bmacwilliam

I think that many of your claims are significantly overstated, if not highly inaccurate. However, I am not American. I do not agree that there is Big Government/Big Business racket (at least here) anywhere near to the extent you describe. I know first hand that small business can often have advantages over big business wrt government compliance/red tape/barriers. I do not think there are systemic barriers to business growth in general other than some problematic industries. I can buy tax advice and services that I think are second to none, period. I know bankers (including a member of my immediate family with a senior position at the World Bank) as well as commercial bankers, lenders, and business men and women from all strata of the business world. In this country there is no systematic government/business unholy alliance that you describe. Bob You don't even seem to know how much the FDA supports and protects the big drug companies. --Brant I did not disagree with his position on this, but please remember, there is no FDA here.

I think that many of your claims are significantly overstated, if not highly inaccurate. However, I am not American. I do not agree that there is Big Government/Big Business racket (at least here) anywhere near to the extent you describe. I know first hand that small business can often have advantages over big business wrt government compliance/red tape/barriers. I do not think there are systemic barriers to business growth in general other than some problematic industries. I can buy tax advice and services that I think are second to none, period. I know bankers (including a member of my immediate family with a senior position at the World Bank) as well as commercial bankers, lenders, and business men and women from all strata of the business world. In this country there is no systematic government/business unholy alliance that you describe. Bob

Don't agree. There are really good accountants that share themselves between many small businesses. My accountant is a hero to me. He has saved me buckets of money over the years. Sure, he's a friend now, so he kinda goes the extra mile maybe, but he is seriously good (originally recommended by a friend with a much larger business than mine) and he's worth every dime and is affordable to a small business. Can't argue with that. From the general public maybe, but two friends in the lending business (not brokers, lenders) and one in the Venture Capital business tells me that money is more expensive for the small guy, but still quite available. Strongly disagree. A good tax accountant like mine spreads his expertise to many small businesses (and makes really good dough as a result). Don't know enough about this to comment. Access to cheap money? Maybe not, but again, money is out there but yes, it's more expensive. Realistically, if I needed a couple million dollars to finance say a purchase and redevelopment of a commercial property, I could get it tomorrow. Yep, I'd have to pay 8% or so - usery compared to the prime rate perhaps, but if I'm looking at making 30%, I'll pay 8. I'd like to pay 2, but whining about the missing 6 isn't very productive. Farmers? Well, farmers in my country historically are heavily subsidized. True perhaps, but the public visibility of large corps can often make things more difficult. However, small business can fly under the radar and do things, let's say, more in the "gray" areas without being noticed where big business cannot. By that I mean red-tape types of things, not totally agregious illegal violations. Many, many times the "Forgiveness is easier than permission" thing proves to be true. The smaller the better often works in these situations. Well, I have family member (sure, somewhat "financially gifted) who wasn't really "connected" in a big sense, yet is making an absolute fortune now in natural gas, but after many long years of fruitless exploration. Also, here in Canada, we have a rather large number of small, exploratory mining corporations. N/A Ok, agreed, but I think that GM at least has repaid it's debt. And I for one, will only ever buy Ford's now. Bob

Sure, I'm cool with that. But as usual, Michael misses the point. Let me sum up: Ethics::Neuroscience Software::Hardware Architecture::Hammer structure Studying the second term, while having benefit on its own, has little, if any, applicability to understanding of the first. Michael seems too concerned with my motivation, lizards, and his imaginary alpha-male status to address the central point of George's objection. Bob

The study of the computer hardware is completely irrelevant to the study of the software. Optical drive, magnetic drive, intel processor, AMD processor, copper wires, gold wires - doesn't matter one bit, and is probably worse than irrelevant - an impediment - to understanding the functioning of the software. Microsoft Word runs the same on many, totally different forms of hardware including yet-to-be-imagined hardware. This does not mean that the study of hardware (the brain) has no value. Hardly, look at how much hardware progress has been made, and look at the value this has given us. It just means that you need to have a nuanced approach and understand that it's clearly the source-code, the software rules if you will, are where the study will clearly be most fruitful if that's what you're trying to figure out. Studying the processor may tell you that you might have a limitation that a 50,000 word document cannot be spell-checked in under 3 microseconds. Knowledge sure, but relevant to how the key rules of the software operates? Marginal at best. And I'm basically a reductionist essentially. We are not more than the sum of our parts. Everything we are can ultimately be reduced to hardware. This does not mean though that the best practical way to understand how to build a house is to understand the atomic composition of the hammer. This is also not to say that the human mind is platform-independent, but claiming that reductionist neuroscience has relevance to ethics is akin to saying that studying the 80286 processor helps us understand how MS Word works. You might have a few areas of intersection, but it's a fantastically poor approach. I do not like George, but he is overwhelmingly correct on this one. Don't worry, I only read here from time to time and I won't make posting a habit. Bob

Well Michael, I must say, nice deflection attempt. But let me just end on this note: You're the one who repeatedly accused me of being a bully. It makes no sense at all, but there's no doubt you're convinced of this. So be it. However, one of us is just fine with double-tapping an unarmed man even if he posed no physical danger, and the other feels that situations like these are the true tests of whether one values human rights. I really really think you need to reflect on this. Don't think I'll be back. Bob

Now, that's some quality humour! Bob I quoted this one and deleted the original so I could start the thread with my previous post. Michael So let's look at the above and discuss where the "snarky, troll-like" behaviour originated shall we? Bob

Bob, That's enough. You've had your jollies. So let's stop this crap and get back to ideas. No doubt many readers out there are interested in the topic, not in this stuff. For instance, Robert is talking ideas from a point of serious opposition. Not kindergarten-level baiting, like you are starting to do. Michael Right on cue you've spectacularly missed the point again. Sure is. But what he's saying is diametrically opposed to your position, and yet you miss that central point and choose to take pot-shots at me. Let me spell it out for you: Robert says: ____________ "If your top priority is getting Muslims to adopt more enlightened attitudes, how many of those 1.6 billion do you suppose you can count on? How many can you reasonably express solidarity with? If, on the other hand, your top priority is Islamic empire spanning much of the globe in the near future, and individual rights maybe a long while later, how many of those 1.6 billion can you reasonably express solidarity with?" ____________ The implication is that comparitively few can be counted on to "adopt more enlightened attitudes", while we have comparatively many with "top priority is Islamic empire spanning much of the globe in the near future". Which is of course not in agreement with the idea that it's only the radical Islamicist fringe that is a problem. Try to keep up with the ideas here... Bob

LM, What percentage of those 1.6 billion people are good Muslims, from your point of view? Suppose you exclude from that 1.6 billion everyone who thinks God has blessed honor killings, or clitoridectomy, or just forbidding women to drive cars. Suppose you exclude from that 1.6 billion everyone who thinks God has commanded all women to wear burqas or abayas in public. Suppose you exclude from that 1.6 billion everyone who believes that the Godly path consists of according dictatorial powers to the top Islamic cleric in the vicinity, or bestowing them on a non-cleric whose strongman status has been blessed by selected Islamic clerics in the vicinity. Suppose you exclude from that 1.6 billion everyone who believes that the institution of slavery is now or ever was consistent with Islamic belief. Suppose you exclude from that 1.6 billion everyone who believes that dhimmi status for Christians, Jews, and maybe Zoroastrians, and the choice of slaughter or forced conversion for pagan Arabs and Hindus, is consistent with the tenets of Islam. Suppose you exclude from that 1.6 billion everyone who believes that the duty of waging war on non-Muslims is incumbent on all able-bodied Muslim males. Suppose you get so bold as to exclude from that 1.6 billion everyone who believes that there is a Hell, and that every non-Muslim will sooner or later end up roasting in it. Suppose you exclude from that 1.6 billion anyone who ever believes, ever for a moment, that being a Muslim automatically makes one superior to all non-Muslims, and entitled to a role, however modest, in ruling over them. Now how many will you have left? If your top priority is getting Muslims to adopt more enlightened attitudes, how many of those 1.6 billion do you suppose you can count on? How many can you reasonably express solidarity with? If, on the other hand, your top priority is Islamic empire spanning much of the globe in the near future, and individual rights maybe a long while later, how many of those 1.6 billion can you reasonably express solidarity with? You have made it clear that you oppose American empire. You can probably be counted on to oppose some other kinds, such as Russian or Chinese empire. What's your view of Islamic empire? My recollection is that you have never admitted that Islam was largely spread by conquest. Would you really mind whether, say, the current Iranian regime conquered far and wide in the name of your religion. And maybe got around to matters of life, liberty, and property in 1332 years, give or take a few? Robert Campbell Don't bash him! Michael says he's a good person! Bob

Bob, What on earth are you talking about? Ummm... Things I imagined you wrote? Oh, wait a minute, you actually wrote that. He's right on some things, wrong on others. Character? Not looking so good I'm afraid... So? Does that mean he can't get something right? Uh, yeah... And the one he explains in quite some depth. Yep. Most definitely. Again: So, you'd only grant him or respect "rights" if there was "some propaganda benefit". Great. Precision thinking there! Exactly. Well put! Bob

Part of the problem here is the possibly quite different views of what selfishness is among the populace. For example, what often pops into mind when the word "selfishness" is mentioned, for a significant number of people at least is the malevolent or cheating kind of selfishness. The guy speeding like a maniac and cutting in and out of traffic putting others at risk so he can get to his destination is an example of this. The same person may rightfully condemn this type of conduct, but then applaud a self-improvement effort. Also, I think we might find that the "selfishness" that some people object to but really shouldn't (dare I say the "good" kind, like self-improvement and achievment etc.) are not really objecting to the specific acts, but might actually be objecting to the complete dedication to this type of act to the complete exclusion of altruism. I'm sure there's a big dose of envy in there sometimes too of course. Bob

You accuse Richard of making this argument: _______________________________________________ PREMISE: Believing in spooks is backward. PREMISE: They believe in spooks and we believe in spooks. THEREFORE: They are backward and we are not. Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... that does not compute... See? It's stupid to say that the way they think is backward and the way we do is not because they believe in spooks. That's a logical fallacy. ________________________________________________ But YOU accuse ME of imagining things??? Hmmm....... Bob

All the more reason to put him on trial (if possible) and show the 1.6 billion a superior way no? Bob

Not sure if this would have "won the war", but nevertheless I think that in this case and some other comments you have made on this topic are accurate and rather insightful. This is the "high road" that seems so elusive to Michael. However, I think we need to be careful not to jump to conclusions until we fully understand what happened. We should not make accusations without appropriate knowledge (I refer to the SEALS). That being said, a bullet in the head is most likely justice for this monster. But even in war, where killing is justified, it is not categorically justified under all circumstances - especially when the threat has been eliminated. If OBL was unarmed and not a threat, ultimately justice may have been done, but certainly not done properly or morally. But again, there's a big "if" at the start of that sentence. Bob

There is only one thing that can be wrong: losing. One does whatever it takes to win. Ba'al Chatzaf OK, but are there still things that might be wrong after the battle is over and you're not in any physical danger anymore? Bob

I understand that, but even in war, shooting instead of capturing an unarmed soldier is tough to defend. I have no problem with liquifying the scumbag if there was even a hint of a thought of a weapon, but the thought of an execution is disturbing. I wasn't there so I have to reserve judgment, but I think they should have taken the high road and captured and tried him - even just as a statement of moral superiority if capture was feasible. Again, even in war some things are still wrong.

The law in the West is written, enforced, and administered assuming the "spooks" do not exist. It is YOU who misrepresent when you assert that we have the same belief (" really widespread here in the USA ") when any action based on this belief has no legal standing. One thing that is a hugely valuable notion is Austrian Economics is that belief and preference are determined by action. You cannot prefer or say you prefer Coke to Pepsi if you choose the opposite when given the chance. One of the things we do as nations is make laws. By theses actions, we (the West) do NOT believe in spooks. By the same measure, Iran DOES believe. Again, it is you who misrepresent because as national entities we are UNbelievers as determined by our actions. We have people here that believe in spooks, so do they. That much is true. "We" do NOT have, nor have had in a very long time, a power struggle at the highest level of the nation centering directly upon these aforementioned spooks. In fact, we recognize it as a problem (wrt to power/authority), and actively guard against it. Again, this is why it is you who misrepresent. This was Infidel's (Richard's?) point (at least that's what I thought it was) Correct. Church/state separation is simply not part of mainstream Islamic jurisprudence or culture, perhaps with a notable exception here and there. Correct. Or at the very least the effect of "spooks" is muted if not completely neutered wrt official/national institutions and law. Bob

Nice equivocation. When was the last time the US President or his "Allies" had a power struggle with the Chief Cleric over supernatural powers involving charges of sorcery?

I agree you don't need to try to kill it. What I believe we (meaning the West) DO need to do is to steadfastly, openly, and emphatically refuse to let any Islamic practice or law creep into secular society. Importantly we cannot be afraid to be "steadfast, open and emphatic" in criticizing Islam and its stupidity, and as we've seen in many instances this is NOT the case unfortunately. Bob

Well, a nice start would be to be able to criticize Islam, or Allah forbid - even maybe draw a cartoon or two without censorship and a fear of getting brutally murdered. Bob

Preferring to associate with your "own kind" does not logically result in pogroms, gas chambers etc. What else could you mean by "precisely the same actions"; I try to read people charitably, please clarify. EDIT: I just saw your edit, I take it you're backing off from the implication of your original words. In the context of Mises and praxeology - human actions and choosing between alternatives, the argument is correct. For example if your alternatives are to hire someone or not hire them then "precisely the same actions" is accurate. But of course, sadistic hatred introduces other 'alternatives'. That being said "Preferring to associate with your "own kind" " according to Mises MUST lead to discrimination because the only way preferences can be determined/revealed is through action. So to have the preference you describe, you must discriminate. Otherwise you can "say" you have a preference, but that doesn't count. Bob

Well, nobody (at least nobody sane) is going to argue that as a group Jews haven't suffered more than their share of historical discrimination. I think that's pretty clear, but not the point. The central point is that any type of pro-racial pride, Jewish or anything else, logically results in precisely the same actions that the people of the group are or were victimized by. This is why racism is so seemingly intractable. People think they can hold on to their ethnic pride and not be racist. Simply impossible because all you need is the slightest ordinal value difference and "poof", you necessarily commit discriminitory action. Bob EDIT: By "same action" I refer to discriminatory class of actions like hiring and University placements etc. that you mention. Sure if you really "hate" an ethnic group, you'd be more likely to be violent against them than if you just value your group more. So, while not being exactly the same, it still is equivalent wrt non-violent discrimination.

Here's the problem with this line of thinking. Let's assume that you have a small group of male friends - close buddies - or at least one. Now let's say you meet a new special lady in your life. Do you now care less for your friend(s)? Most would say of course not, and on one level I agree (sort of). However, in any every sense that actually matters, you indeed DO care LESS for the friend and here's why: When conflicts arise between buddies/girlfriend the buddies inevitably lose. It's the action that counts - in fact it's the only thing that counts. Let's look at the employer. All else being equal, it doesn't matter at all whether the boss likes Jews or hates Blacks. Either way, the Jews get preferential hiring treatment. Preferential fondness to Jews or blatant discrimination against Blacks has the EXACT SAME outcome. In more technical terms it is only the ORDINAL relationship of human values and not the CARDINAL valuation (if that's even possible at all anyway) that determines one's actions. In a logical, but also in a very real sense, positive racial pride is no different whatsoever than negative racial views toward others because it affects one's ordinal valuation and hence one's actions (what really matters) in precisely the same way. Bob

From NPR Report/Interview "Chalghoumi publicly endorsed President Sarkozy's plan to ban the face-covering veil, known here as the burqa. Chalghoumi says the tribal garb has no theological basis in Islam and it imprisons women and their children." That's right Chalghoumi - rector of the Mosque of Drancy and president of the Conference of French Imams. "willing submission", no, imprisonment. Face the truth. Libertarian values of inalienable rights are pretty quickly discarded when they become a little inconvenient. Have the guts to stick to a principle. Bob

I believe that when you read her work, you will see that while the logic of the above is rather solid, her premises are wrong. So how do you get there? Start with bad premises and good logic. This will take you to many fantasy worlds... Bob Which of her premises are wrong and how are they wrong? Ba'al Chatzaf I don't want to hijack the thread but... - individual life(as defined by her) as the standard of value (her view of this is not in agreement with evolution/reality) - tabula rasa (a person's character, while certainly not fixed, is significantly more determined by genetics than environment) to start with.