theloniusfleabag

Dear Shady, (and all) My apologies for this long post, I don't usually do it, but this is an interesting one. This was taken from the Iraqi National News site after 9/11.

Dear Hugo, I am not suggesting aquiesence on your part. I am saying you will have to break the laws (both of your own gang and of Rothbard's [that of non-instigation]), and fight an incredibly large gang, to establish your gang of one. In short, you will have to employ the methods you claim are wrong. Why? Because that is what it (property ownership) all boils down to. I have considered it, along the lines of your anarcho-syndicalism (and Monty Python's). It is a form of 'voluntary-marxism', which, I have claimed is as close to 'democratic marxism' you can get. It is the favourable spot in the demarcations of these systems which I have espoused all along. the world can choose between; Marxism vs Capitalism, and Democracy vs Totalitarianism. You generally have to marry together the catergories, one as a system of economics and one as a system of rule. The 'anarcho' part would inevitably have to rely on democracy, as in the scene from the 'Holy Grail'..."we take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But, all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a civil majority, in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of...Dennis!(old woman cries out) There's some lovely filth down 'ere!"Or, the anarchists could take turns as absolute dictator, with no democracy, in alphabetical order, say. Either way, decisions will have to be taken by someone on matters that will affect the whole. Anarcho-syndicalism is the best 'pipe-dream' out there. In theory, if certain people could be chosen, and trusted, to put the good of all above the good of the few or the one, I would be in favour. The removal of the fetters in human nature.

Dear Hugo, The beauty of Darwinism is that it is fundamental. Almost human action is, or can be, above the fundamental, through reason, logic and choice. It explains how we came to be where we are, but that doesn't mean we could not choose another direction from this point onward. Most 'states' purport to be for the benefit of all, they just don't choose to act selflessly about it. Certain states have, in the past, been for the benefit of the 'one', such as fiefdoms or even kingdoms, but even these had to take into account the needs of all, lest the king starve. Or, if the ruler(s) are sarcastic about it, and tell the people "eat cake", they may just rise up, take you to the guillotine and shorten you a bit. Basically, if you continue to use the term 'vicious gang' to describe the gov't, I shall put this in your terms. Hugo, we all can belong to any 'gang' we like. I choose to belong to one called "Canadians" (although in some parts of our turf, some gamg members call themselves 'Les Habitants'). They collect 'protection money' from me, but formulate set rates to distribute that collection method so it doesn't cripple my ability to pay. In return, I get free schooling, access to doctors, roadways and a police and judicial system which they claim treats everyone equally. If I follow the rules, which seem fair to me, I'll be ok, usually. The stipulation is, that if I quit the gang, I have to move, because I cannot take any part of their turf with me...not that I could move it anyway, because it is just there (property ownership). If I choose to move, it will invariably be onto anoither gang's turf, and then I would be subjected to their rules, whether I like them or not. Sometimes, gangs can operate within another gang's turf, but it is a risk. Actually, belonging to either is a risk, but I am free to choose the path that minimizes the risk. One thing I cannot choose is to be a 'gang of one', for I would have to forcibly take some 'turf' away from one of the established gangs. Impossible, unless you have some sort of 'overwhelming force'.

Dear Hugo, These are examples of criminal organizations, and of lawless brigands. If you would eliminate gov't, (and therefore law, and the definitions of crime) these people would cease to become criminals. What the gov't does (by and large) is not criminal. Collecting taxes is not criminal in this country. Why? Because the gov't said so. WWHy can they say so? Because they wield the overwhelming force. (That and because 99.9% of people reject anarchy as a plausible alternative).

Dear Shady, Abu Nidal split with, and twicwe tried to kill, Yasser Arafat. It was no secret Saddam did give money to the PLO, and Nidal was caught by Iraqi police in a Bagdhad apartment, and commited suicide to avoid capture. Suicide? Evidently he shot himself 15 times. Err, you mean the daily coalition bombings? The 'daily attacks' by Iraq were switching on their radar and 'blipping' the coalition planes. The US/UK planes would then home in on the signal and blast the radar station. The coalition forces bombed Iraq almost daily for years. It actually didn't do either side much good. Nice try to 'spin it', though. That was meant as a joke, silly. I read about the attacks on the Iraqi National News website long before the invasion, (really good for a laugh, you should have heard the language and the rhetoric. For example, they used to say "we have sent the infidel attackers back to their 'nests of evil", etc. Funny thing is, much of the same rhetoric was, and is still in our western press today). I have read from many sources, both left and right, gov't and private, on this and other issues for years. Sometimes I read 'spin' that is actually bang on, and sometimes it is laughable.

Dear Shady, Fear, schmear, that is NOT an acceptable excuse for invading another country. I'm sure you'll agree, had Iraq actually done anything at all against the US, and they gave the excuse: 'we were fearful of them, so we attacked', it wouldn't wash with you either. Actually, sanctions were at a point of possibly being lifted (France and Russia both proposed it, the US resisted) Sort of, Iraq was the seller, but many groups aided the 'perfidy', including the USA, France, and others, (evidently even Kofi Annan's relative) were all trying to get their fingers in the pie. These allegations were never verified, nor did said 'programs' ever develop any weapons. All of them proved to be either mistaken or false. The 'unmanned drone' proved to be a dummy, the 'illegal range missiles' were tested without warheads, etc. Military intelligence is all about stuff nobody knows anything about. Contingency plans (such as the invasion of Canada) are drafted to cover as many scenarios as they can, many military plans and developments are borderline ridiculous. But they try to cover all the bases, even when they are out in left field.

Dear Army Guy, Your history is a bit wonky. The Waffen SS was formed before the war, even their trademark camo togs pre-date the war. The unit SS Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler saw action outside Warsaw, Poland in 1939, and the many SS units saw action from start to finish, though some were decimated almost to the last man. The SS itself was formed in 1933 as Hitler's bodyguard, and Himmler controlled all things associated with the SS. The SD, the police, the Gestapo and all concentration camps were technically 'SS' territory. The SS Einsatzgruppen was formed in June 1941 as a 'special task force' of recruits from within the Waffen SS, the secret and civil police, and the criminal prisons , carried out pogroms behind the front lines, and were the basic starters of 'the holocaust'. The concentration camps were not really utilized for mass extermination until 1941, when the SS Einsatzgruppen massacred 30,000 Kiev Jews at Babi Yar, and no one in the outside world heard a whisper at the time. This gave the SS (Himmler) the idea of using the 'final solution', and that concentration camps would be the most efficient way to do it. The Waffen SS (the fighting SS) took recruits from anywhere, concentration camps, policemen, even foreign supporters. Evidently, by Hitler's own decree, no 'concentration camp guard' could be refused front line service, and had the right to transfer. (source of this last line: 'The Devil's Guard" by George Robert Elford, (1971), where a former SS officer dictated 18 days worth of recordings on his experience fighting for France in Indo-China after WWII. He said the Waffen SS used to sneer at the cowards who used to stay behind to 'flay Jews' 1000 miles from the front)

Dear Shady, They may have been genuinely fearful of bogeymen in their closets, as well, but we all know they aren't there. Iraq was embargoed and 'sanctioned' (and spied upon) for 10 years by the USA, and Gen. Colin Powell stated 'Saddam is being kept in his box', which was the accepted method of dealing with, and preventing the development or aquisition of WMDs for, Iraq. I contend that the US knew full well that Iraq had no WMD capability. Oddly, this thread is listed as Bush vs the CIA, when Bush Sr. was Mr. CIA. They even renamed their headquarters at Langley "The George H. W. Bush Center for Intelligence". Bush Sr. served as director under Ford, and then had Bill Casey, "the spookiest of all spooks" as campaign manager for himself as VP, and his puppet Ronnie Reagan for Pres. The Bush family, through their company Pennzoil, also allegedly employed agent E. Howard Hunt, and another CIA man (both of whom were implicated in the Watergate scandal) when the Bush's were privately funding the 'Contras' in Central America. A good book (though very pro-american and inadvertently raising some unanswered questions) an autobiography about a CIA operative is "Shadow Warrior", by Felix i. Rodriguez. Felix was a staunchly anti-Castro Cuban ex-pat, himself partaking in the Bay of Pigs invasion. However, there is a photo with him and Che Guevera on the day Che was executed (Felix tampered with someone elses camera so that he would be the only one with a photo that day.) Felix later turned up at the White House, as a guest of GHW Bush, and gave testimony in the Iran-Contra scandal. An amazing individual, I recommend the book.

Dear Hugo, It takes two to tango. Don't forget, or unless you don't know, the period you refer to was the Civil War. The Conferderates wanted to secede from 'the union', sure, but weren't 'anarcho-capitalists', they were slavers and 'states' unto themselves. So too, is it with all individual transactions, and where von Mises has blinders on. Property ownership, and especially land ownership, is based on violence or the threat of violence. In the overwhelming majority of value, your personal property rights are upheld (or bestowed) by the threat of violence on your behalf, by the state. Have to agree here.

Dear BHS, Yes, by definition a 'conservative, resisting change,' would therefore want to keep Martin in power!There are a good many things that need to change in Canada, because there are many things industry can do better than the gov't, and a few things that industry cannot be trusted to do (fairly) that a gov't must.

Dear Hugo, Careful with your wording there, Hitler used almost the exact same phrasing to justify eradication of what he called 'Jewish parasites'. Here is a quote from my Encyclopaedia Brittanica Book of the Year (1961) regarding a court case of a black woman trying to promote integration in Little Rock. Bates vs. Little Rock(80 S Ct. 412) The city of Little Rock charged Daisy Bates with violating a city ordinance for refusing to disclose a membership list of the local members of the NAACP. The city claimed it was for the purposes of their power to tax. The court stated that "no power is more basic to the ultimate purpose and function of the government than the power to tax", but found that the real purpose of the ordinance was not taxation but "subtle governmental interference" with the basic right of peaceable assembly. So, 'the state' can uphold the law against any 'part of itself', if it chooses to do so. And it does, just not often enough.

Dear Hugo, To the best of my recollection, I did define existence. Then, rather than 'bowing out', I believe the discussion moved to one or more other threads. As I have said in the past, the state is supposed to be for the benefit of all, not the few, and is more often than not, misused. A more true analogy would be that of gun ownership. The gun itself is impartial, but most people say 'it is for self defence', yet self-defence shootings with a gun account for less than 20% of gun deaths.

Dear Hugo, As you can see, I do not propose to tell (or force) people 'what to believe', I am saying that they are wrong. I have outlined; the 'nature of existence', the nature of 'rights', and the meaning of life. Belief or disbelief does not alter truth.

Dear kimmy, Well said. It won't make more homos, either, contrary to popular fear.

Dear Hugo, Not exactly correct, for I bestow 'rights' upon people on a daily basis. Again, that depends upon what you believe.

Dear Hugo, But these qualities are the very same ones which are embraced as 'the fuel' which drives Capitalism!As Sparhawk astutely points out, and, as I have said earlier, there is no column for 'morals' on a bank balance, where capitalists equate 'the greatest profit=the greatest good'.

Dear Hugo, Goebbels became Chancellor right before he became dead. Admittedly, Speer had motive, but did not try to exonerate himself. He was one of the only ones to take guilt upon himself. He was one of the ones who scoffed at the others who tried to claim that they were 'just following orders' but using the now famous phrase "letter-carriers on high salaries'. For Goebbels part, he was the master of lies. He even had his wife and family murdered before his suicide so the wouldn't be captured 'and used to make propaganda against him'.I urge you to read Speer's account. I will endeavour to read Shirers, as I know someone with a copy.

Dear Hugo, I stand corrected. What I should have written was 'enforcement of law'. Your theory seems to be that any 'enforcement' is a transgression of individual rights, and prefer 'ostracism ala The Law Merchant' as punishment for breaking laws. No, Hugo, what I mean is that a Canadian Bank Note (serial numbered) is legal tender, and a copy isn't. Like the 'Mona Lisa', there is only one original, so you can't call it a forgery. If a bunch of them were made as currency, and numbered by the original artist, they are 'the currency', and any copies of them can be called 'forgeries, but technically not the originals.

Dear BHS, Black Dog makes an interesting point, the US is sadly ill-prepared to face a real battle. Also, don't forget, Bush and his warhawks have declared that no other country is allowed to even come close to the US in military capability. If boot is halfway correct, the US has no choice but to strike pre-emptively. But, then again, Boot is probably blowing smoke to sell his commodity.

Dear Hugo, I have not had the pleasure of reading much of Shirer (only a few dozen pages of "The rise and fall of the Third Reich"), but I understand he was a respected journalist. I will quote some of Albert Speer's book "Inside The Third Reich: Memoirs by Albert Speer" (1970) to offer evidence contrary to I prefer Speer's account because he was there. The highest ranking 'nazi' (though he wasn't really a 'Nazi-ist") to both live, and give an account. Further, Hitler later ordered the evacuation (forcibly, on foot) of every German on the western front. As to the 'succesor bit', the telegraphs from the FuhrerBunker read as follows; *the first radio message, dated april 30, 1945, 6:35 pm read: Grand Admiral Doenitz: In the place of the former Reich Marshal Goering the Fuhrer has designated you as his succesor. Written Authorization on the way. Immediately take all measures required by this situation. Bormann The radio message sent on May 1, 1945, at 3:18 p.m. read: Grand Admiral Doenitz: (Top Secret! Only via officer.) Fuhrer deceased yesterday at 3:30 pm. Testament of April 29 appoints you Reich President, Minister Goebbels Chancellor, Reichsleiter Bormann Party Minister, Minister Seyss-Inquart Foreign Minister. ......blah blah blah...confirm receipt."

Dear Renegade, You are correct, but suicide for that respondent is a better option for my own well being.

Dear Hugo, I personally agree, our justice system needs an overhaul. But I do not agree with abolishment. Again, I agree that there should be 'no double standards' with the laws, and that politicians should be held just as accountable as anyone, but you seem to think that any 'enforcable' law is wrong. Don't be silly. The laws of the land are held up to public scrutiny, and even the police are bound by them. They can't open fire in a supermarket for 'shits and giggles' any more than you can. A Canadian bank note is the original. It is not 'counterfeiting' when the bank of Canada makes them. It can only be called that when you make them. Bank notes were developed to replace the chicken and the playing card as a 'common denominator', to standardize currency transactions within the barter system. You cannot correct use the term 'forgery' or 'counterfeit' with an original. You can imply it is worthless, or over-inflated, or say it is as valuable as 'The Emperor's New Clothes' (such as the US dollar) but it cannot be a copy of itself.

Dear Greg, I am not convinced that it would help, unless you haven't the time. I get the impression that you have been on top of things to date, and before suspending/banning posters you have given them warnings, and opportunity to 'mend their ways'. Most of the posters here know how the forum works, and can easily answer basic questions for newcomers. If it is a question of saving you a bit of time by delegating some of the inquiries/complaints to a facilitator, then sure. For example, if someone uses colourful language too often, it doesn't automatically have to be PM'd to you for review if a facilitator can catch it and ask the offender to tone it down directly. I'm sure you're probably tired of hearing 'Why don't we have an 'off topic thread", when a facilitator could easily answer that. In short, I don't know if the forum would be made better, but I'm sure your job would be made easier, with a facilitator. Perhaps it would improve the forum a bit if you had a 'hands-on avatar'. You could have a 'trial period' for a month, and see how it goes. That way, no hard feelings if it doesn't work out.

Dear Hugo, This is false. Except for the crazy bit. Not once, even when everyone around him (with the exception of Goebbels) was begging him to sue for peace, or even surrender, Hitler refused. He said..."If Germany loses, then they weren't the stronger race, and so don't deserve to live anyway". Albert Speer spent the last months of the war trying to countermand Hitler's orders of total destruction (and risked execution for treason because of it) but never for one minute did Hitler try for peace...in fact, he took steps to sabotage any negotiations with the allies, to ensure no peace, only destruction of the loser, would occur.

Dear Black Dog, Don't forget, when the Iraqi National Guard was defeated in the invasion, the country was occupied, the military disbanded...but they were allowed to keep their guns!