Martin Radwin

Mark: Actually, there were a number of people who survived both blasts, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many of them lived into their eighties (80's). I believe the last dual survivor passed away about five (5) years ago. The point of the pictures was clear. You can rebuild successfully even at ground zero. However, you chose to selectively distort the message. No biggie. A-Bomb Adam... Post Script: I would have used them against the Soviet Union and saved millions of lives. I would have used them against China and saved 60, 000, 000 million lives. So, you would have nuked the Soviet Union and China in order to save lives? Just how many Soviet and Chinese citizens would you be prepared to kill or horribly maim in order to carry out this humanitarian intervention? Where in hell do you think you have the right to murder innocent human beings, no matter what the supposed justification? To paraphrase Ayn Rand, "Men's lives are not yours to dispose of!". The bitter reality is that the people in the upper echelons of government, the politicians and bureaucrats entrusted with making these decisions, are not known for their intelligence, wisdom, compassion, or concern for human life and human liberties. For the most part, they tend to be sociopathic personalities with a lust for power and no greater purpose in life other than to dominate and control their subjects. As such, there are two insurmountable problems with the scenario you have posed: 1) The knowledge problem. Government officials do not have the knowledge or foresight to be able to accurately predict the future or to anticipate a future holocaust, or to know how to prevent a holocaust should they be able to accurately antipate one. Governments are as incompetent in this area as in every other area. 2) The incentive problem. This is an even more serious problem. Even if they were somehow to possess the foresight to predict and to be able to formulate a plan to prevent a holocaust, governments in general have no incentive to do so. Governments are as a general rule not the least bit interested in saving human lives, certainly not the lives of civilians in enemy nations. Their main interest is and has always been in the expansion of their own power, which is often achieved by killing huge numbers of people. The US government is no exception to this rule. 3) Humanitarian justifications are always used for every military intervention. It will not do to admit that the purpose of a bombing campaign that will kill thousands of innocent people is to establish a government's military influence in a region. This doesn't sound good and will not generate the support of the citizenry. So these interventions are always claimed to be done for the purpose of saving lives. These claims are always lies. Martin

How on earth? As retired Judge Andrew Napolitano said, more or less, there's not a dime's worth of moral, political or economic difference between the two major candidates. If there is any difference, it’s that the Republican comes with a raft of neoconservative advisors, many the same as were in the Bush administration. The odds the U.S invades Iran will be far higher if he’s elected. Maybe that’s more than a dime. Unfortunately, to many objectivists, bombing and/or invading Iran is not a bug but a feature. Martin

This passage has just increased my respect for Peikoff, although only ever so slightly. That Peikoff even entertains the possibility that his book is nothing more than "the maunderings of a mind that has lost it" shows that at least he has not totally lost all contact with reality. Regarding his followup statement "I know my answer", perhaps the answer he secretly knows deep down is that he has really lost it. Martin

William, Sure I am. If someone is over the top and bigoted, but pro-USA, you are all over him. If he is over the top and bigoted and anti-USA, you are very, very tolerant if not apologetic (but not apologetic on this thread, just tolerant). I think I'm paying very good attention to be able to notice that selective use of criticial thinking in a non-critical fashion. Michael EDIT: Here's my opinion based on years of reading the posters concerned. If Richard (Infidel) were able to bomb a group of Muslim leaders, but take out a couple of schools full of children and schoolteachers, I believe he would go out to a fine restaurant to celebrate and get drunk on champagne in absolute joy. If Martin were able to bomb a group of USA neocon-like government leaders, but take out a couple of schools full of children and schoolteachers, I believe he would feel bad about the innocent deaths for about 5 minutes, then slam his mind shut to that part and sleep like a baby, knowing he has struck a blow for justice and all things good on earth. I believe you would suffer greatly thinking about the dead kids and the adults who cared for them in both cases, but during discussions, you give the second a pass because of the five minutes and the anti-USA thing. That's what I see. You really love to engage in wild speculations about people you have never met and know next to nothing about. For the record, I have never advocated nor do I in any way support bombing or any other forms of violence against anyone, including government officials. This is nothing but a fantasy of your own imagination, backed up by absolutely nothing. The idea that I would ever advocate the killing of innocent people is absurd, and that you would launch such an accusation against me in a public forum like this based on nothing, without even the slightest hint of any evidence to back up your accusation, is something that makes you look like a fool without even a modicum of respect for the truth. As a libertarian, I am totally, unalterably opposed to the use of violence except in self-defense against those who initiate violence. The fact that you accuse me of being willing to kill innocent school children as collateral damage is even more ludicrous in view of the fact that many objectivists advocate precisely this belief in the conduct of U.S. government foreign policy, justifying wars conducted by the government which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people abroad, something which I have always condemned in the strongest possible way. Regarding your use of the phrases pro-USA and anti-USA, why don't you try defining just what these phrases are supposed to mean before actually using them? The USA is an abstraction referring to a nation with a land area of almost 4 million square miles and a population of over 300 million people. So just what exactly does it mean to be pro or anti a nation of 300 million people? Here's a hint --- the USA is not the same as the U.S. government. Being pro-USA is not the same as being pro U.S. government, and being anti-USA is not the same as being anti U.S. government. Although equating the two is precisely what the U.S. government wishes Americans to believe, for reasons that are too obvious to mention. Martin

I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you that you should have a lot more to fear from the U.S. government than from the Muslim Brotherhood. No, I didn't think so. Martin Oh, for God's sake. I went for a walk trying to think of something wise to say about this crap from both of you. Something that would point to growth or induce people to reflect on ideas. I couldn't think of a damn thing. What a waste of time... Michael So you think that what I posted was "crap"? All I am saying is that the U.S. government is a far greater danger to Americans than the Muslim Brotherhood could ever hope to be. Do you really doubt this? In the thread entitled "Place Your Predictions - National Federation of Independant Business v. Sebelius - This Decision Will Determine Whether The Revolution Should Start Now!", post #29, you wrote, "I already don't like mandatory taxes, but at least the government taxes some kind of wealth that has been created. The "individual mandate" concept, even as it sneaks in under the Supreme Court's weasel equivalence of "tax," is a literal step toward slavery. The government now owns you just for being, irrespective of anything you produce or earn." So you think that the U.S. government now owns us just for being and is taking a literal step toward slavery. Do you think that the Muslim Brotherhood thinks that it owns us or is capable of establishing such ownership over us, or is capable of moving us toward slavery? If not, perhaps this is somewhat indicative that the U.S. government is indeed a far greater threat to all of us than is the Muslim Brotherhood, which is in fact no significant threat to us at all. Here is a link to an article entitled "Americans Are Being Prepared For Full Spectrum Tyranny". The tyranny to which we are being prepared is being imposed on us by the U.S. government, not by the Muslim Brotherhood. http://alt-market.com/articles/878-americans-are-being-prepared-for-full-spectrum-tyranny Martin

I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you that you should have a lot more to fear from the U.S. government than from the Muslim Brotherhood. No, I didn't think so. Martin

Andrew, Great post! You bring up many very interesting points, even though Firehammer is someone whose views are so absurd and mindlessly cruel that they are hardly worthy of detailed refutation. For a totally contrasting view of children and the way they learn and develop, see any of the works of the brilliant Maria Montessori, a renaissance woman about a hundred years ahead of her time whose theories of how children learn, based on her years of working with and observing children, have inspired a worldwide movement of schools based on her eductional philosophy. For a description of the practical results of Firehammer's advocated methods of child rearing, see any of the works of Alice Miller. My only quibble with your post is in your reference to Camille Paglia and Thomas Szasz as Freudian libertarians. Paglia is not a libertarian, even though she has described herself as one. At best, she advocates libertarian views in the personal sphere (mainly advocating totally sexual freedom; I'm not even sure though I strongly suspect that she also advocates ending the drug war and all other personal victimless crimes), but most definitely not in the economic sphere. As for her foreign policy views, she is strongly oriented toward looking upon war as a noble aspect of humanity's pagan nature, rather than seeing it as the horror that it is. At least that's my recollection of her view on war; it's been quite a while since I read her. Regarding Szasz, I have not thought of him as at all Freudian in orientation, but instead as being much more influenced by Karl Kraus. Martin

Jerry: And "perhaps," none of the above is acceptable to me. Your simplistic horns of a dilemma approach is a tad too simplistic for me. Adam You will never beat the Globalists unless you first become a conspiracy theorist. That is the worst thing you can do. So the bottom line is there ain't nuthin you can do to stop the Globalists. When in the collective, adapt. Resistance is futile. We are the Borg. Individuality is irrelevant. Rights are irrelevant. Do you really think you have any power to beat the Globalists? Ha! Do you know what the Roman Empire did to the Spartans? It wasn't a pretty sight. What the Globalists will do to you won't be a pretty sight. You can't beat them, join them. So your proposal is that we join the Globalists who are presumably intent on creating a worldwide totalitarian state? Aside from the ethical abomination entailed by joining such people intent on world domination, just what exactly is your suggested scenario as to how we should proceed, now that you have established that resistance is futile? By the way, now that you have identified yourself as part of the Borg ("We are the Borg"), do you really think that it would be wise for any of us to follow your advice? In the words of several of the characters on Star Trek, perhaps resistance is not futile. Martin

The theory given in the article is that these planets are a remnant of the early big bang. Also, that these planets are the actual source of the missing dark matter. I know that you reject both the big bang and the presence of dark matter. As I recall, our sun has about 300,000 times the mass of the earth. So it would take 300,000 earth size planets to equal the mass of one sun-size star. Also, the dark matter is proposed to constitute considerably more mass than the luminous matter, in order to account for galactic rotation dymanics. So it would really take a huge number of earth size planets to make up this missing mass. What if any is the actual evidence for the existence of these free floating planets? Since none have actually been detected directly, there being no technological means at the present time of detecting them, I assume that all of the evidence is entirely theoretical, right? Martin

Ah come on. This isn't rocket science. I'm talking about the stuff we have been discussing. To recap... Nah... I just did that a few posts ago. Let's give it a break. When something gets to the point of having to repeat stuff that much, I don't find it worth pursuing, MichaelI will assume that you misunderstood something I said, and let it go at that. Ghs I think that where Michael is going with this is that, since the NIOF as used by Rothbard is a "middle axiom" derived from moral reasoning based on more fundamental premises, it should have some exceptions. In other words, he is assuming that a middle axiom should have at least some exceptions and that it is therefore a contradiction to assume both that something is a middle axiom and that it simultaneously has no exceptions. But I'm not sure what is the basis of this assumption. In mathematics, for example, a mathematical law derived from more fundamental laws, which are ultimately derived from the axioms of the mathematical system, is generally known as a theorem, to distinguish it from an axiom. A theorem is derivable from axioms or from other theorems ultimately derivable from axioms, whereas an axiom is a fundamental assumption not derivable from anything else. But a mathematical theorem is just as true as the axioms from which it is derived, and it no more has exceptions than a mathematical axiom. Martin

Penn Gillette is a stage magician, comedian, and all around entertainer. He is not a trained philosopher, although he does have some interesting philosophical insights derived from his years working as a stage magician. If you want to read the best epistemological justification for atheism, read the works of George Smith. George is the quintessential authority in this area. Martin

I never had the pleasure of meeting Steve. But I've always enjoyed his posts here on OL. He came across as a highly intelligent, erudite objectivist/libertarian, someone who had been around the movement for a long time and had met many of its most well known thinkers. He'll definitely be missed. Martin

George, This seems to be synonymous with the view that a truly Rothbardian style market anarchist society can never be established, since the Randian style limited government that would be needed to precede it can never be established as a starting point. This is a very different perspective that the agorist, counter-economic views of people like SEK3 and, now, Kevin Carson, right? Also, the scenario shown in "Alongside Night", in which a market anarchist society was established from within the wreckage of a society destroyed by a predatory fascist government. Schulman's point was that trying to reform the government into a fiscally responsible limited government would actually be an impediment to the establishment of a market anarchist society. Whereas you seem to be saying that setting up such a limited government is actually a precondition for the establishment of a market anarchist society, but a precondition that can never be brought about. Martin

Has the prevalence of autism really increased by 600% in the past two decades? What would cause such a dramatic increase in such a short period of time? This seems like a medical impossibility. Is this instead a case of changing the diagnostic criteria, such that what is now labeled as autism was previously not given this label? Or has there really been such a huge increase in so little time? I'm sorry about your son and wish him the best. Martin

http://en.wikipedia....ed_to_terrorism "On 13 January 2009, the Pentagon said that 18 former detainees are confirmed to have participated in attacks, and 43 are suspected to have been involved in attacks.[11] A Spokesman said evidence of someone being "confirmed" could include fingerprints, a conclusive photograph or "well-corroborated intelligence reporting." He said the Pentagon would not discuss how the statistics were derived because of security concerns. National security expert and CNN analyst Peter Bergen, states that some of those "suspected" to have returned to terrorism are so categorized because they publicly made anti-American statements, "something that's not surprising if you've been locked up in a U.S. prison camp for several years." If all on the "confirmed" list have indeed returned to the battlefield, that would amount to 4 percent of the detainees who have been released." http://en.wikipedia...._detention_camp "According to the UC Davis Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas, fifteen juveniles spent time as prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp — three more than the U.S. State Department had publicly acknowledged. Three children who had been detained with adults, and treated and interrogated as if they were adults, at the Bagram Collection Point were provided with more humane conditions at Camp Iguana. But half a dozen teenagers who should have been considered minors even by the DoD's more stringent standards were not only detained with adults, and not provided with schooling, but reported being punished by long periods in isolation and subjected to abusive interrogation." The majority of prisoners held at Guantanamo were not guilty of anything. Many were rounded up by offers of bounties to Afghan warlords. Since Debbie Schlussel is such a humanitarian, so concerned with the suffering and death of innocent people, she should certainly be concerned about the widespread incarceration and abusive treatment of innocent people, including children as young as 13, held at Guantanamo. Yet this doesn't seem to concern her at all. Also, she doesn't seem at all concerned about the tens of thousands of innocent people killed by the U.S. government in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and countless other countries where the U.S. government has aided death squads and totalitarian governments that have murdered and enslaved their own citizens. In fact, if one counts the total number of innocent people killed by private terrorists compared to the total number of innocent people killed by the U.S. government, the comparison would suggest that the U.S. government is by far a worst terrorist than all private terrorists combined. I eagerly await Schlussel's next article documenting this fact. I understand the value of a screed, but this needs more sophistication or there's no ratiocination. --Brant I'm sorry you didn't like the style of my "screed". The point, in case it's not entirely obvious, is that Debbie Schlussel is a rabid neocon who has cheered on the U.S. wars which have killed untold tens of thousands of innocent people, at the same time that she is full of moral outrage at the killing of four innocent people in France. In fact, after the killing of Osama Bin Laden, she said: http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2011/05/osama_bin_laden_dead_debbie_sc.php "Rot in hell, Osama Bin Laden. One down, 1.8 billion to go." This coming from a woman whose families were survivors of the holocaust. I can see why Bob Kolker thinks she's such a wonderful person. Martin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_former_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees_alleged_to_have_returned_to_terrorism "On 13 January 2009, the Pentagon said that 18 former detainees are confirmed to have participated in attacks, and 43 are suspected to have been involved in attacks.[11] A Spokesman said evidence of someone being "confirmed" could include fingerprints, a conclusive photograph or "well-corroborated intelligence reporting." He said the Pentagon would not discuss how the statistics were derived because of security concerns. National security expert and CNN analyst Peter Bergen, states that some of those "suspected" to have returned to terrorism are so categorized because they publicly made anti-American statements, "something that's not surprising if you've been locked up in a U.S. prison camp for several years." If all on the "confirmed" list have indeed returned to the battlefield, that would amount to 4 percent of the detainees who have been released." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juveniles_held_at_the_Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp "According to the UC Davis Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas, fifteen juveniles spent time as prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp — three more than the U.S. State Department had publicly acknowledged. Three children who had been detained with adults, and treated and interrogated as if they were adults, at the Bagram Collection Point were provided with more humane conditions at Camp Iguana. But half a dozen teenagers who should have been considered minors even by the DoD's more stringent standards were not only detained with adults, and not provided with schooling, but reported being punished by long periods in isolation and subjected to abusive interrogation." The majority of prisoners held at Guantanamo were not guilty of anything. Many were rounded up by offers of bounties to Afghan warlords. Since Debbie Schlussel is such a humanitarian, so concerned with the suffering and death of innocent people, she should certainly be concerned about the widespread incarceration and abusive treatment of innocent people, including children as young as 13, held at Guantanamo. Yet this doesn't seem to concern her at all. Also, she doesn't seem at all concerned about the tens of thousands of innocent people killed by the U.S. government in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and countless other countries where the U.S. government has aided death squads and totalitarian governments that have murdered and enslaved their own citizens. In fact, if one counts the total number of innocent people killed by private terrorists compared to the total number of innocent people killed by the U.S. government, the comparison would suggest that the U.S. government is by far a worst terrorist than all private terrorists combined. I eagerly await Schlussel's next article documenting this fact.

I'm not concerned with being sued. It wouldn't be the first time. Good luck, anybody. --Brant it's costless sport to meI suggest we pull a variant of the Spartacus routine and, each in turn, call Seymour insane. Then she can sue all of us. I will start. Brant was right, Seymour: YOU ARE INSANE! If you sue me and win, you can have my books and my Curbside Contemporary Furniture, but you will never get my dog! Ghs Now that you've brought up the subject of your dog, this reminds me of a question I meant to ask you. I know, from having read many of your posts, that you really really loved your old bichon Herbert, and that you also really love your new bichon Jazz. However, I've started reading your book "Why Atheism" and I noticed the following passage on page 45: "I happen to believe that George Carlin is a funny guy, that basketball is more entertaining than baseball, that cats make better pets than dogs ..." I was really surprised to read this last phrase, given that I know how much you love dogs, and I don't recall you ever expressing any great love of cats. So I thought I'd ask for an explanation, even though it's rather off topic from the subject of this thread. Martin

Andrew, I certainly don't claim to be any kind of expert in this area. I have no idea to what extent if any Aspergers is a "real" disease. If, as you say, it's not detectable neurologically, then it falls into the category of "mental illnesses" condemned by Thomas Szasz as not real illnesses, since they are only defined by their behavioral aspects. The reason I referred to Bob as an aspie is that he has self-identified as one many times on this list. I would never dream of assigning this label to anyone who had not assigned it to himself/herself, especially to someone I had never met before. Anyway, it's clear from reading Bob's many posts that he is very literal minded and does not use humor, irony, or metaphor in his writing or thinking. As such, he makes a very fine mathematician but a very bad poet. Whatever he writes, I take him literally at his word. I really enjoy your posts. I think you're one of the most erudite, intelligent posters on this list. You bring some much needed sanity to a modern day objectivist movement that has largely degenerated into a mindless cheering squad for unending war mongering. Martin

Nope. Yep. Instable, but deadly when primed and pumped. Michael You're a real genius Michael! You've got me all figured out. Of course, you've never actually met me, but never mind that. You can infer from my posts here that I'm secretly a killer. Of course, I've never actually killed anyone. In fact, I've never actually physically harmed anyone in any way whatever. Nor have I ever threatened to harm anyone in any way. If you don't believe me, you can even ask my wife, daughter, and friends. They'll tell you just what a violent person I am. But you needn't do any of that. Because of your brilliant psychological acumen, you've figured me out so much that you're obviously fully qualified to render psychological opinions about me on a forum read by hundreds of people. I had the chance to possibly go to Vietnam during the tail end of the war. The college deferment had just been abolished the year I turned eighteen, replaced by a lottery system. I had a low number, making me eligible to be drafted. Strange that I did what I had to do to avoid being "lathered up" so that I could be both a killer and cannon fodder. After all, that's just the kind of person I am. And it's surely obvious that, deep down, I really am a killer. After all, why else would I make so many posts condemning the murder of innocent people abroad in all of these stupid, senseless wars? That's a sure fire sign of just how evil I am. Whereas those who support these wars or refuse to morally condemn the murder of innocents abroad are obviously really peace loving, life loving pussycats on the inside. I would ask for an apology for your vicious psychologizing of me, but I don't expect I'll get it. After all, one of the prerogatives of owning a forum like this is being able to launch scurrilous charges against a poster you have never met. Martin

I apologize for the error. I don't know where I got WW2. I should have known that you would be too young to have developed weapons at that time. Unlike Michael, I take you at your word. You say repeatedly that you love war and think that it is one of mankind's highest achievements, I believe you. Regarding the U.S. bombing of Kosovo, the net effect of this was to enable the muslim KLA to ethnically cleanse large sections of Kosovo. The KLA are among the most radical muslims. Among other things, they are believed to have ties to Al Qaeda. So some of the weapons you helped to design have aided the very people you consider to be your worst enemies. Martin

Is this your idea of a joke? I really can't tell from the manner in which you have written this post. You judge me to be the killer type? I have never hurt anyone in my entire life, let alone killed anyone. Nor would I ever do so, except in self-defense. Cannon-fodder? I am cannon-fodder for noone. I would rather go to jail than fight in the U.S. military. If you think I can be "lathered up" and made to obey orders, I suggest that you try to do this to me and see what happens. Martin

Bob means every word he says. As an aspie, it is not in his nature to make statements that he doesn't mean as humor or irony. Bob has made very clear in hundreds of posts that he revels in war, death, and destruction of his "enemies". He has bragged on many occasions about the blood he has on his hands due to his contributions to the war effort during WW2. He is very proud of this and has made this abundantly clear. That you repeatedly choose to give him a pass on this and to pretend that he's just a big, loveable bear with the heart of a pussycat -- well, that's your choice, but it's certainly a bizarre perspective that has repeatedly been contradicted by his multiple posts. If a new poster were to arrive on OL and to post repeatedly that all blacks or mexicans or jews should be killed as enemies of the U.S., I don't imagine that you'd go out of your way to justify this person's attitude or to try to convince us that he really was a nice, sweet guy who just liked to shock us all with his icky posts. Yet Bob has posted here that he would be happy to see a billion muslims die. He meant it. Is it somehow okay to wish for the mass death of muslims but not for the mass death of blacks, mexicans, or jews? Martin

Is that what Ron Paul and his rabid followers want? BTW, very perceptive of the writer to characterize Paul's Republican opponents as "pro-war." We thought we had fooled you guys into thinking that we believed in America's right of self-defense against those who want to kill more of us. In truth, of course, we just love killing people. No, "we" do not love killing people. At least, I certainly don't. In fact, I find the killing of innocent people to be morally abhorrent. You don't seem to mind killing people, as long as they belong to groups that you consider to be of no value, such as Iraqis, Iranians, Yemenis, Pakistanis, Afghanis, or Libyans, as long as you don't have to do the actual killing yourself. At least, this is the implication of the fact that I've never yet seen you morally condemn any of the killings of people from these countries by the U.S. government. As to "America's right of self-defense against those who want to kill more of us", I'd love to see you prove that Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Libya were a threat to the United States, such that the attacks against them which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people living in these countries were somehow a justifiable application of self-defense, rather than the mass murder that they actually were. Martin I wouldn't waste my time trying to prove anything to someone for whom I have as little respect as I do for you. In fact, I wish I could take back the last two minutes I've spent replying to your puerile claptrap. "No, 'we' do not love killing people." Phony, self-righteous a-hole. Well, I'm certainly sorry that you spent two whole minutes on this post. Given the extremely high quality of your posts here, and the utter brilliance of your arguments, you have certainly demonstrated just how valuable your time is. Just think of how many more valuable posts imparting your wisdom you could have made with the allocation of just a few more two minutes intervals. Perhaps I can get you to reconsider your decision not to respond to my last post. Granted, I am a phony, self-righteous a-hole, but please keep in mind that, when you post on OL, you are communicating with a wide audience of OL readers, most of whom, unlike me, are not phony, self-righteous a-holes. Surely, you wouldn't wish to deprive all of these non phony, non self-righteous, non a-hole readers of the benefit of your great wisdom, just because I have demonstrated that I am obviously not worthy. Why punish them just because I'm a phony, self-righteous a-hole? That doesn't sound very fair to me. And so, as a public service to the OL audience, let me make some suggestions as to how you could follow up on your previous post about the necessity of us defending ourselves. Please feel free to use any of these suggestions as the topic of one of your brilliant follow up posts! 1) You can explain how the U.S. government torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Guantanamo Bay, including the torture of children as young as 12, is a necessary component of defending ourselves. This shouldn't be very hard. After all, even 12 year old children can turn out to be terrorists. You can never be too careful! Obviously, stripping them naked, putting hoods over their heads, and taunting them will teach them never to mess with us ever again, guaranteeing our future safety. Please feel free to elaborate. 2) You can explain how the previously imposed Iraq sanctions, which are estimated to have led to the deaths of at least several hundred thousand Iraqis, were absolutely necessary for our defense. Of course, a lot of children died as a result of these sanctions, which included such things as forbidding the importation into Iraq of water purification equipment. But you know what they say. Any one of those thousands of dead children could have grown into an anti-American terrorist. So killing them before this could happen was just a form of pre-emptive self-defense. Please feel free to elaborate. 3) You can explain how flying drones all over Pakistan and firing hellfire missiles into wedding parties, incinerating all of the participants, is absolutely necessary for our defense. After all, any of these participants in the wedding party could secretly be a terrorist out to destroy America. Besides, after the couple get married and have children, their children could grow up to become terrorists out to destroy America too! So this would also definitely qualify as pre-emptive self-defense. Please feel free to elaborate. 4) Now that these drones have proven just how incredibly valuable they are for the self-defense of America, they are starting to be used for domestic law enforcement. Just recently, a Predator B drone was used in a domestic law enforcement operation in North Dakota. And you know how government programs are! Why, they just keep growing and growing! So you know that it's just a matter of time before these Predator drones start being used all over the United States for domestic law enforcement. And even though, as we all know, our government is super diligent and careful, mistakes do happen from time to time, even among our exalted leaders! Since the U.S. government clearly has the right to defend us against evildoers abroad, surely we have the right to defend ourselves as well, even against accidents by our own government, right? So, once we find that there are Predator drones flying over our neighborhoods, armed with hellfire missiles, what can we as good objectivists do to protect ourselves against accidently being incinerated by one of these missiles? Please feel free to elaborate. 5) Now that the National Defense Authorization Act has been signed into law by president Obama, declaring that the entire world, including the United States, is a war zone, granting the government the power to arrest anyone anywhere in the world, including American citizens inside the United States, and to detain them indefinitely without charges or trial, possibly for the rest of their lives, we really need to think up some survival strategies just for living here in the U.S. Of all of the presidential candidates, even though you seem to dislike him more than any of the others, Ron Paul was the only one who opposed the NDAA, and since he isn't going to be the next president, I think we can safely assume that this legislation is here to stay, making the U.S. a dejure although not yet a defacto military dictatorship. There is always the possibility that the U.S. government may decide to arrest some of us as potential terrorists and lock us up for the rest of our lives. So what can we as good objectivists do to protect ourselves against being arrested by the government and locked away, possibly forever, assuming that we haven't already been incinerated by a hellfire missile? Please feel free to elaborate. You see, I've given you five great ideas for a follow up to your previous post about the moral imperative of us defending ourselves. Surely, you can take at least one of these ideas and run with it? Just because I'm a phony, self-righteous a-hole, you shouldn't deny the rest of the good objectivists on OL the benefit of your brilliant ideas for coping with the endless threats facing us in these trying times. So please, keep posting on this subject, I beg of you! The objectivist community desparately awaits receiving your great wisdom. Martin

Where do you stand on unavoidable collateral damage? Ba'al Chatzaf I would not for a moment deny that, in instances of legitimate self-defense, there will be times when it is impossible to defend oneself without killing innocent bystanders. Utopia is not and never will be an option. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with any of the above wars fought by the U.S. government, which have led to the death of huge numbers of innocent people, since none of these wars were fought in self-defense. As such, these were all wars of aggression, so none of the deaths resulting from these wars can be morally justified as "collateral damage". I find the very phrase "collateral damage" to be repellent. These are humal beings being maimed and killed, human lives being destroyed, unspeakable horrors being inflicted on innocent people, human beings surviving the death of their husbands, wives, parents, children, families. They are not "collateral". The very phrase is designed to dehumanize them, to make it seem as though they are nothing more than inanimate objects, to hide the true nature of the attrocities committed against them and their resultant suffering. It is especially designed to hide from the American people the magnitude of the crimes against humanity committed by their own government. If most Americans could experience directly for one day just what life was like in Iraq during the U.S. government bombing campaign and subsequent occupation, there would be millions of them marching on Washington, demanding that the wars end immediately. It is the job of the government to hide this reality from the American people so that the wars and the slaughter can continue unabated. Martin In war you are trying to stay alive. Been there and done that. "Collateral damage" means tanks are advancing on you with civilians strapped to their fronts. What to do? You open fire. What does this mean? The enemy stops doing that because it does them no good. This is only one take on this subject, but the only one I am really qualified to write on. --Brant war is hell--don't go there From the perspective of soldiers in a combat situation such as you describe here, this is clearly self-defense, and any innocent people killed may be considered from the soldier's perspective to be "collateral damage" (I still hate that phrase). However, from the larger perspective of the country engaged in the war, if the war is not being fought in self-defense, it is ludicrous to argue that the deaths of innocent people are morally justified as collateral damage, since the war should not have been fought in the first place. Furthermore, in all wars, war crimes are inevitably committed, such as the targeting of innocent civilians who pose absolutely no threat. You have a perspective on this subject lacking by most people here on OL, including me, due to your real experience in combat during the Vietnam war. I guess I was lucky not to share this experience, being as I turned 18 the year that the college deferment was eliminated and replaced with a lottery system. I had a low number and could have been drafted. Martin

Where do you stand on unavoidable collateral damage? Ba'al Chatzaf I would not for a moment deny that, in instances of legitimate self-defense, there will be times when it is impossible to defend oneself without killing innocent bystanders. Utopia is not and never will be an option. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with any of the above wars fought by the U.S. government, which have led to the death of huge numbers of innocent people, since none of these wars were fought in self-defense. As such, these were all wars of aggression, so none of the deaths resulting from these wars can be morally justified as "collateral damage". I find the very phrase "collateral damage" to be repellent. These are humal beings being maimed and killed, human lives being destroyed, unspeakable horrors being inflicted on innocent people, human beings surviving the death of their husbands, wives, parents, children, families. They are not "collateral". The very phrase is designed to dehumanize them, to make it seem as though they are nothing more than inanimate objects, to hide the true nature of the attrocities committed against them and their resultant suffering. It is especially designed to hide from the American people the magnitude of the crimes against humanity committed by their own government. If most Americans could experience directly for one day just what life was like in Iraq during the U.S. government bombing campaign and subsequent occupation, there would be millions of them marching on Washington, demanding that the wars end immediately. It is the job of the government to hide this reality from the American people so that the wars and the slaughter can continue unabated. Martin