Dr Yaron Brook on the War on Terror
Enderw
enjoyed it quite a bit. He is a very intelligent man and though I
disagree with his opinion that the Left is pretty much incompetent and
nihilistic and that Americans will not put them in power and thus the
religious right is the real domestic threat because they provide the
answers to the people who are looking for what is right and wrong, he
is fairly rational and I loved his explanation of why we are losing the
war on Terror.
He also provided his opinion on what he would do now if he was in
charge which was quite nice. He said that he'd first launch a few
missiles at Syrian government buildings and give them an ultimatum
that if they don't seal their border within 24 hours they would be
destroyed. After that is done move all 138,000 US troops to the border
with Iran (allow Iraqis to kill themselves or do whatever else they
want) and issue an ultimatum to the Iranian government to either
immediately surrender and leave the country, or prepare for
destruction. Since ayatollahs probably would not leave, American troops
would then sweep in, killing everything in their way, along with heavy
bombing of Tehran. Occupy the city, take out their government and
install a pro-american government. Leave them to deal with the rest and
sweep into Afghanistan to track down the rest of Taliban and Al Qaeda.
After all those moves countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would be
renouncing all ties with terrorist organizations and banning their
fundamentalist schools.
It's sad that we don't have any politicians brave enough to take
the course of action to actually win. Though we are fortunate that we
are fighting a very incompetent, pathetic, barbarian enemy which is why
the impact of losing this war is not going to be felt much directly.
It feels good to have such a man in charge of ARI.
Robert J. Kolker
> It's sad that we don't have any politicians brave enough to take
> the course of action to actually win. Though we are fortunate that we
> are fighting a very incompetent, pathetic, barbarian enemy which is why
> the impact of losing this war is not going to be felt much directly.
> It feels good to have such a man in charge of ARI.
We have not got enough troops to occupy and control Iran and Iraq and
Syria. That leave one course of action. Nuke the bastards and transform
their bodies into hot gasses.
Bob Kolker
Enderw
Though that is a good plan of action, I think the point was to kill
plenty of them as ruthlessly as possible without occupying any of those
countries. Nuking them is decent too.
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Though that is a good plan of action, I think the point was to kill
> plenty of them as ruthlessly as possible without occupying any of those
> countries. Nuking them is decent too.
My proposal does just that. One does not have to occupy a country to
nuke it into extinction. The idea is quite the opposite. We want our
people and our friends as far away as possible when the mushrooms begin
to sprout.
This idea of occupation and victory is so --- retro and quaint. The idea
is to kill our enemies and bust up their shit, not to conquer them. And
if they offer surrender we keep on bombing them anyway. That way we
don't have to feed the survivors.
Bob Kolker
cr...@hotmail.com
Enderw wrote:
> He also provided his opinion on what he would do now if he was in
> charge which was quite nice. He said that he'd first launch a few
> missiles at Syrian government buildings and give them an ultimatum
> that if they don't seal their border within 24 hours they would be
> destroyed. After that is done move all 138,000 US troops to the border
> with Iran (allow Iraqis to kill themselves or do whatever else they
> want) and issue an ultimatum to the Iranian government to either
> immediately surrender and leave the country, or prepare for
> destruction. Since ayatollahs probably would not leave, American troops
> would then sweep in, killing everything in their way, along with heavy
> bombing of Tehran. Occupy the city, take out their government and
> install a pro-american government. Leave them to deal with the rest and
> sweep into Afghanistan to track down the rest of Taliban and Al Qaeda.
> After all those moves countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would be
> renouncing all ties with terrorist organizations and banning their
> fundamentalist schools.
It's ironic that Ayn Rand herself would have never supported this type
of military action.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
li...@starways.net
Is there a good industrial use for radioactive glass? This could be
worth pursuing.
Lisa
Enderw
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> > We have not got enough troops to occupy and control Iran and Iraq and
> > Syria. That leave one course of action. Nuke the bastards and transform
> > their bodies into hot gasses.
>
> Is there a good industrial use for radioactive glass? This could be
> worth pursuing.
If you are really a woman I want to marry you ;)
Ender
Ken Gardner
> I just got back from a lecture by Dr Yaron Brook of the ARI and
>enjoyed it quite a bit. He is a very intelligent man and though I
>disagree with his opinion that the Left is pretty much incompetent and
>nihilistic and that Americans will not put them in power and thus the
>religious right is the real domestic threat because they provide the
>answers to the people who are looking for what is right and wrong, he
>is fairly rational and I loved his explanation of why we are losing the
>war on Terror.
He is partly right, partly wrong. He is right about the left, but
wrong about the religious right. I think they are even more
incompetent and politically inept than the left.
> He also provided his opinion on what he would do now if he was in
>charge which was quite nice. He said that he'd first launch a few
>missiles at Syrian government buildings and give them an ultimatum
>that if they don't seal their border within 24 hours they would be
>destroyed.
Except that this almost certainly requires Congressional approval. A
threat of wholesale destruction amounts to a declaration of war, and
only Congress can declare war. In practice, this means he needs
Congressional approval along the lines of the resolutions approving
the Afghanistan and Iraqi operations. I don't see even a
Republican-controlled Congress giving him this authority. This won't
work until our political leadership prepares the country for it. And
that process hasn't even started.
He can, of course, initiate limited military action against Syria. But
it will remain necessarily limited unless he gets Congressional
authority for more extensive operations.
>After that is done move all 138,000 US troops to the border
>with Iran (allow Iraqis to kill themselves or do whatever else they
>want) and issue an ultimatum to the Iranian government to either
>immediately surrender and leave the country, or prepare for
>destruction.
Same comment. Here, the persuasion job will be slightly easier
because everyone understands that Iran cannot be allowed to get
nuclear weapons. But it remains formidable.
[...]
> It's sad that we don't have any politicians brave enough to take
>the course of action to actually win. Though we are fortunate that we
>are fighting a very incompetent, pathetic, barbarian enemy which is why
>the impact of losing this war is not going to be felt much directly.
The problem isn't simply the politicians. It is also the people who
elect these politicians. You cannot do this kind of thing in the
current political and cultural climate.
[...]
Ken
Jim Klein
> It feels good to have such a man in charge of ARI.
Well said. That's my explanation for the success of such men, too.
jk
Mark
"It feels good to have such a man in charge of ARI."
Yaron Brook has been the executive director of ARI since at least a few
months before 9-11-2001. He was responsible for all of ARI's
"invade Iraq now" propaganda from then until the actual invasion.
At the time the gist of that propaganda was the same as the Neocons'.
Now he pretends he had nothing to do with it. Now he goes about the
country with a talk called "Neoconservatives vs. America" -- as if
only yesterday he hadn't been helping the Neocons all he could.
But he isn't really all that inconsistent. His criticism of the
Neocons amounts to this: the Neocons are not neocon enough. That is,
they are less eager Arabs and Persians as he is. I doubt it though.
Enderw paraphrases part of Mr. Brook's program for the Middle East:
"... American troops would then sweep in [to Iran],
killing everything in their way ..."
This is comic-book talk, reminiscent of what ARI and the Neocons were
saying in 2003 about the ease of conquering Iraq..
Enderw writes:
"... we are fortunate that we are fighting a very
incompetent, pathetic, barbarian enemy ..."
Incompetent, pathetic, barbarians -- who are going to build nuclear
bombs and ICBMS and kill us all.
Because we're free and they're not !
But Enderw seems to have slipped off the ARI track, because he
continues (right after "barbarian enemy"):
"... which is why the impact of losing this war is
not going to be felt much directly."
If so, why have a war to lose?
Mark
Don't Panic
Ken Gardner wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 03:53:39 +0000 (UTC), Enderw wrote:
>
> > He also provided his opinion on what he would do now if he was in
> >charge which was quite nice. He said that he'd first launch a few
> >missiles at Syrian government buildings and give them an ultimatum
> >that if they don't seal their border within 24 hours they would be
> >destroyed.
>
> Except that this almost certainly requires Congressional approval. A
> threat of wholesale destruction amounts to a declaration of war, and
> only Congress can declare war.
Which means that the only way Yaron Brook could actually do what he
wants would be if he were dictator, which I'm sure he wouldn't have a
problem with.
It's deliberative representative democracy that keeps yahoos like Brook
from getting into positions of power in the first place. The man's a
bona fide fascist. "Since ayatollahs probably would not leave, American
troops would then sweep in, killing everything in their way, along with
heavy bombing of Tehran. Occupy the city, take out their government
and install a pro-american government. "? Why doesn't he just don a
Darth Vader outfit and get it over with?
>
> The problem isn't simply the politicians. It is also the people who
> elect these politicians. You cannot do this kind of thing in the
> current political and cultural climate.
Thank goodness. If we did what Brook wanted we'd end up with zero
allies and a world united against us, instead of the islamists, because
we will have proven that we're just as nuckin' futs as they are.
Brook's position may as well be "Kill 'em all, and let Yahweh sort 'em
out."
Don't Panic
cr...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> It's ironic that Ayn Rand herself would have never supported this type
> of military action.
>
I think she probably would have opposed it because of its clear
political and economic inpracticality, not because of lack of moral
justification. Her thoughts on Cuba (interview with Playboy?)
illustrate this, as Ken's post echos the political, and Kolker's the
economic.
Although I'm sure she would never have advocated nuclear holocaust.
Don't Panic
I'm glad he's in charge of ARI as well.
.
.
.
cr...@hotmail.com
> cr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > It's ironic that Ayn Rand herself would have never supported this type
> > of military action.
> >
>
> I think she probably would have opposed it because of its clear
> political and economic inpracticality, not because of lack of moral
> justification. Her thoughts on Cuba (interview with Playboy?)
> illustrate this, as Ken's post echos the political, and Kolker's the
> economic.
She opposed WW1,WW2, Korea and Vietnam. She was totally against the
idea of taxation. She would never have suported using tax money to
attack countries that haven't invaded us. She also felt that
government retaliation against initiation of force should be carefully
controlled and objective. The burden is on you to show where she would
have supported taxing the population to pay for preemptive and
subjective war.
Atlas Bugged
>> I think she probably would have opposed it because of its clear
>> political and economic inpracticality, not because of lack of moral
>> justification. Her thoughts on Cuba (interview with Playboy?)
>> illustrate this, as Ken's post echos the political, and Kolker's the
>> economic.
Whoa! Whoa! That isn't right, but I never saw Cat Toy even come close.
That was actually lucid. Whoa!!
<cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126819799.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> She opposed WW1,WW2, Korea and Vietnam. She was totally against the
> idea of taxation. She would never have suported using tax money to
> attack countries that haven't invaded us.
Flatly false. Read on.
Cite, if you please, that she opposed WWII?
>She also felt that
> government retaliation against initiation of force should be carefully
> controlled and objective. The burden is on you to show where she would
> have supported taxing the population to pay for preemptive and
> subjective war.
I think it's trivial to show she might well have favored pre-emptive war
(though nothing makes a solid case either way,) to wit:
-----------------------
(http://ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html)
"RAND: ....Taxes should be voluntary contributions for the proper
governmental services which people do need and therefore would be and should
be willing to pay for -- as they pay for insurance. But, of course, this is
a problem for a distant future, for the time when men will establish a fully
free social system. It would be the last, not the first, reform to
advocate."
And:
"PLAYBOY:....any free nation today has the moral right -- though not the
duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other "slave pen." Correct?
RAND: Correct. A dictatorship -- a country that violates the rights of its
own citizens -- is an outlaw and can claim no rights."
----------------------------
Therefore, Rand would have certainly regarded invasion of any or all
Islamic hellholes as permissible. And she would likely not have been
against taxation for now, at least. Other aspects, such as an all-volunteer
army, would have satisfied her other criteria. The only question would be
whether it was the most profitable expenditure of money and blood for the
USA, a question which even I deem legitimate. However, should Iran acquire
nukes, there is no doubt in my mind what would be necessary and what Rand
would surely have favored.
Ken Gardner
>> It's ironic that Ayn Rand herself would have never supported this type
>> of military action.
>I think she probably would have opposed it because of its clear
>political and economic inpracticality, not because of lack of moral
>justification. Her thoughts on Cuba (interview with Playboy?)
>illustrate this, as Ken's post echos the political, and Kolker's the
>economic.
I agree. What she said about countries like Cuba and the USSR applies
equally to countries like Syria and Iraq today. A free or even
semi-free country would have the right, but not the obligation, to
wage wars of liberation against these countries. Practical
considerations may govern when to exercise that right.
Ken
Reggie Perrin
Atlas Bugged wrote:
> [...]
> <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126819799.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > She opposed WW1,WW2, Korea and Vietnam. She was totally against the
> > idea of taxation. She would never have suported using tax money to
> > attack countries that haven't invaded us.
>
> Flatly false. Read on.
Which part? There are definite contradictions identifiable in her
writing about war. Perhaps her position changed over the years. But
compare the Playboy interview with the "Roots of War":
[begin quote]
Just as Wilson, a "liberal" reformer, led the United States into World
War I "to make the world safe for democracy" -- so Franklin D.
Roosevelt, another "liberal" reformer, led it into World War II, in the
name of the "Four Freedoms." In both cases the "conservatives" -- and
the big business interests -- were overwhelmingly opposed to war but
were silenced. In the case of World War II they were smeared as
"isolationists," "reactionaries," and "America-First'ers.
World War I led, not to "democracy," but to the creation of three
dictatorships: Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany. World War
II led, not to "Four Freedoms," but to the surrender of one-third of
the world's population into communist slavery.
[end quote]
And then this from "Moral Inflation":
[begin quote]
There still are people in this country who lost loved ones in World War
I. There are more people who carry the unhealed wounds of World War II,
of Korea, of Vietnam. There are the disabled, the crippled, the mangled
of those wars' battlefields. No one has ever told them why they had
to fight nor what their sacrifices accomplished; it was certainly not
"to make the world safe for democracy"-look at that world now.
The American people have borne it all, trusting their leaders, hoping
that someone knew the purpose of that ghastly devastation.
[end quote]
OK, so it's not an outright "I oppose WWII", but it is certainly
suggestive of that. I believe Rand is also on record elsewhere as
opposing Vietnam and Korea, though I do not know the references
("Shanghai Gesture(s)" perhaps?).
> "PLAYBOY:....any free nation today has the moral right -- though not the
> duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other "slave pen." Correct?
> RAND: Correct. A dictatorship -- a country that violates the rights of its
> own citizens -- is an outlaw and can claim no rights."
It might be that the crucial word here is "free". My impression is that
Rand was so disgusted by the prevailing political winds in the US at
the time of these conflicts that she might not have considered the US a
free country. As you mentioned, the draft was perhaps the key
consideration in that assessment.
fred...@papertig.com
> ...My impression is that
> Rand was so disgusted by the prevailing political winds in the US at
> the time of these conflicts that she might not have considered the US a
> free country. As you mentioned, the draft was perhaps the key
> consideration in that assessment.
Not that we weren't free (though obviously mixed in that regard) but
that we were thoroughly confused as to our moral objectives (which of
course had the very same roots as our other mixed premises). What I
think disgusted her most about WWll was that while our men were
fighting and dying supposedly in the name of freedom, at the same time
we were bolstering the Soviet Union, treating them as an ally - and in
the end our "victory" consisted of stregthening them even more,
including handing them Eastern Europe. Korea and Vietnam followed
directly from that - just as the current mess in the Mideast followed
from our initial appeasement of the Arabs in the 1950's.
She reacted with great anger in a Q&A after a Ford Hall Forum speech at
the suggestion that we should have any hesitation about nuking the
Soviet Union out of concern for the innocents that would be killed
there in the process.
The very same "pro-terrorist libertarian losers" who claim to be able
to read her mind 25 years after her death have also typically reacted
with great hostility toward her supposed callousness in regard to the
killing of innocents in war. Depending on which side of this issue they
want to purport to be speaking in her name they will cite one or the
other of her comments, either in hypocritical support or to condemn
her. Whether on this issue or on nearly all others they are incapable
of keeping context.
Fred Weiss
Mark
complete list of what Ayn Rand said about WW II,
see
"Ayn Rand on Past Wars"
at
http://ariwatch.com/AynRandOnPastWars.htm
Ayn Rand opposed the U.S. entry into WW II.
There's no wiggle-room at all.
Mark
"The very same 'pro-terrorist libertarian losers'
mind 25 years after her death ..."
It's Mr. Weiss who is pro-terrorist, and one needn't read
Ayn Rand's mind. Just read what she wrote:
http://www.ariwatch.com/AynRandOnPastWars.htm
Mr. Weiss again:
"... they are incapable of keeping context.
The context is America's self-interest. And by America
I don't mean the Neocons in Washington or hopeless
Israel lovers like Mr. Weiss and Yaron Brook.
fred...@papertig.com
> Mr. Weiss, of the Paper Tiger book service, writes:
Gee, thanks for the plug, Mork. Would it trouble you add a link
like this each time you gratuitously feel obliged to mention it.
> "The very same 'pro-terrorist libertarian losers'
> who claim to be able to read her [Ayn Rand's]
> mind 25 years after her death ..."
> The context is America's self-interest. And by America
> I don't mean the Neocons in Washington or hopeless
> Israel lovers like Mr. Weiss and Yaron Brook.
I think this reveals Mork the Dork's real motives. That aside, while he
is selectively quoting AR out of context let me add this:
-"The purpose of this new isolationism is to play on the American
people's legitimate weariness, confusion and anger over Vietnam, in the
hope of making the U.S. government afraid to become involved in another
foreign war of any kind. This would paralyze the U.S. in the conduct of
any foreign policy not agreeable to Soviet Russia. The first intended
victim of the new isolationism will probably be Israel-if the
"anti-war" efforts of the new isolationists succeed. (Israel and Taiwan
are the two countries that need and deserve U.S. help-not in the name
of international altruism, but by reason of actual U.S. national
interests in the Mediterranean and the Pacific.)"- The Ayn Rand Letter
Vol. III, No. 24 August 26, 1974 "The Lessons Of Vietnam"
Since you are a fucking moron, Mork, what is this obsession you have
with continually providing us evidence of it? Or maybe that's just a
symptom of it.
Fred Weiss
cr...@hotmail.com
> > She opposed WW1,WW2, Korea and Vietnam. She was totally against the
> > idea of taxation. She would never have suported using tax money to
> > attack countries that haven't invaded us.
>
> Flatly false. Read on.
>
> Cite, if you please, that she opposed WWII?
Reggie beat me to it.
> "PLAYBOY:....any free nation today has the moral right -- though not the
> duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other "slave pen." Correct?
> RAND: Correct. A dictatorship -- a country that violates the rights of its
> own citizens -- is an outlaw and can claim no rights."
She clearly did not consider the US to be a free nation. She called the
US a "mixed" country between statist and free. Do you need a cite for
that?
I can't get past the fact that if she was opposed to WW1, WW2, Korea
and Vietnam how could she be in favor of invading Iraq? Am I being too
simple minded?
She also felt that the govenment's primary purpose was the retaliatory
use of force. She felt that it had to be very carefully controlled and
objective. Contrast that to your belief that the president should have
the sole power to wage war "in an emergency" against a country that
hadn't even initiated force agaisnt us.
Don't Panic
I never said she would support what she viewed as a subjective war. She
advocated war based on what she viewed as objective principles, whether
they are is a mater of debate.
But if you'd like me to at least back up what I said, then no problem:
"PLAYBOY: What about force in foreign policy? You have said that any
free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II .
. .
RAND: Certainly.
PLAYBOY: . . . And that any free nation today has the moral right --
though not the duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other
"slave pen." Correct?
RAND: Correct. A dictatorship -- a country that violates the rights of
its own citizens -- is an outlaw and can claim no rights.
PLAYBOY: Would you actively advocate that the United States invade Cuba
or the Soviet Union?
RAND: Not at present. I don't think it's necessary. I would advocate
that which the Soviet Union fears above all else: economic boycott. I
would advocate a blockade of Cuba and an economic boycott of Soviet
Russia; and you would see both those regimes collapse without the loss
of a single American life."
>From "Playboy's interview with Ayn Rand"
So basically, she was saying "We have the moral justification, but I
have a better idea." But look at it this way, at least she could say,
"Let's find a better way" rather than, "Do you suppose there's a
commercial use for radioactive glass?"
cr...@hotmail.com
Ayn Rand said "free" not "semi-free". Couple that with her opposition
to WW1,WW2, Korea and Vietnam and I think it's clear she would be
opposed to invading Iraq.
I've always figured that you guys thought Ayn Rand was wrong with
respect to her foreign policy. I didn't know you would try to twist her
words around and conclude she would have favored attacking Iraq.
Matt Barrow
<cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126887404.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Ayn Rand said "free" not "semi-free".
So who on earth could she be refering to regarding "free".
> Couple that with her opposition
> to WW1,WW2, Korea and Vietnam and I think it's clear she would be
> opposed to invading Iraq.
Again, I'll join the list of people asking for some real substantiation for
that, not just your version of George Nouri.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO
Mark
supported Israel. Ayn Rand died before the NYT Israel torture expose,
and before many good books exposing Israel's crimes became well known,
e.g. those by Alfred M. Lilienthal, Victor Ostrovsky, and Rodney Stich.
I have not quoted Ayn Rand out of context. Her essays make it clear
that she was against U.S. entry into WW II. Perhaps Mr. Weiss -- did I
say of the Paper Tiger book service? -- would care to provide what he
thinks is the context which makes these quotes (see "Ayn Rand on Past
Wars" at ARI Watch) say the opposite?
Robert J. Kolker
Even after Pearl Harbor?
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> The context is America's self-interest. And by America
> I don't mean the Neocons in Washington or hopeless
> Israel lovers like Mr. Weiss and Yaron Brook.
Our real self interest is to get rid of our Filthy Oil Habbit asap. In
this case we can cease to be concerned about the middle east and
concentrate on protecting our own borders.
Being free means not having to give a damn about anyone but ourselves
and our own.
Bob Kolker
cr...@hotmail.com
Don't Panic wrote:
> RAND: Not at present. I don't think it's necessary. I would advocate
> that which the Soviet Union fears above all else: economic boycott. I
> would advocate a blockade of Cuba and an economic boycott of Soviet
> Russia; and you would see both those regimes collapse without the loss
> of a single American life."
>
> >From "Playboy's interview with Ayn Rand"
>
> So basically, she was saying "We have the moral justification, but I
> have a better idea." But look at it this way, at least she could say,
> "Let's find a better way" rather than, "Do you suppose there's a
> commercial use for radioactive glass?"
That's a very good point. I have to concede that her foreign policy is
not very clear. However I strongly disagree with anyone who claims that
she obviously would have been in favor of invading Iraq, considering
that she was against all the other wars of the twentieth century.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Don't Panic
Even Nathaniel Branden implied in his NBI audio lectures that the real
motivation behind the entry into WWII was as a panacea to the Great
Depression.
And at the time he made the comments, he spoke for Ayn Rand.
cr...@hotmail.com
That's a good point. I've wondered about that. I can't remember her
mentioning Pearl Harbor. I'm guessing but I think her opposition was to
attacking Germany not Japan. I don't see how she could have been
against attacking Japan.
cr...@hotmail.com
Reggie Perrin wrote:
> Which part? There are definite contradictions identifiable in her
> writing about war. Perhaps her position changed over the years. But
> compare the Playboy interview with the "Roots of War":
I agree that her position on foreign policy is unclear. I have to admit
I'm wrong when I say she would have CLEARLY been against the Iraq war
or other preemptive wars. But I'd say the evidence is probably 80-20 in
my favor. What bothers me is that my position, in an Ayn Rand
newsgroup, is basically ridiculed by other objectivists.
cr...@hotmail.com
Atlas Bugged wrote:
> "RAND: ....Taxes should be voluntary contributions for the proper
> governmental services which people do need and therefore would be and should
> be willing to pay for -- as they pay for insurance. But, of course, this is
> a problem for a distant future, for the time when men will establish a fully
> free social system. It would be the last, not the first, reform to
> advocate."
But I doubt that she would be in favor of ADDING government
expenditures, while mandatory taxation still exists.
-
-
-
-
fred...@papertig.com
> At the time Ayn Rand wrote that parapgraph (edited by LP)...
If you are referring to the paragraph I provided, it comes straight
from the Ayn Rand Letter which *Ayn Rand herself edited*, you fucking
moron.
>...Ayn Rand died before the NYT Israel torture expose,
> and before many good books exposing Israel's crimes became well known,
> e.g. those by Alfred M. Lilienthal, Victor Ostrovsky, and Rodney Stich.
Oh please, Israel's only "crime", if it can be called that given our
increasing arm-twisting and lack of support in the last couple of
decades, is its ever growing appeasement of the Palestinian thugs -
capped by this latest disgusting withdrawal from Gaza.
> I have not quoted Ayn Rand out of context. Her essays make it clear
> that she was against U.S. entry into WW II.
What her essays make clear - time and again - is her opposition to *the
appeasement* of dictators which *leads to war*. Read for example, her
column on "The Cuban Missile Crisis" which is the one and only time she
ever praised JFK - for standing up to Khrushchev.
Fred Weiss
Mark
"Even after Pearl Harbor?"
_Especially_ after Pearl Harbor. If the public had been adequately
informed, Pearl Harbor would have been an occasion to lynch FDR, not
give him yet more power.
FDR was already clandestinely attacking Japan in China and the South
Pacific, quite unconstitutionally (see the Flying Tigers). He wanted
Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor and succeed in doing it to make the public
want to attack Japan, and consequently Germany.
Even Jack Wakeland of The Intellectual Activist says FDR "maneuvered"
- his word -- the U.S. into WW II. And _praises_ FDR for doing
it, thus showing his contempt for the U.S. public.
C... writes regarding Ayn Rand:
"I don't see how she could have been against attacking Japan."
In any case, she was. Attacking Japan meant entering War II all out
because Japan was allied by treaty with Germany. Germany predictably
declared war on the U.S. (Dec. 11, 1941) right after the U.S. declared
war on Japan (Dec. 8).
All the Ayn Rand quotes about WW II on ARI Watch were written after
Pearl Harbor.
The following is from a footnote in Leonard Peikoff's _The Ominous
Parallels_ -- and remember Ayn Rand probably read it:
"Once again [the first once being the first world war],
the American public, which was strongly ' isolationist, '
was manipulated by a pro war administration into joining
an ' idealistic' crusade. (On November 27, 1941, ten
days before Pearl Harbor, writes John T. Flynn, ' the
President told Secretary Stimson, who wrote it in his diary,
that our course was to maneuver the Japanese into attacking
us. This would put us into the war and solve his problem.' )
[from his book [i]The Roosevelt Myth[/I]] "
A good book to learn more about this is _Day of Deceit: the truth
about FDR and Pearl Harbor_, by Robert Stinnett. He had access to
documents declassified since the book Dr. Peikoff quotes. Like
Wakeland, he too approves of FDR's deceit.
fred...@papertig.com
Because you are not grasping the context in which she made the comments
which you are interpreting as "anti-war". That context is invariably
where she is discussing "the roots of war", i.e. what leads to them,
which apart from (most fundamentally) statism and collectivism is:
*appeasement*. Ayn Rand was able to keep and grasp that context, which
you and the others continually drop.
American foreign policy in the 20th Cent. has continually been a
process of dealing with "well now that we've let this mess spiral out
of control to the point where it is a serious threat, what do we do
now". Need I remind you what she thought of such range-of-the-moment
Pragmatism?
Look at where it led and is now leading in dealing with Katrina.
Precisely the same thing happened in regard to the Nazis and the
Communists - and then, having learned nothing from that, we repeated it
with the Arab thugs.
But note that she knew we had to deal with the mess, once created. She
did not advocate withdrawal from Vietnam.
Fred Weiss
Mark
You might also read the chapter "Blood" in Jame Bamford's book _Body
of Secrets_." And don't "Oh please" me on this. High yourself to
the library and read some reputable journalists instead of swilling
Israeli propaganda.
The AR Letter at the time quoted states that it was edited by LP. Look
it up. I mentioned this only because I see LP as the "evil genius"
behind subverting the Objectivist movement, and perhaps he was a bad
influence on AR when she was alive. He should have done his job and
researched Israel. Even back then there was evidence that Israel was
not what it cracks itself up to be.
And Mr. Weiss -- president of the Paper Tiger book service -- that
"you [explitive deleted] moron" is getting to be a bit of bore. How
about varying it a bit. You could, for starters, say "idiot" instead
of "moron" and [explitive deleted] instead of [explitive deleted].
Reggie Perrin
cr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Reggie Perrin wrote:
>
> > Which part? There are definite contradictions identifiable
> > in her writing about war. Perhaps her position changed over
> > the years. But compare the Playboy interview with the "Roots
> > of War":
>
> I agree that her position on foreign policy is unclear. I have
> to admit I'm wrong when I say she would have CLEARLY been against
> the Iraq war or other preemptive wars. But I'd say the evidence
> is probably 80-20 in my favor.
Perhaps. I think that would depend on what exactly it was about the
earlier conflicts that earned her disapproval.
If I have it correctly, Fred is suggesting that Rand opposed those wars
because she thought that they were ideologically misguided and
strategically unfocused and thus doomed to failure. (She even
considered WWII a failure, because it strengthened the hand of the
USSR). If we read the Playboy remarks as an endorsement of some
hypothetical war, guided by correct principles and strictly for the
purposes of liberation, then voila - no inconsistency. So I find that
appealing as a theory.
Extrapolating from that, would she have opposed the war in Iraq? My
guess is that she would not have opposed the deposition of Saddam, but
would have opposed the reconstruction efforts.
Mark
because she thought that they were ideologically
misguided and strategically unfocused and thus
doomed to failure."
I'm not sure what you mean by "ideologically misguided and
strategically unfocused" but don't you think she would somewhere
have said - if she believed it -- Yes, it would have been OK to go
along with FDR if he had entered the war with such and such an
attitude?
But nowhere in a dozen times of saying the US should have stayed out of
WWII does she do that. Fred is straining here.
Mark
There are just wars. The only ones I know of in U.S. history are the
Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and perhaps the Mexican War.
A just war is a battle in national self-defense. Mucking around in the
Middle East for half a century is not national self-defense. To say:
"Our government got us into this mess, we'll just have to give it
yet more power to get us out of it" just plays into the statists'
hands. We must get out of the Middle East and look to our own defense.
fred...@papertig.com
> For an account of the crimes of Israel...
Israel's only "crime" has been vigorously defending itself in a world
where it is surrounded by its sworn enemies bound and determined to
annihilate it.
End of discussion about Israel.
> The AR Letter at the time quoted states that it was edited by LP. Look
> it up.
I did. He is listed as "Contributing Editor" which does not mean that
he edited anything AR wrote. No one in her lifetime, if she had any
control over it, ever edited anything she wrote without her full
knowledge and permission.
End of discussion about AR being "edited by LP".
I'll take this occasion to mention a story related to me personally by
LP. Most of you know that PWNI was published post-humously. The
publisher had the final draft in hand when AR died. Some editor at the
publisher took it upon themselves to edit the draft and send it to LP,
whereupon he hired someone *to erase all the edits* and sent the
publisher a bill for the service.
> I mentioned this only because I see LP as the "evil genius"
> behind subverting the Objectivist movement, and perhaps he was a bad
> influence on AR when she was alive.
Uh, huh.
Well, that's a new twist on your craziness, LP being a "bad influence
on AR".
That combined with the audacity and pretentiousness - really, the
neurotic delusion - of a moron such as yourself being AR's
self-proclaimed great defender against "bad influences"
> And Mr. Weiss -- president of the Paper Tiger book service -- that
> "you [explitive deleted] moron" is getting to be a bit of bore. How
> about varying it a bit. You could, for starters, say "idiot" instead
> of "moron" and [explitive deleted] instead of [explitive deleted].
I'll take that under consideration, Mork the Dork - the fucking moron.
Fred Weiss
Mark
"End of discussion about Israel."
For Fred perhaps, but not the rest of us. The books of Lilienthal,
Ostrovsky, Stich, Bamford, etc. are not going to disappear just because
Fred wishes they would.
"End of discussion about AR being 'edited by LP'."
"Contributing editor" is fine with me. My point -- a minor
conjecture -- stands.
"Mork the Dork -- the [explitive deleted] moron."
I get the impression we're in a public playground in a less desirable
part of town. Fred writes like a juvenile bully talks, and perhaps
that's consistent with his intellectual position, or lack thereof.
fred...@papertig.com
>
> If I have it correctly, Fred is suggesting that Rand opposed those wars
> because she thought that they were ideologically misguided and
> strategically unfocused and thus doomed to failure.
Yes, but there is no doubt that once our hand was forced we had to
fight them. For example, once Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, there was no
longer any choice. They in effect had declared war on us - that was
soon followed by their attacks on the Phillipines and the Aleutians.
After we declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us, again
forcing our hand.
> Extrapolating from that, would she have opposed the war in Iraq? My
> guess is that she would not have opposed the deposition of Saddam,...
Specifically Iraq would be just a guess. Iran almost definitely, but
she likely would have urged that during/soon after the Tehran hostage
taking. I can't imagine her regarding the Arabs as anything but
something approaching sub-humans who should be bombed back to the Stone
Age if necessary and if that were required to get them to behave.
That's pretty much how she viewed the American Indians and she fully
supported their annihilation.
But keep in mind that the only significant reason for our interest in
the Mideast is oil, an interest which might not be necessary if we had
other rational policies diminishing our need of it - and even if we did
need it that previous rational policies wouldn't have led to the
current mess.
> but would have opposed the reconstruction efforts.
Most likely. I don't recall her ever saying anything on the subject,
but I rather doubt she would have supported The Marshall Plan which was
essentially the same idea.
And I can't imagine her ever supporting allowing Islamists into any
post-war gov't which is the utter - and doomed to failure - absurdity
of what we are allowing now.
Fred Weiss
Don't Panic
fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>
> American foreign policy in the 20th Cent. has continually been a
> process of dealing with "well now that we've let this mess spiral out
> of control to the point where it is a serious threat, what do we do
> now". Need I remind you what she thought of such range-of-the-moment
> Pragmatism?
>
> Look at where it led and is now leading in dealing with Katrina.
I couldn't agree more.
"For 2003, Bush slashed the money for an essential project to shore up
levees around New Orleans and build more pumping stations, stalling the
project. Then, in 2004, Bush allowed less than 20 percent of the funds
that his own Corps of Engineers said were necessary to shore up the
banks of Lake Pontchartrain, so that project had to be put on hold.
When hit by Katrina, Pontchartrain's banks broke open, flooding the
city's neighborhoods up to 20 feet deep.
Also in 2004, federal funds were pledged for a crucial study of how New
Orleans should prepare for a category 4 or 5 hurricane, such as Katrina
- but the Bushites, still diverting funds to their occupation of
Iraq, ordered the local office of the corps not to begin any studies,
and their budget for 2005 eliminated all money to develop hurricane
protection plans for the city. "
Don't Panic
fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>
> What her essays make clear - time and again - is her opposition to *the
> appeasement* of dictators which *leads to war*. Read for example, her
> column on "The Cuban Missile Crisis" which is the one and only time she
> ever praised JFK - for standing up to Khrushchev.
JFK actually appeased Khrushchev by not invading Cuba. Can you believe
what a fucking pussy he was?
.
.
.
Mark
"... once our hand was forced we had to fight them.
... once Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, there was no
longer any choice."
The public, unaware of what was going on behind the scenes, made the
wrong choice. The right choice? Impeach FDR for starters. He
intentionally concentrated the fleet at Pearl Harbor and
_intentionally_ left it there undefended even as he knew about the
danger. Here's the LP Ominous Parallels quote again:
"Once again [the first once being the first world war],
the American public, which was strongly ' isolationist, '
was manipulated by a pro war administration into joining
an ' idealistic' crusade. (On November 27, 1941, ten
days before Pearl Harbor, writes John T. Flynn, ' the
President told Secretary Stimson, who wrote it in his diary,
that our course was to maneuver the Japanese into attacking
us. This would put us into the war and solve his problem.' )
[from his book _The Roosevelt Myth_] "
See also _Day of Deceit: the truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor_, by
Robert Stinnett.
Fred says regarding declaring war on Iran that Ayn Rand:
"likely would have urged that during/soon after the
Tehran hostage taking."
The hostages initially were taken by Iranian militant students incensed
with America's support of "the Shah" (Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi)
whose brutal regime had been overthrown in a popular uprising some
months earlier. The new government took the hostages (about 90) from
the students. The government immediately released some of the hostages
but kept 52 of them.
Now what were those hostages doing in Iran in the first place? Most
(all?) had been there voluntarily when the Shah was in power, a
dictator every bit as brutal as Sadaam. I don't have much sympathy
for them.
As it was they were all released. Look up "October Surprise"-- and
hope Fred spares us the "big tough Reagan" whitewash.
Fred goes on to equate the culture of Persia with that of the American
Indians. As I've said before, this illustrates the problem with
reductio absurdum as a method of argument. How do you proceed when
your opponent's position is already absurd? Bad as Persian culture
might be it is infinitely advanced over that of the American Indian.
The Persians have a written language, houses, metallurgy, mathematics,
etc. none of which the savage redskins had.
cr...@hotmail.com
Do you consider yourself to be an objectivist?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mark
cr...@hotmail.com
> Extrapolating from that, would she have opposed the war in Iraq? My
> guess is that she would not have opposed the deposition of Saddam, but
> would have opposed the reconstruction efforts.
I disagree because we still have mandatory taxation. In my opinion she
viewed deposing dictators as a luxury, not a critical function of
government. That's why she said a free country has the right not the
obligation to invade a dictatorship. I just can't see her being in
favor of forcibly taxing citizens for a war unless it is for survival
purposes.
Reggie Perrin
Mark wrote:
> "... Fred is suggesting that Rand opposed those wars
> because she thought that they were ideologically
> misguided and strategically unfocused and thus
> doomed to failure."
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "ideologically misguided and
> strategically unfocused" but don't you think she would
> somewhere have said - if she believed it -- Yes, it would
> have been OK to go along with FDR if he had entered the war
> with such and such an attitude?
I agree that that is an awkward question for my interpretation. But
remember that Rand made surprisingly few pronouncements about war.
We're talking half a dozen or so pieces (maybe less?), some of which
only touch on the topic briefly. That suggests to me that what we have
here is a proto-theory, rather than a fully developed position.
The problem for *your* interpretation, as has been pointed out, is that
it is wholly inconsistent with Rand's remarks in the Playboy interview
and those quoted by Fred earlier.
Reggie Perrin
But I think that interpretation relies too heavily on an implausibly
narrow reading of the phrase "free country". The context of the remarks
implies that she was referring to contemporary liberal democracies, not
Objectopia. After all, when she goes on to say that she doesn't think
the US should invade Cuba, what's her reason? That it wouldn't be the
optimal strategic move, yada yada - *not* "because the US isn't a free
country". Surely, if she believed the latter *that* would have been her
*primary* objection. (And yes, I am aware that she wrote elsewhere that
the US wasn't truly free, but context matters).
Anyway, it's important to remember why we're engaging in such a lot of
speculation here - it's either because Rand didn't have a consistent,
fully-developed position or because she chose not to publicise it. The
question that really intrigues me is this: why is it that a thinker of
her calibre didn't speak out more on such an important issue? Because
it would have been politically dangerous? Because she didn't want to
get bracketed with other groups? Apathy (surely not)?
Ken Gardner
>Her essays make it clear
>that she was against U.S. entry into WW II.
This is complete bullshit.
Ken
fred...@papertig.com
> ...context matters.
Something seemingly impossible to explain to the likes of Mork and the
other Dorks.
> Anyway, it's important to remember why we're engaging in such a lot of
> speculation here - it's either because Rand didn't have a consistent,
> fully-developed position or because she chose not to publicise it. The
> question that really intrigues me is this: why is it that a thinker of
> her calibre didn't speak out more on such an important issue? Because
> it would have been politically dangerous? Because she didn't want to
> get bracketed with other groups? Apathy (surely not)?
What are you referring to here? Foreign policy? Foreign policy at the
level of its intricate details isn't a philosophical issue - anymore
than is, say, military strategy. There are broad philosophical
principles underlying it but beyond that, in its implimentation, there
can be any number of viable options which require knowledge of the
specific situations involved.
I was just briefly reading an essay she wrote in The Ayn Rand Letter
concerning how we might take advantage of the then growing split
between Red China and the Soviet Union. There was a certain amount of
almost journalistic speculation involved and you could sense, that
while what she was saying was interesting, she was perhaps out of her
element. It reminded me of the speculation that we have engaged in here
concerning whether we should or shouldn't have supported the mujahadeen
in Afghanistan when they were fighting the Soviets.
At this level, perhaps even more than what you were alluding to before,
context is everything and it can involve a great deal of uncertainty.
It's certainly not an exercise for the simple-minded who can only be
guided by principles as floating abstractions without any concrete
connection with reality.
Fred Weiss
Ken Gardner
>"For 2003, Bush slashed the money for an essential project to shore up
>levees around New Orleans and build more pumping stations, stalling the
>project. Then, in 2004, Bush allowed less than 20 percent of the funds
>that his own Corps of Engineers said were necessary to shore up the
>banks of Lake Pontchartrain, so that project had to be put on hold.
>When hit by Katrina, Pontchartrain's banks broke open, flooding the
>city's neighborhoods up to 20 feet deep.
Except that the levee broke at a place where it had been fully
upgraded. The parts that had not been fully upgraded did not break.
And even a fully upgraded levee would have taken years to complete,
and it still would not have withstood a Category 4 or 5 hurricane like
Katrina.
>Also in 2004, federal funds were pledged for a crucial study of how New
>Orleans should prepare for a category 4 or 5 hurricane, such as Katrina
>- but the Bushites, still diverting funds to their occupation of
>Iraq, ordered the local office of the corps not to begin any studies,
>and their budget for 2005 eliminated all money to develop hurricane
>protection plans for the city. "
This is primarily a state and local problem, not a federal problem.
Perhaps the Louisiana politicians, from Congress on down, should have
focused more on New Orleans flood control and less on various assorted
pork projects. For $14 billion over ten years, it could have had a
system that would have prevented the massive flood. Now the federal
government will be spending hundreds of billions of dollars. Your tax
dollars at work...
Ken
Ken Gardner
>Extrapolating from that, would she have opposed the war in Iraq? My
>guess is that she would not have opposed the deposition of Saddam, but
>would have opposed the reconstruction efforts.
I think I agree with this.
Ken
Ken Gardner
>> I agree. What she said about countries like Cuba and the USSR applies
>> equally to countries like Syria and Iraq today. A free or even
>> semi-free country would have the right, but not the obligation, to
>> wage wars of liberation against these countries.
>Ayn Rand said "free" not "semi-free". Couple that with her opposition
>to WW1,WW2, Korea and Vietnam and I think it's clear she would be
>opposed to invading Iraq.
There are so many errors here than I don't even know where to start.
>I've always figured that you guys thought Ayn Rand was wrong with
>respect to her foreign policy. I didn't know you would try to twist her
>words around and conclude she would have favored attacking Iraq.
I agree with whoever said that she would have supported liberating
Iraq, but not reconstructing the country.
Ken
cr...@hotmail.com
> c...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Reggie Perrin wrote:
> >
> > > Extrapolating from that, would she have opposed the war in
> > > Iraq? My guess is that she would not have opposed the deposition
> > > of Saddam, but would have opposed the reconstruction efforts.
> >
> > I disagree because we still have mandatory taxation. In my opinion
> > she viewed deposing dictators as a luxury, not a critical function of
> > government. That's why she said a free country has the right not the
> > obligation to invade a dictatorship. I just can't see her being in
> > favor of forcibly taxing citizens for a war unless it is for survival
> > purposes.
>
> But I think that interpretation relies too heavily on an implausibly
> narrow reading of the phrase "free country".
I should have said that I wasn't using just that statement. I was
taking many of her theories to come to my conclusion. I just don't see
her being in favor of enslaving citizens of one country to get rid of a
dictator in another. Not the way she felt about taxation. Do you?
-
-
-
-
Atlas Bugged
>> Cite, if you please, that she opposed WWII?
<cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126887033.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Reggie beat me to it.
Yes, she opposed all those other wars mentioned, I just never saw her
mention of WWII.
>
> She clearly did not consider the US to be a free nation. She called the
> US a "mixed" country between statist and free. Do you need a cite for
> that?
No, she clearly called the USA "mixed," but in the context we're discussing,
the matter would be, loosely speaking, "binary," in the sense a nation
either is free or non-free WRT whether it could invade any "slave-pen."
There is no doubt in my mind that she considered the USA "free" for this
purpose. If you look at the PLAYBOY interview in its entirety, or just the
sections of politics, she is clearly saying, "the USA has the *right* but
not the *duty* to invade the Soviets at this time, and it would moreover not
be wise at this time." That's what I get from it.
>
> I can't get past the fact that if she was opposed to WW1, WW2, Korea
> and Vietnam how could she be in favor of invading Iraq? Am I being too
> simple minded?
No, but that does faintly smell of non-sequitor. Let's remove some of the
ambiguity by instead considering the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Do you think she'd oppose that?
>
> She also felt that the govenment's primary purpose was the retaliatory
> use of force. She felt that it had to be very carefully controlled and
> objective. Contrast that to your belief that the president should have
> the sole power to wage war "in an emergency" against a country that
> hadn't even initiated force agaisnt us.
Emergency powers, whether yours against an armed burglar in the night, or
Bush's against a vicious terrorist attack, leave little room for debate, as
far as I can tell. You can make the argument that the power was abused in
the case of Iraq, but the power has to exist. Litigation over it simply has
to follow the event, that's almost axiomatic. Got another idea, let's hear
it.
fred...@papertig.com
> I should have said that I wasn't using just that statement. I was
> taking many of her theories to come to my conclusion. I just don't see
> her being in favor of enslaving citizens of one country to get rid of a
> dictator in another. Not the way she felt about taxation. Do you?
This is a prime example of completely dropping context.
You might as well say that we didn't have the right to rebel against
the British because we did not establish a laissez-faire utopia.
(Didn't Reggie or someone say something like this in the last day or
two? I have the vaguish feeling that I'm stealing this idea from
someone).
Fred Weiss
cr...@hotmail.com
> <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > I can't get past the fact that if she was opposed to WW1, WW2, Korea
> > and Vietnam how could she be in favor of invading Iraq? Am I being too
> > simple minded?
>
> No, but that does faintly smell of non-sequitor. Let's remove some of the
> ambiguity by instead considering the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
> Do you think she'd oppose that?
No, probably not. That was a fairly clear case of retaliation. In that
case I think she would, for practical purposes, be in favor of
attacking the Taliban despite the fact that it would be enslaving US
citizens. But she wouldn't be happy about it. Especially since it was
partially the result of poor US policy to begin with. Iraq is a totally
different matter. There was no "Corpus Delicti" as you lawyers would
say! :)
> > She also felt that the govenment's primary purpose was the retaliatory
> > use of force. She felt that it had to be very carefully controlled and
> > objective. Contrast that to your belief that the president should have
> > the sole power to wage war "in an emergency" against a country that
> > hadn't even initiated force agaisnt us.
>
> Emergency powers, whether yours against an armed burglar in the night, or
> Bush's against a vicious terrorist attack, leave little room for debate, as
> far as I can tell. You can make the argument that the power was abused in
> the case of Iraq, but the power has to exist. Litigation over it simply has
> to follow the event, that's almost axiomatic. Got another idea, let's hear
> it.
How about a declaration of war by congress? You keep saying it takes
too long. How long does that take? Didn't we declare war against Japan
in a few hours or at least less than a day?
Atlas Bugged
>> Bush's against a vicious terrorist attack, leave little room for debate,
>> as
>> far as I can tell. You can make the argument that the power was abused
>> in
>> the case of Iraq, but the power has to exist. Litigation over it simply
>> has
>> to follow the event, that's almost axiomatic. Got another idea, let's
>> hear
>> it.
cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126920850.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> How about a declaration of war by congress? You keep saying it takes
> too long. How long does that take? Didn't we declare war against Japan
> in a few hours or at least less than a day?
Well why can't congress convene and pass a bill by >2/3 stopping any Bush
action too, in 24 hours or so?
The question is what you are going to agree upon in advance as your decision
process. I am saying I want a person, not a committee, at the helm at that
particular moment.
Reggie Perrin
fred...@papertig.com wrote:
> [...]
> Foreign policy at the level of its intricate details isn't a
> philosophical issue - anymore than is, say, military strategy.
Point taken.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Reggie Perrin
cr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> [snip discussion of Playboy interview]
> I should have said that I wasn't using just [the Playboy interview].
> I was taking many of her theories to come to my conclusion. I just
> don't see her being in favor of enslaving citizens of one country
> to get rid of a dictator in another. Not the way she felt about
> taxation. Do you?
Well, firstly, I think we all acknowledge that tax dollars are
occasionally spent wisely. Since taxation is going to continue for the
foreseeable future, should libertarians and Objectivists defend certain
types of government expenditure?
If the answer is "yes", then we have to decide if a given overseas
intervention is a "worthy" cause; we ask if it is in the self-interest
of American citizens. If the answer to that question is also "yes",
then an L or an O could reasonably argue that the war is justified
*despite* the fact that it swallows up tax dollars.
Matt Barrow
<cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126917873.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I think you are exercising what she referred to as "concrete thinking", or
"floating abstractions". From what I've seen you have a strong predilection
for that. Don't feel alone, many libertarians have that trait.
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO
Matt Barrow
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:m1mmi11p937b09i4q...@4ax.com...
Second that!
--
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Even Nathaniel Branden implied in his NBI audio lectures that the real
> motivation behind the entry into WWII was as a panacea to the Great
> Depression.
The U.S. was out of the depression by 1940. We were producing lend-lease
goods as a "neutral" nation (go figure that one out!). The U.S. would
not have gone to war if Japan had not attacked.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> That's a good point. I've wondered about that. I can't remember her
> mentioning Pearl Harbor. I'm guessing but I think her opposition was to
> attacking Germany not Japan. I don't see how she could have been
> against attacking Japan.
After the U.S. declared War on the Empirce of Japan on Dec 8, Germany
declared war on the U.S. on Dec 11. So Hitler decided our entry into the
European war as a combatant nation.
Had the Japanese not attacked and had Germany not declared war, the U.S.
might have turned the western hemispher into a fortress.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Oh please, Israel's only "crime", if it can be called that given our
> increasing arm-twisting and lack of support in the last couple of
> decades, is its ever growing appeasement of the Palestinian thugs -
> capped by this latest disgusting withdrawal from Gaza.
That was a tactical retreat. The few settlers in Gaza were tying up an
inordinate number of IDF troops needed to defend them. Now Israel can
carpet bomb Gaza without killing Jews.
The Israeli government never excpected any reciprocation for the
withdrawal. It was unilateral and highly unpopular.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> Bob asks:
> "Even after Pearl Harbor?"
>
> _Especially_ after Pearl Harbor. If the public had been adequately
> informed, Pearl Harbor would have been an occasion to lynch FDR, not
> give him yet more power.
>
> FDR was already clandestinely attacking Japan in China and the South
> Pacific, quite unconstitutionally (see the Flying Tigers). He wanted
> Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor and succeed in doing it to make the public
> want to attack Japan, and consequently Germany.
The U.S. would not have attacked Germany if Germany had not declared war
on Dec 11. Hitler did FDR a great favor.
The U.S. was unconstitutionally helping the Brits and the Soviets with
lend-lease goods while pretending to remain neutral.
Japan need not have attacked the U.S. It was a greate strategic bluder
on their part. If the Japs had followed their Go West plan and occupied
the Dutch East Indies the U.S. could not have done a damned thing about
it without going to war with Japan. The Japanese hoped by disabling the
U.S. fleet in the Pacific that it could consolidate its hold on the
Philipenes, Malaysia and the Dutch East Indies. Given a fait accompli
they had assumed the U.S. would settle for some terms. Of course they
were very wrong. They succeeded in bring the U.S. out of its
isolationist slumber.
Tha alternative to the U.S. entering war with Japan and Germany would be
so fortify the Western Hemisphere and turn it into a fortress. Then you
would have had a "cold war" beteen the Axis and the U.S. lasting for god
knows how long.
The real action would be a struggle to keep the Axis powers from
investing Africa with its vast sources of raw materials.
Bob Kolker
Ken Gardner
[...]
>The U.S. was unconstitutionally helping the Brits and the Soviets with
>lend-lease goods while pretending to remain neutral.
What was unconstitutional about it?
[...]
Ken
Ralph Hertle
>fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>What her essays make clear - time and again - is her opposition to *the
>>appeasement* of dictators which *leads to war*. Read for example, her
>>column on "The Cuban Missile Crisis" which is the one and only time she
>>ever praised JFK - for standing up to Khrushchev.
>>
>>
>
>JFK actually appeased Khrushchev by not invading Cuba. Can you believe
>what a fucking pussy he was?
>
>.
>.
>.
>
>
Don't Panic:
The local military in Cuba it turned out had tactical control of
the USSR long range nuclear rockets, and the USSR had to
regain control of them.
Its just as well that JFK didn't invade Cuba. The BOP attack
was an example of incredible stupidity by JFK. On the other hand
JFK's bravado, brinkmanship, and diplomacy caused the USSR to
withdraw from Cuba with its weapons. Without the USSR Cuba
was no threat to the US. Thanks to JFK the case could be closed.
Ultimately, JFK's actions regarding the USSR in Cuba were
proved right. JFK's actions in sponsoring the attack on Cuba
would likely have caused alarm in the USSR leadership in that
they may have deemed the US to be a somewhat impulsive and
relatively irresponsible opposition, and that the USSR and US
leaders may have had similar amounts of equal amounts of wisdom
and stupidity.
What you called JFK was not true. Instead, he was incredibly
successful in protecting the US without an actual armed conflict.
One can only imagine what could have happened if the US supported
invasion of Cuba had threatened one of the nuclear
mi
Didn't one of the books sold by one of the Objectivist book
services describe the successful actions of JFK in removing
the USSR from its bases in Cuba?
Fred, of fred...@papertig.com, is correct in his statements regarding
AR's viewpoints.
You really need to read some revisionist history in order to
speak using actual facts.
Ralph Hertle
Robert J. Kolker
Aiding a beligerant implies the U.S. was also a beligerant, but Congress
had not yet declared war. The Germans regarded U.S. aid to the Brits as
being at war an sunk much U.S. shipping before the U.S. formally was at
war with Germany. German U-boats were actually sighted in the Cape Cod
Canal prior to war declarations. The U-boats operated well within the 12
mile limit whilst sinking U.S. bottoms.
Bob Kolker
cr...@hotmail.com
> Well, firstly, I think we all acknowledge that tax dollars are
> occasionally spent wisely. Since taxation is going to continue for the
> foreseeable future, should libertarians and Objectivists defend certain
> types of government expenditure?
>
> If the answer is "yes", then we have to decide if a given overseas
> intervention is a "worthy" cause; we ask if it is in the self-interest
> of American citizens. If the answer to that question is also "yes",
> then an L or an O could reasonably argue that the war is justified
> *despite* the fact that it swallows up tax dollars.
I've heard this line of reasoning before and I'm not too crazy about
it. I don't like the way it takes taxation out of the equation. I think
as long as mandatory taxation exists it "raises the bar" for what
should be considered a justifiable government expenditure. As long as
one person is still being taxed against his will I think every effort
should be made to reduce spending. If all taxation was collected
voluntarily would it matter what the money was spent on, as long as no
rights were violated? If all money was collected voluntarily then I
wouldn't have too much of a problem getting rid of Hussein and even
rebuilding Iraq. But taxation IS mandatory therefore I don't think we
should be spending the money. Do you see what I'm saying here?
cr...@hotmail.com
Mark wrote:
> Mark
> http://ariwatch.com
It's good to know I'm not the only objectivist who's against
pre-emptive military action. I was beginning to think I was the only
one, other than Ayn Rand herself. :)
Ken Gardner
>>>The U.S. was unconstitutionally helping the Brits and the Soviets with
>>>lend-lease goods while pretending to remain neutral.
>> What was unconstitutional about it?
>Aiding a beligerant implies the U.S. was also a beligerant, but Congress
>had not yet declared war.
I'm not buying this argument. I think we have to do a bit more than
the lend-lease program to be actually waging war.
>The Germans regarded U.S. aid to the Brits as
>being at war and sunk much U.S. shipping before the U.S. formally was at
>war with Germany.
That may be so. But what the Germans thought and what the
Constitution actually means are two different things.
[...]
Ken
Reggie Perrin
> Reggie Perrin wrote:
> > ...an L or an O could reasonably argue that the war
> > is justified *despite* the fact that it swallows up
> > tax dollars.
>
> I've heard this line of reasoning before and I'm not too crazy
> about it.
Good for you. Neither am I.
> I don't like the way it takes taxation out of the equation.
It doesn't take taxation "out of the equation" - it makes contact with
political reality. Taxation is not about to cease overnight, so given
that it's going to happen and the money will be spent *anyway* is it
reasonable to distinguish between appropriate uses of tax dollars and
inappropriate ones? I think so, at least for minarchists as opposed to
anarchists.
> [...]
> But taxation IS mandatory therefore I don't think we
> should be spending the money. Do you see what I'm saying here?
Yes, but I fail to see how your position differs from anarchism. If the
coercive nature of taxation is the root of your objection, then I think
you ought to oppose all forms of government spending, including such
things as the police and the courts.
cr...@hotmail.com
> It doesn't take taxation "out of the equation" - it makes contact with
> political reality. Taxation is not about to cease overnight, so given
> that it's going to happen and the money will be spent *anyway* is it
> reasonable to distinguish between appropriate uses of tax dollars and
> inappropriate ones? I think so, at least for minarchists as opposed to
> anarchists.
>
> > [...]
> > But taxation IS mandatory therefore I don't think we
> > should be spending the money. Do you see what I'm saying here?
>
> Yes, but I fail to see how your position differs from anarchism. If the
> coercive nature of taxation is the root of your objection, then I think
> you ought to oppose all forms of government spending, including such
> things as the police and the courts.
I think you are missing my point. You seem pretty logical, it may be my
fault, let me try again. Suppose you are planning your household
budget. You set aside a certain amount for food and shelter (police and
courts) no matter what. Now you are trying to decide if you want a new
car (attack Iraq). You've got massive credit card debt (mandatory
taxation) so you decide not to get the new car. On the other hand if
you have an extra 100,000 pounds laying around you may decide to get
the new car. My point is that when you have mandatory taxation, you
should only spend money on ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL items. And since I
believe that there are ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL items of government such as
police and courts, I am not an anarchist. And I feel quite sure Ayn
Rand would have agreed with me on this point, given her absolute hatred
of taxation.
2 questions for you. Would you approve of government spending on cancer
research, providing that there was no manadatory taxation anywhere in
the country? In other words as long as no one was forced to pay for it?
What about if there WAS mandatory taxation. Would you approve of
forcing citizens to pay for cancer research?
Do you get my point? My point is that the question of whether the
government spends money is DEPENDENT on whether taxation is mandatory.
You seem to be saying that government spending should only be based on
what is "appropriate".
-
-
-
-
Robert J. Kolker
>
> That may be so. But what the Germans thought and what the
> Constitution actually means are two different things.
U.S. Admiralty law prohibts shipping munitions to beligerants if
neutrality is maintained. FDR was playing an illegal game but no one
stopped him. Besides leng-lease is one of the factors that got the
country out of the depression.
Bob Kolker
Mark
"The alternative to the U.S. entering war with Japan
and Germany would [have been to] fortify the
Western Hemisphere and turn it into a fortress."
Hitler was doomed when he invaded Russia. By 1942 even his own
generals were trying to kill him. That old "we'd all be speaking
German if the U.S. hadn't entered the war" simply isn't true. And
tiny Japan hadn't a ghost of a chance of successfully invading the
colossal United States. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because we were,
unconstitutionally, attacking them (look up the clandestine operation
known as the Flying Tigers).
In all this you've forgotten FDR. You would let him get away with his
deceit?
Mark
"The problem for *your* interpretation ... is that it
is wholly inconsistent with Rand's remarks in the
Playboy interview ..."
>From the early 1960s to the mid 1970s Ayn Rand says over and over that
the U.S. ought to have stayed out of WW II. In the 1964 Playboy
interview she says that the U.S. had a right to destroy Soviet Russia
but that she did not think it was necessary. Where is the
contradiction?
You can read the Playboy interview at:
http://ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html
Here's some of what she says about WW II:
"Just as [Woodrow] Wilson ... led the United States into World War I,
'to make the world safe for democracy' - so Franklin D. Roosevelt
... led it into World War II, in the name of the 'Four Freedoms.'
... In the case of World War II, [those overwhelmingly opposed to war
... were silenced and] smeared as 'isolationists,'
'reactionaries,' and 'American First'ers.' "
-- "The Roots of War" _The Objectivist_ June 1966 (bracketed text
quoted from essay).
"World War I led, not to [Wilson's] 'democracy,' but to the
creation of three dictatorships: Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, Nazi
Germany. World War II led, not to [Roosevelt's] 'Four Freedoms,'
but to the surrender of one third of the world's population into
communist slavery."
-- Ibid.
"There still are people in this country who lost loved ones in World
War I. There are more people who carry the unhealed wounds of World War
II, of Korea, of Vietnam. There are the disabled, the crippled, the
mangled of those wars' battlefields. No one has ever told them why
they had to fight nor what their sacrifices accomplished; it was
certainly not 'to make the world safe for democracy' - look at
that world now. The American people have borne it all, trusting their
leaders, hoping that someone knew the purpose of that ghastly
devastation. The United States gained nothing from those wars, except
the growing burden of paying reparations to the whole world."
-- "Moral Inflation" _The Ayn Rand Letter_ March 11, 1974.
The following is from Leonard Peikoff's (Ayn Rand approved) _The
Ominous Parallels_, chapter 14, regarding WW II following WW I:
"Once again the American public, which was strongly
'isolationist,' was manipulated by a pro-war administration into
joining an 'idealistic' crusade."
What more do you want? How could she have been clearer?
"Ayn Rand on Past Wars" ( http://ariwatch.com/AynRandOnPastWars.htm )
concludes:
"It is abundantly clear to the sincere reader that Ayn Rand was against
America entering WW II."
Jim Klein
> However I strongly disagree with anyone who claims that
> she obviously would have been in favor of invading Iraq, considering
> that she was against all the other wars of the twentieth century.
You don't even have to consider that. You can rest easy that she would not
have supported the sacrifice of American and Iraqi lives in order to
establish a theological democracy. Her entire philosophy says nothing but.
Case closed. The only interesting thing is hearing how her most vocal
"supporters" try to rationalize that she would have.
jk
Atlas Bugged
>> However I strongly disagree with anyone who claims that
>> she obviously would have been in favor of invading Iraq, considering
>> that she was against all the other wars of the twentieth century.
"Jim Klein" <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:y0ZWe.11304$4P5...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> You don't even have to consider that. You can rest easy that she would
> not
> have supported the sacrifice of American and Iraqi lives in order to
> establish a theological democracy. Her entire philosophy says nothing
> but.
>
> Case closed. The only interesting thing is hearing how her most vocal
> "supporters" try to rationalize that she would have.
OK then, we'll try the same question to you as cr113 fielded (correctly, as
it turns out.)
Do you believe Rand would have opposed the mission to Afghanistan?
Yes or no answers are never required on HPO, so feel free to explain.
FWIW, is there even a single HPO'er who, while agreeing with the Iraq
action, believes it was mandated, as opposed to optional?
Jim Klein
> Do you believe Rand would have opposed the mission to Afghanistan?
I think she would've supported /A/ mission to Afghanistan, most probably.
> FWIW, is there even a single HPO'er who, while agreeing with the Iraq
> action, believes it was mandated, as opposed to optional?
I don't know. Offhand, I'd guess not. But then, many of these are people
who think "imperative" means optional, so I wouldn't care to figure out
what "mandated" might mean to them.
jk
Robert J. Kolker
> colossal United States. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because we were,
> unconstitutionally, attacking them (look up the clandestine operation
> known as the Flying Tigers).
The Flying Tigers were mercs paid by Chang Kai Shek. They were not part
of the Army Air Corps. Later the Tigers were absorbed into the military.
And that is not why the Japs attacked Pearl. The Nips wanted to prevent
the American fleet from interering with their Go North policty to invade
and absorb the Dutch East Indies.
The U.S. was already a non-neutral neutral since it was sending
munitions to the Brits and the Russians.
Bob Kolker
Mark N
> <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126887033.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>She clearly did not consider the US to be a free nation. She called the
>>US a "mixed" country between statist and free. Do you need a cite for
>>that?
>
> No, she clearly called the USA "mixed," but in the context we're discussing,
> the matter would be, loosely speaking, "binary," in the sense a nation
> either is free or non-free WRT whether it could invade any "slave-pen."
>
> There is no doubt in my mind that she considered the USA "free" for this
> purpose. [...]
I'm not at all clear on the meaning and significance of the word "free"
in that Rand quote. What sense of being "free" did she think an invading
nation had to satisfy, and why? I can think of two obvious possibilities.
First possibility: She assumed that the invading nation would take over
governance of the former "slave pen," and the former slaves would then
be subject to the government of the invading nation. In that case, for
the invasion to be justified, the new government would have to be
significantly better than the old, so that the lives of the former
slaves (the ones who survived the invasion, that is) would be
significantly improved.
Second possibility: She was thinking about the issue of involuntary
involvement in the invasion on the part of the citizens of the invading
nation. That is, maybe the word "free" was an allusion to the issues of
conscription and/or taxation.
Any other obvious possibilities that I've overlooked?
Mark
cr...@hotmail.com
Mark N wrote:
> I'm not at all clear on the meaning and significance of the word "free"
> in that Rand quote. What sense of being "free" did she think an invading
> nation had to satisfy, and why? I can think of two obvious possibilities.
There's a critical element to this that I think Rand was not real clear
about. There's a big difference between invading a country to set it
free and defending yourself against attack. To add to the confusion
some of the HPOers here talk about Iraq in terms of liberating it and
some talk about defending us from them.
Ken Gardner
>FWIW, is there even a single HPO'er who, while agreeing with the Iraq
>action, believes it was mandated, as opposed to optional?
Wars are always optional.
Ken
Ralph Hertle
Where do you get that? Where did Rand say anything
of that type?
Are you inventing facts again?
Ayn Rand was not against pre-emptive military action.
Ralph Hertle
Ralph Hertle
Mark:
It isn't clear at all. Ayn Rand recommended that the
US should have avoided entering WW2 at the beginning
and during the war, and that the US should have entered
once either the USSR or the Nazis would have conquered
the other, and that the US should have taken on and
destroyed the depleted victor.
That isn't exactly staying out of the war.
Where 'ariwatch' gets that AR was against WW2 has
not been made evident. Nor did ARI argue that point.
'Ariwatch' is not ARI.
I'd say that ARI has essentially agreed with AR, and
they basically continue the type of thought and policies
that AR advocated.
You don't agree with Ayn Rand.
Ralph Hertle
Reggie Perrin
c...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Reggie Perrin wrote:
> > ... I fail to see how your position differs from anarchism.
> > If the coercive nature of taxation is the root of your objection,
> > then I think you ought to oppose all forms of government spending,
> > including such things as the police and the courts.
>
> have mandatory taxation, you should only spend money on ABSOLUTELY
> ESSENTIAL items.
OK. So you believe that tax is only tolerable insofar as it is used to
fund "essential" services. I think that minarchists will always run
into trouble when they attempt to demarcate the "essentials", but
that's a whole 'nother argument.
We are looking at the problem from two different angles. You see
government splurging tax dollars on all kinds of inessentials, and want
to bring a stop to all of that. I think that's an admirable long term
aim, but what am I to do in the short term? Do I sit there and carp
about everything the government does, or do I encourage it to direct
funds to causes I consider worthwhile? The way I look at it, they're
gonna spend the damn money on *something*, so I might as well try to
make sure it's well-directed.
A brief example: here in good old Blighty, we had a marvellous,
visionary project foisted on us by an ambitious young minister. Called
the Millenium Dome, it is in essence a large plastic tent set down in a
deprived area of London. The cost? A cool 758m GBP. Now, would I have
rather had a tax rebate than this white elephant? You betcha, but my
chances of getting that were non-existent. So I found myself agreeing
with all the people who complained that we could have had X number of
hospitals instead, not because I'm a fan of the NHS, but because I knew
there was some possibility of that outcome occuring.
If I had believed that going to war in Iraq would benefit British
citizens in the same way that building new hospitals would (which I
didn't), I would have made the same argument about that. My position,
in a nutshell, is that I want tax cuts first and foremost, but *failing
that* I want the government to spend its (my!) money wisely.
> 2 questions for you. Would you approve of government spending on
> cancer research, providing that there was no manadatory taxation
> anywhere in the country?
If it wasn't compulsory to cough up? Sure, what do I care what people
choose to spend their money on? (Incidentally, the "mandatory" is
redundant).
> In other words as long as no one was forced to pay for it?
> What about if there WAS mandatory taxation. Would you approve of
> forcing citizens to pay for cancer research?
No, but *given* that they are going to be taxed, I would rather the
money was spent on cancer research than, oh I don't know, electrocuting
kittens.
Ralph Hertle
Bob:
Weren't the Flying Tigers a consulting firm that was hired to operate
the FTs? I gathered that
US money was involved, and the Chinese money that you mention is
something that I have no
information about. The FT's assets, pilots, and support were provided to
the corporation initially
by a US non-Army agency. The corporation had all the blessings of which
agency of the US Government?
I'd guess that the secret funding, permissions, and orders must have
come from the top, otherwise
the accountants for the Army would have asked questions within the Army.
For example, who is paying
for those aircraft and their support? The FTs had a specific mission for
the US; they weren't
mere free-roaming privateers. They were protecting the British in SEA
and India. I've read that
they British simultaneously got a number of the same P-40s on similar
terms which they operated
against the Japanese.
Ralph Hertle
Atlas Bugged
news:fW%We.5207$iv5.2066@trndny03...
> I'm not at all clear on the meaning and significance of the word "free" in
> that Rand quote. What sense of being "free" did she think an invading
> nation had to satisfy, and why? I can think of two obvious possibilities.
Your bafflement here baffles me.
>
> First possibility: She assumed that the invading nation would take over
> governance of the former "slave pen," and the former slaves would then be
> subject to the government of the invading nation. In that case, for the
> invasion to be justified, the new government would have to be
> significantly better than the old, so that the lives of the former slaves
> (the ones who survived the invasion, that is) would be significantly
> improved.
No, that isn't even it. If Saddam's Iraq was better than Dung-Heap's North
Korea, that doesn't make any invasion justified. The distinction was
binary, as I suggested. A dictatorship has one right - the right to take a
revolver to its own head.
A "free" nation - which for this purpose has a loose but distinct definition
which Rand broke in to four basic minimums - has more sxpansive rights, and
one of them is the right to invade a slave pen and liberate the slaves.
>
> Second possibility: She was thinking about the issue of involuntary
> involvement in the invasion on the part of the citizens of the invading
> nation. That is, maybe the word "free" was an allusion to the issues of
> conscription and/or taxation.
No, no (<slap> <slap> <slap>). Where are you getting this stuff? Stop
overthinking it.
>
> Any other obvious possibilities that I've overlooked?
YES! See above!
Do you want me to cite you to Rand's four aspects? They are incomplete,
BTW, IMOO, but nevertheless they were a good, sensible preliminary analysis.
Atlas Bugged
news:1126994534.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> There's a critical element to this that I think Rand was not real clear
> about. There's a big difference between invading a country to set it
> free and defending yourself against attack.
No, completely not-critical. A dictatorship is just a guy with a gun
pointed at a baby's head, extrapolated out to whatever lengths you want to
imagine. Anyone can kill the fucker, it doesn't even matter why.
> To add to the confusion
> some of the HPOers here talk about Iraq in terms of liberating it and
> some talk about defending us from them.
Criminals get to die. All you need to know.
Even here in America, a *petty* thief has two choices (assuming we get our
hands on him): (1) Stop, and accept punishment. (2) Die.
Reggie Perrin
Mark wrote:
> Regarding Ayn Rand and her remarks about WW II, Reggie says:
> "The problem for *your* interpretation ... is that it
> is wholly inconsistent with Rand's remarks in the
> Playboy interview ..."
>
> From the early 1960s to the mid 1970s Ayn Rand says over and over
> that the U.S. ought to have stayed out of WW II. In the 1964
> Playboy interview she says that the U.S. had a right to destroy
> Soviet Russia but that she did not think it was necessary. Where
> is the contradiction?
My apologies - I was confusing your point with cr113's broader claim
that Rand would have opposed all overseas interventions. (Though I
assume that's where your argument eventually ends up(?)). I agree that
the evidence that Rand opposed the US entry into WWII is persuasive,
but as others have pointed out, Pearl Harbor was the critical event. I
believe that one would have to know how Rand reacted to that in order
to truly discern her opinion.
Atlas Bugged
news:r67pi1d58alc5smns...@4ax.com...
> Wars are always optional.
That's provocative. I'll have to think about that.
No, it's wrong. We've been over this. An individual has the right to be a
pacifist because only s/he will suffer the consequence. But government has
an obligation to protect. How could a government refuse (justly) to engage
in a war that was necessary for defense?
It's like saying doing your job is optional.
Reggie Perrin
Atlas Bugged wrote:
> <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126994534.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > There's a critical element to this that I think Rand was not real
> > clear about. There's a big difference between invading a country
> > to set it free and defending yourself against attack.
>
> No, completely not-critical. A dictatorship is just a guy with a gun
> pointed at a baby's head, extrapolated out to whatever lengths you
> want to imagine. Anyone can kill the fucker, it doesn't even matter
> why.
But this business of substituting individuals for states is
problematic. I think everyone here acknowledges that any individual has
the right to exterminate a dictator - the question is whether states
enjoy the same right.
Mark N
> "Mark N" <ma...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote in message
> news:fW%We.5207$iv5.2066@trndny03...
>
>>I'm not at all clear on the meaning and significance of the word "free" in
>>that Rand quote. What sense of being "free" did she think an invading
>>nation had to satisfy, and why? I can think of two obvious possibilities.
>
> Your bafflement here baffles me.
Well, since I regard my own puzzlement as quite natural, I conclude that
you're easily baffled! :-)
>
>>First possibility: She assumed that the invading nation would take over
>>governance of the former "slave pen," and the former slaves would then be
>>subject to the government of the invading nation. In that case, for the
>>invasion to be justified, the new government would have to be
>>significantly better than the old, so that the lives of the former slaves
>>(the ones who survived the invasion, that is) would be significantly
>>improved.
>
> No, that isn't even it. If Saddam's Iraq was better than Dung-Heap's North
> Korea, that doesn't make any invasion justified. The distinction was
> binary, as I suggested. A dictatorship has one right - the right to take a
> revolver to its own head.
And what exactly is a "dictatorship"? What is it that has this one
"right"? Is it a person? A nation? A government? What? As Reggie has
suggested, all this talk that *appears* to ascribe "rights" and "duties"
to *states* needs clarification. (At least, I think Reggie was
suggesting that. In any case, *I* am suggesting it!)
> A "free" nation - which for this purpose has a loose but distinct definition
> which Rand broke in to four basic minimums - has more sxpansive rights, and
> one of them is the right to invade a slave pen and liberate the slaves.
>
>>Second possibility: She was thinking about the issue of involuntary
>>involvement in the invasion on the part of the citizens of the invading
>>nation. That is, maybe the word "free" was an allusion to the issues of
>>conscription and/or taxation.
>
> No, no (<slap> <slap> <slap>). Where are you getting this stuff? Stop
> overthinking it.
Sorry. I guess I'm a slow student.
>
>>Any other obvious possibilities that I've overlooked?
>
> YES! See above!
You mean you answered my question somewhere up there? :-\
> Do you want me to cite you to Rand's four aspects? They are incomplete,
> BTW, IMOO, but nevertheless they were a good, sensible preliminary analysis.
Sure, particularly if you think it's relevant to answering my question.
Mark
b
o
t
f
o
o
d
Mark N
> <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126994534.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>There's a critical element to this that I think Rand was not real clear
>>about. There's a big difference between invading a country to set it
>>free and defending yourself against attack.
>
> No, completely not-critical. A dictatorship is just a guy with a gun
> pointed at a baby's head, extrapolated out to whatever lengths you want to
> imagine. Anyone can kill the fucker, it doesn't even matter why.
*Anyone*? Even an "unfree nation"?
Mark
x
x
cr...@hotmail.com
> If I had believed that going to war in Iraq would benefit British
> citizens in the same way that building new hospitals would (which I
> didn't), I would have made the same argument about that. My position,
> in a nutshell, is that I want tax cuts first and foremost, but *failing
> that* I want the government to spend its (my!) money wisely.
OK I see the problem. Maybe it's different in the UK. Over here we
don't have a fixed pot of money to spend. When we decided to attack
Iraq we don't take the money that we spend in Iraq and deduct if from
some other program. When we decided to attack Iraq that was an
ADDITIONAL expense that had to be extracted forcefully from our
citizens.
So how do you think Rand would have felt about that? Keeping in mind
that she usually used terms like "sacrificial animals" and "enslave" to
describe taxation.
-
-
-
-