theloniusfleabag

Dear Charles Anthony, Indeed, morality itself implies choice. The degrees of which is largely a product of environment. Well, if one believes that personal gain is tantamount, all that might slow or stop such gain would be considered an impediment. For example, in the last few years, marketing companies have pushed 'good business ethics' as the new buzzwords...but not because it is the right thing to do, their sales pitch is that "Now good business ethics can be more profitable!" It isn't because of a new found 'morality', it is a sales gimmick.

Dear Charles Anthony, Actually, I must admit to making a leap (downwards) with my choice of words. There seems to be two definitions for 'anarchy', the libertarian one and the classic definition, 'the law of the jungle'. So why would a pure capitalist choose to fetter themselves with 'morality'?

Just an aside here, does anyone know if the Israelis have used this weapon, and if not, why not? http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/mthel.htm

Dear Charles Anthony, No, they go hand in hand, and both, in their purest sense, must be amoral. For the most part. There are 'mental defects', like OCD, which would unnaturally curtail the range of options, but I believe these disorders to be few in number.I suppose what I mean is that your answer was not consistent. Logically, a capitalist always wants more, and an anarchist would want no laws to stand in their way. So, aiming for anything short of 'all' would be an individual, and arbitrary, decision.

Dear Charles Anthony, No, actually I am making a reference to capitalism, not 'governments', or 'nations' in the traditional sense. If you are a capitalist, then I should think that you would be compelled to build (your holdings, etc) to a larger value. I should have used the term 'more', instead of larger, I suppose. If a 'capitalist' says that they don't see a reason to 'have more', grow more, etc. the I should think that they were either lying or crazy. That is, a capitalist would never pull their money out of a good, growing investment portfolio to put it in a shoebox and say, "That's it, I've got enough". Freedom, rights, etc. are all subjective and arbitrary. They only exist in the form of what we choose to bestow on others. Sort of. To imply that as an absolute means that morality only can exist outside a system of laws, and I would disagree.

Dear August1991, You give the impression that the Arabs in the ME are bent on genocide, and while some may be, the intent that has been stated by those that fight against Israel is more arin to 'policide', or destruction of the 'zionist entity'.

Dear Charles Anthony, Actually, I was specifically speaking of your nation (of one) growing larger. Besides, in this system 'freedom' is subjective in it's meaning...'freedom' to do what? Move from point A to Point B? Or to marry your sheep? To impose the death penalty for tresspassing? People are however moral they choose to be, it cannot be imposed, only laws and punishment can. So, yes, for the last point, it can be required.

Dear Charles Anthony, If you had your 'perfect gov't of choice', it shouldn't matter how big the geographical area is (nor the population in it), the same rules would apply throughout. As an 'anarchist', though, (or perhaps I could use the term 'minimalist'), your preference should lean towards a country with a population of one. You. Further, if you believe in 'capitalism', then the borders for your 'nation of one' should be going in the direction of 'as large as possible'. I am not sure I understand the question. The 'power to be moral' lies with each individual. Just as the 'throne of the almighty' (or whatever god one may worship) resides in your heart (or 'soul' or even 'mind'), and not in a church. It is up to the individual as to whom or what they choose to place on that throne.

Dear Argus, I'll try to look it up, but it is a couple of days old now, it won't be an easy find. I do remember reading those exact words, though. An interesting bit I found today... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...60718-dod01.htm The 'authorized' departure... authorized by whom? The Lebanese or the Israelis? Or do they mean the US? (They didn't say 'authorized individuals', they said 'authorized departure'...)

Good lord. This is the worst affront to this forum and our collective intellect to date.

Dear FTA Lawyer, It isn't an 'article', just a BS post by some misguided fool on another web'log' forum.August1991, I would say the comment rates 'retarded', for shameless would indicate a painful truth, much higher up on the ladder of intellect.

Dear geoffrey, Well said. These are two very good posters who have taken things a bit far...to suspension/banning levels, actually. T'would be a shame, losing either one. Argus is correct here, and he is pointing out that the Allies did in fact do things that would have seen others hung...by the victors. It is an example of the absence of ethics, not faulty ones. Cold, hard pragmatism is another description of it. The nature of a 'right' was covered thoroughly on another thread (where debate about the Holocaust, and the rights of Jews, and 'rights' in general, got so heated one very good former poster, "the Terrible Sweal" ended up being banned for actions such as what Argus and Black Dog have sunken to). Basically, yes, the gassing of Jews would not have been against the law had the Nazis won.

Dear Charles Anthony, I should think it would be the opposite. I would expect you would favour a '1% flat-taxing, laissez-faire gov't' over a Marxist-Leninist (or Stalinist) regime, no matter what the boundaries are. I doubt we will be... Previously, perhaps on this thread, I defined 'the meaning of life' as 'being'. That is, 'to be'. In that spirit, I believe the absolute moral 'summum bonum' is that all things are given 'the right to be', or to have access to those things which enable them 'to be'.

Dear BHS, Forgive me, I was rather unclear. They both comitted themselves to things that don't seem all that well thought out, and to some degree, both looked and responded like dolts when someone pointed out thier folly. Mind you, both Eisner and Bush will be gone while what they created may live on, perhaps in spite of them. Again, I was unclear. What I meant by 'manufacturing' is getting the job done, as I think August1991 understands... The US certainly can play dirty pool, but they do tend to think that 'image' is tantamount, where Putin would have simply got the job done and then sent flowers to their widows.

Dear Charles Anthony, I suppose a question I must ask is "To which form of 'leadership' would an libertarian anarchist most prefer to acquiesce?"

Here is an interesting read... http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/libra...0707-kcna01.htm That is funny. Perhaps this is why the world isn't taking them too seriously.

I have to agree with Argus. I have only met a few Lebanese, but they were fiery, passionate and loved their country and their mothers. To insult either one was a legitimate stabbing offence to them. Argus and Mr. Fortin are right, there is no need to call for 'bringing our people home', not for criticising Israel because some people were Canadian and in the line of fire. The only criticism at this point is that both sides haven't issued a formal declaration of war, though most on both sides consider it one. It would be so much more helpful with the paperwork. All the semantics about 'terrorist methods', 'proportionate reaction', etc go out the window, replaced with 'collateral damage', and hopefully, a winner and loser. It would be nice if both sides could win, maybe someday it will happen.

Dear Charles Anthony, A good analogy, but it also must be seen as zero on a 'moral thermometer'. Well, I admit to not answering your original question. It is a tough one, because any sort of law (or consequence) must have enforceable punishment for non-compliance. Hugo (the board's previous 'most staunch anarchist') argued that all forms of punishment were 'unfair force', and that ostracism/voluntary punishment were the only acceptable solutions. I must say that it is not feasible to rely on 'self-policing' in the real world because I envision (with myself in charge, of course )a 'dictatorial democracy', with one person elected to be in charge of selecting the democratic questions to be put to the people, and for them to vote on them and to enact them.

Too late for that. If 'the lights go out and the balloon goes up', you'll fight with your teeth and nails, like it or not. It's possible that 'manpower' would be a token gesture, and what will be needed is 'every man, woman and childpower', and still the outcome might be in doubt.Just tryin' to keep thinking happy thoughts.

Dear August1991, It reminded me of an incident on the TV news some years ago, when Michael Eisner (Former head of Disney) was introducing their new NHL franchise, (based on a children's movie) the 'Mighty Ducks'. When he dropped the new name, complete with a cheesy plastic duck call, everybody in the media room just laughed. Eiser quickly added "This will work!" a couple of times, but people were still sniggering.I would say that Putin rightly sees the Americans as being fixated on the 'glam of marketing', and not the cold hard realities of manufacturing.

Dear Argus, I am not anti-Jew, but am anti-zionist. Mind you, to qualify, I recognize that Israel exists, but do not believe borders should be decided by any religion, and I certainly will not recognize the 'deed and title to the land' is the bible, (or torah, a bit of it, in this case) nor do I think that the bible should hold up in court as a legal document. How can one say that the Bible is right but the Koran is wrong? I judge them equally, and both are equally wrong. It is one book against another here, however else things may seem to appear.

IMR, He has certainly 'taken the gloves off', but a 'go for the throat while kicking for the nuts' kind of guy has to be Uzi Landau. Things would have to look bad for Israel before anyone would put him in charge, though. I agree, not much different killing thousands of people over a 50 year span or a 50 day one, they are still just as dead. 'Having it out' might change 'bloodletting' into lots of bloodshed, but if a workable and long term peace can come from it, then I agree...get on with it. Been tried, doesn't solve the problem. Either the Arabs accept Israel (in which case they wouldn't need the wall) or they won't, which seems more likely. Ah yes, I see some trouble ahead. Israel cannot 'clean house' in the Middle East without help, they simply haven't the resources without going nuke, or having the US (and possibly a lot of others) firmly on board. That would mean a showdown with Islam. However, I think that is coming. Countries like Saudi Arabia need to be confronted or cut loose from their cozy, yet Janus-faced relationship with the 'West'. The US can't turn a blind eye to state sponsors of terrorism for favourable economic reasons much longer. I think either all world religions must sit down and talk over their differences, divide up regions according to religious preferences and keep them segregated, or fight it out. I think the latter is far more likely to happen, so it should be prepared for with the utmost of urgency. In short, I fear open war with Islamic nations, and therefore Islam, is going to happen. We can choose the time or wait for it.

Dear August1991, You are an enigma indeed. First you claim free enterprise is the best way to distribute wealth, and then you complain that the gov't isn't taking enough... I agree, but this is a communist approach (sharing the value of 'communal' resources), but I was chastized long ago for not being aware that the provinces own their resources. Ralphie Klein serves 'big business'. He always has, even back when he was Environment Minister (I recall that he gave a huge foreign pulp mill, Diashowa, I believe, a 10 year exemption from meeting environmental dumping/pollution standards because they made lots of money jobs.)

IMR, Iran has signed a treaty to defend Syria, should Syria be attacked by Israel. Israel would be prudent to attack Syria, drawing Iran into an action. Then, Israel wouldn't look like it was launching a 'first strike' (or purposely attacking another Islamic country) but rather defending itself. All of these things would require meticulous measurement, though.Interestingly, from... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...60714-voa02.htm Is Saudi Arabia 'pulling the strings', and is chastizing Hizbollah for not following orders?from... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...60714-voa01.htm This is a toughie. Is Ohlmert ready to play for 'all or none'?

Dear BHS, Yes, you are right. (Perhaps the US should face sanctions over it's invasion of Iraq).The UN should be issuing a firm ultimatum to NK, backed by it's member nations. Unfortunately, China and Russia seem to be on the fence on this one.