theloniusfleabag

Dear Army Guy, Please provide a link or other documentation to show where a 'war' was officially declared. Other than the generic and meaningless 'war on terror' title. It is impossible to actually declare war on an abstract thought. I am refering to Iraq, especially, but if you find one an Afghanistan, I'll be impressed too.

Dear Hugo, This goeas back to 'what is ownership?', and it could be said that the 'property' belongs equally to none. This goes back to your 'nugget in the wilderness' example, and the simple answer is that you own neither the nugget nor the wilderness, you simply control them. According to the buddhists, "what of their rights'?

Dear Army Guy, I believe you are right, murder is rarely justified. However, the US' dismissal of the evidence and testimoney is flimsy at best. Their sole defence is that 'the source is not credible'...meaning, it came from a prisoner. Let's also not forget that the US military murdered and tortured to death several prisoners, so to flush a copy of the Koran would be a fairly mild form of coersion, in their view, all things considered.

Dear Hugo, Yes, I realize this, but I meant the 'tory party' rather than the literal definition. They must stand for something more than the fear or hatred of change. What I mean by conservative or neo-con, is their wish for the re-integration of church and state, combined with a laissez-faire economy. The good old 'god-fearin' redneck way, where the wife stays at home and men go off to work or to war to fight the 'pinko-commies'. You are quite right, 'the people' or those that use this subterfuge to gain power have always been the greatest murderers. Doesn't mean Marx and Trotsky were totally wrong, though.

Dear eureka and Hugo, I would concur also, howver 'communism' has come to represent the Marxist-Leninist ideology, and Lenin was the one to introduce totalitarianism into the equation. Marx's theory was that all the 'workers' pool their income into one large bank account, and would trust everyone to only spend what they needed. Lenin came along and said, "I'll decide what you need, how much you'll need, and when you'll need it".Fascism is merely base conservativism with a strong father figure and a very large family, the whole country, usually.

Dear Bakunin, In Stronach's ouwn words, "dating sounds like a teenage word. We were 'seeing each other". Evidently for about 4 months. Mckay has yet to comment...or cross the floor himself....a possibility, as they were both 'left of far right' on several issues...

Dear Hugo, The state isn't the ultimate guarantor of the rights, force is, but they are the provider of the overwhelming force. True, but fascism and nazism used IG Farben and Krupp Steel (and vice versa) the same way. Except Krupp made tanks and Pfizer makes Soma.This quote is from Capitalism.org... Note the hypocrisy, in the line...."man is not an end to himself, but is only a tool to serve the ends of others. " Yet you are trying to say that someone like Donald Trump believes the complete opposite? Sure..(wink wink, nudge nudge;) Capitalism is absolutely dependent on every individual seeing others in this light.

Dear Black Dog, Indeed. The 'Neo-cons' would get Dr. Seuss to peddle heroin if they could own stocks in the company. Look at medical marijuana...the neo-cons cry "No, it is a terrible drug! Lets get a large pharmaceutical company (that I own stock in) make something that does exactly the same thing, then it'll be ok!".

Dear eureka, Indeed, and this is part of what I intend to show as the difference. Fascists are merely 'responsible anarchists' and 'right-wing conservatives' with larger boundaries.

Dear Terrible Sweal, As it has been said above, a rare, sincere politician. He and Alex Kindy were kicked out of the PC party for voting against implementation of the GST...they said it was because the majority of their constituents felt that way... but Mulroney 'cracked the party whip' and had them punted for not toeing the party line and "democracy be damned"...

Dear Hugo, You are right, to a certain degree. Germany beat USA to the punch, and declared war out of treaty obligation to Japan before the US declared war. Some of the other countries (that greatly contributed) such as Canada and Australia, took votes in parliment and decided to follow the UK into battle, though they did have a choice. Now, while I may seem disingenuous on the rights and morality issue, I do have a 'moral stance' and I think it is a good one. It doesn't matter what it is, though, unless others agree. Your and my theories of what rights should be (and Rothbard's and Thoreau's)aren't worth a fart in the wind unless there is overwhelming force to defend them should they need it. I protest the war in Iraq on a moral ground because I believe the tenets and dogma (not what was written once upon a time, but how it is now practiced) of the USA are amoral. They do not invade Saudi Arabia because they favour them, brutal thought they may be, for reciprocal but exclusive benefit. As to Huxley, I thought "A Brave New World" was what the right-wing conservatives are working toward....for I disagree with you (and TokyoTarakazuka) as to where fascism lies on the political spectrum. I believe it is far right, and hopefully soon I'll explain why...on another thread. I suppose this argument should have taken place in the thread "what is a right', but these two mirror each other, for tyranny has the power to grant rights, and one man's freedom can take them away from others. As Iv'e said, if one is far-right wing, and only holds the balance sheet and ledger as 'keeping score' of what is 'good', there are no columns for morals or ethics. Only profit and/or loss. By the way, the example in the animal kingdom of 'granting rights'...evidently chimpanzees are awfully fond of meat. Sometimes, a chimp that is 'lower in the social order' will come into possession of some fresh meat. Normally, with mating, etc, the structure of the social order dictates that those with the overwhelming power get first pick, and so territory, mating rights, etc are decided 'Darwin-style'. Not so with meat. The other chimps, even the ones that could take the meat away if they wanted to, 'grant the de facto right of disposal' to that chimp. He can share it, eat it, whatever he wants, and no one will take him to task. It is the only 'anarchist right' I have ever seen a true example of. We can't even count on humans to do this every time.

Dear Hugo, By the use of, or threat of, overwhelming force. Is that ethical? No, but ethics and morality are an invention of man, save one exception in the animal kingdom.Here's a question you asked August1991 that I missed... The allies in WWII (at least those not under direct attack) chose to initiate aggression against Nazi Germany, and murder even those not responsible ('terror bombing') to change the Nazi's 'right' to dispense 'rights'.

Dear Hugo, The Nazis did not recongize their right to live. Ergo, in Nazi Germany (and elsewhere as it expanded by means of overwhelming force) the right did not exist. Only elsewhere, in the 'free world' did we recognize that right, and we had to use overwhelming force to defeat the Nazis and re-establish it. Sadly, almost six million Jews and more millions of others were murdered before it could be done. It is estimated that Poland alone lost some six million civilians during WWII, ( many were because ofthe USSR, and those after were because of Stalin) but the only 'right' to freedom from occupation came because of treaty obligations to Poland from France and the UK.Imagine your 'anarchist rights' theory, and expound it to include a state. Did the Allies in WWII violate the rights of Nazi Germany to do with the Jews as they pleased, within their own borders? I can only say... Thank Goodness Canada wasn't merely a collection of anarchists, who, to an individual said, "Well, they haven't violated my rights, so it would be wrong for me to try to impose my morals and values, by physical force, upon them". Not sure where the contradiction is, unless it is where I said the violence need not occur, when the threat is enough. You claim the gov't has a monopoly of violence, and they steal from you (taxes), yet I doubt the gov't beats a cheque out of you every year. They don't have to, as long you know that they can. I love this bit, I find bitterly ironic allegory humorous. But you seem to think that the individual derives absolutely no benefit from the gov't. I don't think it's quite so devoid of the positive.I hope to start a thread about morals soon, but here is a quick bit of it's content...Is it wrong to profit (let's say hugely) from a retarded person? If the right-wing believe that individual wealth is the greatest good, then no such thing as 'rights' or 'morality' need exist. There aren't any columns for morality on any ledger book that I have ever seen. (Nor for legerdemain, for that matter)

Dear Hugo, Gee, you asked me to clarify what the base nature of property ownership was, and now you say you knew it all along....I will reiterate the fundamental:owwnership means one has either the power to take something or the power to keep it. In an anarchist system, the individual would be responsible for providing their own means of projecting that power. In a 'governed society', the state (actually the police) use the threat of the use of force on your behalf to defend your 'right of ownership' of your plasma TV. If there was a dispute over who 'owned' your TV, and they (or you) lose the battle, you also lose your 'right of ownership'. It is only 'your right to own it' as long as the police (or whomever is in control of the 'overwhelming force or threat of violence) agree.

Dear Hugo, Have to go, big party coming up tonight. I'll make this a short one. I do not say no crime was commited, nor do I use the term 'rightfully'. All I say is "The gold is now his".

Dear Hugo, The 'better claim' is the superior force. Provided one has the will to use it, of course. Then what is the name for aquiesence and reliquishment of ownership in the face of the threat of violence? It is only resignation if it happens to me. Let's take Canada for example. Were it to be invaded and conquered, the 'conquistadors' would then become the owners and be able to sell it, or parcels of it, as they saw fit. How can anyone say it is unfair, when that is how it came to be owned thus far? One either has to continue fighting or resign oneself to one's fate.

Dear Hugo, What I am saying is that the act of violence need not occur every time, but it is always there in some form, be it in the form of a subtle or overt threat, or actual physical form. The subtle threat is the existence of state police, where everyone knows what consequences may occur for a thief, or an overt threat... "Stand and Deliver! Your money or your life!" (In both cases your money is gone) No, I don't believe it is right, but as a pragmatist, I am saying 'that is what does be'. Depending on your point of view, it is both the lowest and the highest form of interaction. The lowest form, morally, if you believe in the good of society and the equality society's members, the highest form if you are on the right wing and believe that individual gain is 'the greatest good'.

Dear Hugo, Possession at the time of disposal is the only the penultimate factor regarding whether you recieve compensation for, or even live to see, the transfer of ownership.Certainly violence doesn't need to be present every time. In fact, the vast majority of the time it isn't present. It is, however, the ultimate trump card. Sure you own your TV, as long as you retain an overwhelmingly violent means to keep it. That would be your state sponsored police department. Should they ever become de facto weaker than those that oppose it, your claim of ownership gets cast into doubt.

Dear August1991, Sort of. Almost like Whitesnake. A rock and roll style band from Alberta.

Dear TokyoTakarazuka, I would disagree. Abu Nidal was killed in Bagdhad by Saddam's security forces, though initial reports said he was sick, and committed suicide. However, later reports said Iraqi agents burst into the room and he turned his gun on himself, and died from 15 self-inflicted gunshots. "Worst case of suicide we've ever seen", I'm sure they must have said. Interestingly, Abu Nidal tried to kill Arafat twice, and a Palestinian fatwa was issued ordering Nidal's death. Not entirely wrong, for the same goes for Afghanistan. How is Iraq like Afghanistan? The Soviets bled for ten years in Afghanistan and eventually pulled out. The locals were determined fighters, they weren't going anywhere and it cost them relatively little to wage war while the Soviets spent billions of Rubles that they coudn't afford to hold onto a land of dubious value. It became more costly to keep something than the return that they could possibly ever realize. The Afghanis themselves only wanted a Muslim ruled country. Iraq is much the same. The Afghanis were growing weary of the Taliban, and the majority didn't want that kind of totalitarianism. The fundamentalists and radicals have a better chance against 'a foriegn occupier' than they did against Saddam, who also 'wasn't going anywhere.I have bought and read "Imperial Hubris", "The 9/11 Commission Report", and "Future:Tense" from Gwynne Dyer, and none of these indicate that the USA has taken the corrrect path in the past, nor are they on the correct path to win in the future. Nor does evidence indicate that the USA and it's leaders will ever take advice from anyone, no matter how many mistakes get pointed out or how sound or correct the advice may be. US deaths are in decline because the US hurriedly put US-trained Iraqi sandbags in front of their own troops.

Dear TokyoTakarazuka, An excellent post, well argued and backed up by facts, as always. However, I must disagree with ... because Great Britain rarely cared if a colony was 'democratic' or not. They just wanted to control the upper echelons, the nabobs and the administrators (such as judges et al). What went on below that boundary was of no moment to them.And this... The potential risks really aren't all that great.

Dear Hugo, No violence was committed, yet. However, you are only in possession of the nugget. The unfettered 'right of disposal' is another story. Let's say it was a particularly large nugget, (but it doesn't really matter) and word gets out to others that you are in possession of a humongous nugget of gold. Surely, others will covet it (for that is the base definition of 'commercial value') and possibly seek to 'liberate it from your possession'. 'Ownership' means one has either the power to take it or the power to keep it. You may confront the brigands and thieves with the claim that "Rothbard said we shouldn't do things this way! I request you voluntarily turn yourselves in for trespassing!" Meanwhile, they've buggered your wife, shot your dog and are draggin you out back to slit your throat. The criminal element would like nothing better than to see the abolition of gov't, voluntary punishment and the next two neighbors down the block vigorously negotiating which of them will be next to go outside their castle walls and deliver an empty ultimatum to the bloodthirsty, gold-hungry Highwaymen. They say necessity is the mother of invention, and social order (and thereby gov't) was borne out of the need to curb anarchy.

Dear Hugo, If you are going to use Occam's Razor to whittle down to your theory the essence of gov't, you can't just stop there. All property ownership and rights come down to the same thing. Violence and the overwhelming use of force are the sole base factors in deciding ownership. Yes, including your own body.I don't agree with it, but there it is. Dear August1991, Not quite so simple, but not so difficult, either. Lobby groups decide the course of gov't more than politicians or voters do. Let's take Bill Clinton's promise of Universal health care in the US. Powerful pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies don't want it, and they donate millions of dollars to whomever will do as they say. That becomes whomever would like to get elected/re-elected and they who would like their re-election coffers to overflow. So, it doesn't really matter who is in power, their basic policy decisions will always reflect a main benefit to a third party on whom they depend, and it sure isn't the voter.

Dear August1991, The 'stark difference' is that Rove has his hands tied by the laws against murder in the USA. He stooped about as low as one can legally go, though, (and in fact this action was illegal, and should have been punished) when he declared the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson as 'fair game' and ostensibly had her exposed as a CIA operative, in retribution for Mr. Wilson publicly debunking the Nigerian yellowcake documents as false. A simple test of tyranny is whether a change of government only occurs through death or violence.

Dear KalosSkilo, This is actually the opposite of what has happened. To quote Richard Dawkins, of The Guardian in early 2003, (quote taken from the book 'Imperial Hubris', 2004, author Anonymous) Further, it has been said that the USA is in a classic lose-lose situation. If they pull out, it will will appear that they have lost. If they stay, they will bleed to death. This is the hope of Al-qaeda, that the US Army will stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue to take casualties, continue to spend billions that they don't have, and continue to draw in insurgent fighters from other countries. As Gywnne Dyer said, "The US should have declared victory and pulled the troops out long ago...Now they are going to lose... The real problem is that they might not lose fast enough." (A bit of paraphrasing on my part, but this reference can be found in the book "Future: Tense by Gwynne Dyer, 2004)