as "thugs" an argument. This is the same as if one labeled all capitalists as "thugs".

In case you advocate uncontrolled capitalism: this would make you a 'religionist' too.

What is "uncontrolled" capitalism?

That would have been good questions to ask Rand who stated:

"When I say capitalism, I mean, full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated, laissez-fare capitalism." (TOE, p. 37)

Question to JR: are of the same opinion as Rand?

Edited June 5, 2010 by Xray

[anthony]

That anyone should have to add the qualifiers "controlled", "uncontrolled", to Capitalism, says much about the state of world economies and the prevailing state of morality.

They are superfluous.

By nature and definition, Capitalism is anti-, and non-control.

I believe that was Brant's point.

[jriggenbach]

I was winning trophies at college debate tournaments before you were even born, you ignorant little snit.

Boy am I impressed.

I'm also stand in breathless awe that you must have won those college trophies at the tender age of seven (or even younger!) , (since you claim you won them before I was even born).

Your premise was wrong. Checking premises is always so crucial, Jeff. How right AR was about that.

You mean . . . you were born before 1990?

JR

[Brant Gaede]

That capitalism is uncontrolled or not regulated--laissez faire--does not mean it is above or beyond the rule of law. Law makes capitalism possible above and beyond simple, elemental trade. I don't think most tort law is necessary--that such can be handled and handled best privately through various mechanisms. And I question the existence of the modern corporation. These are interesting subjects this present-day world gives us little time and need for.

--Brant