99Percent

Well the American people did elect to send in troops to Europe in both world wars.Of course governments and politicians benefit when a country goes into war and why they tend to be warmongerers. Its up to the civilian population to check in their fears and to look objectively at the need to go to war.Its not stupid at all, in fact its critical, in order to understand the differences between the different economic system.No. If you try to completely understand what money really is you will see that money can only, legitimately, be correctly used and spent on productive endeavors. else money is wasted and lost - it self-destructs in the face of irrational and immoral actions, because money is the result of actual created wealth through human efforts, and capital is the accumulation of it.

For example, money spent in a war which is not necessary leads to waste. A war which is justified is only one where self-defense and security is at stake. In this case money creates security, it does not destroy such as in the case of interventionism or invasion such as in Iraq because the principle of initiation of force is applied.

Capitalism is the economic system that strives to completely separate these powers and which is why its the only one that leads to complete freedom. Freedom is lost when economic and political powers intermingle.

Zar

Here we go again.

The only point I think is worthwhile is that nation states are not monolithic entities and the interests of "the people" are often at odds with those of their rulers.

The rest seems like playing darts with blinders on.

Autonemesis

*** BOGGLE ***

What is freedom if it is not identical with political power?

wdog

ok great. Moon, I'll send you a dollar if you move to iraq.

Zar

More disingenuous tripe. When will it ever end? (never)

99Percent

Freedom is precisely to be free from the political powers of others. Curiously the economic powers of others does the complete opposite - it gives you more opportunities to work and trade - in effect more choices and options, more freedom!

Zar: wdog was using an argumetum ad absurdum to prove moon wrong. Hardly tripe, unless you were refereing to moons original statement.

Zar

99percent,

I think you are definitely mistaken. An argument ad absurdum would take a point to some kind of extreme to test its application and reveal its absurdity by showing what an inadequate concept it is. But moon was never talking about how good Iraq's government is or that Iraq is a place we should all want to live. If anything, he cannot stop talking about how wretched and miserable a place it would be to try to survive in. Telling him to go live in Iraq only works as an argument ad absurdum if he is talking about how great a place it is, which he is not. And because he is complaining about the U.S.'s treatment of Iraq implies nothing about a love for Saddam's rule or a special attraction to Iraq's society. He's just saying a war against them is unjustified, with a generous helping of other rhetoric and dogmatism that you could profitably argue against.

So no, I think wdog was just giving us a worn out (and misapplied) slogan, instead of a real response.

There is plenty of crap in this thread on all sides. I meant to ask what libertarians thought of the opinion I linked to, but this thing continues to spiral.

moon

BOLLOCKS!

In fact, Wilson was elected on a pacifist platform in 1916, running on the slogan "Peace Without Victory," and pledging not to enter the U.S. into the inter-imperialist slaughter in Europe. Of course, he immediately abandoned that pledge after his election.
Legitimately? Who defines what is legitimate?
In fact, capitalism leads to the merging of the political and economic.

You seem to be living in this dream-world where capitalism is this system you read about in economics textbooks. The reality is quite different. Capitalism leads inevitably to the enslavement of the great bulk of Mankind.

emphryio

99percent,

Just wanted to say, I'm glad you're a moderator keep up the good work.



:banghead: :banghead:

Mr. Superbad

This analogy is ridiculous. First of all, getting rid of WMD was a term of the cease-fire, that ended a war in which Iraq was the aggressor. It's not about morality, it's about honoring the terms of a ceasefire so that we don't go back and destroy him. If he doesn't want us to destroy him, he should get rid of his WMD. Morality doesn't enter into it.

Also, "morally meaningless" is a useless term. His position makes every war "morally meaningless", and if I am understanding him correctly, anything that's happened as a result of war can be ignored. Southern states can start trading slaves again, because thet were "coerced" into stopping because of the Civil War. Britain can claim taxes from the states because the founding fathers "coerced" England into giving us our freedom. What a stupid position to have.

Oil disputes. I guess thats gives Iraq the "moral" authority to "coerce" Kuwait into becoming Iraq territory.

The last part is just bullshit, but gets repeated a lot anyway.

If Saddam didn't know that, he would be a first class idiot. But whatever. I'm sure Harry Brown is no amateur historian like me.

I also have a problem with his isolationist stance. Nations don't exist in vacuums, what effects one country can effect the entire world. Sure there are times when we should mind our business, but it should be dependant on the situation. It's also pretty stupid to become an isolationist after years and years of meddling with other countries.

Sure, we might have been able to prevent WWII if we had stayed out of WWI, or maybe not. Maybe we could have prevented it if we weren't so harsh on Germany after WWI. Who the hell knows? Either way, we didn't stay out of it, and by the time WWII came around we were pretty isolationist, and we were pulled into that conflict anyway.

Locking our doors and hiding under the sheets won't make the bad men go away. That's what history has taught me, anyway.