Matus1976

True. Ready to start doing that? Didn't think so. Shayne I have in fact been doing that all along. I have had no problems of communication with studiokadent or george. Either I am selectively choosing you to intentionally mis interpret, or you are not as good at conveying information as you think you are. Given your communication problems with virtually everyone, as evidence by your nearly instantaneous descent into name calling, I think it's clear where the communication problem originates. So, now onto post, what, 8 or 9, you still do not explain your position and instead still whine and complain. So, ready to make a reasonable attempt to convey your position yet? didn't think so.

This is yet another convenient example of your trolling. For you, by your own admission, you cannot properly infer why I stop answering. By my own admission I am not omniscient, and as such, I do not axiomatically know exactly what you are trying to convey. It is up to you as a rational human being to attempt to convey information clearly, it is up to me as yet another rational human being to make a reasonable attempt to understand you. You can attribute my lack of omniscience to malice all you want, but that does not make it any more true. Here we are in yet ANOTHER response by you in which you STILL make no effort to clarify your position, but instead still blather on about how annoyed you are. Your reason is that I am either a troll or a moron, neither are true, and you pretty much think everyone is a troll or a moron, so your conclusions are not rationally derived anyway. You seem more like a frustrated spoiled and solipsistic child who gets indigantly angry anytime anyone doesn't instantly understand what you are trying to say, even if you babble incoherently or perpetually obfuscate your points. You seem to have pretty accurately described yourself here Shayne. But feel free point to the post in which you differentiated between supporting a lesser evil against a greater one from supporting less evil conscription against a more evil conscription, or, simply state your differentiation now. You could, for instance, say that conscription *always* is *completely* evil, and no nation which ever used conscription was ever just in using it to fight, even if it was fighting an even less free nation which it reasonable expected would completely destroy it and permanently enslave it's entire population. This is probably the fourth or fifth time I have simply asked you to clarify your position and why the logical implication of supporting a lesser evil against a greater one does not also lead to the logical implication that in some contexts conscription ought to be supported. I invite other readers (if there are any) to comment, as possible objective third parties, does it appear I am deliberately mis-interpreting Shayne's positions, or does it appear that Shayne seems reluctant to clarfiy his position and is quick to get indignant? If most commenters feel I am deliberately misinterpreting Shayne's comments, then clearly I am not able to accurately assess something based on the same information being provided by Shayne.

Like Shayne, the answer is very much a "yes" to that question. There are contexts within which intervention is justified. Also, I do not think actual libertarian foreign policy would disagree... I have never met a single libertarian that truly believes an acontextual, platonic type of noninterventionism (I dont think even Ron Paul holds that belief... All libertarians I have met are more than willing to consider context). Thanks for your reply. While I don't doubt that you feel there are contexts where intervention is justified, I have never discerned this as a general aspect of libertarianism from my many years of involvement. The Libertarian Party home page lp.org states this (emphasis added) I think that statement is very clear, and gives no provisions for context. The stance on foreign policy of Libertarians is it's single biggest failing. You are correct that the principle of non-interventionism does have a context. Non-interventionism does not apply in the case of a clear, credible, serious and present threat. Our difference fundamentally is in the justification of reaction. I agree, I would generally avoid getting involved in conflicts unless it is in our rational long term self interest and we are acting in a reasonable manner to replace a less free nation with a more free one, and we would certainly be justified when in clear credible threat is presented. The official libertarian party stance does not appear to coincide with yours though. I havent thought that much about the issue. Its certainly one to consider, I will grant that. fair enough My comment here applies to both yourself and Shayne... Context is vitally important. Even Ayn Rand stated that the principles of individual rights were more or less tentative until the Industrial Revolution which proved them true. Now that we all have seen and benefitted from the truth, the truth is undeniable. Its an empirical process of discovery... Of course that does not mean that the Ancient World was not a rights-violating hellhole (albiet with very different degrees of hellhole-dom), rights still existed back then, but they were not discovered. I am not sure I follow the idea that the principle of individual rights was more or less 'tentative' until the industrial revolution. Can you elaborate more on that? I would never consider it tentative, only undiscovered. The industrial revolution would have also been the time in which manpower was no longer the major determining factor in warfare, but why would it relate to the concept of individual rights explicitly? I think it is important to note in a classical context, all people of the earth were permanent slaves of their local despots, and *only* the greek city states had *any* concept of freedom, even though they were brutal hell holes by todays standards, the ideas of freedom had to take root initially somewhere, and every salient advance forward in the cause of freedom, especially it's first steps, should be celebrated. As I stated I do concede that there are contexts within which non-interventionism does not apply. Acknowledged. Yes, although there are some methods of support that I would never approve of doing (i.e. conscription, which after the vindication of individual rights cannot be justified, except possibly in an absolute nightmare scenario (i.e. Soviet Invasion of the US and we needed conscription to have a fighting chance), but as we both know these scenarios are really beyond the realm of standard ethical theorizing). So here I think we see our fundamental conclusion. We both agree then that in some, albiet extreme circustances conscription is in fact justified, as I stated primarily when a more free nation which needs it to overcome a reasonably clear threat to it's existence against a less free nation which uses conscription to hold it's population in perment bondage I don't think these scenarios are really beyond the realm of standard ethical theorizing, and instead they have in fact happened over and over again historically and were in fact critical to the ultimate promulgation to the of civil liberties and freedom in the world. They were certainly applicable in ancient Greece and Rome and right up to the American Revolutionary War and Civil War. Were we probably agree is that in no context would it be justified today, and probably not since the Industrial Revolution. I would say primarily because manpower is no longer the critical factor in warfare and instead resources and technology are. The implication to me here is that while conscription may have been justified in a historical context in some cases to defeat an even greater enemy, today taxation might be justified in very specific contexts to defeat an even worse enemy. However the War on Terrorism is totally different. A different kind of enemy, a different kind of ideology (actually two intermingling ideologies: Islamism and Arab Nationalism), different economic contexts, different theatre of concern (an area filled with multiple states rather than one monolith), etc. I simply want to take all of these into account in my analysis. Understandable. When discussing over arching principles (such as intervetionism) I believe it relevant to discuss similiar aspects of other contexts. The War on Terror is certainly different in many aspects to the Cold War, but in many aspects it was similiar enough to warrant discussion. I do not profess to have an easy or clear answer for our ultimate policy, however as noted I do not think the severe long term consequences are being sufficiently wieghed by people when judging the right course of action. The world 25 years from now will be far far different than the world today, just as today it is far different than it was 250 years ago, and things which would have been in our long term rational self interest in the age of sailing ships and whaling might not be applicable to an age of nanotechnology and personal biotech labs.

Nope, it's still fallacious. I've managed to engage in a reasonable dialog on this topic with everyone except for you. Hmmm.... Here's yet another troll. I've already told you I've stopped discussing the issue with you because of what I regard as dishonest assumptions/questions. I'm not obfuscating, I'm changing the subject to something relevant. And yet oddly enough this professed reason you have chosen to stop answering these questions (and yet still respond to me over and over again) is indistinguishable from merely not being able to answer them. If I am drawing incorrect inferences, it's is but a simple matter to clarify them. 5 posts later you still make no effort to. As you have already stated, I am not pyschic, I don't know what you are thinking, so to get so incredibly frustrated by my lack of omniscience in divining your true meaning is really rather irrational. If you make a statement, and I present logical implications of that, and you think those implications are wrong EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK THEY ARE WRONG. This is how discussion works. Instead you huff and haw and get all indignantly offended that everyone does not instantly understand exactly what you are saying. Perhaps this is more evidence of your inability to convey your ideas clearly and your impatience then it is of any ill will on my or everyon else you are so quick to call a 'moron' here. So, really now, this is a waste of time. I do not care to answer all your ridiculous charges of incorrect inferences and trolling when you refuse to clearly identify your points or the logical implications therin. Lets try one more time. You explicitly said that in some circumstances it is just to support a lesser evil against a greater one. A nation which uses conscription for self defense is in my opinion a lesser evil than one which uses conscription for perpetual slavery. Would you support said nation in it's fight against the more evil nation? yes or no? (assuming supporting it was in your rational self interest) As a corrolary, where your nation was more free than an aggressor nation, yet required conscription to defend its self against massive invasion, would you support conscription (which for this example you can expect being conscripted and then released after the war is over), when your only other option is likely to be either being killed, imprisoned, or held in perpetual slavery. Your near instataneous reaction to almost anyone who disagrees with you is to call them a moron, I think that is enough evidence about the manner in which you debate and what might lead you to 'think that of me'

So you're not just a troll, you're a redneck as well? My neck is quite pale. bla bla bla, can we move on now? It's not a fallacy to ask if you are paid to post here, it's refusing to indulge your stupid questions and changing the subject to something more relevant. Shayne, is anyone paid to post here, let alone paid to be a troll? Yeah you are very clever and funny, moving on, it certainly is a fallacious and time wasting quesiton. Then answer the quesiton, make your points. But try to do so without calling people trolls, morons, idiots, etc. I do not consider your appraisel of my charachter worth the time it takes you to type it, as you have yet to demonstrate your own ability to formulate, recognize, and respect good charachter as demonstrated to me by your inclination to immediately devolve into name calling stereotyping anytime someone disagrees with you. So, back to the point, no I am not a mind reader, nor have a professed to be, yet the logical implications of your sentiments are very clear, and again (like our last conversation) you try and try and try to obfuscate the point. If I am not infering correctly than simply correct me, don't whine, complain, moan, insult or berate. If my inferences are so far off as to be the most "atrocious, vile, disgustingly filthy sin imaginable" then surely you can clear the air with a simple clarification or two of your points and what the obvious implications of them actually are. You explicitly said that in some circumstances it is just to support a lesser evil against a greater one. A nation which uses conscription for self defense is in my opinion a lesser evil than one which uses conscription for perpetual slavery. Would you support said nation in it's fight against the more evil nation? yes or no? (assuming supporting it was in your rational self interest) As a corrolary, where your nation was more free than an aggressor nation, yet required conscription to defend its self against massive invasion, would you support conscription (which for this example you can expect being conscripted and then released after the war is over), when your only other option is likely to be either being killed, imprisoned, or held in perpetual slavery. Stop obuscating and make your points, stop the name calling and grand standing and lets just have a discussion. I do not pretend to have an answer to this quesiton, I think it is a very difficult one. I assert that all men have a right to their own lives, yet we would have had very little progress toward real tangible freedom historically if lesser evils were not used to fight greater evils, especially when manpower was the primary determining factor in war (which it is not now) Please give me a compelling argument that conscription was never necessary even when used as a lesser evil to fight a much greater one, I would love to be rid of this extremely reluctant position I hold that *maybe* in some contexts, unfortunately, conscription was a 'necessary evil' I find it disheartening yet the only logically supportable position when one advocates (as I do) supporting a lesser evil against a greater evil, and certainly in light of the historical precedences of this (the revolutionary war, civil war, persian wars, etc)

Actually most objectivists I have interacted with are not striking and do not plan to strike any time in the future. I don't think 'narcissistic' applies to considering putting one's productive mind on strike to stop promulgating the growth of an oppressive regime. Any strike, by any mind, grand or small, in this regard is a blow to any oppressive regime, whether you are Eddie Willers or John Galt, and cripples the nation at least a little bit. There is nothing narcisstic about it. A nation of producers thrives, a nation of exploiters collapses. I think it's wrong to paint any objectivists who contemplate striking as automatically having overinflated senses of self-importance in the world. It's more a matter of not helping evil, then it is thinking that all of technological civilization is dependent on you. Agreed. But when is the time to strike is important to consider. Someone on another forum suggested that the curtailment of the freedom of speech is an equally good criteria for an economic strike, although many nations in the world have had good rule of law and economic freedoms, but ranked very low in matters of free speech and civil liberties (Singapore, Chile, etc) In these nations the quality of life of the average citizen grew tremendously, as long as they kept quiet about objecting to the state. Some other suggestions: - when the private ownership of food is made illegal (this is one of the first things Lenin made illegal) - when the private ownership of property is not recognized - when borders are closed and one is not freely able to leave I am thinking the proper time to strike would be quite a while before these happen. Some others: - taxation reaches 50% of income - government spending reaches some certain percentage of GDP (say 50%)

Very few people are interested in wrestling with pigs or raping monkeys. Sad, but true. Agreed, so what are your thoughts on the topic sans pigs and monkeys?

Shayne and I have come to agreement on other topics, primarily the matter of innate talent, where he and I disagreed with virtually everyone else. http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...ost&p=12019 http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...ost&p=16218 I hoped that the tone of my posts would have demonstrated that I was not making an 'anal rape monkey' comment seriously, I find Shayne's perpetuall "have you stopped beating your wife yet" type questions intellectually dishonest and a complete waste of time, and I think if one is going to start slinging insults and baiting questions, well, why pull punches? In game theory, tit for tat wins all other modes of competition, EXCEPT, tit for tat with an occasional co-operate. In debating, my goal is to challenge my ideas (such as my notions of conscription in this case), form ever more accurate understandings of reality, hash out the implications of my own opinions, and generally grow intellectually, etc. As such, I don't care if Shayne thinks I am 'not a good philosopher' or that I 'troll' and any such distractions from the core of the discussion are yet more time wasted. So in response to many of these things, I usually repeat them back verbatim, showing how pointless they are, or (try to) only present them in response to someone's vague accusationsa gainst me. That is the 'tit for tat', often people also realize how pointless such comments are and stop making them, and move on with the discussion. I try to throw a frequent co-operate in there as well. I find this the most productive manner of disccusion, it serves to whiddle away useless insults from discussions and focus back on the topic at hand. I am surprised to hear so few other comments to this thread, it seems like many people are reading it. What is every one else's thoughts on conscription? If it is just to support a more free nation against a less free one, Is it just for a more free nation, which for example uses conscription only for defense, to use it when fighting off a less free nation, which holds citizens in perpetual slavery? Are all nations which ever use conscription always unjust, even if it means the certain destruction in the face of a much more oppressive nation? It is clear throghout history that often more free nations utilized conscription to defeat more unfree ones, especially when manpower was the most critical component in warfare. It could be argued that in that case, the more oppressive a nation is, the more controlling it is of it's population, the more likely it is to win in battle, when man power is the most important factor. Would the very concept of freedom even taken hold and spread throughout the world had the greek city states not used conscription to fight the persians, who held all their population in permanent slavery? I think these are uncomfortable questions that deserve analysis.

Rand lays out a clear criteria, which I think is completely reasonable, about when armed resistance is justified in an oppressive nation - when people no longer have freedom of speech, as in that case the government has removed any possible peaceful mechanism for changing it. I've heard some people on this forum and others indicate that many productive minds are all ready on strike, or have hinted that they in fact are on strike as well. I certainly am not on strike, so I wonder what objective criteria, like freedom of speech in regards to civil liberties, people might suggest would be a reasonable dividing line in terms of economic freedom or when they themselves compelled to strike, or perhaps when we ought to be morally obligated (if ever) to strike. It seems economic restrictions are so vast and varied that it's hard to pin any large salient curtailment of economic freedom as a dividing line. Perhaps we go by a general rating of economic freedom? Percentage of Taxation?

Well you'll take anything any which way, but in fact my question is serious: Are you paid to post nonsense here? Since you refused to answer I'll take it as a "yes". Shayne Are you paid to anal rape monkeys? Boy you love those begging the question fallacies, thought I'd give you another one. Still you have yet to refute the obvious implications of your position that sometimes it is right to support a necessary evil, and as such, less evil conscription might sometimes be supported when used to defeat more evil conscription. Your response to my highlighting this obvious implication of your very own stated beliefs? To call me a troll. I think this discussion has run it's course, you are apparently not mature enough to acknowledge the points I made or the obvious contradiction in your own position on this matter and seem inclined to devolve into more name calling and red herrings. I'll leave it up to the forum owners to decide I am a 'troll' and what to do about that, defending baseless 'trolling' accusations against someone who has no interest in intellectual discussion is a waste of time. My point has been made here and for all intents and purposes conceded by you, and any further discussion is useless with you on this topic unless you would like to start actually making some points or arguments.

Shayne, Well I'll take the lack of an intelligent response on your part as a concession to the point. It's clear that you think at some times it's ok to support a lesser evil against a greater one, and obviously conscription for self defense is a lesser evil than North Korean style totalitarian conscription, and as I demonstrated clearly throughout history conscription has been used to make progress toward more complete freedoms. So ultimately it seems we both feel the same on this issue, but you are to arrogant to admit it, so either you are also a statist, or lovers of individual freedom can support practical steps toward increase in freedom and still remain lovers of freedom. I do not think any current contexts of warfare would make conscription something reasonable to be used to fight a greater evil, as modern combat is based on technology and weaponry, not on man power and attrition, massive manpower would not be required to fight a greater evil, but clearly something more indirect, like higher taxes, might be. Uncle Jim, no trap here, we merely had to meander around about in order for Shayne to realize more of the implications of his own beliefs. As for your comment on Free nations, I find writing "free nation" or less free nation or more free nation, more reasonable than writing "the extent to which a collection of governed individuals rights are protected by the governing body" A nation which protects all individual civil liberties and economic liberties is what I would call a (truly) "free nation"

Fair enough, lets look at your next statement then.. I'll of course pick the lesser of two evils, like any other sane person. Then you are a statist!!! how dare you use conscription to defeat conscription!!! Your true nature is revealed you vile statist!!! How disgusting!!! You would hold a gun to a boy's head to force him to fight slavery! Of course, going with the lesser of two evils is what I have been saying all along, it many contexts it is right to support a lesser evil over a greater one. In this context we are discussing supporting a more free nation, which has conscription for defense, over a less free nation, which holds the population in perpetual military conscription. In some cases you think it would be just to support such a nation. By your own stadards you are a vile statist, and obviously a hypocrite or you simply havent thought through the consequences of your position thoroughly. So if we can support a lesser evil against a greater one, the natural question to arise then, if conscription for self defense is a lesser evil against permanent conscription and is sometimes proper to support when another nation if fighting a worse one, how different then is it to support conscription for defense in your OWN nation when fighting a GREATER EVIL, like the soviet union, which would have simply killed almost everyone. Frankly by your own standards you are an evil statist. Yet here you are acknowledging that sometimes it is right to support a lesser evil against a greater one. Looks like you are rationalizing wickedness too.

Look up when Rome finally collapsed and compare that to the attack by the Carthagenians. Again, you lack the historical knowledge relevant to this discusison. That's the point of contention, isnt it? How would it have been better? How do you know that? Do you mean it would have been better as in the 'right' thing to do, or it would have been better in a pragmatic sense and ultimately contributed to more freedom in the world, even though it would have meant that Rome would have been crushed in it's infancy. The Roman Empire spread through thousands of miles of territories and promulgated many of the important ideas the constitute a free progressive western nation today. It lasted for nearly a thousands years and touched nearly every culture in Asia, Europe, and Africa. While not at all free, it was far freer than probably every single other culture of the time, it adopted many individual civil liberties and tremendous economic freedoms. Would it have been better if they collapsed early on? Well I don't have this crystal ball you are apparently privy or the divine wisdom you get after thinking about something for 10 seconds that you know little about, but the growth and spread of the Roman empire, and it's classical greek values, was a critical step in the promulgation of the ideas relating to liberty in history. Pertty lame analogy. First, I am making an observation, not a policy prescription. Conscription has clearly in the past been used to further the cause of freedom. Second, we are talking about the lives of people, not jobs and layoffs. Third, we are talking about whether a more free nation, which never the less has conscription, is justified in fighting a less free nation, which also has conscription. Such a simple principled question, which you refuse to answer over and over again. Is a more free nation just in defending itself against the aggressions of a less free nation, yes or no? I see you continue to make no comments on the role of conscription in the revolutionary war, or in the civil war, both of which advanced tremendously the cause of freedom in the world. Your problem is you are full of floating abstractions, you demand absolute and perfect freedom instantly and migically to pop out of nowhere, yet actually oppose all of the progressive steps made toward freedom in the past. Do you support more free nations over less free nations, yes or no? simple question.

You are if you think the context demands it. No, I am not. I have merely said that in the past this has been what has happened. It is an observation, not a behavioral declaration. Sure, next you'll tell me to 'check my premises' and to 'stop evading' I have said from the beginning of this thread that considering context gives me some pause, even though my position is still that conscription is never just. If all you did was change a tactic--conscription--then you're probably right. But your tiny mind My 'tiny' mind. Do these comments actually make you feel good? If so, whose mind is the tiny one? oooooohh my TINY mind oooohhh. Some nobody on some internet forum says i have a TINY mind! well hot damn I oughta just kill myself now. But lets just leave it at "you're probably right" and drop your irrelevant blathering. Glad you concede the point. Yet again you descend into name calling. Oh and now I am also arrogant and stupid! Do you actually think I care what you think about me? Well, ya big poopy head, No YOU are Arrogant and Stupid and YOUR tiny MIND is too confused to understand the clear thinking required to formulate accurate assements of complex scenarios. Ok lets just pretend that you called me some more names, I ignored that, you called me more in another post, I ignored that too, and then finally you abandoned the name calling and progressed to some actual discussion. But really, if you think my mind is that tiny, and I am too arrogant and stupid to debate, by all means, STOP RESPONDING TO ME.

*sigh* No, I am not FOR conscription. However, any, even rudimentary understanding of history, would require acknowledging the role that conscription played in the progress of freedom. You have addressed none of my points, without conscription, Rome would have fallen to even more murderously oppressive tyrannies. A nation with conscription, which is used only for self defense, is a more free nation than one which uses prescription to place it's population in perpetual slavery. The problem is Shayne that you would support NO nation unless it was PERFECTLY free, such a position would in fact reward murderous tyranny, just like absolute pacficism does. If you would support a less free nation over an even more oppressive one, please feel free to explicitly state it. Otherwise keep your 'insane ramblings' to yourself. The point is, at various times in history (like, oh THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION) conscription was used to fight an even greater tyranny. If you do not support more free nations (even though they may not be bastions of perfect freedom that you envision) you never make any progress toward real and practical freedom. Whatever support you ever provide for more free nations over less free ones, absolute freedom for individuals should always be the end goal. The difference between you and I is that I support practical steps toward more freedoms, you support NO steps toward more freedom unless a nation is all ready perfectly free. Historically, freedom has progressed where more free nations form from the collapse or breaking of a less free parent nation. The real, practical result of your position is that the entire world would have descended into absolute murderous subjugation and tyranny eons ago. I think I am making my points pretty clearly, anyone else care to comment? Even Studio Kadent who has vehemently disagreed with me does not find the need to consider my comments 'insanse ramblings' Shayne you seem to feel that virtually everybody here is a blithering idiot spewing only insane ramblings, you throw a lot of insults out and deragotory comments, yet make no compelling arguments and present no evidence to back up your position. If you apparently hate everyone here and think everyone is stupid, why do you remain? Again and again, I have been the one making cases, defending points, presenting arguments, and again and again you are doing nothing but appealing to superficial emotionalism and calling every body names. That is what we have been talking about all along. Clearly you are unable to defend your position rationally, and so you resort to name calling and yelling at me to 'shut the fuck up' Wow, you certainly are the bastion of rational and intelligent discourse! Well fine then, why don't you go shovel manure!! Oh I'm sure you'll do a better job of that in the literal sense instead of the metaphorical sense you are doing it here on this forum. And I'll join the military and go to Iraq once you start attacking military supply lines, let me know when and where you attack US military infrastructure and I'll be sure to visit the nearest military recruiting office.

So now Individual Rights are an impossible Platonic ideal? Wonderful. So have you stopped raping your mom? Wonderful! I did not ever say or even remotely imply that 'individual rights' were a platonic ideal, only your perfect utopian society is which somehow we magically get to without ever making any salient steps of progress in the interim is. I believe a nation founded on individual rights is possible in our lifetime. The "implications" you think you see are just a figment of your twisted imagination. You have a spectacular ability to talk whilst making no intellectual contributions to a discussion. You could have saved some bandwidth and just said "me think you wrong" Perhaps my implications are accurate, and your blind dismissal of them is a consequence of your twisted imagination? The accuracy of your assessments of the world is not directly proportional to your confidence in them. How about some concretes? How about you try making some points? Would any nation state, in ancient greece for example, survive at all without conscription? Please try to make an informed argument suggesting as much. Otherwise I'll just start ignoring you, since over and over again you twist my comments, spew bland dismissels without argument, and generally make no intellectual contribution. Actually I stand for individual rights, and progressive steps toward a true respect of individual rights. You stand for absolute unrealistic perfectionism which only you are privy to and anyone who even remotely disagrees is a blithering idiot. And you are for some mystical manner to achieve it without progressing through various stages, a position which would have been suicidal if practiced. I am a little amazed you are so blind to the obvious implications here, or to the obvious comprimises that have been made throughout history in this regard, and in some cases the apparent necessity of them in order to perpetuate and foster the growth in the long term of individual rights and freedom. The revolutionary war was won only with conscription. The Civil war was won only with conscription. World War II would have probably been lost without conscription. The constant struggle through the ages of free men and free nations against murderous tyranny has only progressed at the blood of individuals conscripted in the name of defense. The Roman Empire spread wealth and freedom throughout the world, yet was built on conscription and could only survive with conscription. Yet it was far better than every alternative. You would have paraded through the streets of Rome demanding an end to conscription whilst the cartheginian hordes descended on the populace and killed every man, and enslaved every women. The only twisted imagination on this forum is coming from your spectacular ignorance of history.

Actually I said that these contexts give me pause when considering this topic, but no where not one single time have I ever said that some contexts justify slavery. You should try actually reading what I write, and not be so eager to pigeanhole me into some preconevied notion. You know little about me, but I'll say again explicitly, my current opinion is that I do not think it is ever justified for a state to use conscription. This has been my position for many years, ever since I was involved in libertarianism. I don't know how to say that more explicitly, if you keep insisting on saying I am a statist and advocate using slavery to fight slavery, then you have only succeeded in demonstrating your utter disregard for intellectual honesty, not any clever insight into my beliefs. The only thing I am talking about here is that some difficult consequences arise from that position, namely that there would have never been any progress made in the world. And that in at least historical / classical contexts, abandoning conscription would have meant absolute suicide. The problem, yet again, is that you judge all systems equally invalid if they don't stand up to your impossible platonic ideal. I acknowledge that a state which uses conscription to defend itself, but otherwise recognizes the individual freedoms and when not under direct aggression is a superior one to a state which chains it's population in perpetuity and uses conscription to permantly chain it's citizens and promulgate utter brutality. Name call all you want, but the clarity of your position comes only from your ignorance of the complicated implications of it, not the purity of your soul.

For me this sums up all the arguments I've ever had with Matus. He admits that sometimes, he would put a gun to a young man's head and force him to fight, for the "good of society". He is a complete an total Statist. Oh I thought you had me on ignore. Actually Shayne, for someone so adament perturbed by other people alleging mistating one's position, you do a pretty good job of it. I specifically said that NO I do not think conscription is ever valid. But there are some points which make me think a little bit about this. For example, were nations in the ancient world which used conscription for self defense (only) justified in in using it to fight nations which held its population in perment slavery and total conscription? If they did not do that, virtually every nation which did not have conscription would have been defeated nearly immediately by whichever oppressive neighbor had more conscription, and the whole of the ancient world would have quickly and perpetually descended into the most tyrannical government. Clearly there are some scenarios in which Studio Kadent thinks context is important, e.g., the American Revolution. However, my position is still NO since these contexts are not at all applicable today. So try being a little more intellectually honest in your discussions instead of appealing to emotional over simplifications. That position is not consistent with Libertarian foriegn policy, you have explicitly stated, IF YOU ARE NOT ATTACKED, then it ABSOLUTELY IS NOT 'SELF DEFENSE' to attack a nation which has NOT attacked you. Apparently you have not worked out your position on this quite clearly yet. Having 'allies' which you help to defend, is by ANY reasonable interpretation an 'entangling alliance' You may disagree if Iraq is a valid self defense endaevor, but that's not what is at issue here, FUNDAMENTALLY, libertarian foriegn policy FORBIDS retaliation against ANY nation which has not explicitly attacked them.

Define "support." Do I agree with supporting allies to the extent that they are genuine values? Yes. What we seem to disagree on is how much of a genuine value Israel is to the US. Regardless, I will not answer questions on that particular war, since I have not properly researched it. That is why I am trying to remove the particulars of this scenario and talk about principles. Lets go up one more level, lets assume that a nation, which you would consider an ally, was attacked by nations which are hostile to our shared values, and that attack was of such a magnitude that every reasonable expectation would lead to destruction of the ally. I am not talking about whether this was the case in Israel, but if any similiar situation arises, what would you advocate be done? The common libertarian mantra is that we do not act unless we are directy attacked. In this case example, we are not attacked. An ally is. What is an ally in Libertarian foriegn policy? We basically don't have any, those are 'entangling alliances'. So do you "support" this ally? What 'support' would YOU provide, my answer, would be whatever was necessary to forestall destruction, withouth causing serious detriment to our own economy or military. Lets say you drop 10's of thousands of tons of weapons and supplies, but our ally is still losing, the enemy is gaining ground quickly. Do you send your military to assist, or not? Or, I should say, is there any scenario where an ally is attacked in which you would support active military engagement of that enemy along side our ally in our allies territory. I never said that there was a problem with opposing the Soviet-backed revolutionaries in other countries. I do accept that the Soviet Union was a clear and present threat, advocating the coercive spread of its philosophy. The context of the Cold War is fundamentally different to the context of the War on Terrorism (Al Qaeda etc are not as powerful as the Soviets, there is no threat of MAD, etc). Sorry, you can not have it both ways, either you are principally opposed to 'entangling alliances' and 'interventionism' or you are not. Which is it? It sounds like you are, in fact, NOT, in principal opposed to intervention even when our nation is not directly attacked, and we only differ on what justifies a reaction. Further, I would ask that you familiarize yourself with the "doomsday curve" because I dont think you, or most people for that matter, have a proper or accurate estimation of the threat that Al Qaeda, and in general anti-west terrorism, holds. The amount of resources and technology required to kill larger and larger numbers of people is perpetually decreasing. While the Soviet union was limited to nuclear weapons, future terrorists will have at their disposal weapons which make copies of themselves. geneticially engineered viruses, synthetic life, artificial life, nanotechnological replicating weapons, etc. http://doomsdaycurve.com/ In the context of this rapidly accelerating technological growth, the threat these terrorist organizations pose WILL eventually be GREATER than the threat the entire Soviet Union posed. Further down the line, the threat a single individual poses, if we do not adequatly address such things, will be greater than the whole of the Soviet Union. The critical questions are how to address these threats. In an age of nanotechnology and artificial life, burying our head in the sands and pretending like we don't live on the same planet as the people who want to wipe out all infidels do is really pretty suicidal. At least in the modern world (Revolutionary War was a different context), conscription immediately makes a war at least partly illegitimate. I find this an interesting topic and I tend to agree with you that context is important to consider here. Is conscription *ever* justified under *some* contexts? My background was libertarianism before getting interested in objectivism, my reaction is a visceral NO, BUT, looking at contexts, I don't know. It's hard to imagine our legions of coffee shop hippie moral relativistic bums taking up arms voluntarily against an aggressor nation which will in all likelyhood kill them all. But even in the face of the likely destruction of our own nation, is conscription even in that case justified? I would be interested to hear in what contexts you think conscription would be justified if it ever is. Virtually every nation of the ancient world subsisted on conscription, in that day, if they did not, they would have immediately been defeated by which ever neighboring nation conscripted more people, and the whole world would have descended into the tyranny of the most conscription and despicable ruler. A nation which had conscription for the purposes of defense (like Athens) was far more just than a nation which had universal and perpetual conscription (like Persia) Indonesia is not a bastion of economic freedom. Singapore is free in two areas: trade policy and foreign investment. However it has a huge network of government-linked corporations (similar to the Japanese Zaibatsu system). It is a mixed economy. I do not want to get bogged down in irrelevant particulars, both of these nations are a thousand times freer than the Soviet Union was, in both civil and economic matters. If we had not actively opposed the global spread of communism, these nations would have likely become communist. I never said it was "no big deal." I simply said that it is debateable whether the deal was sufficiently big to justify the resources spent on (and the rights violated in the name of) the conflict. Of course it's "debatable" everything is debatable. You disingeneously downplayed the difference between communist totalitarian hell hole and a mixed economy of Singapore though. You have all ready acknowledged that the Soviet Union posed a grave threat to the United States, and I imagine you felt it posed a grave threat to freedom in general. You seem to suggest it's ok to "support" other nations which are attacked, but only "soft" support. What about 'interventionism' ? In many cases, waiting for an outright attack would have meant we lost the fight before it began, and "intervention" was absolutely necessary, ultimately led to far fewer people being killed, and often prevented overt conflicts. Is "interventionism" justified in fighting an enemy? I never said that it was not in our interests. I simply disagree with your strategy for securing our interests (at least in the context of the middle east). So you do agree, that in the case of the Cold War, it was right to support our allies against this common enemy? And that, in principle, there are some circumstances which it is just for our nation to support an ally? I agree entirely. We should have as the foreign policy of the Western World "a general promotion of enlightenment political values." However, I believe this is best done via "soft power" means rather than forcible means, and I think forcible means should be restricted to retaliation. And when those "soft power" methods fail, and our ally is defeated and crushed, do we act in retailation, or not? If our material and financial support fails, do we send in soldiers, artillery, jets, etc, or not? It's all well and good to hope that a 'general promotion of enlightment values' actually promulgates the spread of those values, but hope, or being 'shining beacons' isnt always enough to stop legions of murderous tyrants bent on subjugating whole nations and killing millions of people. Sometimes, you must ACT. Since we are discussing whether *in principle* interventionism, support, etc, are ever justified, it is certainly applicable to look at historic examples. You have acknowledged that the Soviet Union posed a great threat and that at least 'support' of allies was justified. Had we not delved into dicsussions on the cold war, I do not think you would have conceeded this principle. It is necessary to look at historical conditions and contexts to learn lessons applicable to future scenarios which might be conceptually similiar. The War on Terrorism does not exist in an isolated fog removed from the the cold war, and principles of military action and retailation in general, and when discussing principles I don't think it is reasonable to confine the discussion only to one particular context.

In a situation where there is a clear and present danger, then yes I would support acting to remove that danger. Iran is not a clear and present danger. Its got the military strength of a flea. Well, we are not talking about Iran here, we are talking about virtually every nation in the middle east attacking Israel. So, you agree then, if it was reasonable to expect that Israel would have been destroyed, then we were justified in providing support? Regarding Communism, I think we all know that the fall of any Communist regime is only a matter of time. They are economically self-destructive. Its only a matter of time before any socialist regime collapses. Indeed, it's just a question of how long 'a matter of time' is. Is it 10 years? 100 years? 1,000 years? How long would the Soviet Union have continued on, pillaging every nation on earth and driving every productive person into dust before they exhausted their supplies? In this incarnation, it lasted about 3/4's of a century, and it killed 170 million people. Yet, the only reason it's duration was that short was specifically *because* the United States opposed it at virtually every intersection for the past 50 years. The Soviet Military expenditures in Vietnam alone, at the height of the Vietnam conflict, constituted almost 1/2 of the GDP of all of the Soviet Union. If you find this figure astounding, remember how inneffecient controlled economies are, and note that today, the population which makes up the former soviet union containes 6% of the worlds population and only 3% of it's GDP, while the US, having 3% of the worlds population, constitutes 20% of it's GDP. So US military expenditures in Vietnam peaked at about 10% of GDP, while the Soviet Union, engaging in a covert war, spent more than ten times its percentage of GDP. Every dollar spent opposing the Soviet Union, cost the Soviet Union about $10, and that $10 was a mich higher percentage of GDP for the Soviet Union than $10 was for the US. As a pinnacle example of this, when averaged out, for every 1 million dollars spent on stinger missiles smuggled into afghanastan, 10 million dollars worth of soviet equipment was destroyed. Reagens SDI's is essentially what completely bankrupted the Soviet Union, it simple could not afford to build the infrastructure the SID required, even when Reagen offered to give them the technology. To yap about how communist nations would eventually self implode ignores the fact that they could dominate the entire world, last centuries and kill billions of people before they finally do. Remember the Dark ages spanned some 1500 years, how long do you think a global communist empire would last before imploding if it faced no external opposition? If Ron Paul / Libertarian esque foriegn policy prescriptions would have been adopted, the Soviet Union would have quickly expanded to dominate the entire world and all of it's resources. If they knew the US's policy was to do nothing unless they were actually attacked, any bloke with half a brain would have realized that they just ought to wait and attack them last. It is only because the US actively engaged and opposed the Soviet Union every single step of the way that it collapsed after 75 years, and not 500 years. World War II also had conscription, was it an unjust war because some of it's soldiers were conscripted? About 50% of soldiers were conscripted in WWII, while about 25% were in the Vietnam War. The Revolutionary War was fought with conscripted soldiers. So, of course, was the Civil War. Were these wares both unjust because they were 'based' upon conscription? A war can be waged just or unjust regardless of whether the soldiers fighting it were forced to do so. I did not emphasize Singapore or Indonesia as bastions of freedom, although economically they certainly are, what I said was With regards to political and civil liberties they are not. Japan has a constitution which gurantees civil liberties and representative government, even though it's predominant cultural ethic is collectivist, that is irrelevent, as long as people are not forced, at the end of a gun, to be collectivist, than the nation is free within the context of this discussion. If you think it's no big deal to be 'at best better than communism' then I think you need to read up a little more on the daily lives of people living in Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, etc. It's like saying that 'at best, a scratch is only better than being dead, but it's not the same as being scratch free!' free nations do not start wars, free nations do not breed international terrorists, free nations do not breed virus's which may wipe out humanity, free nations do not kill millions of their own people, etc etc. How could it NOT be in our self interest to cultivate as a long term goal the promulgation and growth, explicitly of market based constitutional democracies? You take a very superficial over simplification of this (helping others) and codemn it as as automatically bad because you can't think of any benefit we recieve. Can you seriously think of no benefit of a world of market economies? Where our interventionism is more altruisitic than cultivating the growth of long term democratic progress, rule of law, market economies, I would advocate not doing it. Much of our intervention is only of the 'feel good' variety and not only makes no progress in this direction, actually makes things worse in many cases. This is why we need an EXPLICIT over arching goal orientated foreign policy. How can in *not* be naively suicidal to let a murderous expansionist territory invade every nation on the planet and drag you down to hell as it's final suicidal act? My limited knowlege is of particulars. I can understand principles. And as a basic principle, Non-interventionism seems like a direct implication of the NIOF principle. Interventionism in these cases are no different than self defense. It no more constitutes a violation of NOIF than intervening in your neighbors hostage situation does. Any assualt on human rights anywhere in the world is an assault on everyone's human rights (Rand in fact explicitly says this in AS, Rearden says it in his courtroom speech) And opposing someone who violates fundamental human rights anywhere in the world is as much of an act of self defense as it is opposing a murderous rapist attacking your neighbor. So, I ask again, if the Soviet Union invaded Canada in 1979 instead of Afghanastan, which you have intervened?

How do you agree on this principle with him when you acknowledge your own very limited knowledge of foreign policy? As I asked in a similar thread, would you have supplied emergency aide to Israel in the Yom Kipper war or not? The aggressors against Israel did not attack 'us' yet Israel would have likely been condemned to utter annihilation without that 50,000 tons of weapons and equipment. You said you were not informed enough to make a decision on that scenario, fair enough, but let's imagine that you were informed enough to know in some particular situation, like this one, Israel was surely going to be absolutely destroyed. Your policy is one of non-intervention in foreign policy, what does it matter than you don't know the full details of this historical event? You've all ready made up your mind that if you are not directly attacked, well, you don't particularly care. Similarly, what if the Soviet Union had attacked Canada in 1979, instead of Afghanastan? Mexico? Libertarian isolationist foreign policy is clearly fundamentally flawed, it is a focus on particulars (particular nations), and not concepts (a global aggressor bent on worldwide domination) Libertarian foreign policy, including Ron Pauls, would have led to not only the destruction of Israel, but of Korea, Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, all of Africa, all of South America, and, ultimately, the United States, as the Soviet Union invaded nation after nation after nation with the explicit intent on forcibly converting them to communism. If you admit to having limited knowledge on foreign policy, how can you cite a presidential candidates stance on foreign policy as a primary reason for liking him?

Ron Paul 2008 is dead all ready, get over it, move on. Even though I disdained him as a presidential candidate, I'd vote for him in the congress in a heartbeat, I am glad he is retaining that seat. There he will have much more influence over domestic libertarian questions, where his ideas are good, and much less over foriegn policy, where his ideas are the worst.

Thanks for the discussion. I understand the reluctance without knowing the details of the situation, but's lets say that you did know all the details and have the reasonable expectation that Israel would have been utterly annihlated. In that case, would you or would you not act to assist them in self defense? Similiarly, I don't think a PhD in foreign policy is required to have an opinion on what we should have done if the Soviet Union invaded Canada instead of Afghanastan. They did not attack 'us' after all. Do you think we should act to assist Canada in it's self defense in that scenario?

Again, you are treating Israel like the 51st State. It isn't. You act as though Israel isnt even on the same planet. It is, and the people trying to kill israels will, have, and do kill Americans. Your principle of not doing anything about any assaults anywhere on the world unless they are launched directly against you is suicidal. If enacted during the cold war, the Soviet Union would have conquered every single nation on the planet, while explicitly leaving the American homeland alone until it posed absolutely no serious threat. If the Soviet Union invaded Canada in 1980, instead of Afghanastan, would you act to assist Canada in defending itself or not? To the extent which a nation embraces similiar principles as us, or fights the same enemies, we should do everything within reason to support them. We may disagree about what is 'within reason' but that is far different from insisting that no one ever do anything, which is in practice indistinguishable from absolute pacifism, with the exception of that minute last scuff of self defense against a completely overwhelming enemy. I am interested in hearing you clarify your conceptions of self defense. If a man aims a gun at you in a threatening manner, are you acting in self defense to shoot him? Or need you wait until bullets are actually flying at your head? If you are standing in a line, and someone starts shooting people in that line, one at a time, working his way toward you, when, exactly, are you justified in acting in self defense? The Soviet Union was a mass murdered walking down the line of nations, one after another. Today, Islamic Fundamentalism is that mad man, tomorrow, it will probably be secular nihilism of the Ted Kaczysnki types. Those are all half-truths. Yes, Israel is better than every other dump in the middle east, but thats simply not good enough. Even though I do not agree with everything he says, www.ariwatch.com has a good section dealing with Israel. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not a one-sided "good guy and bad guy" situation, indeed the best assessment of it is given by Christopher Hitchens in God Is Not Great. Its a situation where two groups of religious fascists have staked a claim to the same piece of land, and the fighting will basically endure as long as religious fundamentalism on either side endures. No, these are truths. Israel is a free nation, according to Freedhouse.org, it is nearly as free in matters of political and civil liberties as the United States is. According to the Heritage Foundation's index of Economic Freedom, it is "Moderately Free" and scores in the top 3rd nations on the planet. If you have a different ranking and identification of freedom, please feel free to elaborate "Studio Kadent's Index of Freedom" and let us know your methodology and survey methods for each nation as well. Israel is not just "better" than everyone else in the middle east, like a honda civic is 'better' than a honda prelude on gas, you should not use such vague qualatiative comparison statements, thats like saying that the Milky way galaxy is 'bigger' than the Solar System, of course it is, but that phrase does not do it justice. Israel is a golden tower in a majority arab / islam sea of molten slag and garbage. Not one single majority arab / islamic nation ranks as Free in the middle east, only Israel is free. The only nations which are partly free border Israel now, due to significant influence by Israel and international pressure from free nations. Lebanon is only 'partly free' as of this year, where the UN, international pressure from the US, France, and Israel, pushed for Syria's withdrawel of military occupation and fair elections. No the Arab / Israeli conflict is not a 'one sided' all good scenario, it is just about 95% good in Israelis favor, the various terrorist rulers of the Palestinian leaders seek only to install their own murderous islamic hell hole, those who seek freedom wish to be ruled by Israel, and are hunted down and killed by Hamas, the PA, etc. Palestinians seek martydom, payoffs to their families, and 72 virgins and so love to be killed by Israeli soldiers. I read Hitchens book recently and have listened to many of his lectures, that is not at all the essence of his stance on Israel, it was something important that he felt was being over looked when discussing that issue. While there is a minority of religious fundamentalism in Israel which is unwilling to comprimise, If Arabs stopped launching terrorist attacks against Israel this minority would have no sway over military reactions of Israel. Most Israelis are moderate and simply want to stop being attacked. Context-dropping. States are not individuals and should not be treated as such. Additionally, when we have a mixture of States and non-state-organizations involved in a conflict, you cannot simply treat each as an individual and make deductions accordingly. *I* am dropping context? You don't consider an assault on freedom or civil liberties any where in the world anything to be concerned about. As if fundamental rights are arbitary creations of political boundaries. A rape is wrong no matter where it takes place and no matter what asinine laws are on that nations books. Murder is wrong no matter where it takes place and what tyrant is committing it. This is the essential flaw in libertarianism, you think civil liberties and human rights are mere arbitrary social conventions and only nations lucky enough to adopt those particular principles deserve them. Self defense is not helping your neighbor defend themselves, it is only you defending yourself. A right is something that ends with a line on a map. Additionally, I said "why then do you suggest ignoring murderous TERRORISTS unless they actually attack YOU" No where in this statement did I equate states with individuals and not surprisingly you did not answer the question. Apparently terrorists are only of concern if they actually launch bullets at *your* head, not your neighbors, not your fellow citizens, and not your fellow human inhabitants of the world. You got yours eh, so who gives a shit about anyone else. The ruling body of a which is the product of non-representative rule deserves only the same rights it respects of it's individual citizens. If a nation attacks one nation after another in an aggresive assault with the obvious goal of creating a less free nation as a result, I am only referring to nations here as conceptual over views in analogies to human individuals merely to convey a concept, I certainly have not ever advocated that nations should be considered individuals, only that the moral qualitiy of a nations actions can be judged, and responded to, in the same manner and invidiauls are. A nation is a simple conceptual labeling of a large group of individuals within a shared political framework, unfree nations are merely enormous slave labor hostage prison camps, and the ruling body of which should be treated as such. I do support going after the organizations that have attacked American people and their property. I simply do not support treating the entire Islamic world as one giant memetic complex, a giant abstract entity with one mind. MSK has done a lot of work showing that even the modern Islamic world is by no means a monolith of "Jihad against America"ism. Nor did I suggest the entire Islamic world be treated as 'one giant memetic complex' please state where I have stated as much. If you are trying to lump me into the "Nuke em all" crowd don't bother, I have explicitly stated my adament disgust with that position repeatedly in this forum. Individuals which pose a threat to American citizens, allies, or interests of freedom in the world are justifiable targets. Groups which pose a threat to the same are justifiable targets, where efforts to undermine the formulation and promulgation of known murderous terrorism groups are a reasonable strategy to employ, from siezing financial asseets, assasinating individuals who are aide or fund terrorist attacks, to levying internation political pressure against groups. The ruling entities of nations which are unfree, whose oppresive policies actively fund, incite, breed, and promulgate terrorism are also legitimate targets, and an overall effort to promulgate the growth of individual civil liberties, market based ecomies, and representive rule are fundamental aspects to undermining the growth of murderous terrorism, and is also morraly just, humanitarian, and in the long term rational self interest of all free people in the world. Why not free Venezuela? They are a dictatorship with a lot of oil as well. Why not free the citizens of North Korea? NK is the most oppressive regime in the world at the moment. Venezuela funds Marxist militias, and who knows what NK is doing but its bound to be evil. If the US government has a mandate to reshape the world in its own image then why give the Middle East special treatment? We should free Venezuela, or, at least, act in a manner conducive in the long term to the formation and foundation of a free nation in Venezuala, and in fact, all non-free nations. North Korea as well. The existing of these regimes poses a long term threat to human civilization, they are the harbingers of all wars, diseases, and famines. They are the hot bed of terrorism and murderous intolerance. They are merely enormous prison camps ruled by hostage takers. Your objection is a typical libertarian one, "well, if we are going after evil nations, why not this one, or that one, or that one, bla bla bla" The answer is, of course, to anyone who rationally considers the idea, to always deal the best blow you can against your worst enemy with clear long term objectives in mind. We are not a nation of infinite resources, Islamic fundamentalism poses the greatest threat *right now* to freedom and prosperity in the world, and to your life and the lives of everyone you love. To get rid of Islamic fundamentalism, we need to attack individual terrorists, groups that sponsor terrorism, and the rulers of despotic nations which create, breed, and promulgate them. In the future, Venezuela might pose a greater threat, right now we have bigger problems to focus on. This is a far cry from your narrow minded and short sighted "do nothing until we are attacked, screw our allies" position. I recently met, as a representative of the Lifeboat Foundation, with the Navy War Colleges Strategic Studies Group, which was meeting with many technology organizations in San Francisco to assess what global threats we might face that they are not paying attention to and I spoke at length on this topic. I advocated the formation of an alliance of liberal constitutional democracies and the instigation of a '12 step' program which ultimately pushes every non free nation toward freedom. Such a program might start with sanctions, cutting off aide, demanding aide be distrubuted by the donors, un restricted access to international monitoring groups, etc. Informational and pyschological warfare campaigns might be a logical next step, from dropping sattliete internet access computers, video recording equipement or flyers, etc. Violations of these terms would incite retributive action, from strategic military strikes directed against the ruling party members. Such a program might follow a 10 or 15 year plan, of the most practical, pragmatic, and just course to move from non free nations to free ones. The liberal constitutional democracies are the freest, richest, and most militarily powerfull nations on Earth. If Spain, Germany, France, Australia, South Africa, Denmark, Poland, Portugal, Canada, Chile, Tawain, Japan, South Korea, etc etc etc all engaged in peace keaping efforts in Iraq, working diligently to install a rule of law and later a constitution, would would have experienced no where near the number or problems we have been, with most of these nations appealing to moral relativism and pretending there is no moral credibility in deposing a tyrant and freeing 20 million people. I emphasized this is not only a humanitarian course of action, but it is in OUR long term rational self interest, free nations do not start wars with each other, they do not kill their own people, they breed far fewer terrorists, they promulgate massive technological growth, they have decent health infrastructures which cure diseases and stop the spread of pandemics, etc etc etc. I do not think such an effort would actually need to start a war very often, perhaps only once, and against the very worst enemy (in this case North Korea) If tyrants are given a path 'out' while transitioning their nation toward freedom it might make things eeven easier. If not they have every incentive to fight to the death. While this unfortunately would lead to mass murderers escaping justice, it might make the transitioning to free nations around the world much quicker and much less painfull. "Any assault on individual freedom and civil liberties is an assault on the very concept of those" is epistemological moderate realism (Aristotelian intrinsicism). Further, assaults on individual freedom and civil liberties are happenning in the US as well! There are American citizens demanding their own country is subjected to their own version of religious rule! There are enough problems inside US borders to be concerned with waging a global war. Not so, when a theif steels, he commits an assault on the very concept of property, and poses a threat to all owners of property. If I had said "freedom is an instrinsic value" you could accuse me of Aristotlean Intrinsicism. When a rapist attacks, he assaults the victim and the concept of individual rights, and poses a threat to all individuals. When a tyrant executes a dissedent, he assualts the very concept of free speech, and poses a threat to every lover of free speech. When anyone, anwhere in the world, assaults an individuals freedom or civil liberties, he is in essence assaulting the very concepts and indirectly every single individual who enjoys those and directly now poses a threat to those freedoms. Further, I KNOW assaults on inividual freedom and civil liberties are happening in the US, they SHOULD ALWAYS BE FOUGHT, EVERYWHERE, to the best of our capabilities. Libertarians have a tendancy to paint this as a zero sum false dichotomy, EITHER we are fighting oppression at home OR we are fighting it abroad, and any battle waged in one area necessarily takes it away from the other. On the Contrary, fighting it anywhere further justifies it's validity and our seriousness in combatting these transgressions. I suspect Libertarians embrace this false dichotomy for the same reason moral relativists embrace thiers, it justifies inaction, it justifies only ever fighting your battle in the freest nation on earth, where you don't have to worry about being executed, where you can 'change the world' while sipping on your latte. When you say "There are enough problems in the US to fix without waging a global war" you catch yourself in a regressive loop. Which problems? To what extent do they need to be fixed? Maybe they need to be fixed in most places, in order to be fixed everywhere. Maybe when your done, and you think the problems are fixed, other even more isolationist minded people will still insist there are yet MORE problems and we should fix THOSE before doing anything else. As an advocate of space travel, I frquently here this objection as well, "Why go out into space when we could use those resources to fix problems on earth" the answer is, 1) you frequently will need to work to fix problems everywhere in order to actually fix the problem completely, 2) space exploration, a global movement toward freedom, etc, creates secondary technological, political, and economic benefits which help make further progress towards those goals, 3) you will NEVER, EVER have ALL PROBLEMS fixed to EVERYONES satisfaction, and so a large subset of people will always insist on not doing anything anywhere else until all problems directly affecting them are addressed. Playing the Holocaust card is generally regarded as extremely impolite. I am not an anti-Semite. Yes, I am against Zionism, but no, I am no racist. Anti-Zionism is only racism if you assume national self-determination is valid on the basis of bloodline, which is simply biological collectivism. So is abandoning an ally to mass murder. Do you think Nixon's emergency resupply of Israel during the Yom Kippur war was just or not? Yes or no? simple quesiton. Bear in mind every reasonable assessment suggests that the alliance of Arab nations would have in fact annihlated Israel. Do we help other free people defend themselves or not? Do we do so when their enemies are also our enemies? I'll have to answer the rest later.

I doubt that the totalitarian dictators themselves are involved with terrorist attacks. Saddam Hussien directly paid for terrorist attacks against Israel and paid rewards out to the families of suicide bombers. *I* doubt this is out of the ordinary for arab / muslim tyrants. I do not see why it matters if they are involved in the planning, if they are directly bankrolling terrorist attacks, then they are outright enemies of America and it's allies. Since when do we have to defend other nations like Israel? Yes, its somewhat better than the rest of the middle east, but why does that mean we should treat agression against Israel as agression against the US? You gloss over the criticism of the secular nature of Iraq, while I wouldnt consider it relevant even if it were true, Iraq under Saddam was definately not secular in any meaningfull way, it was merely slightly less theocratic than your average majority arab / islam nation. Israel is an ally, it is a free nation and helping to defend it against assaults on individual freedom and liberty is helping to defend the very concepts of those. We don't *have* to do anything, we don't have to call the police when we see our neighbor being raped, we don't have to consider any act immoral unless its directly effects us. Would you suggest ignoring murders and rapists unless they actually try to kill *you*? Why then would you suggest ignoring murderous terrorists unless they actually attack *you*? Even so, in this case, they have attacked American people and American property over and over again, but I think your assessment of retailatory force and defence are rather narrow minded and hardly distinguishable from pacifism, as you would watch the whole world crumble and burn as long as no one actually explicitly attacked *you*. Again, you are conflating Islamo-Fascism and the present totalitarian governments of the region. This is a half-truth. Most governments of that region are mixtures of Islamic statism and secular statism (arab nationalism). Many find their power-base eroded by Islamo-fascism domestically (Saudi Arabia for example, although yes they fund international Islamo-Fascism). You are simplifying a complex issue. Well we are trying to have a reasonable length discussion, not work out a PhD dissertation. Some majority Arab / Islam nations leaders will be good allys against murderous fundamentalism, when and where they would be that should be exploited. Some of them are acting like they are, yet promulgating and funding more terrorism. Some are outright and open supporters of terrorism. They should each be delt with in the best possible manner that coincides with the long term over arching goal of ending tyrannical rule in the middle east and promulgating the growth of liberal constitutional democracy. I never stated Saddam did not deserve being thrown out. I never said Saddam did not deserve death. I simply do not see how he was even remotely dangerous to the US. The point of the US Defense Forces is to safeguard the US, not to spread the message of Liberty via military coercion. In an age of transcontinental flights, globalization, bioterrorism, nuclear terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction, how you can seriously think a murderous tyrant with a track record of funding fundamentalist terrorism *poses no threat* to American people is beyond me. In a coming age of synthetic life, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence, the threat these people pose will increase 10 or 100 fold. Again, you consider threats based on a 19th century modality. Technological growth perpetually allows ever smaller numbers of people with ever fewer resources to kill more and more people with less and less effort. This trend is only going to get worse, where sometime in the future a single individual could intentionally or accidently wipe out all life on earth. All murderous tyrants are a threat to free people, any assault on individual freedom and civil liberties is an assault on the very concept of those. Saddam Hussien was a threat because of his choking control of a dominant world energy supply, which he used, among other things, to start wars, preech murderous hatred, and fund terrorism. His devastatingly oppressive political and economic structures further incite murderous intolerance and fundamentalism. He acquired, used, and actively sought more weapons of mass destruction. You don't think he was a threat because you don't find someone a threat until he has literally fired a gun at your head. By your rational, I could conquer every nation on the planet, and kill every human alive, but as long as I did not touch YOU or YOUR nation, I would not be 'a threat'. Again, you are conflating Israel and the US. Israel is not defenseless, the Jews are not pathetic and weak, they can defend themselves. I never said they are defenseless, but lack of defenselessness is not the nature by which we judge allies nor choose to act in accordance with. The Jews are not pathetic and weak in large part because we are thier allies, which seems to be a critical point you miss. Do you think Israeli would have built it's own fleet of F16's which it used to devestate arab armies bent on it's total annihalation? Nixon's emergency support of Israel in the Yom Kippur war, where 10's of thousand of tons of weapons and ammunition delivered through over 500 jumpo military jet flights over 30 days turned a near defeat into a victory. I guess they can't completely defend themselves always in every circumstance. If the policies you, Ron Paul, SJW, etc, support were followed, you would have comdemned Israel to near certain doom and yet anohter holocaust, because, as you ask "since we do we have to help defend other nations, like Israel" I actually agree with this statement. However I differ as to what I believe "reasonable effort in the long term" constitutes. I also doubt that simply enforcing regime change will be effective, mainly because Afghanistan and Iraq have a Constitution that explicitly makes Islam the ruling body (and we all know that the interpretation of Islam in these areas is NOT one compatible with modernity). You acknowledged that a nation so steeped in religious tradition could not be expected to leap frog into a modern constitution, yet you seem to suggest that efforts in Iraq and Afghanastan are complete failures because these nations do not have 'modern' constitutions. It's a catch 22, you would suggest they remain under the rule of the taliban, until, miracurously, they are suddenly ready for a 'modern' constitution? How would perpetuatuan of indoctrination, totalitarianism, and fundamentalism for many more decades prepare a people and a nation steeped in a cultural tradition of religious fundamentalism for a 'modern' constitution? You are also waging the fate of the the middle east on your 'doubt' that 'enforcing regime change' will be effective. How well thought out is this doubt? Do you have a crystal ball with which you can so confidently make such absolute proclamations of failure? Afghanastan's constitution offers more real oppurtunity for progress in the middle east than anything has since Anwar Sadat. Freedom House's ratings for Afghanstan on politicl and civil liberties climb every year, and it now rates Afghanstan as "Partly Free" Agreed, Saudi Arabia is a problem, and the solution is very complex. What do you propose the solution be? Whatever it is, it must have as it's motivating principle the promulgation of rule of law, markets, and liberal constitutional democracy in Saudi Arabia as the ultimate goal.