Will the West survive?

[Universe Prince]

I don't recall that you did (claim militant Islamists were trying to be like Nazis).

Whoa. Hold it right there. No. Let's get this part straight right now. You said, and I quote: "Prince, when did I EVER claim that Islamofacists were identical to German Fascists?  When did I ever opine that militant Islam is trying to copy Hitler & Nazi Germany?" To which I replied, "I don't recall that you did. But then, I don't recall having said or implied that you did." Just so we're completely clear, you did not say they were identical, did not say the one was trying to copy the other, and I never said you did.

Now then, you have been comparing the Islamic terrorists to the Nazis for some time now, going to far as to suggest that current efforts to stop them are akin to if someone had tried to stop the Nazis in the 1920s or 30s. The Islamic extremists are the Nazis of the future if we do nothing about them was the basic gist of your argument. And, long story short, you said "I'm advocating going after people who have pledged  to do what I believe they have pledged to do in the future." And my question to that was "When did the Islamic extremists pledge to become like the Nazis?" Nothing about that was any sort of  "bogus implication". Either you think the Islamic terrorists are like the Nazis and will become more so in the future if not stopped, or you do not. If the Islamic extremists are pledging to act like Nazis—the meaning of the word 'like' in this context being 'of a similar manner, analogous, bearing a resemblance, corresponding in some aspect(s)'—then when did they do so? This is not a trick question. You are the one comparing the terrorists to the Nazis, so why do you protest that I'm misrepresenting your position if I should say that you're claiming the terrorists are like the Nazis? If the Islamic extremists are comparable to the Nazis, how are they somehow also not like—the meaning of the word 'like' in this context being 'of a similar manner, analogous, bearing a resemblance, corresponding in some aspect(s)'—the Nazis. Either they are like the Nazis, or they are not.

A better question would be along the lines of "When did Islamic extremists start demonstrating similar traits and tactics that the Nazis employed?"

I don't see how that is a better question. You said we had to go after the terrorists because they are like the Nazis and will become more so if they are not stopped. When challenged on how you can condemn someone for future actions, you insisted the terrorists were analogous to the Nazis and that you advocated going after them based on what they had pledged to do. The direct question is the one I asked.

The answer to that question largely was when Usama declared war on the U.S. specifically, and western civilization in general.  It began occuring as more and more soldiers of militant Islam, most exemplified by AlQeada and the Iranian President, began engaging in systematic attacks on both U.S. & Israeli populations.  Unlike Germany of course, Islamofascists aren't limited to just being AlQeada.  It includes Baathists, Suuni nationalists, Hamas, Hezbollah, just to name a few.  All with differing leaderships, but all with a generalized goal of wiping Israel & America off, and implimenting their version of a some global Islamic governance.  Convert, be subjugated, or die being the only viable options.  I recall listening to an excerpt of a high ranking AlQeada member declaring precisely that agenda

Seems to me they are very much unlike the Nazis. They may hate Israel and Jews, but that isn't sufficient to make them similar enough to justify the comparison you're making. And the fact they are a number of small groups rather than one united national war machine is also a huge and quite substantial difference, imo.

You have made the comparison of the Islamic extremists to the Nazis, yes, but you have not actually given a reason why your comparison of current events to history is the only valid one

Show me one more valid, in your opinion

So, you're not going to give me a reason. Okay. Anyway, off the top of my head, I'd say we need to go back further than the 1930s to the end of World War I. Germany was defeated, and the Allies essentially punished Germany by placing the blame for the war on Germany and demanding it pay all the costs of the war. This made many Germans bitter, and eventually became controversial among the Allied countries. Of course the bitterness among the Germans, along with the world wide depression of the 1920s helped contribute mightily to the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party. The contention over the severe punishment of Germany and a desire to avoid war is what resulted in many people being willing to turn a blind to the rise of Nazis and their excursion into the Rhineland. (And frankly, those who wanted to avoid war were not wrong in that desire. The problem lie not in wanting to avoid another war, but in the fact that Hitler was ambitious and untrustworthy. If Hitler had quit at the Rhineland, those who argued for peace would now be considered wise rather than foolish.)

The point here being that attempting to squash the terrorists may in fact eventually cause them to unite and to start to genuinely become like the Nazis. I'm not advocating that we do nothing about the terrorists, I'm simply saying there is more historical precedent to consider than just the Nazis and World War II. We need to learn from history certainly, but one of the most important lessons of history is that no amount of planning and comparison will tell you all the consequences of current actions. There are always unintended consequences. And one of the lessons I see in history is that trying to control other people who disagree with you is a really prime way to create bad unintended consequences. This is among the reasons why I doubt your comparison of current events to history is the only valid one.

Where was this massive militant Islamic extremist uprising before September 11, 2001?

You do grasp the concept of a malignancy?  That's the most accurate analogy I can provide for you in this case.  This uprising has been hitting us since the late 80's, early 90's.  911 was simply a wake up call.

So are you saying there was a massive militant uprising before September 11, 2001, or not?

[Universe Prince]

Aren't we basically talking about balance?

I'm sure Plane was talking about balance, and I think I've seen you talk about it before. Me, no, I'm not talking about balance. At least, not in the sense of balancing liberty and security. There is no balance between liberty and security. To the extent that we have liberty, we have security. To the extent that we do not have liberty, we are not secure. You might argue that an abridgement of my liberty allows the government to protect my life, but even if that is true, it does not mean I am then safe or have security. To the extent that government can abridge my liberty in the name of protecting me, government can also abridge my liberty to attack me. Therefore, there is no balance. It is the protection of the free exercise of our rights that makes us secure. The abridgement of that liberty is the abridgement of our security.

[sirs]

If the Islamic extremists are pledging to act like Nazis...

NO NO NO.  I never said that, I never even implied that, so I'd appreciate it you'd stop trying to claim such.  The Islamic extremists are pledging to act like Islamic extremists.......THAT happens to be comparable to acting like Nazis, IN THE VANE of desiring to rule the world, with their version of how it's to be governed

I don't see how that is a better question.

It is because it doesn't have the above bogus implication attached

You are the one comparing the terrorists to the Nazis, so why do you protest that I'm misrepresenting your position if I should say that you're claiming the terrorists are like the Nazis?

That's not what you're claiming.  It's coming off as me claiming that the terrorists are purposely trying to act like Nazis, as if they admire Hitler and his war machine, something along those lines.  I never made such a claim, and the continued inferrence that I did is becoming very irritating.  Starting to remind me of how I supposedly despise legal immigration for daring to despise illegal immigration.  so, perhaps we should cease our debate on this topic, at this time, and move to another, before either of us begin saying things we don't mean.

[Universe Prince]

The Islamic extremists are pledging to act like Islamic extremists.......THAT happens to be comparable to acting like Nazis, IN THE VANE of desiring to rule the world, with their version of how it's to be governed

So they are pledging to act comparable to Nazis. What-the-frak-ever. You're being entirely too literal here, even after I explained exactly what I meant. This is not my problem.

Starting to remind me of how I supposedly despise legal immigration for daring to despise illegal immigration.

I believe what I said was that since you said you were in favor of immigration being difficult that you wanted immigration to be difficult. Kinda like now, you assured me both that you held the position I said you did, and that I was misrepresenting your position to say that you held that position. Which is a really neat sort of confusion, but I could never figure out how it worked. Apparently, I still can't.

so, perhaps we should cease our debate on this topic, at this time, and move to another, before either of us begin saying things we don't mean.

I rarely say things I don't mean (unless I'm being obviously sarcastic), but you seem to think I mean things I don't say. Again, not my problem.

[Plane]

On the contrary , when I enlisted in the Military I gave up a large amount of liberty because I beleived it necessacery to my countrys defence

You choosing to give up your liberty voluntarily does not give you the authority to decide for others that they should have to give up their liberty. And you choosing to give up your liberty is not at all the same as the government or even a voting majority to decide to take liberty away from others.

On a periodic basis we have instituted a draft which is the forced removal of these libertys

Which was wrong. And that something wrong has been done in the past does not make it something we should do now or in the future....
...The greater good is not served by taking liberty away from the people. (And before you start talking about how we put people in jail, that isn't what I'm talking about, and you know it. Punishing people who violate the rights of others is not the same as expecting everyone in society to "sacrifice" their liberty. And I would add that even accused people and convicted criminals have rights that should be protected, and the abuse of those rights also does not serve the greater good.) ...[/color]

Intresting that you anticipated my bringing up jail, as if you saw the same path of arguments I did.
I don't think that the draft was an injustice , for the same reason that jailing people is no injustice.

Punishment of wrongdoing is only a part of the reason for jail , I would argue not even the greater part. People who cannot be trusted withthe safety of their fellow citizens or who interrupt the flow of business have to be put out of the way and out of circulation for the sake of haveing a society that will function . The right of a society to cull a person and take his rights away is essentially the right of civilisation to exist, as individuals it behooves us well to insist that this function of civil life be undertaken with due process that minimises its frivolus and unnecery use.

The Draft is not at all intended to be a punishment , even though a drafted person might feel badly used . A society has the right  to compell its needs be met wnen now and then it runs out of volentary resorces. A society that compells its every need will naturally have a lot of miserable individuals in it , as individuals it behooves us to insist that only the most genuine need be taken with compulson , inducements twards volenteerism are much superior as the self selection of individuals for duty allows the society to be defended with the exercise of individual choice. But when there is a shortfall and an unmet need that is severe and genuine will a society have no recourse but to end?

Individual rights can be protected by a society this is the highest purpose to which a society can be put, but there have been long running societys that did not protect individual rights and there are societys now that dont, as societys they do work , if the society that protects individual rights may not outcompete these that do not a process of natural selection may eradicate the freer societys leaveing the fitter less free societys to be more common .

What will become then of individual rights when individuals may not band themselves together successfully and totaliarian societys may outcompete?

[Universe Prince]

Intresting that you anticipated my bringing up jail, as if you saw the same path of arguments I did.

I try to anticipate. I've been through this sort thing enough times that I can sometimes pick out the more obvious counterarguments to what I say.

I don't think that the draft was an injustice , for the same reason that jailing people is no injustice.

I don't see how they are comparable.

Punishment of wrongdoing is only a part of the reason for jail , I would argue not even the greater part. People who cannot be trusted withthe safety of their fellow citizens or who interrupt the flow of business have to be put out of the way and out of circulation for the sake of haveing a society that will function

I'm sure what you're saying is obvious to you, but what are you saying? "People who cannot be trusted with the safety of their fellow citizens" what does that even mean? People who have guns? People who smoke? People who oppose the government? People "who interrupt the flow of business"? What? I mean, I can see a whole lot of people who might fit inside your rather vague phrases, depending on whom one asks. So I'm asking you. What are you talking about? What do you mean?

The right of a society to cull a person and take his rights away is essentially the right of civilisation to exist, as individuals it behooves us well to insist that this function of civil life be undertaken with due process that minimises its frivolus and unnecery use.

Um, no. Unless you think society/civilization is more important than the individual, that the individual serves society and indeed belongs to society. Maybe you believe that. I do not. First of all, society has no right whatever to take away an individual's rights, because rights are not something given or taken away. Second, individuals have the right to defend themselves from those who would violate the rights of individuals. They have a right to agree that an organization be formed to play the role of the protector of rights and to punish those who violate the rights of individuals. The reason they have this right is not the right of civilization to exist, whatever that means, not because they belong to society, but because they own the right to the free exercise of their rights. Once you start saying society has a right to cull a person and to take away his liberty for the sake of civilization, the you place yourself, your liberty, your life at the mercy of society that then has the power to decide anyone, even you, are a threat to the existence of civilization. This is, unfortunately, the path that America seems to be on, but that doesn't make it the one we should be on.

The Draft is not at all intended to be a punishment , even though a drafted person might feel badly used . A society has the right  to compell its needs be met wnen now and then it runs out of volentary resorces.

I know I already said this, but, um, no. In this context, to compel behavior from people who have not chosen or do not choose to engage in that behavior is nothing short of enslavement. And no, society does not have the right to enslave individuals. Because when "society" compells people to meet the "needs of society" what is really happening is one group of individuals is deciding that other people should be made to do the work that the first group wants done. It does not matter if that group is government, a majority of voters or plantation owners. Individuals do not own other individuals. And no individual's rights are greater than any other individual's rights. And no group of individuals has rights greater than any other group of individuals. So no, society does not have the right to compel its "needs" be met when it runs out of voluntary resources.

But when there is a shortfall and an unmet need that is severe and genuine will a society have no recourse but to end?

I know I'm being repetitive, but, um, no. No recourse but to end? What a ridiculous question. First define what is a genuine need of society. And who gets to decide what these genuine needs are? Protect liberty and leave people alone, and society will adapt when crises arise. Individuals and society can be remarkably good at adapting when we let it. Only a rigid social structure, for example fascist or socialist societies, have cause to worry about not being able to meet its "needs". Look at them. They are the societies that constantly find they must take away liberty for the "good of society". It is the hallmark of totalitarian power structures. In its most horrible form it manifests as killing people in the name of protecting society, but it also manifests in other ways like censorship laws or government control of industry and business. In any case, among the important needs of society is the protection of rights of individuals. Protect the rights of individuals, and society will adapt to meet its needs because it will be free to do so. Only those intent on controlling life fear that a change in society will result in the end of life as we know it.

Individual rights can be protected by a society this is the highest purpose to which a society can be put, but there have been long running societys that did not protect individual rights and there are societys now that dont, as societys they do work , if the society that protects individual rights may not outcompete these that do not a process of natural selection may eradicate the freer societys leaveing the fitter less free societys to be more common

Contrariwise, if the society that does protect individual rights outcompetes those societies that do not protect individual rights, then a process of natural selection may eradicate the less free societies, leaving the free society to prosper.

What will become then of individual rights when individuals may not band themselves together successfully and totaliarian societys may outcompete?

You might as well wonder what will become of honest competition when cheaters "outcompete" honest athletes and only cheaters win. Does the honest competitor strike a blow for honest competors if he cheats to win a competition? Can a person cheat in the name of protecting honest competition? Can you keep your cake if you also eat it? No, of course not. So a free society does not "outcompete" totalitarian regimes by abridging the free exercise of the rights of individuals. That only leads to a win for the totalitarians as the free society becomes less free and more totalitarian. The protection of a free society lies in the protection of liberty.

[Lanya]

Responding to :
Universe Prince

Re: Will the West survive?
« Reply #63
____________________
Whoa!  I had no idea this thread was so interesting! I'm getting popcorn.   ;-)

[sirs]

As I said, we best stop now before one of us says something out of anger, that they really don't mean to say

[The_Professor]

JS, my view, and only my view, is that application of your libertarian views might result in anarchy. Where is order? Where are hthe times where the right of society must triumphed over the rights of the few?

I agree with Sirs. This is my last post on this subject. The feldercarb is simply too daunting.

[Universe Prince]

JS, my view, and only my view, is that application of your libertarian views might result in anarchy.

Since JS is not libertarian, I am going to guess that you're talking to me. And I agree with you that at some point my views could lead to anarchy. And I'm okay with that because I agree with Henry David Thoreau. He says, right at the top of his "Civil Disobedience" essay, "I heartily accept the motto,—'That government is best which governs least';  and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe,—'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have." I realize that for most people the term 'anarchy' means some sort of frightening chaos where there is no social order resulting in murder, rape and the like going unpunished; and I am guessing that your use of it here is intended to carry some similar meaning. I'm not sure why people seem to think that protecting the free exercise of the rights of individuals must lead to no protection whatever for the liberty of individuals, except that it must be fear.

Where is order? Where are hthe times where the right of society must triumphed over the rights of the few?

And there it is. There are no times when the right of society must triumph over the rights of the few. I realize that this is a frightening concept for some. We, that is we as Americans and even as Westerners, have been taught for decades that we need government, that we need government to decide for us when the so-called "right(s) of society" must trump the rights of the few. We have been taught that with without government protect us from economic depression and robber barons, from slavery and the break up of the Union, from Nazis and communists, from terrorism and whatever horrible threats to civilization that government may tell us lurks out there, without government to protect us from these things civilization would die, chaos and death would run rampant, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. The basic idea is that without government there is no social order. The problem with that idea is there is no reason whatever to believe that is the case.

Personally, I cling to the hope that idea will someday start to fade the way that other stupid ideas taught by societies have begin to fade. The inferiority of women, the inferiority of people with darker skin, that there is something wrong with interracial relationships, that sexuality is something to hide, these are ideas that are fading from our world. That they are not yet gone is to our shame. Some day the notion that without government there is only chaos and no order, I hope, will also begin to fade. I hope that one day the extraordinary failures of government and the abuses of power and rights will no long be presented to children as proof of our need for government but for the ways in which government can be and has been used for damage.

But there is a more fundamental issue here. You speak of the rights of society. What rights does society have? To exist? To pursue what it feels is best for itself? Okay, let's say that society has such rights. Why does it have these rights? Because individuals have these rights. Society is individuals. And to protect the rights of individuals is to protect the rights of society. There is no point at which the rights of society outweigh they rights of individuals because to protect society is to protect the rights of the individual. This the is path of liberty. The path of society's rights outweighing that of the individual is the path of subjugation of individuals to the state, in short, the path of totalitarianism. As I have pointed out before, adopting the methods of totalitarian regimes does not keep a society free. It only makes that society more totalitarian and less free.

I'm not looking for a utopia, and I'm not saying we should eliminate all social structures. I'm not even saying we should abolish all government. I do believe we need social structures, and I think as long as there are humans about there will be social structures. One of the reasons I support liberty is that I believe people should be free to create their own social structures. And no, that doesn't mean murderers, thieves and rapists getting to do whatever they want. Protecting the rights of individuals means protecting them from being abused or taken away by murderers et al and by people in power. I think government is one way to handle protecting the rights of people, but not the only way.

I agree with Sirs. This is my last post on this subject. The feldercarb is simply too daunting.

The feldercarb? If you think discussing liberty is feldercarb, that's too bad. But perhaps you meant my comments are feldercarb. In which case, well, you can just frak off. I make no apologies for arguing the case of liberty and peace.

[Plane]

"Unless you think society/civilization is more important than the individual, that the individual serves society and indeed belongs to society. "


I do not think that society/civilization is more or less important than individuals the two things are not comparable in importance .


An individual is unlikely to last any more than one century and no society or civilization has ever had a thought.


Thinking is an individual persuit and it is the spread of thoughts among individuals that cause humans to regulate their society's .

Human beings are social animals less social than bees more social than Lions . If we were not social and lived as individuals the way Orangutans do, the issue of rights would never arise. If we were more social ,as Bees are we would not even want rights.

But since it is our habit to form society's and also to think in terms of rights we have to have some rationing of our individual rights, to enable the society that we desire to function.

Few of us are comfortable as hermits , equally few of us are comfortable as possessions of a larger system.

So we are gathered in social groups , and we give to the group some rights over the individual , we can't avoid this without a basic change in human nature.

A society constructed to enable the maximum individual liberty within the group has a lot of advantages  , a society structured to indoctrinate and controll individuals to the maximum has a very diffrent set of advantages.

Often perfection kills the good , If we are set to inflexibly and always maximize individual rights to the cost of all else , our society may loose the cohesion that brought it first into being . The philosophy's of totalitarian states don't have this problem at all, will this make them out last us , or out fight us?

[domer]

Prince, I'll say two things, premised by my observation that you're a faux intellectual with actually very little of substance to say. First, it should be obvious to all that you have lingering issues with your parents. Most of us master the tasks of autonomy in the family and don't project them ad nauseam onto to the political scene where they are just childish clutter. Second, it's a good thing you concede the need for SOME social structure because without it the mob would run you out of town.

[Universe Prince]

Prince, I'll say two things, premised by my observation that you're a faux intellectual with actually very little of substance to say.

This from Mr. Smartass Peacock himself. Your post, Domer, fits the very definition of 'faux intellectual'. Make no mistake, I think you're a intelligent guy, Domer. But sometimes you're an asshole, pretending to be smarter than people with whom you disagree, because climbing on your high horse is easier than mounting an actual substantive counterargument.

Despite your attempt to put me in my place, Domer, I can't help but notice that while I argued about the actual ideas involved in the issue, the best you could muster up was a self-righteous ad hominem attack. Take your own advice, and try to elevate the debate. The pseudo-psychological analysis bullsh-- not only makes you look pharisaic, it is a personal attack that adds nothing to the conversation (or to the forum for that matter) but animosity. There is no need for you to stoop to such tactics. The conceited demeanor of your post is beneath your character, and your refusal to discuss libertarian ideas is beneath your intellectual stature. To persist in both damages you and drags down the forum. Rise above, my friend, and elevate the debate.

[domer]

In my measured opinion, my comments about you, UP, were on the mark and appropriate. I demean your ideas because it's a forensically acceptable way to strip the nonsense from your verbiage. The psychological analogy was not a gratuitous ad hominem, which would serve no point, but a sober and substantive appraisal of both the origin and the stature of your vaunted ideas.

[Universe Prince]

As I said before, Domer, your post fits the very definition of 'faux intellectual'. If such comments seemed on the mark and appropriate to you, then perhaps that says something about your status an intellectual.

As for you demaning my ideas, you didn't even address my ideas. Yeah, I get that you're saying my ideas are childish, but again, where I discussed ideas, you turned to name calling, personal insults, and self-righteous verbal bullying. Of the two of us, Domer, the one acting childish is you. You insulted me, made a couple of insulting comments about me and my relationship with my parents, and then insulted me again. If you could be said to have addressed my ideas at all, you did so indirectly at best, and even then you could not bring yourself to say they were bad because they were wrong but merely to imply they were bad because they came from me. Indeed, rather than stripping any nonsense away, you in fact unloaded steaming pile of unnecessary nonsense.

Your pseudo-psychological babble was not a substantive appraisal of anything, but rather a directly insulting comment about me and not my ideas. It was nothing if not a gratuitous ad hominem and served no point, except perhaps to inflate your view of yourself as an intellectual superior.

If you really want to keep this psychological analysis on the table, I can start talking about how your comments reveal in you some serious self-esteem issues and a desire to compensate by trying to make yourself appear intellectually superior to anything you are unable and/or afraid to confront honestly. I could also explain that while I have ideas, am willing to support my ideas and willing to let my ideas come into discussion because I am also willing to be proved wrong, you, Domer, are apparently afraid to discuss my ideas or any ideas contrary to your own because you are afraid to have your comments submitted to any scrutiny that might prove you are wrong. Of course, none of this would be an attack on you, Domer, but rather a sober and substantive appraisal of both the origin and the stature of your childish comments about me.

If you were to actually demean my ideas, I would welcome it. At least then your comments would have some relevance to the discussion. By all means, demean my ideas, but leave your personal issues out of it.