Because some people have expressed interest, antipathy or confusion with regards to my ethical philosophy, I am going to write a bit about the logical imperative of morality. In order to understand this piece one ought to read at least the following articles. They're not overly long, but reading the entire argument would probably be best due to their importance, and for that purpose a link serves just as well if not better as my summarizing.
http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/e ... ics-10.pdf (http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/econ-ethics-10.pdf) Argumentation Ethics
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf) Estoppel in Punishment and Proportionality
After reading that, here is my slight expansion of them to explain WHY they are moral. It is, as are the previous links, an attempt to formulate a logical-realistic argument for ethical imperatives with consistent and universal applicability:
Everyone here would probably agree that morals (at least the private-property part of them) only apply in society, since alone no conflicts could arise over property rights and it's nonsensical to imagine any need or meaning to them as long as isolation persists. Ergo, the rules of moral social conduct necessarily assume a social situation. Likewise, as with argumentation ethics in general, in order to discuss or dispute moral propositions we must be engaged in argumentation. Thus we have already commited ourselves to rational communication in a social situation. Yet once this occurs argumentation ethics automatically presume the principle of private property. Nor do these ethical rules disappear when we don't try to debate them (IE act in an aggressive, non-argumentive manner towards others) because when we are confronted for our actions argumentation ethics and estoppel both prevent objection, ie if it is permissible for you to steal when not engaging in rational argumentation then it is permissible for me to steal right back. If you object, your very act of arguing makes appeal to right of aggression nonsensical.
Given that logic and rationality must by definition be good, since the universe is logical and no claim to purposeful behaviour can exist without it (IE, to ignore rationality is to abdicate purpose and therefor any will or claim to existence at all), it must be that within a social situation we are always bound by the laws of private-property. One can never say, "I shouldn't be good" or prove that he shouldn't be in any situation, since he immediatly by his action asserts that he ought to or denies his existence as an actor which is clearly impossible if he is attempting to make any argument.
Just fyi, the first link didn't load for me.
Axiom: When a discussion between two or more people occurs, argumentation ethics automatically presume the principle of private property.
Evidence to the contrary: Most pre-agricultural human societies utilized and utilize a communal way of life in which "property" is owned by the whole of a tribe or unit. While one could argue that property belongs to a specific tribe in a community of tribes, the ownership is collective at it's root. This is, in fact, the natural state of smaller units of humans in a situation where the pack (and thus reproduction) is more important than an individual.
This may not be evident to those who live in a large population, as societal dynamics shift considerably between hunter gatherer and a post-industrial societies.
I repasted the link, it worked for me.
In regards to the cricitism:
Your argument is irrelevant to the case of argumentation ethics and ethics in general. Ethics are a normative science (what ought you do), not a descriptive science (what actually occurs). It is the same in this way as medicine or technology in general. If one wishes to be good (moral) in their behaviour, one ought to conform to these principles. Furthermore (and this is rarely the case) even if property were largely communalized in some situations, the concern of ethics as I understand it (given argumentation ethics makes private property is the only rational possible argument of justification or morality of property disputes); if that 'communalizing' occurred voluntarily it was just, if it was coerced it is unjust. The same applies to any genetic or historical tendency, increasing survival rate for one's offspring is just if following it is non-aggressive and unjust if it is aggressive (invasive of private property); whatever tendencies genetics and living men have developed the logical nature of reality, scarcity, argumentation and justification requires that private property be adopted as the prerequisite of justice.
You're not arguing fact, but rather opinion. I want to make sure that's clear before delving into this further. You're making it sound as if the ethical imperative for all people is geared toward themselves (private property being attached inexorably to individualism). I am the exception that disproves the rule. Private property is not an ethically based axiom I personally recognize, therefore such a belief is subjective (or an opinion). You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but I disagree.
Quote from: "Vichy"Furthermore (and this is rarely the case) even if property were largely communalized in some situations, the concern of ethics as I understand it (given argumentation ethics makes private property is the only rational possible argument of justification or morality of property disputes); if that 'communalizing' occurred voluntarily it was just, if it was coerced it is unjust.
I suppose that depends on how you would describe "voluntary". Ancient man was born into communal living, and it seems either very few questioned the situation, or some did and died because there was strength in that system at the time.
While I wouldn't call being born into something voluntary, I would call something that prevents suffering ethical.
From my perspective this is an objective fact, not simply something I like. Because of the nature of reality (rational) and the necessity of rational argumentation for social interaction, and the inescapability of private property as the basis of any argumentation, only private property can be ethical. One cannot claim to be in the right ethically (or wrong) without assuming private property by their very action, and if they attempt to contradict it they are merely speaking self-contradictory nonsense.
OT POST COMING UP...
That sound you heard? That was my head exploding.
END OT POST
Quote from: "Vichy"From my perspective this is an objective fact, not simply something I like.
That's a bit of a contradiction. It's subjectively objective? Or objectively subjective?
Quote from: "Vichy"Because of the nature of reality (rational) and the necessity of rational argumentation for social interaction, and the inescapability of private property as the basis of any argumentation, only private property can be ethical. One cannot claim to be in the right ethically (or wrong) without assuming private property by their very action, and if they attempt to contradict it they are merely speaking self-contradictory nonsense.
Let's say that I am a member of a tribe. We, as a tribe, have more pelts than we need. We come to another tribe who needs pelts. I give them one of mine.
Yes I know this sounds like an old Laterday Saints commercial, but unconditional sharing, or altruism, does not require the presupposition of private property. In fact, in a communal society, it's 100% ethical all the time, so long as distribution is even.
Quote from: "rlrose328"OT POST COMING UP...
That sound you heard? That was my head exploding.
END OT POST
You're smarter than both of us for staying out of an argumentation theory free for all.
When I say 'from my perspective' I mean, 'it is my understanding that as a necessary fact of the existence of the Universe and human consciousness that any attempt at justification necessarily entails an acceptance of private property and thus no ethical argument can ever contradict this principle without becoming nonsensical. It is not something 'subjective' in that it's truth or falsity depends on particular circumstances or perspectives, it is objective (as all true statements, at least in principle, must be; IE even statements like 'ice cream is good' is true in the sense that it is the case that I like ice cream). This is because all of reality is and must be rational, consistent and conformed to the laws of logic (likewise, logic makes no sense without the existence of things to which it could apply).
If one is rather loose and open with one's property, it does not change the fact of who the just owner and user of that property is, IE if I kind of share it with you or let you take freely or based on noncontractual presumption of reciprocity I can do that justly precisely because it is my property and were someone to deny me the right to do that - or to refrain from doing so - they would be acting unjustly. All non-invasive use of private property (entailed by the concept of private property) and voluntary transfer of property (compensated or uncompensated) are just actions. All invasion and prevention or force of property transfers are unjust actions. Again, I believe this is ultimately entailed by the logic of existence and prerequisites in communicative justification, not simply as some utilitarian outcome I prefer; the outcome is important to us as individuals but not relevant to the question of its justice insofar as private property is not violated.
Quote from: "Vichy"When I say 'from my perspective' I mean, 'it is my understanding that as a necessary fact of the existence of the Universe and human consciousness that any attempt at justification necessarily entails an acceptance of private property and thus no ethical argument can ever contradict this principle without becoming nonsensical.
Oh.
Quote from: "Vichy"It is not something 'subjective' in that it's truth or falsity depends on particular circumstances or perspectives, it is objective (as all true statements, at least in principle, must be; IE even statements like 'ice cream is good' is true in the sense that it is the case that I like ice cream). This is because all of reality is and must be rational, consistent and conformed to the laws of logic (likewise, logic makes no sense without the existence of things to which it could apply).
Philosophical logic and mathematical logic are quite different. This is the former, and as such it's also subjective. This would make your argument circular.
Quote from: "Vichy"If one is rather loose and open with one's property, it does not change the fact of who the just owner and user of that property is, IE if I kind of share it with you or let you take freely or based on noncontractual presumption of reciprocity I can do that justly precisely because it is my property and were someone to deny me the right to do that - or to refrain from doing so - they would be acting unjustly. All non-invasive use of private property (entailed by the concept of private property) and voluntary transfer of property (compensated or uncompensated) are just actions. All invasion and prevention or force of property transfers are unjust actions. Again, I believe this is ultimately entailed by the logic of existence and prerequisites in communicative justification, not simply as some utilitarian outcome I prefer; the outcome is important to us as individuals but not relevant to the question of its justice insofar as private property is not violated.
The circumstances which I repeatedly present do not feature one being "loose and open with one's property".
Maybe I should ask this: do you believe collective property has existed, and can exist?
No, because only individuals can act or determine the use of something, which is true even in Stalinist Communism, it is simply the head of whatever assigned department who factually 'owns' it. Collective property is nonsensical in fact, and any notion of 'collective' property is not collective property but rather unclear property delianation, which is an inevitable source of conflict and therefor a problem itself.
And, again, all I am concerned with is that private property is an inviolable component of any consistent (and therefor correct) morality, thus anything which conforms thusly is just and anything which violates private property is unjust absolutely irregardless of whether anyone does or does not understand or behave in this manner. What is right is right, and, yes, objective a priori logic is absolutely necessary, the statement that deductive logic is somehow 'subjective' is rendered utterly nonsensical since it entails the proposition that all deductive (or all argumentative) statements are subjective which is in itself an axiomatic deductively true statement, contradictory to its own premise.
Quote from: "Vichy"No, because only individuals can act or determine the use of something, which is true even in Stalinist Communism, it is simply the head of whatever assigned department who factually 'owns' it.
Why can only an individual determine the use of something? I have yet to see evidence of this.
Quote from: "Vichy"Collective property is nonsensical in fact, and any notion of 'collective' property is not collective property but rather unclear property delianation, which is an inevitable source of conflict and therefor a problem itself.
What do you call stocks? I call it collective ownership of a company. And that's perfectly clear.
Quote from: "Vichy"And, again, all I am concerned with is that private property is an inviolable component of any consistent (and therefor correct) morality, thus anything which conforms thusly is just and anything which violates private property is unjust absolutely irregardless of whether anyone does or does not understand or behave in this manner. What is right is right, and, yes, objective a priori logic is absolutely necessary, the statement that deductive logic is somehow 'subjective' is rendered utterly nonsensical since it entails the proposition that all deductive (or all argumentative) statements are subjective which is in itself an axiomatic deductively true statement, contradictory to its own premise.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying all logic is subjective. Only philosophical logic. I'm not using philosophical logic.
That's nonsense.
Quote from: "Vichy"That's nonsense.
Conceding already? I'm still curious as to
why you believe only an individual determine the use of something. Voting is a collective decision too, btw.
Quote from: "Willravel"I'm not saying all logic is subjective. Only philosophical logic. I'm not using philosophical logic.
By 'philosophical logic' do you mean informal logic? If so, I'm not sure that that's a good phrase to describe it, since philosophy makes use of both formal and informal logic. Philosophy doesn't always deal with the subjective, though I agree with you that in this case Vichy is trying to pass off his subjective concept of morality as objective fact, which is misleading.
No voting is a system (outside the control of voters) whereby through a tallying of individual choices some or other decision is decided upon and then unilaterally enforced upon the populace, regardless of who dissents.
Only individuals can act, because only individuals exist.
Quote from: "Vichy"No voting is a system (outside the control of voters) whereby through a tallying of individual choices some or other decision is decided upon and then unilaterally enforced upon the populace, regardless of who dissents.
Only individuals can act, because only individuals exist.
You're splitting hairs, but it's not important. It seems to me as if you don't think there's a situation where there can exist collective property or a collective decision. You do this by extending individualism beyond it's breaking point.
I don't normally link wiki, but this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism) is a decent introductory read to collectivism.
Methodological individualism is an irrefuteable fact, it applies universally to ALL human action.
I recommend reading some of the stuff on about methodological individualism like http://mises.org/humanaction/chap2sec4.asp (http://mises.org/humanaction/chap2sec4.asp)
I am not having to stretch anything, once you understand the principle I think it is impossible to argue with it without contradicting oneself and it consequentially applies to all human action that ever has and will occur. It's part of the nature of consciousness.
The fact that you believe methodological individualism is factual is symptomatic of the problem. It's not. It's one way of explaining societal development out of many. I've read Mises and I know Mises, and I happen to think that he's wrong on many things including this. You seem to be simply repeating his arguments, but you don't seem to understand the underlying mechanics of the arguments (otherwise you could have answered any one of my questions).
Why can only an individual determine the use of something? What evidence is there of this?
Do you believe collective property has existed, and can exist?
I disagree because I am pretty well certain that it makes no more sense to argue against axiomatic arguments, such as methodological individualism, than it does to argue for the existence of married bachelors. Once someone grasps the meaning of the words and arguments, it is utterly nonsensical and impossible to imagine any other state of affairs. I've read a lot of alternative theories of epistemology and metaphysics, and I must land squarely in George H. Smith's camp. Neo-Aristotilean logic is the only way you can explain anything, once you step outside of conceptual deduction as an absolute capacity you lose the capacity to justify any belief or argument, empirical or otherwise.
Third time:
Why can only an individual determine the use of something? What evidence is there of this?
Do you believe collective property has existed, and can exist?
All you've posted is conclusions. Can you deconstruct them, and show us why you've come to those conclusions? Or are you just parroting libertarian dogma?
I kind of missed that, though not intentionally. I did not mean that only a single individual can be active in influencing how some property or other is disposed of, obviously a joint-stock company can contradict that if nothing else. What I meant was that only one particular use can be chosen, and that in the abscence of property rights and the voluntary agreement of the just owners, that that one type of action is imposed upon the other owners. In addition I would say that property can only rationally be owned by one person initially (first-use) since all other forumalations of ownership make it impossible to act without violating someone else's property rights. Beyond that, of course, any number of people can agree to procedures and methods of the employment of that property.
Quote from: "Vichy"What I meant was that only one particular use can be chosen, and that in the abscence of property rights and the voluntary agreement of the just owners, that that one type of action is imposed upon the other owners.
This assumes hierarchy, or uneven distribution of ownership. If it were democratic, the only imposition (if you can even call it that) is imposed on the minority, and they agree before buying in to abide by democratic rule. So, using stock ownership to illustrate my point, if the holders controlling more than 50% of the stock decide on one course of action, the minority, in buying the stock, agreed to abide by the ruling. If they feel strongly enough, they can even sell their interest. So, in this illustration, there are no impositions.
Quote from: "Vichy"In addition I would say that property can only rationally be owned by one person initially (first-use) since all other forumalations of ownership make it impossible to act without violating someone else's property rights.
Wait, you suggest that property can only be owned by one person, and this person (the first user) is automatically in charge? Do you have any models to illustrate this kind of an arrangement?
Quote from: "Vichy"Beyond that, of course, any number of people can agree to procedures and methods of the employment of that property.
I'd call this the basis of government. As members of a society, there will inevitably be things we have to share. In sharing these things rules were developed in order to maintain equality and fairness (which is ethical, to bring this back to what I believe was your original point). The ability to recognize unavoidable commonality in economics and government separates moderate libertarians from fundamentalist libertarians.
I despise democracy, I hold equality as nonsensical, impossible and completely anti-liberal and 'fairness' is a word used with so many contradictory and arbitrary meaning as to have no meaning whatsoever. I find egalitarianism ridiculous.
The point of only first-use property rights being rational is covered in argumentation ethics (since if a later user had rights then the user after him would have rights and thus no one would have any rights). Also, government is non-consensual and thus cannot be considered in any way a voluntary agreement on the use of property. Of course one could agree to democratic rule voluntarily, but in practice almost no one - if anyone - has actually agreed to the unlitateral enforcement rights of state agencies, democratic or otherwise.
You may despise democracy, but it certainly still exists and more often than not it is voluntary. No one forces you to vote in governmental elections.
Clearly you're well read on the conclusions of other people, but you don't seem to understand the mechanics of their ideas. Have you noticed you only seem to present conclusions but you can't address how you got to them? Either you state an extreme opinion about something ("I hate democracy", "argumentation ethics automatically presume the principle of private property") or you state a conclusion that's usually from either libertarian philosophy or what I can only describe as libertarian argumentation theory 101. The problem is that, even though you throw the word "argumentation" around, you aren't actually discussing or arguing. Being well versed in argumentation theory and more widely in game theory, I find this a bit frustrating.
I suspect people listen to you because you state very intelligent conclusions. I'm much more interested in rationale than simply reading you quoting Mises.
I don't vote in government elections. Nor does voting in elections indicate agreement or acceptance. As Lysander Spooner says in No Treason,
"The consent, therefore, that has been given, whether by individuals, or by the States, has been, at most, only a consent for the time being; not an engagement for the future. In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a [*6] man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, be finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot --- which is a mere substitute for a bullet --- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him."
And simply try to get out of this allegedly 'voluntary' democracy, to defy the politicians or the majority who impose their views without their consent and you shall find out how 'voluntary' it is.
I understand perfectly well why I have reached these conclusions, which is why the arguments I made initially as well as the complimentary ones were linked. The reason, if fact, that I have such a liking for subjects such as rational-realistic philosophy (IE, Neo-Aristotileanism) and economics is because they make perfect logical sense. To a lesser extent this is also true of science, which probably qualifies as one of my minor hobbies despite my mathematical incompetence.
Quote from: "Vichy"And simply try to get out of this allegedly 'voluntary' democracy, to defy the politicians or the majority who impose their views without their consent and you shall find out how 'voluntary' it is.
What are you prevented and/or forced to do? Pay taxes, big deal. We have freedom under this government. You have the right to do what ever the hell you want to do as long as you don't violate the laws written to help protect people's life, liberty and property. I don't care what you do, just don't tread on me or on others. I will pay my fair share to insure the safety of the country and the protection of my rights.
I'm extorted, regulated and you say I have freedom.
Also, your consequentialist arguments are, as I have been saying, totally and utterly irrelevant to me. If you don't mind being robbed and forced into unchosen obligations, that's your deal and I don't care. But I don't, and I refuse to support any organization or individual which does so because I believe it is unequivically evil.
Quote from: "Vichy"I'm extorted, regulated and you say I have freedom.
Also, your consequentialist arguments are, as I have been saying, totally and utterly irrelevant to me. If you don't mind being robbed and forced into unchosen obligations, that's your deal and I don't care. But I don't, and I refuse to support any organization or individual which does so because I believe it is unequivically evil.
In what way are you extorted and regulated?
Wow freedom of speech to say you don't have any freedoms. I am NOT robbed when my tax dollars go to improve the nation in a number of ways. You sound like an upset teenager that was told you should to get a job and help pay for your new car. Nothing is free.
consequentialist argument? Yes there are consequences in life, grow up.
Your unfounded anger and entitlement is leading to unreasonable and unsupportable conclusions. This is demonstrated by shifting the conversation every time I ask a question, and trying to cover your tracks with decent grammar and syntax and occasionally throwing in a quote. The only reason you give for anything in this entire thread is "it makes logical sense". Does it? Why? Why does any of this make "logical sense"? Can you actually break down your reasoning? Or do you not understand what you're repeating?
The taxes you paid for the computer on which you bash the government went to the same government.
If I refuse to buy a car, I am not imprisoned or shot.
Quote from: "Vichy"If I refuse to buy a car, I am not imprisoned or shot.
No if you refuse to buy a car you don't have to pay taxes. If you don't work you don't pay taxes. If you don't buy anything you don't pay taxes. No one is going to imprison you if you don't pay taxes. But if you want to be included in society and reap the rewards of security and infrastructure, then you should pay your taxes.
Here is where your taxes go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... dget,_2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007)
19% goes to defense ($548 billion last year). Without this part you would not have the freedom and security in this nation. You can not protect yourself by yourself. If you want a military, pay for it!
You should go live in antarctica maybe you could rule over some penguins. you could command them to bring you some fish and build you an igloo. Good luck when you are invaded.
I have to wonder if Vichy attended public schools, too.
Quote from: "jcm"19% goes to defense ($548 billion last year). Without this part you would not have the freedom and security in this nation. You can not protect yourself by yourself. If you want a military, pay for it!
You should go live in antarctica maybe you could rule over some penguins. you could command them to bring you some fish and build you an igloo. Good luck when you are invaded.
Why should freedom and security depend on military strength?
There are nations that do not have a military force to speak of or have a very weak military, however, as long as they leave everybody else alone, they are usually left alone too. Before you give me the "there is always someone wanting something I have" speech, I have to say that there are countries in the world that have everything the USA or China or Russia for that matter have and more and they don't spend a fifth of their budgets on military. Why isn't every last one of them invaded and conquered a long time ago?
In addition to that, in todays world of alliances, having a massive military is less useful than having reliable neighbours to ally yourself with. In fact, large military forces are nothing but a waste of money and manpower, alliances on the other hand can be useful for oh, so many things.
Quote from: "jcm"You should go live in antarctica maybe you could rule over some penguins. you could command them to bring you some fish and build you an igloo. Good luck when you are invaded.
This reminds me of an episode of Futurama. The penguins in Antartica were overbreeding so penguin hunting was made legal. Bender accidently gets reprogrammed to 'penguin mode', and becomes a penguin. He protects the penguins from the hunters and they start attacking everyone. The episode concludes with all of the penguins getting eaten by a killer whale.
Here's a picture of Bender feeding his Penguin babies. Funny stuff.
Quote from: "Asmodean"There are nations that do not have a military force to speak of or have a very weak military, however, as long as they leave everybody else alone, they are usually left alone too.
You mean like Kuwait.
Quote from: "myleviathan"Quote from: "jcm"You should go live in antarctica maybe you could rule over some penguins. you could command them to bring you some fish and build you an igloo. Good luck when you are invaded.
This reminds me of an episode of Futurama. The penguins in Antartica were overbreeding so penguin hunting was made legal. Bender accidently gets reprogrammed to 'penguin mode', and becomes a penguin. He protects the penguins from the hunters and they start attacking everyone. The episode concludes with all of the penguins getting eaten by a killer whale.
Here's a picture of Bender feeding his Penguin babies. Funny stuff.
I never watch futurama and i don't know why. maybe i should get a couple of seasons on dvd. awesome.
Quote from: "jcm"I never watch futurama and i don't know why. maybe i should get a couple of seasons on dvd. awesome.
Futurama is kind of hit or miss. One episode can be unbearably boring. Then another can be so funny it hurts. Get a used copy of a season from Amazon or half.com or something.
If you see no other episodes, see "Where No Fan Has Gone Before". Of all the Star Trek lampoons in history, it is by far the best.
Quote from: "Willravel"If you see no other episodes, see "Where No Fan Has Gone Before". Of all the Star Trek lampoons in history, it is by far the best.
Awesome! I watched it online, thanks!
Here is one of the better episodes of family guy imo
"http://www.dumpalink.com/videos/Family-Guy-Petergeist-(full-epo)-6b06.html"
enjoy
Quote from: "myleviathan"Quote from: "jcm"You should go live in antarctica maybe you could rule over some penguins. you could command them to bring you some fish and build you an igloo. Good luck when you are invaded.
This reminds me of an episode of Futurama. The penguins in Antartica were overbreeding so penguin hunting was made legal. Bender accidently gets reprogrammed to 'penguin mode', and becomes a penguin. He protects the penguins from the hunters and they start attacking everyone. The episode concludes with all of the penguins getting eaten by a killer whale.
Here's a picture of Bender feeding his Penguin babies. Funny stuff.
do you know the name of this episode?
Quote from: "jcm"do you know the name of this episode?
The Birdbot of Ice-catraz.
Quote from: "jcm"Quote from: "Asmodean"There are nations that do not have a military force to speak of or have a very weak military, however, as long as they leave everybody else alone, they are usually left alone too.
You mean like Kuwait.
No, Not necesserilly. Look at Sweden and Iceland for examples.
Quote from: "Asmodean"Quote from: "jcm"Quote from: "Asmodean"There are nations that do not have a military force to speak of or have a very weak military, however, as long as they leave everybody else alone, they are usually left alone too.
You mean like Kuwait.
No, Not necesserilly. Look at Sweden and Iceland for examples.
This is why no one will mess with iceland:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... n2Dg&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6517638123834065530&q=bjork+reporter&ei=GDRNSIvsL5Se_AHBzIn2Dg&hl=en)
The fact that that is the corner stone of Iceland's safety is highly debateable.
Quote from: "Asmodean"Quote from: "jcm"Quote from: "Asmodean"There are nations that do not have a military force to speak of or have a very weak military, however, as long as they leave everybody else alone, they are usually left alone too.
You mean like Kuwait.
No, Not necesserilly. Look at Sweden and Iceland for examples.
Do you honestly think that Sweden or Iceland would stand by and allow their country to be invaded without asking for help? I doubt these countries are worried that the world would turn their backs on them if it happened.
I think a strong military is a good deterent, that is why nations will never attack the US. US's foreign policy is a different issue.
I was more talking about how taxes help the country in a number of ways including a strong military. The cia, fbi, nsa, military and local law inforcement all aid the security of the country. Paying taxes is what helps fund these organizations. I'm sure sweden and iceland have their share of criminals and security problems.
Nations will not attack the US (until China decides it's strong enough to stand the US's economic collapse...), however we're surprisingly susceptible to guerilla tactics. Something as overt as 9/11 wouldn't be necessary to cripple us. We're already pretty damned afraid of everything. Can you imagine if militant separatists or "trrists" parked truck-bombs in front of malls or sports arenas? Can you imagine someone setting off a bomb on the Golden Gate Bridge or under the St. Louis Arch? Worse still, can you imagine someone attacking a small US town in the middle of nowhere? No one would feel safe and the country would likely collapse under it's own fear and paranoia. Look at the US since 9/11, which only claimed 3,000 lives (I say only because compared to other places that's low).
Quote from: "Willravel"Nations will not attack the US (until China decides it's strong enough to stand the US's economic collapse...), however we're surprisingly susceptible to guerilla tactics. Something as overt as 9/11 wouldn't be necessary to cripple us. We're already pretty damned afraid of everything. Can you imagine if militant separatists or "trrists" parked truck-bombs in front of malls or sports arenas? Can you imagine someone setting off a bomb on the Golden Gate Bridge or under the St. Louis Arch? Worse still, can you imagine someone attacking a small US town in the middle of nowhere? No one would feel safe and the country would likely collapse under it's own fear and paranoia. Look at the US since 9/11, which only claimed 3,000 lives (I say only because compared to other places that's low).
I think it would take many successful bombings on the US to make a difference. But, if dem' dang ol' trrists created and released deadly biologicals across the country, then all would be over.
Quote from: "jcm"Do you honestly think that Sweden or Iceland would stand by and allow their country to be invaded without asking for help? I doubt these countries are worried that the world would turn their backs on them if it happened.
Sure they would ask for help. And maybe together with their allies they will repel whoever might march into their lands. And you know the best part of it? They don't spend a fifth of their budget on guys in green, so that they can spend that much more on infrastructure, healthcare and so on and so forth
Quote from: "jcm"I think a strong military is a good deterent, that is why nations will never attack the US. US's foreign policy is a different issue.
NEVER?? I wouldn't use such strong words. They tend to be wrong in the end.
Quote from: "jcm"I was more talking about how taxes help the country in a number of ways including a strong military. The cia, fbi, nsa, military and local law inforcement all aid the security of the country. Paying taxes is what helps fund these organizations. I'm sure sweden and iceland have their share of criminals and security problems.
Yes. Still they manage to cope with it in a way, much cheaper than the US government's. You know, if the USA kept its nose where it belongs in stead of policing the world and playing superpower and only offered help to its allies or under directions fron the United Nation, then maybe you'd have less security problems. And maybe the same measures would do something about the other more domestic shady eliments of society as well.
QuoteSure they would ask for help. And maybe together with their allies they will repel whoever might march into their lands. And you know the best part of it? They don't spend a fifth of their budget on guys in green, so that they can spend that much more on infrastructure, healthcare and so on and so forth.
Would you want the US to aid Sweden or would that be too much policing? I guess all the money spent on the military would pay off then.
QuoteNEVER?? I wouldn't use such strong words. They tend to be wrong in the end.
No, I’m pretty good with never
QuoteYou know, if the USA kept its nose where it belongs in stead of policing the world and playing superpower and only offered help to its allies or under directions fron the United Nation, then maybe you'd have less security problems.
Playing superpower and not allowing nukes to get in the hands of terrorists is pretty fair in my opinion. Do you really think flipping the switch to neutral will have any affect on organizations like al qaeda or hamas? These people want a world ruled by their religion. Peaceful relations with other religions are not on these people’s radar. Maybe Israel should start focusing on infrastructure like roads, parks and healthcare. They will need to from all the bombings that will start.
Hey I would love to live in a world that looks nothing like the world we live in today. But we don’t live in that world yet. The world is a dangerous place and I do feel safer having a strong defense system in place. Putting our nose where it belongs will not make US threats just go away.
Well when Obama is elected I’m sure we will have a better relationship with the UN.
Quote from: "jcm"Would you want the US to aid Sweden or would that be too much policing? I guess all the money spent on the military would pay off then.
Sweden has enough friends to fare well enough in a war without the US aid if need be. As for the money paying off then, no, it would still be wasted.
Quote from: "jcm"No, I’m pretty good with never
*snort*
Quote from: "jcm"Playing superpower and not allowing nukes to get in the hands of terrorists is pretty fair in my opinion. Do you really think flipping the switch to neutral will have any affect on organizations like al qaeda or hamas? These people want a world ruled by their religion. Peaceful relations with other religions are not on these people’s radar. Maybe Israel should start focusing on infrastructure like roads, parks and healthcare. They will need to from all the bombings that will start.
The state of Israel should not exist at all.
That said, how exactly are you going to prevent someone from selling nuclear weapons, construction matherials and technology to "terrorist" regimes/organisations/whatever?
Quote from: "jcm"Hey I would love to live in a world that looks nothing like the world we live in today. But we don’t live in that world yet. The world is a dangerous place and I do feel safer having a strong defense system in place. Putting our nose where it belongs will not make US threats just go away.
It will not. Mostly because it's too late. The US have already pissed off too many people with generations-long memories. Unless you wipe them all out (good luck with that), you'll not be safe for a long, long time. Stirring the embers does not help either.
Quote from: "jcm"Well when Obama is elected I’m sure we will have a better relationship with the UN.
Good luck with that.
I always wondered why the USA still keeps such a huge army since the end of the cold war. Does the USA perhaps fear a canadian or mexican invasion? Maybe it is to fight terrorism? But that is rather unlikely, because you can't fight terrorists on a battlefield and history shows that the USA has sponsered many terrorists themselves (like supplying weapons to Osama Bin Laden to fight the ruskies in Afhganistan). My assumption is that even if the USA would lower their military expenditure from 583,283,000,000 USD (source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/ ... efense.pdf (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/budget/defense.pdf) )to 100,000,000,000 USD they would still remain the leading military world power.
The military is a tool of corporations in order to gain profits. I'm sure we've all heard Eisenhower's farewell address, in which he warned of a military industrial complex. That complex is now a mechanism of economy, without ethics or morals or even rule of law. It has nothing to do with protection and everything to do with profit.