NY Trial

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEXT

buzzard 11/25/2009 3:22:57 PM

Remember Buzzard, this isn't the real world and you're not Ted Kennedy, we are talking about my "mythological" world where there is justice.

I'll not bother to fisk the rest of it because it's not worth it. You are talking about a mythological world in which rights are somehow defined as if by natural law and absolute common acceptance. No such world exists or is likely to, so we generally have to make do with the tools that exist and have been shown to, by and large, work. Some people think property isn't a right. Some do. Some people think self defense is a right. Some don't. Some people believe that ownership of land is not a moral thing. Others obviously do. Heck, plenty of people we're busy shooting overseas think they have a right to force you to believe what they do under pain of either death or subjugation.

Oh, and yes, I abhor corruption such as Kennedy getting away with murder. However your system can't be guarantee to be proof against money/power any more than the current one. People and institutions created by them are not infallible much as people are themselves. Power and money can corrupt corporations just as well as it does governments.

Your pipe dream is build on some massive fallacious assumptions. It assumes that people are inherently just and agree on a common morality. If you believe that such conditions exist in the real world, then I might inquire as to what color you think the sky is.

Since you bring up the Constitution, I will explain what was and is brilliant about it. It assumes that people are very fallible and than by making a government of limited powers which is designed to restrain itself, rights will be guaranteed. The departure from constitutional intent has caused quite a mess, but the document as written was about the best we've seen. A idealized world like you advocate, based on a mythical view of people isn't nearly as prudent.

Also in regard to your cited historical example, it was based on a common morality founded on a shared religion which provided the shared ethical framework in which they lived. That isn't the case in this world.

Quote Reply

Hugo Buzzard 11/25/2009 6:51:26 PM

I'll not bother to fisk the rest of it because it's not worth it.

No idea what you're talking about but then I have doubts that you do either. But I appreciate you dismissing me as not being worth it, for I'm sure whatever arguments you're concealing are wonderously persuasive.

You are talking about a mythological world in which rights are somehow defined as if by natural law and absolute common acceptance.

No, you're wrong. What's mythological is the concept that providing a single state entity a monopoly on the production of law and order as opposed to competing free agencies is going to result in better quality at lower prices. That's how this discussion started - how can justice best be provided. Not by your absurd democratic governments or mine that is clear. Just today New York's highest court, an arm of the statist monopoly, ruled that it is lawful for private land to be seized for use by private developers and for what? For the tremendously socially important goal of building some apartment blocks and a new stadium for none other than the New Jersey Nets. There are countless such examples of this statist criminality.

There are natural or inalienable rights or have you forgotten the reason your country was founded? Did not Jefferson make it clear in your Declaration of Independence that there is a such thing as inalienable rights afforded to all men? Oh, when learning about it at school you thought it only meant some men, in a particular decade of a particular century perhaps wearing wigs?

The right to Life, Liberty and Property, that's natural, ethical and moral or what is it precisely that you find unnatural about these rights?

No such world exists or is likely to, so we generally have to make do with the tools that exist and have been shown to, by and large, work.

You sound like a boring, Hobbesian, Soviet thinknot berating his neighbour for whispering desires for freedom.

The first colonies in the New World which you inhabit today were in many cases organized along lines I am encouraging here. Iceland used to run on similar principles as did many other remarkably free civilizations acknowleding those same inalienable rights that Locke outlined and Jefferson recalled for men like us that are of lesser calibre. Adam Smith labelled such societies "a system of natural liberty." Back then you had free, privately arranged institutions such as property registries, notaries, lawyers, judges, courts, juries, sheriffs, mutual defense associations, and voluntary militias. There existed to a very large extent, far more than your society today, a level of human co-operation and peaceful co-existence and prosperity. People went to the New World to escape the state, a regime whereby your life, liberty and property was not secure (albeit rarely taken from you for reasons as absurd as the state "requiring" a basketball stadium or a car dealership). These new societies, rebelling against an unjust state and built from scratch, in harsh conditions worked so don't try feeding me this bullshit that it was a myth.

Let me end the suspense for you, nothing is constant, not the Soviet Union, unfortunately not the rights espoused in your Declaration (which you have admitted and relented here) and certainly not the current status quo. It's going to change, in fact the system you espouse by it's very nature has to change and become increasingly destructive. Your government gets bigger year after year after year after year. Your political representatives are sickeningly corrupt and are now finally oblivious to the contract between government and governed.

Some people think property isn't a right. Some do. Some people think self defense is a right. Some don't. Some people believe that ownership of land is not a moral thing. Others obviously do. Heck, plenty of people we're busy shooting overseas think they have a right to force you to believe what they do under pain of either death or subjugation.

Some people think the world is flat, some do not. Some people think the world will end in 2012, some do not. And yes, some believe you ought not draw a cartoon of Mohammed. What's your point? Because some morons do not recognize the ethical necessity of property I am to suddenly appease their idiocy?

Quote Reply

Hamilcar More comedy..... 11/25/2009 10:11:38 PM

"After such foolery, how to you plan to secure the supply routes through Pakistan that we need to support OEF? You need to think logically through problems and dont let emotions dictate your actions."

Seems like the punch lines keep coming. How does the KSM trial procedure affect the the encircled NATO army in Afghanistan again?

This I want to read.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica @Hamilcar 11/26/2009 12:32:19 AM

Seems like the punch lines keep coming. How does the KSM trial procedure affect the the encircled NATO army in Afghanistan again?

This I want to read.

First you need to read what I was responding to. Here is the context of my response...

" Once the authorities were sure KSM had been drained of all information, he should have been wrapped in the skin of a pig, a pork chop stuffed in his mouth, a bullet in each eye, and dropped on a street corner in Islamabad. Any thing less is self defeating and only satisfies the perverse sense of moral superiority possessed by mental midgets."

Quite obviously it had nothing to do with a trial procedure. And ditch the hyperbole about "encircled" NATO Army. Stop trying to pick a fight you will most certainly lose about a topic that you have no direct experience with against a subject matter expert. It's obvious. If you want to use a military term, use it in the proper context. Is the NATO Army unable to sustain itself? Is it blocked from retreat? Is it's only option surrender or fight to the death? Can it not be reinforced? No, No, No and No.

The comedy is after you got yourself kicked off the site you return and still come here trying to pick fights with me over nothing. Grow up.

-DA

Quote Reply

sentinel28a 11/26/2009 6:05:20 AM

No, the war with Japan was over for all intents and purposes. The nuclear weapons were used to demonstrate power. To frighten people which by definition is terror. Not that I disagree with the decision. I just know it for what it was.

Yup, sure do. But I also have the gift of objectivity. To do effective analysis you have to be able to see the truth in things. It's very difficult which is why so many cannot do it and when they try they are almost always wrong.

Ah, I get it. Only DA can be objective here. You're not biased whatsoever, nope. Shall we bring up the subject of reparations again...a subject which you proved yourself not to be remotely objective whatsoever? Y'know, I have no problem with you being biased in that, either. It's your usual holier-than-thou overinflated opinion of yourself that I have a problem with.

Your moral equivalence is sickening. The atomic bombs were dropped on Japan because Truman hoped it would spare the rest of the country from slow starvation or genocide. Hitler had Coventry flattened because he wanted to kill British people. I can see your argument in that both were an attempt to shorten the war, but in comparing Truman's decision, which was only come to after a long period of soul-searching, with Hitler's utter disdain for human life not his own, frankly makes me want to barf.

Our soldiers are apparently no better than Crips and Bloods fighting over turf, or AQ gunning down random civilians for the crime of being something they don't like. You put all that stuff about creeds and honor on the other thread, but here say our soldiers are no better than common thugs. I'd hate to be under your command.

Quote Reply

Hugo 11/26/2009 6:25:01 AM

Hitler had Coventry flattened because he wanted to kill British people.

I don't believe there is the least bit of historical evidence confirming this.

Quote Reply

Hamilcar Comedy explained. 11/26/2009 7:14:38 AM

Seems like the punch lines keep coming. How does the KSM trial procedure affect the the encircled NATO army in Afghanistan again?

This I want to read.

First you need to read what I was responding to. Here is the context of my response...

The comedy is after you got yourself kicked off the site you return and still come here trying to pick fights with me over nothing. Grow up.

-DA

Aren't you the champion who says that the US administration knows what it is doing? It doesn't, but the point is that you also said many tomes that attacks on US supply lines and depending on America's enemies to sdeciure those supply lines was not that big a deal, and now you change the tune on your hornpipe, that we should walk on eggshells bgecause our enemies might cut our supply lines.

You called someone a fool who indwerstood nothing for pointing this opbvious fact out and insuylted him every way possible.

Well, that is what is so funny. You admit he was right all along. What does that say about yourt ability to be unbiased and consistent in argument?

It means you are not consistent or logical in your presentation.l Superficial and not deep understanding of facts inderpoin a lot of the argument you made then and now.

Like a chameleon who changes his skin camouflage at the wrong time under a raven to suit the "argument" of the moment to win it on the basis of emotion, you left yourself wide open and thus the comedy.

Simple isn't it. Egg McMuffin, tea, and deep laughter. Argue data if you can, then you'll do better.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica @sentinel 11/26/2009 1:42:06 PM

I don't do moral equivalence. I explain things as they are. I tell the truth on people. You know, its interesting that you mention Truman as a soul searching thoughtful person prior to incinerating tens of thousands of Japanese but then you forget that Hitler spent about a decade doing that and wrote a book about it. It's also funny that you seem not to recall that Hitler was practicing EUGENICS based largely on influence from the United States. President Truman's decision to nuke Japan had nothing to do with saving Japanese Sentinel. It had to do with making them and EVERYBODY ELSE FEAR AMERICAN MILITARY TECHNOLOGY. AKA State Sponsored Terrorism. READ:

C. Dr. Stearns agreed to do the following: (1) brief Colonel Fisher thoroughly on these matters, (2) request reservations for these targets, (3) find out more about the target area including exact locations of the strategic industries there, (4) obtain further photo information on the targets, and (5) to determine the nature of the construction, the area, heights, contents and roof coverage of buildings. He also agreed to keep in touch with the target data as it develops and to keep the committee advised of other possible target areas. He will also check on locations of small military targets and obtain further details on the Emperor's palace.

7. Psychological Factors in Target Selection

A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.

B. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value.

8. Use Against "Military" Objectives

A. It was agreed that for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb.

How exactly are you drawing that conclusion?

-DA

Quote Reply

buzzard 11/27/2009 9:09:14 AM

No, I realize that you're right. Nowadays we have those who disapprove of my right to hold property and do with it as I please. We have those who disagree with my right to say what I please, to believe in the God I choose to believe in or not believe in. And naturally we must accomodate those persons, agree to respect their right to intolerance and violence against those they disagree with. Since you acknowlege there is no such thing as common morality and values, let us abolish the United States (why does it exist if a set of basic values and law is not shared?) and institute one world government.

You assume that people will magically come together and sing kumbaya if the evil governments will just get out of the way. That's so historically blind as to be laughable. All those tyrannical governments you lambaste were made by people, and the sort of people who create such entities will not go away in the face of your optimistic, or rather myopic predictions of how human nature can be tamed. The fact that the U.S. Constitutions, even with its built in limitations and safeguards has been taken apart over time makes my case more than it does yours. How you figure your free society without built in safeguards will be protected, I can't even imagine.

Quote Reply

Hugo Buzzard 11/27/2009 10:11:17 AM

I'll comment a bit here, but it's evident that arguing with you on this is pointless. You assume a magical world in which the above concerns of mine can be deal with in a market fashion. If only the world worked that way it might be nice. History shows it doesn't Rational Anarchy is charming on paper, but again we have a situation where the rubber has almost never met the road, and the examples you peddle are centuries old and on very small scales with tightly integrated societies of set morals and backgrounds.

I don't feel that I am making any assumptions - my arguments are by nature theoretical because of the unfortunate fact that political secession is made impossible by governments in power. You do however now admit that there are almost no examples meaning that there are indeed proofs to the contrary. Do you acknowledge that by accusing me of believing in magical worlds you also hold the same accusation against Locke and Jefferson and other founding fathers?

Yes, to be perfectly precise I do refer to an Anarcho-Capitalist society or Private Law society. I do not know what you have been reading but I am not a Randian if that is what you are presuming. Free society traces it's origins to Spanish theologists, the Enlightenment and your own Founding Fathers.

You state that what I propose will not work. I make the counterproposal that there is more than ample evidence that the statism that you subscribe to is a proven failure. The evident failures of your system and society invite alternatives.

What conerns of yours cannot be dealt with by the market? Please spell them out precisely because I am happy to address them. List them one by one. I feel I have addressed those you have raised already. I am not opposed to a constitution however the basis of one should be little more than an acknowledgement of Natural Rights and by extension the exclusive legitimacy of mutual voluntariness of any agreement between private parties.

Magic has nothing to do with it. There are countless examples of collective unanimous agreement. You and your car insurance company, you and your employer, you and your local council authority. Do you sing "kumbaya" with your life-insurance salesman and all other policy holders? Do you sing kumbaya with your bank manager and all the bank's creditors that provided your home loan? Did Martin Luther gather with some free thinking monks and sing Kumbaya before giving us the Reformation? Did the American Revolutionaries sing "kumbaya" around the campfire when voluntarily fighting the Imperialists? Or did they sit around talking about what a stupid idea it was to challenge the Statist encroachments into their lives? Did free Boer volunteers sing kumbaya before coming very close to defeating the British Empire that had attacked them?

If you are going to be honest with yourself, your argument outlined here can be summed up in the following, "..it is no use dreaming of a free society, of the legitimacy of natural rights, because there are men out there determined not to let you have it and history has shown that they tend to be successful." My response is, they are successful because men like you don't oppose them.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEXT