Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
:lol:
- Status
:lol:
TexasTitan
Well-known member
Youre right. Lets blame all their problems on other people. Not themselves. They just couldnt help the genocide, corruption, etc. They are just poor misunderstood people and we should blame everyone else and not them.
Youre right. The Maersk Alabama was stupid for brining aid and supplies to that country. They should have just left it alone. Stupid impieralist dogs!
Seriously, you people should form a crazy colony and put out editorials for non crazy people to laugh at. Oh wait, its already been done. Caaaalifoooooooooorniaaaaaaaaa.
CDB
Registered User
Good for you. Unfortunately you have yet to come up with any substantial difference between the two except for the fact that one org is being run by a central state and the other isn't. Where the actions are equivalent, I have yet to see any moral or ethical distinction that this difference implies. As far as I'm concerned theft is theft. I don't give a deep fried rat **** if the guy doing it is has a permission slip from the government.
CDB
Registered User
Look here, here come DA and Cosmo, like every other zombified unthinking uncritical statist sheep to come down the pike, horrified at the actions taken by private citizens that their own governments immitate with impunity every day on scale so much more massive as to be trully amazing.
Because, ya see, when the Somalis board a ship and presume some level of authority over it because it's near their shores and proceed to act along those lines the difference between them and someone else doing it but with a central government's signed permission slip is... well... umm... hmm... can't quite see the difference actually. Perhaps that's because in the end there is no substantive difference between the government and a criminal gang, except for the fact that a lot of people have been hoodwinked into thinking that the former can legitimately murder and steal while the other can't.
Because, ya know, voting on it make it right, moral, and ethical to do things that otherwise would be considered wrong or even criminal Or something like that. In any event, maybe just who does and does not have a rightful claim to the use and regulation of those waters isn't quite so ****ing simple as a bunch of dumb ass half educated Americans want it to be.
CDB
Registered User
Then who makes up this "The world", the Keebler elves? The equivocation of the government with the people who live under it is incorrect.
Or maybe put more simply in defference to you and DA, I seriously doubt many people give two flying ****s about Somalia and who controls its waters, except of course those who stand to benefit from using them. But then the Somalis themselves would have to be included in that group seeing as, you know, they ****ing live there and ****. But I guess since they were smart and lucky enough... oops, sorry, backwards enough to refuse quite vigorously the last few puppet central state authorities we tried to force on them, they have no rights.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
CDB
Registered User
Where did I say that?
Yes, they were stupid. Yes, they should have been left alone. There is no such thing as humanitarian aid without major strings attached and unintended consequences that are usually worse than original problems. The competent do not need nor fo they want anyone's 'help', the incompetent want only so much as they'll allow, contrary usually the desire of those doing the offerring, and will end up needing it in perpetuity as they become dependent. It looks like the lessons of Peter Bauer and Isabel Paterson vis a vi this topic have been forgotten.
I'm a conservative, actually, which is why I'm against government action, not for it. Unlike many conservatives today who conveniently forget the ideas of restrained spending and minimal government when the opportunity to bomb some foreigners comes up. Then all of a sudden they reach into their pockets and instead of pulling out a copy of the constitution, out comes a blank check ready to be filled out for whatever dollar amount and/or freedoms the government would like us to surrender.
CDB
Registered User
You're confusing emotion with sarcasm. I like watching people do stupid ****. It's fun.
However to your point, idiots will vote for their own kind. Hence, George Bush. Hence, Barak Obama. In actuality rule by morons is the inevitable result of democracy with an open franchise. If every person can vote and the mjaority of people can be placed on the middle or to the left side of the bell curve, that means the majority of people on this planet are really, really ****ing dumb, and will vote accordingly. Therefore if someone wins an election and if something does indeed become policy, it is almost assuredly a very stupid idea based on a poor understanding of the world and will have the whole hearted backing of the majority of the population.
Funnily enough, the idea scales up and down depending on subpopulations too, like for Republicans and Democrats.
Red Dog
Well-known member
I'm not completely sure what you're asking, but one difference is the intent of each party.
Somali pirates hijack ships with the intention of stealing their goods for personal use and/or ransoming the people aboard.
Coast Guard boards ships in order to deter potentially dangerous individuals (criminals) or substances (drugs or illegal arms) from being trafficked or brought into the United States.
Is this what you're asking? The back and forth is becoming rather confusing is why I ask.
Somali pirates hijack ships with the intention of stealing their goods for personal use and/or ransoming the people aboard.
Coast Guard boards ships in order to deter potentially dangerous individuals (criminals) or substances (drugs or illegal arms) from being trafficked or brought into the United States.
Is this what you're asking? The back and forth is becoming rather confusing is why I ask.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Coast Guard = Somali Pirates.
i am pretty sure that was the linking here. But I could be wrong... there are alot of tirades in this thread.
Adams
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
I think there is only one...:lol:
And its as predictable as the sun rising
Wait..let me correct that. Its as predictable as the muth** ****** *** sun rising.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
I think there is only one...:lol:
And its as predictable as the sun rising
Wait..let me correct that. Its as predictable as the muth** ****** *** sun rising.
****
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
I believe it it you, who is a sheep... with your conservative thinking non-sense.
Invalid Link Removed
Adams
CDB
Registered User
At least you're trying, so thanks. The issue I was addressing however is the source of the authority and the validity of property claims. To both points, I don't need a government to tell me right from wrong, nor to 'permit' me to deal with my fellow human beings, nor do I see the government as the source of or the final authority on who owns what. Right now the Somalis are in an interesting position, half way between anarcho capitalism and some form of clanism. They have authorities in their area we could be dealing with. But, because they are not a traditional state they're basically being **** on and the actions of their citizens denounced when they in fact be more legitimate on some levels than any state actions.
For example, I find the idea that the government takes money from me, that I would rather spend elsewhere and that I only part with on the threat of imprisonment, and uses it to harrass what would otherwise be a victimless, peaceful exchanges on the market because they don't agree with the use of certain intoxicants or buying certain ends, well I find that extremely ****ing disgusting. I find the forceful confiscation of personal income disgusting and illegitimate. I find the claim of authority over people's bodies to the point of dictating what they can and can not ingest disgusting and illegitimate. I find the interference in free exchange, the confiscation of private property, and the imprisonment of otherwise peaceful adults in the pursuit of prohibition of this or that peaceful action disgusting and illegitimate.
I have yet to see how a majority of hoople headed dip sticks voting for such actions in any way lends legitimacy to those actions. I mean if I try and take your car, it's a crime and it's wrong, and we don't need the government to say so to understand that it is so. If I get three friends and we pull you into the group and then hold a vote on who owns your car and you lose 3 to 1, does that somehow make us taking it legitimate? If not, then what's the magic number we have to hit in votes before a group of crooks voting themselves illegitimate authority over others becomes a 'democracy' with 'legitimate' power to do so? And if it's not numbers then what is it? When do actions that would otherwise be wrong and/or criminal become magically okay just because a lot of people will tolerate it or actively want it?
Most people don't want to answer that question or are too obtuse to give a ****; they like the state and that's enough. Me, I'm more open to the idea that a traditional form of a government need not be the determining factor in whether or not actions are ethical and/or moral or otherwise legitimate. In fact I find many actions more legitimate on a private level, such as claims to property. I mean, a farmer who works the land has a legitimate claim to that land, does he not? His labor causes it to produce, he has a right to that land and to that product. The government doesn't grant him that ownership, it acknowledges it.
What about a fisherman? Just because private property hasn't been applied to the oceans up to now, why would that make a man's claim illegitimate? Does he not work a certain patch of water? Does he not pull the product out and sell it? Is it not his labor that makes the area productive? What then is the difference that would make his claim less than the farmer's? And if some oil company decides to drive a tanker right through his fishing grounds, why is that any different than some trucker saying, "**** this traffic jam, **** would be a lot quicker if I just high tailed it through that convenient corn field for a while..."?
I'd have no problem with a farmer objecting if a trucker pulled that ****. I'd have no problem if he stopped the driver at gun point and kicked him off his land or even called the cops. Neither of which is some radical idea or situation. So what about the fisherman taking like actions?
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
CDB
Registered User
Good for you. Neither did I. Ron Paul was my guy, but no chance to vote for him here.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
CDB, either do it without the insults, or take a week off.
People are getting tired of your insulting attitude. You can make your point without it.
People are getting tired of your insulting attitude. You can make your point without it.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Seriously? So you are defending the pirates that for centuries has attacked passing ships because they carried goods? Yet you turn around and demean US troops for attacking? I am confused on your ideals.. they seem screwy... so its okay for pirates to attack helpless merchant ships because they are close to their shore?
Adams
Red Dog
Well-known member
ah I see -- Are you a Libertarian? You sound very much like one -- I suppose you could consider me somewhat of a Libertarian as well (I voted for Ron Paul too -- small world!) I actually understand and agree with what you're saying here to an extent.
First, I want to say that I do agree that the Somalians are in a very interesting predicament. They do indeed have a legitimate grievance as to the dumping of toxic material in their coastal waters AND the fact that nobody will do anything about it (that I am aware of). But while I understand this situation, I do not believe it condones boarding commercial vessels with heavy arms and threatening to kill innocent individuals (those who had nothing to do with the dumping of chemicals). It's a classic situation of two (or more) wrongs not making a right.
But as for the property theory you were discussing, one thing I do believe is that the world would essentially be anarchy if it wasn't for moderately strong government. If you don't have government agencies to dictate who is right and who is wrong (even though they don't get it right 100% of the time), you would have people killing each other over everything (I know you don't think the government should have the ultimate say here and I understand that). You have right and wrong individualized down to the personal level where moral and ethical principles can differ substantially, ultimately resulting in a 'no way out' situation, you know? I guess maybe a good way to put it is, 'it's not the best thing in the world, but for the most part, it works'.
Continuing that same point, your farmer analogy, which I agree with for the most part, could easily result in chaos without government permission. Say that farmer works the land for 10 years, then some other farmer comes in and claims he owned it way before the first farmer ever worked it. There is no way to determine who is lying and, in my imagination, they would fight or kill each other and that would be that. If one had government authorization, it would be settled. Not the best system; I fully realize this, but I feel like we would slip into certain chaos without a strong central or state government (like many third-world countries have unfortunately done).
On the note of personal liberties, we do share some common ground in the form of Libertarian ideology (I think!), although I may actually adhere more to Constitutionalism. However, I understand the need to regulate certain substances -- namely mind-altering substances. While I feel it is morally correct to let people do what they want in terms of their own body, I can't help but consider the argument that MAS pose a substantial risk to those in the surrounding environment. Alas, the counter-argument might be something like 'if alcohol is okay, why isn't everything else?' I don't know the answer to that one -- still working on it. I think personal values play a huge part in this as well, and given the 'final say' by the government on an issue with opinions varying widely from person to person, may be the reason why so many people are unhappy with some of the laws here. (I am pro-life due to my own moral compass (conservative value), but am essentially agnostic/logically evaluative and do not support monotheistic religion (liberal/moderate value).
This is good discussion! I am beginning to understand where you are coming from on this.
CDB
Registered User
I guess my ideology falls along the lines of lower case L libertarianism. I find upper case L Libertairans, the card carrying type and especially the national party, fairly useless.
Their response does leave something to be desired. But then analogously it's like our citizenry saying We don't believe in heroin use. Fine and dandy and all that, I avoid it myself. But then we take users, many if not mostly nonviolent themselves, and throw them in prison to be sex slaves for the indigenous populations therein. Not the most civilized way to do things I'd say. And the essential difference between actions like that on the part of our government and some 'piracy' by a Somali with an AK47, a legitimate gripe, and an attitude problem escapes me at this point in my life. Give an AK47 to the crabby endomorph at the DMV that I go to in order to renew my car's registration evey couple years, you have the same situation. She's maybe marginally more polite about things and has better office furnishings. The gun is still where the presumed authority comes from, even if it isn't evident or on blatant display.
To anyone who claims authority over me, though practicality may dictate a more life preserving response in some situations, what I inevitably ask these days is, "Who the hell are you to tell me what to do with myself when I'm otherwise leaving other alone and minding my own business?" Somali pirate or cop with a maglite, it's all the same to me.
Why? Anarchy is used as a synonym for disorder, but it isn't. The government doesn't dictate the content and form of our language, yet speakers of respective languages can still understand each other. The government doesn't dictate the acceptable theories in physics, yet crackpots are mostly marginalized. Systems tend to arrange themselves pretty well without government intervention.
Why would they do that? Would it be conducive to furthering their lives and well being in dealing with others in the future? I mean say I want to return a TV to Best Buy, they say no. It's not like I'd murder the clerk if not for the government's presence. I grant the need for a function of arbitration between people, what makes you think the government is the only way to accomplish this? People settle disputes all the time without involving the government and without killing each other. Insurance companies do it every day in accidents with no criminal liability.
I mean, why is it that we can agree in the context of an auto accident to let our two insurance companies determine who is at fault, to what extent, and what proper damages are, but can't do that in any other dispute of any other kind? What's the logic or circumstance that prohibits it?
For practical purposes yeah, it isn't going anywhere. Except the Somalis have a warm place in my heart, because they did tell their government to go away. And it did. What's left is hardly a perfect society, but as they recover, and they have a GDP that's expanding like crazy it seems, all the things which people say we absolutely need the government for are to one extent or another being provided for on a private basis in that country. Phones, water, security, electricity, etc. Imperfect? Yeah. Would everyone want to live there? Probably not. But as the only existing social experiment in something even remotely resembling anarcho capitalism, and with all its deviations from that ideal, it does show one thing: it works. No one claims a world without central government would be perfect or to everyone's liking. But it does work.
Now imagine what a possible, somewhat more orderly surrender on the part of the government to the private sector by more civilized folk might be like.
Sure there is. It's done all the time. There's nothing magic about a judge that makes him able to tell right from wrong. What's to stop two people with such a dispute from finding a third party to settle it?
I any event this is wandering OT, for all I know that's an 'infraction' on these boards these days too. Best we continue this in a more relevant thread or something.
Existence poses a risk to people in the surrounding environment. The issue is whether or not the action is per se harmful to others. Taking a pill? Nope.
The alcohol argument is off the point. Approaching it that way acknowledges illegitimate authority. The argument then turns to, "You're right, so let's outlaw alcohol again..." Prohibition itself of any per se harmless activity is unjust, unethical, immoral, and not the proper use of government power. It is neither authorized in the constitution or consistent with its letter or spirit. In fact that the constitution had to be ammended to prohibit alcohol shows just how far such prohibition is from what it authorizes in terms of powers.
I'd recommend Chaos Theory by Bob Murphy for some reading on private alternatives to assumed government functions. It's a good read.
CDB
Registered User
Invalid Link Removed
by Joshua Katz
It seems that piracy has, as it did a couple centuries ago, surfaced once again near the top of the official "things to fear" list. Admittedly, I’m a bit late – as I write, it is being replaced by flu. It’s always important, not just to keep the population in a state of fear, but to keep changing the items to be feared. This way, people will not fix their fear on a particular item, and then relax when that item is no longer reported. The goal is to keep us in a constant state of fear and dependence.
Nonetheless, piracy remains a hot topic today. Piracy on the high seas, of course, has long been a problem faced by merchant vessels. Today, though, the pirates are attacking ships flying the American flag, raising piracy from some minor problem for the rest of the world to a top priority. Such is the way the American mind works. The discussion is mostly limited to a narrow range of opinions – the various ways that the military should be involved in fighting piracy. Not asked is the question of whether the military should fight piracy, or if the task of protecting a vessel properly belongs to the owner of the vessel.
More to the point, we hear very little discussion about just what is wrong with the act of piracy. In their usual overblown hyperbole, the chattering classes tell us that piracy is among the most infamous of crimes, that no punishment less than death is fitting for a pirate – as if piracy were anything more than armed robbery and kidnapping committed in an unusual location. No, our politicians assure us, it is a crime without equal. The Chinese kill pirates with the firing squad.
Now, it might seem odd to raise the question of just what is wrong with being a pirate. After all, it appears obvious that threatening people with weapons (in a non-defensive way), holding people for ransom, and stealing the contents of large vessels is not a particularly nice way to make a living. To us normal folks, this is a perfectly reasonable explanation of the evils of piracy. However, this explanation is not available to our chattering classes, since there is no action involved in piracy which they do not cheer when committed by others.
These chatterers, be they media or politicians, have no complaint against the detention of the crew of a vessel carrying drugs or weapons. These crews might be held for ransom, known as bail, or held without any ransom. Is it worse to hold a man for ransom than to hold him and offer him no means to free himself? Any vessel coming onto shore will have a portion of the value of its cargo taken – we call it duty.
What of the deeper principles at work here? Certainly the chattering classes all agree that property may be taken at will from those who produce wealth, either for redistribution to the poor or for the immediate needs of the gunmen taking the money. If the pirates purchase weapons with the money they have raised, how is this different from the purchase of arms by governments with tax revenues? As far as redistribution to the poor is concerned, no one denies that the inhabitants of Somalia are poorer than Americans. Our own government frequently takes our property by force and sends it to Somalia. Now the Somalis have cut out the middleman and are taking it directly. The only difference would seem to be efficiency.
What’s more, the case for piracy is stronger than the case for redistribution. In by far the vast majority of cases of domestic redistribution, the money is taken from people who did not earn it on the backs of those to whom it is given. As John Perkins has detailed, though, the average American finds himself richer than he otherwise would (all else remaining equal) but for economic and military conquest of foreign lands – Somali’s history being a prime example.
Ah, but you might respond, they only approve of these actions when undertaken by governments, not ordinary mortals like these pirates. This is hard to argue against – certainly the average statist, for instance, speaks of disarming the ordinary mortal while drooling over the thought of bigger and better weapons for the government officials. So this must be the relevant difference. A difficulty remains, though – Somali has no government. It seems undeniable that the statist thinks that the actions undertaken by governments are good things – that is, that the actions themselves are not morally objectionable, and that the outcomes are better than the outcomes available by not taking them. The statist wants money taken from productive citizens and either given to the poor or used to buy weapons. Why should the absence of a government prevent these worthy endeavors from being undertaken? It is one thing to say that, in the presence of a government, private help is not needed in these tasks. It would be a far different thing, and not consistent with the general belief system of the statist, to say that the absence of a state dictates that such things simply shouldn’t be done.
More to the point, just what distinguishes the pirates from a state? Certainly, they are not hired by democratically elected leaders, but there are plenty of recognized states in the world which are not democratic. Some of the oldest states consist of little more than self-appointed kings, so this feature hardly seems important. They seem to exercise little concern about living conditions, and as part of the warlord culture, have no interest in doing anything other than living as parasites off of the other members of society. This certainly is not a distinction – this is the definition of a state. The state is not recognized by other states nor by the UN, but neither type of recognition can be a precondition to statehood without involving logical absurdities. If statehood requires the recognition by existing states, then there can be no first state, and hence no future states. If statehood requires recognition by the UN, which is itself an assembly of states, and whose members are all states, then once again our definition cannot get off the ground, as there would be no states to form the UN to recognize states.
The differences, it seems, are largely cosmetic. If the pirates wore silly white uniforms, had larger weapons, and used different terminology when approaching boats, we would regard them as the Somali Coast Guard. Rather than saying "we’re pirates, we’re here to steal your stuff and kidnap you" they would need to say "we’re the Coast Guard, we’re here to tax your stuff at a rate of 100% and detain you."
So, it isn’t clear just what objection our chattering classes can make to the actions of the pirates. This serves, of course, not to let the pirates off the hook, but to question what we accept on a daily basis. (emphasis most definitely added...) We would not accept such behavior on the high seas – the last uncivilized frontier, in most people’s minds – yet we accept it in our cities and in our homes. Why do our media talking-heads and politicians harp on the subject so much, though, if they have no objection to what the pirates do? Clearly, it helps to reinforce the impression that the world is a scary, scary place outside the borders of the US. Our government in its current form could not last, I predict, if most Americans had any concept of what the world looks like outside our borders. More importantly, it drives home to the unthinking just how dependent we are on government. After all, it was privateers who held a ship captain hostage and a government who freed him. Never mind the question of how our Navy obtained the funds necessary to buy their boats – or how their jurisdiction extends to the Somali coast. The point is to understand that all good in the world comes from your government, and everything foreign is scary and dangerous – oh, and for good measure, you should realize that you are impotent and unable to fight off any threat, and entirely dependent on your government. This is an important message to drive home.
April 29, 2009
Joshua Katz, NREMT-P, is the Legislative Director of the Libertarian Party of Connecticut. A member of the faculty of Oxford Academy in Westbrook, Connecticut, his areas of interest include mathematics, philosophy of mind, and the use of the synthetic a priori.
Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
by Joshua Katz
It seems that piracy has, as it did a couple centuries ago, surfaced once again near the top of the official "things to fear" list. Admittedly, I’m a bit late – as I write, it is being replaced by flu. It’s always important, not just to keep the population in a state of fear, but to keep changing the items to be feared. This way, people will not fix their fear on a particular item, and then relax when that item is no longer reported. The goal is to keep us in a constant state of fear and dependence.
Nonetheless, piracy remains a hot topic today. Piracy on the high seas, of course, has long been a problem faced by merchant vessels. Today, though, the pirates are attacking ships flying the American flag, raising piracy from some minor problem for the rest of the world to a top priority. Such is the way the American mind works. The discussion is mostly limited to a narrow range of opinions – the various ways that the military should be involved in fighting piracy. Not asked is the question of whether the military should fight piracy, or if the task of protecting a vessel properly belongs to the owner of the vessel.
More to the point, we hear very little discussion about just what is wrong with the act of piracy. In their usual overblown hyperbole, the chattering classes tell us that piracy is among the most infamous of crimes, that no punishment less than death is fitting for a pirate – as if piracy were anything more than armed robbery and kidnapping committed in an unusual location. No, our politicians assure us, it is a crime without equal. The Chinese kill pirates with the firing squad.
Now, it might seem odd to raise the question of just what is wrong with being a pirate. After all, it appears obvious that threatening people with weapons (in a non-defensive way), holding people for ransom, and stealing the contents of large vessels is not a particularly nice way to make a living. To us normal folks, this is a perfectly reasonable explanation of the evils of piracy. However, this explanation is not available to our chattering classes, since there is no action involved in piracy which they do not cheer when committed by others.
These chatterers, be they media or politicians, have no complaint against the detention of the crew of a vessel carrying drugs or weapons. These crews might be held for ransom, known as bail, or held without any ransom. Is it worse to hold a man for ransom than to hold him and offer him no means to free himself? Any vessel coming onto shore will have a portion of the value of its cargo taken – we call it duty.
What of the deeper principles at work here? Certainly the chattering classes all agree that property may be taken at will from those who produce wealth, either for redistribution to the poor or for the immediate needs of the gunmen taking the money. If the pirates purchase weapons with the money they have raised, how is this different from the purchase of arms by governments with tax revenues? As far as redistribution to the poor is concerned, no one denies that the inhabitants of Somalia are poorer than Americans. Our own government frequently takes our property by force and sends it to Somalia. Now the Somalis have cut out the middleman and are taking it directly. The only difference would seem to be efficiency.
What’s more, the case for piracy is stronger than the case for redistribution. In by far the vast majority of cases of domestic redistribution, the money is taken from people who did not earn it on the backs of those to whom it is given. As John Perkins has detailed, though, the average American finds himself richer than he otherwise would (all else remaining equal) but for economic and military conquest of foreign lands – Somali’s history being a prime example.
Ah, but you might respond, they only approve of these actions when undertaken by governments, not ordinary mortals like these pirates. This is hard to argue against – certainly the average statist, for instance, speaks of disarming the ordinary mortal while drooling over the thought of bigger and better weapons for the government officials. So this must be the relevant difference. A difficulty remains, though – Somali has no government. It seems undeniable that the statist thinks that the actions undertaken by governments are good things – that is, that the actions themselves are not morally objectionable, and that the outcomes are better than the outcomes available by not taking them. The statist wants money taken from productive citizens and either given to the poor or used to buy weapons. Why should the absence of a government prevent these worthy endeavors from being undertaken? It is one thing to say that, in the presence of a government, private help is not needed in these tasks. It would be a far different thing, and not consistent with the general belief system of the statist, to say that the absence of a state dictates that such things simply shouldn’t be done.
More to the point, just what distinguishes the pirates from a state? Certainly, they are not hired by democratically elected leaders, but there are plenty of recognized states in the world which are not democratic. Some of the oldest states consist of little more than self-appointed kings, so this feature hardly seems important. They seem to exercise little concern about living conditions, and as part of the warlord culture, have no interest in doing anything other than living as parasites off of the other members of society. This certainly is not a distinction – this is the definition of a state. The state is not recognized by other states nor by the UN, but neither type of recognition can be a precondition to statehood without involving logical absurdities. If statehood requires the recognition by existing states, then there can be no first state, and hence no future states. If statehood requires recognition by the UN, which is itself an assembly of states, and whose members are all states, then once again our definition cannot get off the ground, as there would be no states to form the UN to recognize states.
The differences, it seems, are largely cosmetic. If the pirates wore silly white uniforms, had larger weapons, and used different terminology when approaching boats, we would regard them as the Somali Coast Guard. Rather than saying "we’re pirates, we’re here to steal your stuff and kidnap you" they would need to say "we’re the Coast Guard, we’re here to tax your stuff at a rate of 100% and detain you."
So, it isn’t clear just what objection our chattering classes can make to the actions of the pirates. This serves, of course, not to let the pirates off the hook, but to question what we accept on a daily basis. (emphasis most definitely added...) We would not accept such behavior on the high seas – the last uncivilized frontier, in most people’s minds – yet we accept it in our cities and in our homes. Why do our media talking-heads and politicians harp on the subject so much, though, if they have no objection to what the pirates do? Clearly, it helps to reinforce the impression that the world is a scary, scary place outside the borders of the US. Our government in its current form could not last, I predict, if most Americans had any concept of what the world looks like outside our borders. More importantly, it drives home to the unthinking just how dependent we are on government. After all, it was privateers who held a ship captain hostage and a government who freed him. Never mind the question of how our Navy obtained the funds necessary to buy their boats – or how their jurisdiction extends to the Somali coast. The point is to understand that all good in the world comes from your government, and everything foreign is scary and dangerous – oh, and for good measure, you should realize that you are impotent and unable to fight off any threat, and entirely dependent on your government. This is an important message to drive home.
April 29, 2009
Joshua Katz, NREMT-P, is the Legislative Director of the Libertarian Party of Connecticut. A member of the faculty of Oxford Academy in Westbrook, Connecticut, his areas of interest include mathematics, philosophy of mind, and the use of the synthetic a priori.
Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Red Dog
Well-known member
I see -- what's the difference IYO? I'm not being inflammatory, I'm just not sure what you're differentiating between the two.
I agree -- putting non-violent drug users in general population isn't the most appropriate thing to do (major dealers are another story as I'm a believer in the punishment should fit the crime kind of thing) -- but what should we do instead? or are you saying we shouldn't imprison them at all or should give them some sort of alternative punishment?
Again, I think the difference lies in the intent of the doer. Our government isn't aiming to harm or threaten innocent individuals, while Somali pirates are (I know there is some corruption within our government but I am speaking on the whole). Also, I realize the definition of 'innocent' comes into play here -- I'm using it on a personal level (i.e. Euro/American commercial fisherman passing by are innocent individuals). I'm not sure I understand the DMV analogy -- can you explain?
I think this is just a question of whether you want to be governed or let alone to do your own thing. In your remark, are you referring to things like taxes? or what specifically is the government telling you to do that you have a problem with? Personally, I don't mind being governed in order to live in the US. Yes, the taxes are an increasing burden and I have a major issue with that, but I feel safe with a state government in effect locally, and a federal government in effect nationally.
I'm not trying to be an ass, but Webster's does include "the absence of order" and "disorder" as the second definition of anarchy (although a lack of political government is the primary definition!). Also, I see your point, but I'm not disputing the government's effect on language or science (funding might be an issue though). Some systems may arrange themselves, but true anarchy, IMO, won't ever work since you would need everybody acting morally acceptable (whatever that means) in order for it to succeed. Everybody would have to contribute for it to work (which will never happen) while obeying common laws that are not enforceable, fending for themselves in day-to-day situation, dealing with criminals (or the anarchic equivalent of what a criminal is) themselves, and so on. If it was human nature to work together in peace and be morally conscious and not commit crime, anarchy would be perfect!
I didn't mean to imply everyone would do that -- but to offset the majority of rational thinking people (like you returning a tv), there are a substantial minority of irrational, unthinking murderers and criminals who would undoubtedly use force instead of words and civility to solve their problems. I see the point with insurance companies, but why would people even go to the insurance companies if there is no government to enforce the laws? Two rational people would certainly work the situation out, so I agree there. But not everyone is open-minded, respectful and morally obligated -- some people (criminals) would rather **** somebody up or shoot them than work together to solve a dispute.
Same deal -- the idea does work and you could certainly extend it to any number of other dispute given the people are rational, compromising individuals -- but not everybody possesses those qualities and, as a result, turn to criminal behavior instead (which requires, IMO, punishment).
If it works then why do they need to attack, board, and ransom commercial vessels and their crews? Over 40% of that country is below the poverty line, average life expectancy is less than 50 years old, less than 40% are literate, and while the overall GDP may be increasing a bit over the last few years, the GDP per capita (a mere $600) hasn't changed in years while clan and militia warfare are rampant. It may be working for a handful of powerful leaders, but certainly not in general IMO.
But in America, we use the jury system to determine that. It's not magic, but it's the way we operate. (I realize I am acknowledge authority here, but again IMO, jury > two guys left to work things out on their own).
I see the point here, but what if a pill was manufactured such that upon consumption a person would undoubtedly manifest uncontrollable tendencies of extreme violence and ravenous hostility, and was effective in eliciting these effects 100% of the time without error? Granted you are not locked inside a room that is inescapable, you are virtually guaranteed to cause harm to others -- is it still okay to take it IYO?
I worded this part of my previous response incorrectly -- I was simply inquiring about the seemingly odd designation of drug activity (which alters the mind) as illegal, and the consumption of alcohol (which alters the mind) as legal. However, if drugs weren't prohibited or controlled, what kind of society would we live in? IYO, do you think that because there is no authorization in the Constitution to control drug use, that we should let it run rampant and unregulated, and simply do away with substance control laws?
I'll check that out -- I've never heard of him but I'm always up for expanding my mind some! Thanks.
Irish Cannon
Legend
This may interest some of you. A few pages, but decent read. Doesn't get very in depth, but it may make you want to read up on it further.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
lutherblsstt
Guest
Yes,a tin foil hat [how original!],I wear it as does the author of War is a Racket:
War Is a Racket is the title of two works, a speech and a booklet, by retired U.S. Marine Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, one of only 19 people to be twice awarded the Medal of Honor, in which Butler frankly discusses from his experience as a career military officer how business interests have commercially benefited from warfare.
It contains this key summary:
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
In his 1987 biography of Butler, Maverick Marine, Hans Schmidt gave a brief review:
"Butler's particular contribution was his recantation, denouncing war on moral grounds after having been a warrior hero and spending most of his life as a military insider. The theme remained vigorously patriotic and nationalistic, decrying imperialism as a disgrace rooted in the greed of a privileged few."
Invalid Link Removed
hardknock
Well-known member
No one ever discusses a conspiracy theory in any article...that does not mean it's not the subject matter.
Bottom line, it's another piece of text that goes overboard, no pun intended, with trying to flip the story. Does this story hold validity, it does, but, is this story essential? hardly...there are tons of individuals that know these type of actions happen. I can be called for ranting, but, I am so freaking sick of people jotting articles to tell me something that is obvious and then try to make it look like a revolutionary discovery ... This sh@t is boring, the whole damn world is...quite frankly, I'm tired of even living in it.
wtf
AE14
Board Sponsor
Not trying to be harsh here Luther, just consider this curiosity. Do you ever post anything that is not cut and paste from somewhere else? I mean seriously this is comical
lutherblsstt
Guest
The point is you get the mainstream party line over and over while the other side is rarely aired and if so only on the internet. This is what makes your rant so ridiculous.
hardknock
Well-known member
^At the point of those exact words, I would have probably slapped him silly and made him understand that criticism, when it is a completely destructive occurrence is the opposite of constructive criticism. People love to criticize others and claim it's for the "good"! When individuals actually start to understand what constructive criticism is and apply it appropriately will we actually start to learn from our mishaps.
Other than this, the rest is bullsh!t.
hardknock
Well-known member
No, perhaps the individuals that you are accustomed to only see the "party line", but people that actually understand how the world moves are not so indulged by propaganda.
Honestly, my friend, it was a useless article, sorry.
hardknock
Well-known member
You mean all the valuables that are garnered through illegal means? Here is a news flash...it's not legal to hold money from drug deals and illegal transportation of alcoholic beverages.
So, let's just say this: Someone who produces moonshine can be considered in the right, even though it's illegal?
Hmmm, so, when someone who has a firearm, with NO license, is pulled over and ends up being arrested due to not having a registration for his weapon, it's wrong?
You are lost my friend, sorry, not attacking you, but you are seriously lost friend.
hardknock
Well-known member
Referencing the bold, did you just seriously type that out?
Newsflash, those people that you run into every day, perhaps, they are just ignorant, and it's not the "media" fault. I have a 16 year old nephew that will research for further information of any "major story", and you're telling me that grown a$$ individuals are so "blinded by the media" that it is impossible for them?
People believe "media hype" because they want to believe it. Those people that are saying that about the Muslims are probably saying that because, well, surprise, THAT'S THE WAY THE ACTUALLY FEEL, media hype or not. That is called prejudice; they don't need the media to help them with that.
Lacradocious
Member
I find it odd that nuclear waste is being dumped off Somali waters. Seems like it would be easier to get away with dumping nuclear waste if you did it out in middle of the ocean where no one would see or find it. So I don't buy into that so much.
If other countries are abusing the fisheries off Somalia, this is no surprise. They do it on the mainland with Cocoa and Sugar plantations in West Africa, not to mention the foreign owned oil / gas / mining companies operating in Africa.
However, I find it hard to believe that these pirates are simply pissed off fisherman. The only real solution I would see if I ran a ship would be keep private security or have a giant flame throwing device installed on each end of the ship.
Just my opinion.
If other countries are abusing the fisheries off Somalia, this is no surprise. They do it on the mainland with Cocoa and Sugar plantations in West Africa, not to mention the foreign owned oil / gas / mining companies operating in Africa.
However, I find it hard to believe that these pirates are simply pissed off fisherman. The only real solution I would see if I ran a ship would be keep private security or have a giant flame throwing device installed on each end of the ship.
Just my opinion.
hardknock
Well-known member
That's exactly the point which SOME are making. While some others would rather paint a picture of "pissed pirates" just seeking justification, others see it for what it really is.
Zero V
Well-known member
nuff said
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Invalid Link Removed
lutherblsstt
Guest
"The U.S. record of war crimes has been, from the nineteenth century to the present, a largely invisible one, with no government, no political leaders, no military officials, no lower-level operatives held accountable for criminal actions. Anyone challenging this mythology is quickly marginalized, branded a traitor or Communist or terrorist or simply a lunatic beyond the pale of reasonable discussion."
Carl Boggs
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
u mad?
lutherblsstt
Guest
"Democracy is not about trust; it is about distrust. It is about accountability, exposure, open debate, critical challenge, and popular input and feedback from the citizenry. It is about responsible government. We have to get our fellow Americans to trust their leaders less and themselves more, trust their own questions and suspicions, and their own desire to know what is going on."
Michael Parenti
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
lutherblsstt
Guest
Your M.O.is:
1. Red herring- a deliberate attempt to change a subject or divert an argument
2. Straw Man-To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.(example:your claiming that I think America is evil and does nothing good.)
Attachments
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Invalid Link Removed
- Cosmo Kramer, 1st Edition.
- Cosmo Kramer, 1st Edition.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
- Status