Martin Radwin

I wouldn't take it -- his list -- too seriously -- even if he's deadly serious about. In fact, I wouldn't take it seriously at all if he is deadly serious about it. Why is that? I think of Beck as a mixed bag. Yeah, it's great he's promoting Hayek and the like, talking about ideas, etc., but he's also has some glaring flaws -- as I've pointed out elsewhere. Maybe some people are so desperate at this time that they won't question anyone who they feel is remotely similar to them. I think that's bad -- to support people out of sheer desperation. Didn't he go over to the Dark Side after the 2001 attacks? Well, that kind of depends on one's view of a proper US foreign policy. From the perspective of libertarian non-interventionists such as you, me, and various other posters on this site (I believe that Steve is among these posters), Neil certainly went over to the dark side. From the perspective of those who believe in an aggressively interventionist or even moderately interventionist US foreign policy, which I think includes the majority of self-identified objectivists, it is we who have gone over to or have always been on the dark side. In any case, regardless of Neil's views in this area, it is hard to take seriously someone who is convinced that he has spoken directly to God. Martin

So Beck's narrative is that the executive branch of government has been largely taken over by ex 60s radicals who have plans to establish death camps in this country? And that the FBI is tracking these people and working to prevent this from happening? The problem with this scenario is that the FBI is part of the very same government that has allegedly been taken over by these people. To a large extent, the FBI takes its orders from the executive branch. So the idea that it would fight the schemes of the very executive branch that pretty much rules over the FBI seems rather far-fetched. The FBI has a long history of committing all kinds of flagrant abuses of individual rights. As an organization, it is not known for its love of freedom and liberty. So why assume that it is suddenly going to rise to the defense of liberty and fight the nefarious plans of a federal government intent on establishing a totalitarian society complete with death camps? Put not your faith is government agencies to protect your liberty. Martin

Martin, What do you think paramilitary groups become once they take over a country--if not the government? What do you think the Weather Underground was intending if not to take over the USA government? Having them say it, print it and act on it was not enough for you? I'm glad it was enough for the FBI to investigate. You may disagree. But you did read this thread, right? I don't understand your comments from a logical standpoint if you did. They only make sense to me if I imagine you skimmed. Here's a quote from above by the FBI agent who infiltrated the Weather Underground to help you along, (with my bolding of the text this time): That sounds an awful lot like a Nazi or Soviet death camp to me. Notice how it is the "die-hard capitalists" they wanted wanted to kill. Michael Michael, You seriously think there is a possibility that a paramilitary group could successfully execute a coup and take over the government? Given the existing government's vast financial and military resources, such as control of the army, navy, air force, marines, state national guards, fbi, etc.? The only way this could possibly happen is if the paramilitary group were to convince the existing military arms of government to join them in the coup and transfer their loyalty to the new group. I think the likelihood of this happening is less than a snowball's chance in hell. It is vastly more likely that the government itself will establish a totalitarian society, using as an excuse a declared national emergency such as a 9/11 style terrorist attack. In other words, by far the greatest threat of establishing a totalitarian state which could even conceivably establish death camps, is the existing US government itself. And the FBI is part of the existing US government. Martin

Death camps? As in Nazi or Soviet style concentration camps where millions of people are killed? Nothing like this could possibly be set up by any private paramilitary group. The only institution that could possibly establish and maintain such camps would be the US government itself, just as the Nazi and Soviet death camps were run by the Nazi and Soviet governments. And the FBI just happens to be the domestic police and investigative arm of the US government. So unless you think that the FBI would engage in mutiny and turn against its own master, if death camps are ever established in this country, the FBI will almost certainly be running them. Martin

Martin, You answered that. I did? That's funny. I don't see an answer anywhere. Since you have accused me of having a tribal mentality, and since you still haven't answered the question, I'll ask it again. To exactly which tribe am I biased? I don't mind (even as I reject the tribal mentality--and no, not all libertarians are tribal).. Nice of you to acknowledge that not all libertarians are tribal. Well, not all objectivists are tribal either, although most of them believe in a particular species of tribalism -- American exceptionalism. [sECTION DELETED BY MSK.] In an earlier post, you accused me of having a tribal mentality. I asked for you to provide some actual evidence for your charge. Your "evidence" in this post consists of launching a whole bunch of new charges against me, without referencing a single post I've made. Now, you've accused me of scapegoating, duality distortions, bashing people unjustifiably without evidence, having a collectivist mentality, and favoring one side over another in situations in which I should favor neither. As an excuse for not having to back up any of your idiotic charges against me with reference to any actual posts that I've ever made, you say that you don't like sifting through nastiness. Unlike you, no matter how much I have disagreed with anyone on this site, I have always responded specifically to posts that they have made. I have never attacked people with a generalized set of accusations, not based on things that they have actually said in their own posts. Martin

There are about 1.5 billion muslims in the world. You quote the ravings of one crazy Muslim cleric and think that this somehow proves "the profound irrationality found in Islamic culture"? How hard do you think it would be for me to find at least one Israeli zionist wackjob who believes that all non Jews should be killed or forcibly expelled from Israel, and that Israel should be expanded to its biblically defined boundaries, no matter how many people are killed or driven from their homes? Should I quote Pat Robertson and other fundamentalist Christian wackjobs to prove "the profound irrationality found in American culture"? Martin

Adonis, This is something that gets to me on a level far deeper than politics. I wonder if the Hamas leaders are enjoying their "emotional response" of righteousness as they dig into a hot meal, knowing that they just denied their people's hungry children some food to eat. That kind of soul is my problem. And that's what I refuse to dismiss with them. (I'll get to the other stuff later.) Michael Do you also wonder if the Israeli government leaders are enjoying their "emotional response" of righteousness as they dig into a hot meal, knowing that they just denied thousands of Palestinian hungry children some food to eat, via the longstanding blockade that they have imposed? Because, after all, unlike me, you don't have any tribal biases at all. As a non-tribalist, surely you don't adhere to one set of moral values for one tribe and a different set of moral values for another. So surely you wouldn't want to condemn and to feel moral outrage at Hamas leaders for doing this, while giving a free pass to the Israeli government, would you? Martin

It's nice that you have accused me of having a tribal mentality, without providing any actual evidence whatever to support your accusation. To exactly which tribe am I biased? Since I have been misrepresented here, I will state my position as clearly as possible. I am a libertarian. As such, I believe in the individual rights of every human being to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I believe that these rights belong to every human being, no matter what race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or nationality, no matter which country they happen to live. I believe in the individual rights of Americans, Europeans, Russians, Chinese, Africans, Israelis, Iraqis, Iranians, Mexicans, Canadians, Australians, and all other people living on earth. If there were humans living on Mars, I would believe in their individual rights as well. As such, I am opposed to the killing of any people anywhere, except in self-defense, and I morally condemn all such killing. I don't believe that governments have any special rights in this regard. I do not support collective punishment in any way. I do not believe that killing one person in self-defense gives anyone, including governments, the right to kill other innocent bystanders. I regard these moral principles as universal, applying across the board to everyone. As such, I consider myself to be the precise opposite of a tribalist, for I support no special rights for any tribe over any other tribe. It is morally wrong for Americans to kill innocent Iraqis, just as it is morally wrong for Iraqis to kill innocent Americans. It is morally wrong for Israelis to kill innocent Palestinians, just as it is morally wrong for Palestinians to kill innocent Israelis. It is morally wrong for anyone to kill anyone else, except in self-defense. Period. I grant no special moral dispensation to those who are of my tribe. Nor do I grant any special moral dispensation to those who are of other tribes. These are the beliefs for which you have labeled me as having a tribal bias. The reality is that almost all self-identified objectivists exhibit a real tribal bias. Their tribe is the United States. The name commonly given to this tribal bias is "American exceptionalism". Because of this tribal bias, they justify acts of murder committed by the US government that they would unreservedly condemn as murder if committed by another government or by private citizens. Thus, of the two major objectivist organizations, ARI and TAS, neither has morally condemned in any way the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, which has killed at least 100,000 Iraqis (almost certainly, many more than this) and created millions of Iraqi refugees. I think it safe to say that, if the government of Iraq launched such an attack against the US, killing an equal number of Americans, the moral outrage would be profound. Yet, because this act was committed by the US government, who is presumed to act on behalf of their tribe, it is given a complete moral pass. They may condemn the act on practical grounds, because of its horrendous cost and its failure to achieve its alleged objectives. But no word is said about the moral evil of the war started by our government. Because it is, after all, our tribe. This is but one example of an endless list of ways in which they apply a double standard of morality to their own tribe with respect to all other tribes. Martin

Whether or not this is true, it has nothing to do with the issue being discussed here, since noone here has suggested that Israel lay down its guns and stop defending itself. This comment is in fact only relevant to the Gaza blockade if one equates Israel's ending of the blockade with Israel laying down its guns and leaving itself defenseless. This is, of course, the hidden premise behind the comment. Every time anyone points out a particular attrocity committed by the Israeli government, the response invariably is something to the effect of, "Israel has the right to defend itself!", as though anything the Israeli government does, no matter how many innocent people are killed, is automatically a legitimate act of self-defense. Interestingly enough, if a Hamas fighter kills an Israeli, even an Israeli soldier rather than a civilian, one never hears this justification, that "Palestinians have the right to defend themselves". Every act of killing by Israel is automatically labeled as self-defense, and every act of killing by Palestinians is automatically labeled as terrorism. This same double standard applies to the US government. If US military are killed by insurgents, this is terrorism. If the US military drops cluster bombs from airplanes thousands of feet in the sky, or uses depleted uranium shells or white phosphorus, or uses unmanned drones to fire missiles, killing hundreds or thousands of people, this is "self-defense" or "collatteral damage" or "an unfortunate accident". Martin

Brant, It would obviously help the residents of Gaza very much if Egypt were to lift its blockade. But it's not surprising that they have participated in this blockade. The Palestinians have always been treated horribly by neighboring Islamic countries like Egypt, as well as by Israel. Among other things, Egypt has a strong financial incentive to keep the US happy by keeping Israel happy, since it is also the recipient of a huge amount of foreign aid from the US. Right now, both Israel and Egypt receive about $3 billion a year in foreign aid from the US. So our tax dollars are going to pay for the strangulation of Gaza from both ends. Of course, this policy appears to be just fine with most objectivists. I don't recall hearing anyone on this site suggesting that this aid be terminated. Martin The aid to Israel is, for the most part, a hidden subsidy to American corporations. Most of the aid is spent by Israel to buy arms from American companies. The money goes to Israel and comes back here as corporate revenue. In a sane world Israel would be like Japan which makes it money from high end value added technology. If Israel did not have to devote its economy mostly to survival from attacks made by its neighbors it would become a wealth country carried upward by high value added sales in the technology markets and agricultural markets. Israeli fruit is among the best in the world and sells well all over. Ba'al Chatzaf The foreign aid is a direct subsidy to Israel and an indirect subsidy to the American corporations that are part of the military-industrial complex. Israel gets $3 billion a year in American arms, the "defense" corporations get the money back in sales to Israel, and the American taxpayer gets screwed, as usual. Since objectivists are supposedly in favor of laissez-faire capitalism and against corporatism and foreign aid, they should object violently to this arrangement, if in fact that they being true to their principles. Martin Martin

Brant, It would obviously help the residents of Gaza very much if Egypt were to lift its blockade. But it's not surprising that they have participated in this blockade. The Palestinians have always been treated horribly by neighboring Islamic countries like Egypt, as well as by Israel. Among other things, Egypt has a strong financial incentive to keep the US happy by keeping Israel happy, since it is also the recipient of a huge amount of foreign aid from the US. Right now, both Israel and Egypt receive about $3 billion a year in foreign aid from the US. So our tax dollars are going to pay for the strangulation of Gaza from both ends. Of course, this policy appears to be just fine with most objectivists. I don't recall hearing anyone on this site suggesting that this aid be terminated. Martin

I guess it's a "Freudian slip" that you referred to the residents of Gaza as "inmates", as in "inmates" of a prison camp. No, they're not actually starving to death. That would be bad publicity for the Israeli government and would bring up uncomfortable parallels to Stalin's starvation of the kulaks or, even worse, the Nazis. The objective of the Israeli blockade is not to actually starve the "inmates" to death but just to consign their lives to utter misery. But, according to a post on another thread recently started by Kat, the people trying to break the Israeli blockade are the real war criminals, not the wonderfully benevolent Israeli government imposing these conditions on the "inmates". And freedom is slavery too! Below are several descriptions of the actual nature of the Israeli blockade of Gaza: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2010/06/squalor-victoria.html From Peter Beinart: "The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations greeted news of the flotilla disaster by repeating a common “pro-Israel” talking point: that Israel only blockades Gaza to prevent Hamas from building rockets that might kill Israeli citizens. If only that were true. In reality, the embargo has a broader and more sinister purpose: to impoverish the people of Gaza, and thus turn them against Hamas. As the Israeli newspaper Haaretz has reported, the Israeli officials in charge of the embargo adhere to what they call a policy of “no prosperity, no development, no humanitarian crisis.” In other words, the embargo must be tight enough to keep the people of Gaza miserable, but not so tight that they starve. This explains why Israel prevents Gazans from importing, among other things, cilantro, sage, jam, chocolate, French fries, dried fruit, fabrics, notebooks, empty flowerpots and toys, none of which are particularly useful in building Kassam rockets. It’s why Israel bans virtually all exports from Gaza, a policy that has helped to destroy the Strip’s agriculture, contributed to the closing of some 95 percent of its factories, and left more 80 percent of its population dependent on food aid. It’s why Gaza’s fishermen are not allowed to travel more than three miles from the coast, which dramatically reduces their catch. And it’s why Israel prevents Gazan students from studying in the West Bank, a policy recently denounced by 10 winners of the prestigious Israel Prize. There’s a name for all this: collective punishment." From Mark Leon Goldberg: "The World Health Organization seems to be seizing on the spotlight by renewing a call to allow for the unimpeded access into Gaza of medical supplies and technical know-how. From a WHO statement released moments ago: Hundreds of items of equipment have been waiting to enter Gaza for up to a year, procured by WHO and other organizations, says Mr Tony Laurance, head of WHO's office for Gaza and the West Bank. These items include CT scanners, x-rays, fluoroscopes, infusion pumps, medical sterilization gasses, laboratory equipment, UPS (uninterrupted power supply) batteries, and spare parts for support systems like elevators. "It is impossible to maintain a safe and effective healthcare system under the conditions of siege that have been in place now since June 2007," Mr Laurance says. "It is not enough to simply ensure supplies like drugs and consumables. Medical equipment and spare parts must be available and be properly maintained." [snip] Gaza's second biggest hospital, the Gaza-European Hospital, operates without 2 out of its 3 elevators not functioning due to disrepair. All hospitals have been waiting for over 6 months to get spare parts to repair their main sterilizers. Spare parts needed for the cardiac catheterization laboratories in the Gaza-European Hospital have been waiting to enter for 6 months." From Daniel Larison: "Th[e] economic and political purpose of the blockade has never been a secret. During Operation Cast Lead, we heard all about how inflicting deprivation and misery on the Gazan population with the siege was intended to turn the population against Hamas>. As I noted at the time, sanctions and embargoes do not cause people to rise up against their rulers, but they do make them resent the people imposing the sanctions and embargoes. Now that the blockade has produced an enormous political disaster, we are supposed to forget about that and focus on arms smuggling that has nothing to do with what the flotilla was attempting to bring to Gaza. The blockade is a policy aimed at the steady immiseration and deeper impoverishment of Gazans. This not only deflects attention from Hamas’ abuses and misrule, but it also ensures that there will not be enough prosperity in the future to foster any sort of viable political opposition against Hamas. That tells me that Israel is actually quite willing to tolerate a Hamas-run enclave on its doorstep so long as it can keep the people living there poor and dependent." From Dan Izenberg: "The great catastrophe is not starvation, but the fact that 80% of the population are charity cases. In OCHA's eyes, Gaza is not Somalia, but there is a crisis of human dignity there. [...] Even when it comes to food, [uN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)] maintained in a study published in August 2009 that Gazans are suffering from what it calls “food insecurity.” According to the organization, 1.1 million of Gaza’s 1.5 million population is food insecure, up from just over half in 2008. [...] “The main causes of food insecurity are the increase in poverty, the destruction of agricultural assets, and the inflation in prices of key food items,” it wrote. Operation Cast Lead severely damaged the industrial sector in Gaza, which had already been badly hit by the blockade imposed by Israel in June 2007. According to a study published by the Palestinian Trade Center and the Palestinian Federation of Industries, 44% of a sample of 324 industries in Gaza were totally damaged during the fighting. Those that resumed production afterwards, rehired only 23% of their original work force. Overall, more than 40% of Gaza’s workforce, amounting to 140,000 people, is unemployed." Now, having established how wonderfully kind, benevolent, and caring the Israeli government is for imposing this blockade, lets try the evil people who are trying to bring attention to this blockade in order to break it as the evil war criminals that they are. That will teach any future prospective war criminals not to try to bring any food or medical supplies to impoverished people! They should know that the number one rule for getting by in our modern world is unquestioning obedience to governments, no matter tyrannical they may be. Martin

I guess I'd have to say that you were lucky to have known Arthur and to have studied acting with him. Of course, I'm sure that he was a very different person then than now. I would love to meet him and just get to spend some time talking to him and learning about the evolution of his philosophical, moral, and emotional perspectives over the years. But I don't imagine I will ever get that opportunity. That's an understatement. Arthur has been in very bad health for several years now, and his health continues to deteriorate. He has no source of income other than the contributions he receives from his blog. He can barely afford to pay his monthly rent on his apartment, let alone for any kind of medical care than he desparately needs. I don't imagine we're going to reach any agreement about that; suffice it to say that I don't think you could be more wrong. Do you also think that Atlas Shrugged is much too long and essentially repetitive one-notes? There have been no shortage of Rand critics who have argued precisely that. I think that Arthur is an absolutely brilliant and deeply inspirational thinker and essayist. There's a reason that I've posted several of his essays here on Objectivist Living, generally in response to what I consider to be particularly abominable posts, such as the one that started this thread. Martin

At the risk of outing myself as a "true moral midget" because I believe that Palestinians are actual human beings and not savages who deserve to be imprisoned in what has become the concentration camp of Gaza, I've decided to post a link and a section of an essay by Arthur Silber, entitled "The Slaughter of the Diseased Animals". Martin http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/01/slaughter-of-diseased-animals.html Eyad El-Sarraj is very ill; he suffers from multiple myeloma. He was unable to obtain desperately needed medical treatment for three months, because he was refused permission to make the short trip to Tel Aviv. El-Sarraj has a British passport. He lives in Gaza. El-Sarraj was finally granted a one-day travel permit, but only because an Israeli friend with the right connections intervened on his behalf. We know that many others are not so fortunate. In mid-December 2008, El-Sarraj described some of the effects of the Israeli blockade: "The situation in Gaza got worse early last month when Israel tightened its blockade of Gaza. Our food, fuel and medical supplies have been severely limited. The blockade has ruined our economy and reduced many among us to a level of economic desperation that has alarmed United Nations officials. According to Karen Koning Abu Zayd, the commissioner-general of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the human toll of this siege is terribly grave. Gaza has "been closed for so much longer than ever before ... and we have nothing in our warehouses. ... It will be a catastrophe if this persists, a disaster," she said. And U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recently called for the immediate easing of the closure because of "deprivations of basic supplies and human dignity." The secretary-general rightfully condemned Palestinian rocket fire at civilian targets in Israel. Such rockets are morally wrong and strategically inept. Yet the blockade that Israel has clamped on 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza is a collective punishment that harms men, women and children who have no power to control those firing the rockets. Rather than turn Gazans against Hamas, the blockade's effect has been a humanitarian catastrophe that alienates Gazans young and old from both Israel and the West. Even I, a practicing psychiatrist for decades and a longtime advocate of coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis, am having trouble coping with the hardships to which we are subjected. Travel is crucial to me, not just for medical reasons but for reasons of basic sanity. I long to see dear friends, to see the world again, to breathe fresh air and, most of all, to reassure my senses that there are normal things and normal people outside Gaza's debilitating confines." I'm almost certain that El-Sarraj understands this, but it is crucial to emphasize that this exercise in dehumanization engineered by Israel is intentionally designed to destroy the concept of "normal things and normal people" -- indeed, to destroy the concept of "normality" itself. El-Sarraj mentions "Palestinian rocket fire at civilian targets in Israel"; this is, of course, the primary justification offered by Israel for the current slaughter. But without an appreciation of the monstrousness of the conditions that have been imposed on Gaza over a long period of time, this represents only the worst, most viciously dishonest kind of war propaganda. When one considers every matter of moment, that is to say, all those conditions that make possible a human mode of existence, Israel has all the power -- and the Palestinians generally, and certainly the inhabitants of Gaza, have none. That is the point from which all further analysis must begin. And the argument about "Palestinian rocket fire" is a notable lie used to "justify" acts that are immensely evil. Uri Avnery explains: ""Israel must defend itself against the rockets that are terrorizing our Southern towns," the Israeli spokesmen explained. "Palestinians must respond to the killing of their fighters inside the Gaza Strip," the Hamas spokesmen declared. As a matter of fact, the cease-fire did not collapse, because there was no real cease-fire to start with. The main requirement for any cease-fire in the Gaza Strip must be the opening of the border crossings. There can be no life in Gaza without a steady flow of supplies. But the crossings were not opened, except for a few hours now and again. The blockade on land, on sea and in the air against a million and a half human beings is an act of war, as much as any dropping of bombs or launching of rockets. It paralyzes life in the Gaza Strip: eliminating most sources of employment, pushing hundreds of thousands to the brink of starvation, stopping most hospitals from functioning, disrupting the supply of electricity and water. Those who decided to close the crossings – under whatever pretext – knew that there is no real cease-fire under these conditions. That is the main thing. Then there came the small provocations which were designed to get Hamas to react. After several months, in which hardly any Qassam rockets were launched, an army unit was sent into the Strip "in order to destroy a tunnel that came close to the border fence". From a purely military point of view, it would have made more sense to lay an ambush on our side of the fence. But the aim was to find a pretext for the termination of the cease-fire, in a way that made it plausible to put the blame on the Palestinians. And indeed, after several such small actions, in which Hamas fighters were killed, Hamas retaliated with a massive launch of rockets, and – lo and behold – the cease-fire was at an end. Everybody blamed Hamas." For a very long time, the United States government has specialized in the pattern pursued by Israel. The vastly more powerful nation wishes to act on a certain policy -- almost always territorial expansion, for purposes of access to resources, or to force itself into new markets, or to pursue the evil notion that economic and ideological success depend on brutality and conquest -- but a specifically moral justification for its planned actions does not lie easily to hand. So the powerful nation embarks on a course designed to make life intolerable for the country and/or those people that stand in its way. The more powerful nation is confident that, given sufficient time and sufficient provocation, the weaker country and people will finally do something that the actual aggressor can seize on as a pretext for the policy upon which it had already decided. In this way, what then unfolds becomes the victim's fault.

Michael, I don't know what you think the whole message is. If you think that spending most of one's time bashing the US government rather than other governments around the world somehow implies approval of or even preference for these other governments, you're completely misunderstanding the message. As for me, I happen to loathe every single government in existence, although clearly some more than others. There are several reasons I spend so much time attacking the US government while ignoring the depradations of other governments, none of which has anything to do with my approval of any other government. The following are several of these reasons: 1) I happen to live under the dominion of the US government. Therefore, my life is hugely affected by what it does. An enormous percentage of my income is confiscated in taxes to pay for the US government, which uses the money to commit attrocities both here and around the world to which I am utterly opposed. 2) The US government is the dominant power in the world today, controlling an empire of hundreds of military bases around the world and thousands of nuclear warheads, enough to incinerate pretty much the entire world. Since the end of WW2, the US government has been pursuing a policy of trying to establish global hegemony, and it has taken many steps especially since 9/11 to turn the United States into a police state. This has a far greater impact on my life than anything that the government of Iran happens to do. 3) It is really not necessary to frequently express my opposition to the government of Iran or other totalitarian governments, since everyone hates the government of Iran and noone tries to defend it. By contrast, a huge number of Americans, including many objectivists, are constantly defending the US government's criminal actions. The same holds true of the government of Israel, which has many staunch defenders among objectivists, despite its history of criminal behavior. In any case, none of this is relevant to my original point, which is that it is totally misleading to equate attacks on the US government with attacks on the United States as a society. If you accuse someone of anti-Americanism, the burden of proof is on you to back this up with evidence that they hate the United States as a society. That they may hate the US government is no proof whatever of this. And neither are attacks on the government of Israel proof of antisemitism. Martin

If there's one phrase I'm really sick to death of hearing, its "USA-bashing" or "America-hating" or their equivalents. Steve was not bashing the USA. He was bashing the US government. Just to restate it for about the 1000th time, the US government is not the country of the United States, which consists of about 300,000,000 people. The US government is merely the band of criminals and thugs that just happens to rule the place. This idea of equating the ruling thugocracy with the people over whom it rules is the ultimate essence of statism -- the idea that the state is everything, or the "liberal" idea that the people and their government are the same thing. Every time someone launches into an attack on some criminal act perpetrated by the US government, someone like you will immediately accuse them of being anti-American, as though hating the criminal acts of the US government is somehow the same thing as hating the country itself. A very convenient idea for the ruling elite to deflect criticism of itself. Martin

I have absolutely no military background and am damn thankful for that. I turned 18 in 1971, the year the college deferment for the draft was abolished. I had just been accepted for admission at the University of California, San Diego, and was scheduled to start college in the fall, but I could no longer use my college admission as a deferment. That year, the college deferment system was replaced with a draft lottery system, in which men of draft age were assigned a randomly selected number based on their date of birth. Those with the lowest numbers could still be drafted. I got a number in the low 50s and was therefore vulnerable to possibly being drafted. I still remember having to show up for a physical, and how much I hated the experience. As far as the military was concerned, the men were nothing but government property and prospective cannon fodder, to be disposed of as the military saw fit. The experience was utterly degrading, walking around in single file in our underwear and paper shoes, having to provide a urine sample on command, and having our genitals felt up by some jerk doctor. We were future government property, and the government treated us accordingly. I was fortunate enough to get a medical deferment, and was therefore able to stay out of the meat grinder of Vietnam and to start college. But I don't know what I would have done if I could not get a medical deferment. I would have been willing to say or do just about anything to stay the hell out of the army. My father was drafted into the army during WW2, at the age of 26. I think they were drafting men up to age 35 during WW2. Fortunately for him, he was a very good "finagler", and he was able to finagle himself a plum job in the army. He ended up being stationed in New Caledonia, an island with beautiful sand beaches that was far from any actual combat. He got himself assigned the job of chaplain's assistant, and he got to drive the chaplain around the island in a jeep. I think he was the only one in his entire unit who had access to a jeep. My dad actually remembered his military experience fondly, and considered it to be one of the best times of his life. The chaplain thought that my dad was the greatest guy; they got along really well together. The chaplain also happened to be good friends with my grandmother. After my dad was discharged from the army, he told my grandmother that he knew the nicest young man and eligible bachelor. That's how he ended up meeting and eventually marrying my mom. The rest, as they say, is history. Martin

Objectivists are libertarians. Objectivism is in fact a subset of libertarianism. Ayn Rand was herself a libertarian, no matter how much she hated the term or denounced libertarianism as a movement. Non initiation of force is a core principle of objectivism. This is made quite explicit in Atlas Shrugged, as well as many of Rand's non-fiction writings. Rand was opposed to all taxation and in favor of strictly voluntary financing of government, as a corollary of her belief in the non initiation of force principle. How big do you think a government could be, if it were financed entirely voluntarily, without recourse to taxation? Martin Objectivism is a philosophy, libertarianism is a political philosophy. Therefore it can be no more than a subset of Objectivism. If not, then a subset of something else. --Brant All objectivists are libertarians (whether they acknowledge it or not, because of their acceptance of the NIOF principle). However, not all libertarians are objectivists (for example, Christian libertarians). Therefore, objectivism is a subset of libertarianism, but libertarianism is not a subset of objectivism. It is because libertarianism is a political philosophy and not an all encompassing philosophy which includes ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, etc, that makes objectivism a subset of libertarianism. Martin

Objectivists are libertarians. Objectivism is in fact a subset of libertarianism. Ayn Rand was herself a libertarian, no matter how much she hated the term or denounced libertarianism as a movement. Non initiation of force is a core principle of objectivism. This is made quite explicit in Atlas Shrugged, as well as many of Rand's non-fiction writings. Rand was opposed to all taxation and in favor of strictly voluntary financing of government, as a corollary of her belief in the non initiation of force principle. How big do you think a government could be, if it were financed entirely voluntarily, without recourse to taxation? Martin

Leonid, I'm afraid you don't understand USA law. I reject the USA being governed by "international law" (whatever the hell that is), other than specific treaties the USA government signed. A declaration of war is necessary under USA law, despite presidents (like Bush) having trashed the constitution through loopholes. Part of the reason the Tea Party movement started here is to restore the government's obedience of the law. Michael I believe this -- not having declarations of war -- was consolidated under Truman, but has it roots earlier in US history. I wouldn't lay the blame solely on presidents -- though, they surely get a good chunk of it. Instead, I'd blame the Congress for going along with it. (I might be generous here, too, and blame even many in the public for going along with and not understanding or, worse, caring about the issue.) While I wouldn't defend the embassy- and hostage-taking by a student group in Iran, I think one of the motivations was to prevent another coup like the 1953 one. In other words, to prevent the US government from returning the Shah to power. It's incredible to me the extent to which many people, including many objectivists, discuss the seizure of the American Embassy by Iran as proof of Iran's ultimate evil and as justification for anything the US government might wish to do to Iran, without considering any of the history or context behind this event. From the Wikipedia entry on the Iran hostage crisis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis "1953 coup Further information: Operation Ajax and Iranian Revolution In February 1979, less than a year before the hostage crisis, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, had been overthrown in a revolution. For several decades before that, the United States had been an ally and backer of the Shah. During World War II, Allied powers Britain and the Soviet Union occupied Iran and required Reza Shah the existing Shan of Iran to abdicate in favor of his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.[9] The invasion was allegedly in fear that Reza Shah was about to align his petroleum-rich country with Nazi Germany during the war: However, Reza Shah's earlier Declaration of Neutrality and refusal to allow Iranian territory to be used to train, supply, and act as a transport corridor to ship arms to Russia for its war effort against Germany, was the strongest motive for the allied invasion of Iran. Because of its importance in the allied victory, Iran was subsequently called "The Bridge of Victory" by Winston Churchill.[10] By the 1950's, the Shah was engaged in a power struggle with Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq, an immediate descendant of the previous monarchy, the Qajar dynasty. In 1953, the British and U.S. spy agencies deposed the democratically-elected government of Mossadegh in a military coup d'état codenamed Operation Ajax, and restored the Shah as an absolute monarch.[11][12][13] The anti-democratic coup d’état was a "a critical event in post-war world history" that replaced Iran’s post-monarchic, native, and secular parliamentary democracy with a dictatorship.[14] US support and funding continued after the coup, with the CIA training the government's secret police, SAVAK. In subsequent decades this foreign intervention, along with other economic, cultural and political issues, united opposition against the Shah and led to his overthrow.[15][16][17] [edit] Carter administration Shortly before the revolution on New Year's Day 1979, American president Jimmy Carter further angered anti-Shah Iranians with a televised toast to the Shah, declaring how beloved the Shah was by his people. After the revolution in February, the embassy had been occupied and staff held hostage briefly. Rocks and bullets had broken enough of the embassy front-facing windows for them to be replaced with bullet-proof glass. Its staff was reduced to just over 60 from a high of nearly 1000 earlier in the decade.[18] The Carter administration attempted to mitigate the anti-American feeling by finding a new relationship with the de facto Iranian government and by continuing military cooperation in hopes that the situation would stabilize. However, on October 22, 1979 the U.S. permitted the Shah - who was ill with cancer - to attend the Mayo Clinic for medical treatment. The American embassy in Tehran had discouraged the request, understanding the political delicacy,[19] but after pressure from influential figures including former United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Council on Foreign Relations chairman David Rockefeller, the Carter administration decided to grant the Shah’s request.[20][21][22] The Shah's admission to the US intensified Iranian revolutionaries anti-Americanism and spawned rumors of another U.S.-backed coup and re-installation of the Shah.[23] Revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini - who had been exiled by the Shah for 15 years - heightened rhetoric against the “Great Satan”, the United States, talking of what he called “evidence of American plotting.”[24] "You have no right to complain, because you took our whole country hostage in 1953.”[23]" So, after participating in the coup against Iran's democratically elected leader and then foisting the brutal dictatorship of the Shah on Iran for 26 years, including training of the KGB like Iranian secret police SAVAK, after the Shah was removed from power, war criminal Henry Kissinger helped to get the Shah admitted to the US for medical treatment, an unbelievable slap in the fact to the Iranian people. And president Carter had the chutzpah to have "a televised toast to the Shah, declaring how beloved the Shah was by his people". But all of this context is routinely left out of the everyday denunciations about the evil of Iran. They took our embassy hostage; that's all that matters. Never mind what we did to them for years prior to that, or the way we spat in their collective faces by offering sanctuary to the dictator who ruled over them with an iron fist for 26 years. Martin

This letter is the kind of nonsense that I would expect to see coming from ARI, only stupider. The author doesn't even know how to spell "imminent". The author is also stupid enough to imagine that the president is actually going to read this letter, consider its arguments, and act upon its recommendations. To the fool who wrote this letter, here's a revelation for you -- the president serves the interests of the ruling class. He doesn't give a damn what you, stupid working peasant, have to say. Oh, and one more thing. Before you start whining about how horrible the Iranians were for taking US diplomats hostage, perhaps you ought to consider just what the US government did to Iran during the previous 26 years. You might even consider that the US government aided the evil tyrant Saddam Hussein during the Iran - Iraq war, a war during which Iran had about a million of its citizens killed. Then weigh the scales and decide for yourself which is the greater crime. Martin

Compared to what the Nazis did, the Katyn Forest Massacre was a minor event. The murder of inconvenient people is one of the most common human doings. Disproportion is an enemy of clear thinking. Ba'al Chatzaf Okay, then would you accept that terrorism today is really a minor issue -- with the far bigger problem being statism? Why? Because statism kills far more people. As, for instance, James Bovard pointed out: "A core fallacy at the heart of the war on terrorism is that terrorism is worse than almost anything else imaginable. Unfortunately, governments around the world have committed far worse abuses than Al Qaeda or any other terrorist cabal. By treating terrorism as the supreme evil, and insisting that governments can never be guilty of terrorism, the Bush administration makes the crimes of government morally negligible. From 1980 to 2000, international terrorists killed 7,745 people, according to the U.S. State Department. Yet, in the same decades, governments killed more than 10 million people in ethnic cleansing campaigns, mass executions, politically caused famines, wars, and other slaughters. During the 1990s, Americans were at far greater risk of being gunned down by local, state, and federal law enforcement agents than of being killed by international terrorists." -- http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/bovard/bovard2.html So, when will you start calling for an end to the War on Terror and a beginning to a War on Statism? Dan, Thanks for bringing up this quote from James Bovard, which I'm almost certain was from his book "Terrorism and Tyranny". Bovard is the greatest journalist of our generation. I consider him to be for our generation what H. L. Mencken was for his. It's a sign of the state of our culture that most people have never heard of Bovard, while millions of people have read the moronic ravings of Thomas Friedman on the pages of the New York Times. Great minds labor in relative obscurity, while blithering idiots become rich and famous and read by millions. Martin

I know really. I realize there maybe some bad apples who are police officers but (overall) the ones I come in contact with are decent, polite and hardworking people. Have you ever read any of the exposes of police abuse by Radley Balko or Jacob Sullum at the Reason blog or by Charles Johnson at his web site, radgeek.com? They have been documenting horror stories related to the police for years now. The idea that there are just a few bad applies among the police is ridiculous; the police are infested with bad apples, and the entire culture of modern day police departments is one of a horrific fraternity designed to protect the fraternity brothers (and, occasionally, sisters) at all cost, such that police officers can literally get away with murder and face minimal sanctions. This has gotten much worse over the last several decades with the advent of SWAT teams and the increasing militarization of the police that has occurred since 9/11. It will only continue to get worse in the future as police departments recruit increasingly from ex soldiers or reservists who served in Iraq or Afghanistan, whose military experience has taught them a rather different set of rules of engagement than should be followed by peace officers. There are undoubtedly some cops who are decent people in their personal lives. But there is simply no way to be a decent cop on the job, insofar as the job requires the arrest and incarceration of innocent people for the commission of victimless crimes. Arresting people who have violated noone's rights and locking them in cages is indecent to the core. There is no justification for this whatever, no matter how decent or polite some cops may be in their personal lives. Why some objectivists attempt to defend the police and to rationalize their behavior is beyond me. Martin

Too late. I just called 1-866-666-6666, pressed 2, and gave them your name. They promised me a hefty reward. I'm not sure what's going to happen to you ... Martin I don't think anything will happen to me, because....Hold on...Two guys in black suits just showed up at my front door, I need to see what they want, so I will continue this later. (There's also a helicopter hovering over my place. Strange....) Ghs I just had a pleasant conversation with those two men who knocked on my door. They were from a department of the U.S. Government that I had never heard of before: Federal Unspecified Contract Keepers Emergency Resource Squad. These F.U.C.K.E.R.S. said they were paying me a friendly visit to remind me of my contract with the United States Government. When I asked, "What contract?" they said it was the contract that I implicitly signed when I was born. When I expressed confusion, explaining that I had no idea what the terms of this contract are, they said it was very simple: (1) I am obligated to do whatever the government tells me to do. (2) The contract expires only when I do. (3) I am subject to a "substantial penalty" for early termination. When I asked to see a copy of this contract, the gentlemen laughed, and one of them said: "Sir, if there were a written copy, it wouldn't be an implied contract, now would it?" They asked if I had any more questions. I said, "Yes, who determined the conditions of this contract?" They laughed again. "Not you, that's for sure," one of them said. Ghs Well, with that attitude, the F.U.C.K.E.R.S. are almost certain to return. Haven't you learned by now that it's not enough to merely obey big brother; you have to love big brother too! I hope they remember to send me my check. I think I could make a good living doing this. Martin

And if one views a milk shake as water, it is not fattening. I would rather do without many governmental "services," such as those protecting me from pot smokers and other harmless druggies. How do I cancel those services, exactly? If I want to cancel my television cable service, I can call Comcast. Who can I call in the government? Is there an 800 number? Ghs 1-866-666-6666 --Brant Thanks, Brant. I called the number and was given two options: If you want to cancel your implied contract with the United States Government, press 1. If you want to report someone who would like to cancel his implied contract with the United States Government, press 2. I thought the best thing to do was to hang up. Ghs Too late. I just called 1-866-666-6666, pressed 2, and gave them your name. They promised me a hefty reward. I'm not sure what's going to happen to you ... Martin