Chomsky Blasts US Hypocrisy
Dan Clore
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Washington Square News
Issue date: 11.16.2004
Chomsky blasts U.S. hypocrisy at Kimmel
by Caroline Sellke
Staff Writer
Renowned linguist and political theorist Noam Chomsky
condemned the hypocrisy of Western leaders and "the educated
elite" before a brimming Eisner & Lubin auditorium audience
last night, citing a parallelism between terrorism and the
United States' attempts to fight it.
Chomsky, a pioneer in the fields of linguistics, philosophy
and computer science who has authored more than 50 books,
focused his hour-long lecture on what he described as
rampant political violations of "the principle of
universality," namely that leaders do not hold themselves
accountable for the crimes for which they punish others.
"Moral truisms are so commonly disdained by those with
sufficient power, who claim impunity because they set the
rules," he said in the opening minutes of his speech.
The post-World War II Nuremberg trials set the stage for
today's political unaccountability by demonstrating that
"crime is a crime that you carried out and we did not,"
Chomsky said.
After all, he said, the United States exempted itself from
war crime, even though its extensive aerial bombardment
killed thousands of civilians.
Speaking of the war in Iraq, Chomsky said the Bush
administration's self-proclaimed immunity to universality is
what led the United States to commit "grave breaches" of the
Geneva Convention, such as reported torture at Abu Ghraib
prison and this weekend's invasion of a Fallujah hospital.
But Chomsky said that due to a "normative revolution" that
began in the post-Vietnam era, it has become "too ludicrous
to entertain the idea that our leaders are subject to U.S.
laws." As a result, he said, the Bush administration
essentially has the freedom to authorize torture and commit
genocide.
"In fact, the president's legal advisers should have little
difficulty arguing that the president does indeed have that
right [to authorize torture and commit genocide] . . . The
new attorney general [designate], considered a moderate, has
come quite close to that."
Turning his discussion on the flexibility of standards in
international affairs to the U.S. fight against terrorism,
Chomsky said the No. 1 problem with terrorism lies in its
very definition.
"The official definitions [for terrorism] are unusable," he
said after reading the definition from a U.S. Army manual,
which read: "The use or threat of action which is violent,
damaging, or disrupting and is intended to influence the
government or intimidate the public with the purpose of
advancing a political, religious or ideological course."
This definition, he said, "is virtually the same as the
definition of the official policy of the United States and
other states for 'counterterrorism.'"
Therefore, the United States is able to commit large-scale
international terrorism "quite uncontroversially," Chomsky
concluded, adding a final warning that this will not change
until the educated elites abandon their "contempt for
elementary moral truisms."
Chomsky's talk, open to the public and titled "Simple
Truths, Hard Problems: Some Thoughts on Terror, Justice, and
Self-Defense," was a hot ticket. Audience members gathered
as early as 4:30 p.m., three hours before the scheduled 7:30
p.m. starting time. The first 500 arrivals were granted a
seat or a standing room bid in the full-to-capacity
auditorium; the next bunch were relegated to the "overflow
room." Hundreds more were turned away, said Graduate School
of Arts and Science Dean Catharine Stimpson, who called
Chomsky "our favorite political dissident."
Chomsky's speech was largely well-received, but some
students in the audience said they were peeved by the large
number of non-NYU audience members.
"Why is it an NYU event if no NYU students can get in?"
asked CAS freshman Lindsey Weber, who said she snuck into
the event. "I mean, they're using our facilities and saying
it's an NYU event, but it's not publicized among the
students at all."
Weber also felt the lecture itself, the fifth installment of
GSAS' annual Lewis Burke Frumkes Lecture Series in
Philosophy, was not student-friendly.
"I felt like he wasn't really speaking to students," she
said. "He was talking kind of above us."
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608
Jim E
"Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message news:
> Chomsky blasts U.S. hypocrisy at Kimmel
Chumpski blasting hypocrisy, now that's FUNNY.
Jim E
Patrick Powers
>
> Speaking of the war in Iraq, Chomsky said the Bush
> administration's self-proclaimed immunity to universality is
> what led the United States to commit "grave breaches" of the
> Geneva Convention, such as reported torture at Abu Ghraib
> prison and this weekend's invasion of a Fallujah hospital.
>
The principal of universality has so little respect in the US that
I've giving up even mentioning it.
> "I felt like he wasn't really speaking to students," she
> said. "He was talking kind of above us."
After all, we're just NYU students. It's not like we're educated or
something.
James A. Donald
> The principal of universality has so little respect in the US that
> I've giving up even mentioning it.
By "the principal of universality" I suppose you mean the principle
that we should treat terrorists and murderers the same way we treat
honorable warriors fighting in accordance with the laws of war.
boughtmysoul
What, like blowing the head off an unarmed man? Yup, momma must be
proud of Cletus heading off to FIGHT FOR FREEDOM. Killin' dem
towelheads, fuck yeah!
Just so you know, the "laws of war" include NOT killing an unarmed
enemy combatant, but taking him as a POW and according him the basic
dignity that a fellow HUMAN BEING deserves...yes, even if he tried to
kill you. That's what moral superiority means, showing you can be
better than him.
Oh, and since you seem to have an especially thick skull, U.S. marines
are NOT innocent civilians (that needs reiteration, astoundingly).
Fighting against an occupying force does not, in any way, constitute
terrorism.
Patrick Powers
People don't even know what it means.
Dan Clore
It's pretty pathetic when people cannot even comprehend a
simple idea like applying the same rules to everyone.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Jim E
"boughtmysoul" <saved...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bc9f4157.04111...@posting.google.com...
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
> news:<jcjpp0hvc3fpe2umi...@4ax.com>...
>> Patrick Powers:
>> > The principal of universality has so little respect in the US that
>> > I've giving up even mentioning it.
>>
>> By "the principal of universality" I suppose you mean the principle
>> that we should treat terrorists and murderers the same way we treat
>> honorable warriors fighting in accordance with the laws of war.
>
> What, like blowing the head off an unarmed man? Yup, momma must be
> proud of Cletus heading off to FIGHT FOR FREEDOM. Killin' dem
> towelheads, fuck yeah!
>
> Just so you know, the "laws of war" include NOT killing an unarmed
> enemy combatant, but taking him as a POW and according him the basic
> dignity that a fellow HUMAN BEING deserves...yes, even if he tried to
> kill you. That's what moral superiority means, showing you can be
> better than him.
BZZZZZTTTT
WRONG ANSWER
One is never obligated to either take prisoners, or accept surrender.
These are nice things to do if conditions permit.
Conditions such as
A relatively stable situation
Sufficient troops to guard prisoners.
Time to stop and deal with prisoners.
The middle of clearing a building of active bad guys fits none of the
above conditions.
Soldiers live by a number of rules, first among them,
Kill the other guy first.
Break that rule, and none of the others matter.
Jim E
Jim E
> Patrick Powers wrote:
>> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
>> news:<jcjpp0hvc3fpe2umi...@4ax.com>...
>>>Patrick Powers:
>
>>>>The principal of universality has so little respect in the US that
>>>>I've giving up even mentioning it.
>>>
>>>By "the principal of universality" I suppose you mean the principle
>>>that we should treat terrorists and murderers the same way we treat
>>>honorable warriors fighting in accordance with the laws of war.
>>
>> People don't even know what it means.
>
> It's pretty pathetic when people cannot even comprehend a simple idea like
> applying the same rules to everyone.
>
Principal of universality:
Fighting the enemy using the same level of respect for the laws of land
warfare that he does.
Jim E
James A. Donald
On 18 Nov 2004 20:54:35 -0800, saved...@gmail.com
(boughtmysoul) wrote:
> Just so you know, the "laws of war" include NOT killing an
> unarmed enemy combatant, but taking him as a POW
To be a POW you have to fight in uniform or equivalent, rather
than hiding amongst civilians.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
rPuT/y7s6z1AVnJv8Hnf0E2zXI5lR448lssVV3JY
4C0Qr2MWncUg370VrWtRlwmA8n/pddXdMAbYdGWGT
Eric Fretheim
> --
> On 18 Nov 2004 20:54:35 -0800, saved...@gmail.com
> (boughtmysoul) wrote:
>
>>Just so you know, the "laws of war" include NOT killing an
>>unarmed enemy combatant, but taking him as a POW
>
>
> To be a POW you have to fight in uniform or equivalent, rather
> than hiding amongst civilians.
>
> --digsig
> James A. Donald
This is a very good point. In the actual Geneva convention
terms, this is a question of either mistreatment of a civilian
who has armed himself and joined the war on his own (an
"irregular" was the old fashioned term), mistreatment of a
criminal (if this is seen as the police duties required of an
occupying force in a pacified territory) or the shooting of a
spy. In no case is a person fighting in civilian clothes
qualified to rights as a POW. POW rights are strictly accorded
to persons who were taken while serving in a uniform duly
issued to them by a nation at war.
Also, once off the field of battle (such as most everywhere in
Iraq other than Fallujah) you certainly are not allowed to
shoot an irregular, a criminal or a spy out of hand, without
some accepted legal process, except under circumstances of
self-defense, or the like.
This, however, is the circumstances of this case. We are
neither talking about a uniformed combatant nor are we talking
about a civilian in a pacified zone. We are talking about a
situation where civilian-clothed irregulars are the ONLY enemy
facing the Coalition forces, where such an illegal (by
international laws of war) force is using dead bodies and dying
irregulars as material for booby-traps. Where injured
irregulars are willing to use the enemy's wish to abide by the
law against him, in order to get in one last shot with a hidden
weapon before dying.
Even though most anti-war people (not all: I will not be
joining in on this, and I'm sure I'm not alone) are going to
cry foul, and the Arab TV networks will shout in anger, and the
Imams in the Mosques will preach for more blood and more hate,
the legal process of our nation will be taking all of these
issues into consideration. Because the law doesn't say "if
everyone in the world convicts him, he's guilty", it says,
"innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." And guilt,
in this case, doesn't consist strictly of whether he shot
someone, but of whether he had a reason to shoot him.
--
Regards,
Eric Fretheim
Patrick Powers
> Imams in the Mosques will preach for more blood and more hate,
Mercy! Why would they do that?
Paul Broadway
"Patrick Powers" <frisbie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9511688f.0411...@posting.google.com...
They do that for the same reason the C of E and the Catholic church did
during the Crusades.
--
Paul Broadway
www.broadwaypub.com
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be
the most oppressive.
It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies.
The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some
point be satiated;
but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for
they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C.S. Lewis
michael price
Iraq? Not the americans certainly, as the cutting off of water to a
city shows.
michael price
Iraq? Not the americans certainly, as the cutting off of water to a
city shows.
> People don't even know what it means.
michael price
> "boughtmysoul" <saved...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bc9f4157.04111...@posting.google.com...
> > James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
> > news:<jcjpp0hvc3fpe2umi...@4ax.com>...
> >> Patrick Powers:
> >> > The principal of universality has so little respect in the US that
> >> > I've giving up even mentioning it.
> >>
> >> By "the principal of universality" I suppose you mean the principle
> >> that we should treat terrorists and murderers the same way we treat
> >> honorable warriors fighting in accordance with the laws of war.
> >
> > What, like blowing the head off an unarmed man? Yup, momma must be
> > proud of Cletus heading off to FIGHT FOR FREEDOM. Killin' dem
> > towelheads, fuck yeah!
> >
> > Just so you know, the "laws of war" include NOT killing an unarmed
> > enemy combatant, but taking him as a POW and according him the basic
> > dignity that a fellow HUMAN BEING deserves...yes, even if he tried to
> > kill you. That's what moral superiority means, showing you can be
> > better than him.
>
> BZZZZZTTTT
> WRONG ANSWER
>
> One is never obligated to either take prisoners, or accept surrender.
Actually one is. It's in the Conventions the US signed.
> These are nice things to do if conditions permit.
> Conditions such as
> A relatively stable situation
> Sufficient troops to guard prisoners.
> Time to stop and deal with prisoners.
The US troops had all of these and still murdered an unarmed man.
> The middle of clearing a building of active bad guys fits none of the
> above conditions.
The building had no active enermy combatants at the time.
James A. Donald
michael price:
> Remind me, who is fighting in accordance with the laws of war in
> Iraq? Not the americans certainly, as the cutting off of water to a
> city shows.
Cutting off food and water to a city controlled by the enemy is fully
in accordance with the laws of war - as is standing back, flattening
the city from a distance, ploughing the rubble, and sowing it with
salt, which would have accomplished a better result with zero american
casualties.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
dT77UXiJ7U/BUgydA/+/DX9av2A9AyCDA0O4pBTR
4U2XxNLadn2yFJyjKZFxGqKq6nc/PEs48j4egLodb
G*rd*n
> > Remind me, who is fighting in accordance with the laws of war in
> > Iraq? Not the americans certainly, as the cutting off of water to a
> > city shows.
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
> Cutting off food and water to a city controlled by the enemy is fully
> in accordance with the laws of war - as is standing back, flattening
> the city from a distance, ploughing the rubble, and sowing it with
> salt, which would have accomplished a better result with zero american
> casualties.
Since the U.S. had no business in Iraq in the first place, it
must justify its presence by pretending to improve the situation
there, which cannot be achieved by flattening the cities and
slaughtering the population. This is a difficulty similar to
that posed by the War in Vietnam. It is true the recent
election can be read as a pass for a certain number of
atrocities, but it is probably not a blank check.
Dan Clore
> frisbie...@yahoo.com (Patrick Powers) wrote in message news:<9511688f.0411...@posting.google.com>...
>>James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message news:<jcjpp0hvc3fpe2umi...@4ax.com>...
>>>Patrick Powers:
>>>
>>>>The principal of universality has so little respect in the US that
>>>>I've giving up even mentioning it.
>>>
>>>By "the principal of universality" I suppose you mean the principle
>>>that we should treat terrorists and murderers the same way we treat
>>>honorable warriors fighting in accordance with the laws of war.
>>
> Remind me, who is fighting in accordance with the laws of war in
> Iraq?
According to Amnesty International, no one.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
boughtmysoul
> BZZZZZTTTT
> WRONG ANSWER
>
> One is never obligated to either take prisoners, or accept surrender.
> These are nice things to do if conditions permit.
> Conditions such as
> A relatively stable situation
> Sufficient troops to guard prisoners.
> Time to stop and deal with prisoners.
> The middle of clearing a building of active bad guys fits none of the
> above conditions.
> Soldiers live by a number of rules, first among them,
> Kill the other guy first.
> Break that rule, and none of the others matter.
>
> Jim E
Yes, and conditions (in the example I cited) permitted. Nowhere in my
post did I say that soldiers are to take POW's no matter what; I did
specify unarmed men. My beef was with the guy I responded to, who just
swallows the line that US solders are "honourable", no questions
asked.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > Cutting off food and water to a city controlled by the
> > enemy is fully in accordance with the laws of war - as is
> > standing back, flattening the city from a distance,
> > ploughing the rubble, and sowing it with salt, which would
> > have accomplished a better result with zero american
> > casualties.
G*rd*n
> Since the U.S. had no business in Iraq in the first place
Perhaps not, but it is fighting this war with considerably more
restraint than any of the governments in World War II.
Why is no one complaining about the war crimes the French are
committing against unarmed people in Africa?
> it must justify its presence by pretending to improve the
> situation there, which cannot be achieved by flattening the
> cities
Flattening cities in Japan and Germany did improve the
situation - in Japan, improved the situation rather
spectacularly.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
BVVxGCwKyfilhL67QSyVe+M/H34GJEUkExn4BbF
4XGaHIL7qRJ5+OU9ikVj2FLKyhDAUYFjUC348EFI/
M J Carley
>Why is no one complaining about the war crimes the French are
>committing against unarmed people in Africa?
Mainstream comment in the UK:
Stuck in France's orbit: a depressingly circular history
Simon Tisdall
Tuesday November 9, 2004
Amid continuing turmoil in Ivory Coast, France firmly denied
yesterday that its forces were seeking to depose President Laurent
Gbagbo. But such suspicions are understandable, given the country's
history and especially after France's ruthless weekend destruction
of the country's air force.
...
If the weekend rioters had a unifying motive, it was anger at what
they see as a renewed attempt by France, and the west in general, to
manipulate Ivory Coast as in the past. The old cry, that France
covets natural resources (including significant offshore oil and
gas) was once again heard on the streets of Abidjan.
...
Solutions are in short supply. France has proposed UN sanctions, but
simply blaming the natives will not wash. The historic
responsibility runs much deeper and wider than that.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1346433,00.html
Radical comment in the US:
Bloody Intervention in Côte d'Ivoire
Imperialist France Destroys an African Air Force
By GARY LEUPP
During those first demonstrations against the war on Iraq, when some
marchers sported "Chirac for President!" and "Vive la France"
placards, I thought all the Francophilia naïve. France is, after
all, an imperialist country, and while a midget in comparison with
the U.S. juggernaut, it has some 33,000 troops stationed at bases in
the Caribbean, Polynesia, East and West Africa, the Indian Ocean and
elsewhere. In recent history as a NATO member, it has routinely
joined with the U.S. in conducting imperial crusades in the Persian
Gulf (1991), the Balkans (1993-present), and Afghanistan
(2001-present). It retains colonies in the Caribbean, South America,
the Indian Ocean and South Pacific, and a dominant role in the
economies of some foreign colonies.
http://www.counterpunch.com/leupp11132004.html
>> it must justify its presence by pretending to improve the situation
>> there, which cannot be achieved by flattening the cities
>Flattening cities in Japan and Germany did improve the situation - in
>Japan, improved the situation rather spectacularly.
So we're not flattening cities but flattening cities is a good thing.
--
E' la storia di un pasticciere, trotzkista, un pasticciere trotzkista
nell'Italia degli anni '50. E' un film musicale.
No MS attachments: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Dave Nalle
> "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message news:
>
> > Chomsky blasts U.S. hypocrisy at Kimmel
>
>
> Chumpski blasting hypocrisy, now that's FUNNY.
Just seeing the King of the Socialist Empire mentioned on a
libertarian group is funny in and of itself.
Dave Nalle
Cutting off the water was part of the effort to get the city evacuated to
reduce civilian casualties. Would it be better to provide water and then
shoot the people? What kind of fool are you?
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > Why is no one complaining about the war crimes the French
> > are committing against unarmed people in Africa?
M J Carley
> Mainstream comment in the UK:
>
> Stuck in France's orbit: a depressingly circular history
>
> Simon Tisdall Tuesday November 9, 2004
>
> Amid continuing turmoil in Ivory Coast, France firmly
> denied yesterday that its forces were seeking to depose
> President Laurent Gbagbo. But such suspicions are
> understandable, given the country's history and especially
> after France's ruthless weekend destruction of the
> country's air force.
Somehow this does not sound much like "French tanks slaughter
unarmed woman and children" How come you have not seen the
picture of the pretty black girl with her top off and her arm
missing?
Removing President Laurent for a more compliant french puppet
would probably do no great harm. Removing a pretty girl's
right arm seems rather offensive.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
1RCBh+uMSLv2y5C4X3duXFLG7rFSc+cHDy/ArPgJ
4SD9QoAF54go22oq5gpXmAjj9AMjbyyHY48b0yZoJ
Dan Clore
Yup, I know I burst out laughing every time I see a
libertarian-socialist like Chomsky mentioned on a
libertarian newsgroup. Ha ha ha!!!
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Giorgio Torrieri
> > Since the U.S. had no business in Iraq in the first place
>
> Why is no one complaining about the war crimes the French are
> committing against unarmed people in Africa?
The war in Iraq killed 100,000 civilians. When French troops in Cote
D'Avoire do something comparable, someone will complain.
GT
Dave Nalle
> Dave Nalle wrote:
> > "Jim E" <fatboy-...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<302vupF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> >>"Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message news:
> >>
> >>>Chomsky blasts U.S. hypocrisy at Kimmel
> >>
> >>Chumpski blasting hypocrisy, now that's FUNNY.
> >
> > Just seeing the King of the Socialist Empire mentioned on a
> > libertarian group is funny in and of itself.
>
> Yup, I know I burst out laughing every time I see a
> libertarian-socialist like Chomsky mentioned on a
> libertarian newsgroup. Ha ha ha!!!
The laughs just keep on coming. You just called
Chomsky a libertarian - omg, you're a riot. What was
Stalin, a radical anarchist? Was Lenin an objecivist?
Wait, I know, Marx was a free trade federalist, right?
Dan Clore
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message news:<30hnsjF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>>Dave Nalle wrote:
>>>"Jim E" <fatboy-...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<302vupF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>>>>"Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message news:
>>>>>Chomsky blasts U.S. hypocrisy at Kimmel
>>>>
>>>>Chumpski blasting hypocrisy, now that's FUNNY.
>>>
>>>Just seeing the King of the Socialist Empire mentioned on a
>>>libertarian group is funny in and of itself.
>>
>>Yup, I know I burst out laughing every time I see a
>>libertarian-socialist like Chomsky mentioned on a
>>libertarian newsgroup. Ha ha ha!!!
>
> The laughs just keep on coming. You just called
> Chomsky a libertarian - omg, you're a riot. What was
> Stalin, a radical anarchist? Was Lenin an objecivist?
They were state-capitalists, as a matter of fact. The laughs
just keep coming.
Alex K
>
> The laughs just keep on coming. You just called
> Chomsky a libertarian - omg, you're a riot. What was
> Stalin, a radical anarchist? Was Lenin an objecivist?
> Wait, I know, Marx was a free trade federalist, right?
To the extent that anti-capitalists don't propose Stalinist measures
of state confiscation of means of production (the state now having the
new twist of being called a "radical democracy") those type of leftists
--those that only like Stalin's propaganda but not necessarily his
deeds-- simply have no coherent alternatives to propose.
As such, they are fundamentally unable to offer any coherent
arguments for their position -- it thus becomes a matter of crucial
importance to label their capitalism-hating sentiments by nice-sounding
words: if they can't offer arguments, they must at least use the (vague)
suggestive power of nice words and soundbites.
So what we observe are people that exhibit a great interest in word
definitions, but none whatsoever in clarifying what they stand for.
By contrast, if words like "libertarian," "capitalist" "right wing"
and so on are forbidden or become meaningless, I am still able to
describe in meaningful terms what I stand for, and I can explain why
prosperity and freedom would likely be the result.
But this is so because there is something of substance in my position
-- unlike the position of what I can only call the left-over left.
Cheers,
Alex
G*rd*n
> > ...
> > The laughs just keep on coming. You just called
> > Chomsky a libertarian - omg, you're a riot. What was
> > Stalin, a radical anarchist? Was Lenin an objecivist?
> > Wait, I know, Marx was a free trade federalist, right?
Alex K <alex...@gmail.com>:
> To the extent that anti-capitalists don't propose Stalinist measures
> of state confiscation of means of production (the state now having the
> new twist of being called a "radical democracy") those type of leftists
> --those that only like Stalin's propaganda but not necessarily his
> deeds-- simply have no coherent alternatives to propose.
> ...
Alternatives are certainly offered. I suppose you can say
anything you disagree with is "incoherent", though. It doesn't
cohere with your opinions....
Alex K
There is more to it than that. I regard Parecon, state-socialism and
other forms of "radical democracy" as reasonably coherent proposals -- I
disagree with them on different grounds.
(Well, there are things left untouched, and for good reason, in say
Parecon -- but that proposal is specific enough so that criticism is
logically possible; and there are conclusive criticisms of it)
Cheers,
Alex
James A. Donald
Alex K:
> > To the extent that anti-capitalists don't propose Stalinist
> > measures of state confiscation of means of production (the
> > state now having the new twist of being called a "radical
> > democracy") those type of leftists --those that only like
> > Stalin's propaganda but not necessarily his deeds-- simply
> > have no coherent alternatives to propose.
G*rd*n
> Alternatives are certainly offered.
If you are really offering non violent alternatives, what stops
you and the rest from taking them?
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
vJUJvsinBczXDykVBt8ZaVjkX7j1avkxEdSckXFZ
4aTNgDAntj1pj+62jndzZeipRxqWhwmP31esQNouw
G*rd*n
> > > To the extent that anti-capitalists don't propose Stalinist
> > > measures of state confiscation of means of production (the
> > > state now having the new twist of being called a "radical
> > > democracy") those type of leftists --those that only like
> > > Stalin's propaganda but not necessarily his deeds-- simply
> > > have no coherent alternatives to propose.
G*rd*n
> > Alternatives are certainly offered.
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
> If you are really offering non violent alternatives, what stops
> you and the rest from taking them?
People do take them. However, these movements don't expand
very rapidly, for reasons which I've given several times
before, evidently without making any lasting impression.
I suppose people see what they want to see and hear what
they want to hear.
Timmy Ramone
>
> G*rd*n
> > Since the U.S. had no business in Iraq in the first place
>
> Perhaps not, but it is fighting this war with considerably more
> restraint than any of the governments in World War II.
>
> Why is no one complaining about the war crimes the French are
> committing against unarmed people in Africa?
I've read your responses, below, and it's pretty obvious that no
amount of criticism of the French government is going to satisfy
you, just as no amount of criticism of the U.S. military is going
to convince you that what it is doing in Iraq is wrong. It probably
doesn't matter to victims in Fallujah or Abidjan whether or not
foreign armies are fighting a kinder, gentler war -- they're still
victims. To suggest that they're benefitting from the "restraint"
of U.S. and French forces is a pretty despicable rhetorical dodge,
even for a troll like you.
--
Visit the "Usual Suspects" weblog:
http://www.browncross.com/usualsuspects/
"Bowl a strike, not a spare -- revolution everywhere!" -RABL motto
Timmy Ramone
>
> Cutting off food and water to a city controlled by the enemy is fully
> in accordance with the laws of war - as is standing back, flattening
> the city from a distance, ploughing the rubble, and sowing it with
> salt, which would have accomplished a better result with zero american
> casualties.
What "enemy" are you talking about? Fallujah didn't attack the U.S.,
the U.S. is attacking Fallujah -- or did I miss something on the
evening news?
As for "flattening the city from a distance"... Well, Jimmy, maybe
you should post your racist, warmongering bullshit to alt.klan or
some other newsgroup where it might have a more receptive audience.
James A. Donald
Alex K:
> > > > To the extent that anti-capitalists don't propose
> > > > Stalinist measures of state confiscation of means of
> > > > production (the state now having the new twist of being
> > > > called a "radical democracy") those type of leftists
> > > > --those that only like Stalin's propaganda but not
> > > > necessarily his deeds-- simply have no coherent
> > > > alternatives to propose.
G*rd*n
> > > Alternatives are certainly offered.
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
> > If you are really offering non violent alternatives, what
> > stops you and the rest from taking them?
G*rd*n
> People do take them.
You, however, do not.
And to the extent that some people far away supposedly take
them, what they are actually doing is in practice not
particularly socialist - not what you guys actually want.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
h7ENMR4iYH7GFMR79JEVJr5jC5XWJgbQubQAvXqY
43CzsAr2rgbGp6Uzxr9XmJIgZO67UDuyYL3DuGnuD
James A. Donald
James A. Donald wrote:
> > Why is no one complaining about the war crimes the French
> > are committing against unarmed people in Africa?
Timmy Ramone
> I've read your responses, below, and it's pretty obvious that
> no amount of criticism of the French government is going to
> satisfy you,
Most people in the world saw the terrorist who had sought to
surrender to the marines being shot on camera. How many
people saw civilians shot by french soldiers dying on camera?
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
WlTM/Ir5nPsPEhuGZU7ZErT150us1nbl0UnXk6pE
4jRjMiyIlIg2VkLc/eFgCtu8ILWwtUb6WaAe6t+FC
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > Cutting off food and water to a city controlled by the
> > enemy is fully in accordance with the laws of war - as is
> > standing back, flattening the city from a distance,
> > ploughing the rubble, and sowing it with salt, which would
> > have accomplished a better result with zero american
> > casualties.
Timmy Ramone
> What "enemy" are you talking about? Fallujah didn't attack
> the U.S.,
Fallujah, or rather people that control Fallujah, keep coming
out of Fallujah to attack men women and children, of all races
and nationalities, Americans among them.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
4bvyS5TvswWbAKsxavZ+hq8JDT6oFlptCNPVWepV
43lOcghk790MZ+46BVZBY5XL6FRt/OCYBhhmCluwu
Dave Nalle
> Dave Nalle wrote:
> >
> > The laughs just keep on coming. You just called
> > Chomsky a libertarian - omg, you're a riot. What was
> > Stalin, a radical anarchist? Was Lenin an objecivist?
> > Wait, I know, Marx was a free trade federalist, right?
>
> To the extent that anti-capitalists don't propose Stalinist measures
> of state confiscation of means of production (the state now having the
> new twist of being called a "radical democracy") those type of leftists
> --those that only like Stalin's propaganda but not necessarily his
> deeds-- simply have no coherent alternatives to propose.
>
> As such, they are fundamentally unable to offer any coherent
> arguments for their position -- it thus becomes a matter of crucial
> importance to label their capitalism-hating sentiments by nice-sounding
> words: if they can't offer arguments, they must at least use the (vague)
> suggestive power of nice words and soundbites.
This is why it's so apt to compare socialist/communist allegiances
to a religion rather than a political system, because only faith or
complete irrationality can justify adherence to these failed systems
in the face of the overwhelming evidence showing them to be
unustainable and in real world practice.
> So what we observe are people that exhibit a great interest in word
> definitions, but none whatsoever in clarifying what they stand for.
>
> By contrast, if words like "libertarian," "capitalist" "right wing"
> and so on are forbidden or become meaningless, I am still able to
> describe in meaningful terms what I stand for, and I can explain why
> prosperity and freedom would likely be the result.
> But this is so because there is something of substance in my position
> -- unlike the position of what I can only call the left-over left.
Very well put. If leftists were to attempt to describe their beliefs in
plain, practical terms, they would either be unable to do so, or if they
succeeded they would be shocked at what they admitted to believing
in because what they think they believe and what those beliefs actually
mean in practice are radically different.
G*rd*n
> > > The laughs just keep on coming. You just called
> > > Chomsky a libertarian - omg, you're a riot. What was
> > > Stalin, a radical anarchist? Was Lenin an objecivist?
> > > Wait, I know, Marx was a free trade federalist, right?
Alex K <alex...@gmail.com>:
> > To the extent that anti-capitalists don't propose Stalinist measures
> > of state confiscation of means of production (the state now having the
> > new twist of being called a "radical democracy") those type of leftists
> > --those that only like Stalin's propaganda but not necessarily his
> > deeds-- simply have no coherent alternatives to propose.
> >
> > As such, they are fundamentally unable to offer any coherent
> > arguments for their position -- it thus becomes a matter of crucial
> > importance to label their capitalism-hating sentiments by nice-sounding
> > words: if they can't offer arguments, they must at least use the (vague)
> > suggestive power of nice words and soundbites.
gra...@ccsi.com (Dave Nalle):
> This is why it's so apt to compare socialist/communist allegiances
> to a religion rather than a political system, because only faith or
> complete irrationality can justify adherence to these failed systems
> in the face of the overwhelming evidence showing them to be
> unustainable and in real world practice.
However, this isn't peculiar to socialist and communist
allegiances. Ardent believers in all political systems appear
to ground their belief in emotion or intuition. This is not
difficult to observe: believers in any ideology almost invariably
are absolutely sure that their favorite system must be the
one true and good one. But reason and experience teach us
that our knowledge is imperfect, and attempts to impose
one's belief on another using them seldom gets anywhere;
the target simply fights back with the same weapons.
This is as true of most liberals and especially libertarians
as it is of the believers of any other political persuasion.
Alex K <alex...@gmail.com>:
> > So what we observe are people that exhibit a great interest in word
> > definitions, but none whatsoever in clarifying what they stand for.
> >
> > By contrast, if words like "libertarian," "capitalist" "right wing"
> > and so on are forbidden or become meaningless, I am still able to
> > describe in meaningful terms what I stand for, and I can explain why
> > prosperity and freedom would likely be the result.
> > But this is so because there is something of substance in my position
> > -- unlike the position of what I can only call the left-over left.
gra...@ccsi.com (Dave Nalle):
> Very well put. If leftists were to attempt to describe their beliefs in
> plain, practical terms, they would either be unable to do so, or if they
> succeeded they would be shocked at what they admitted to believing
> in because what they think they believe and what those beliefs actually
> mean in practice are radically different.
On the contrary, if leftists were to attempt to describe their
beliefs in plain, practical terms, non-leftists would simply
reject their ideas out of hand because they don't have the
same intuitions, emotions and experiences as the leftists do.
Two good examples of putting forward plain, practical leftist
beliefs which went nowhere until a lot of trouble was made
about them (by leftist minorities) were the Civil Rights and
anti-war movements of the 1960s. The emotional attachment of
the majority to racism and militarism was simply too strong
for mere reason to overcome; otherwise there would have been
no need for the movements in the first place.
LeftRight
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:co7r76$pk7$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> Alex K:
> G*rd*n
> > > Alternatives are certainly offered.
>
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
> > If you are really offering non violent alternatives, what stops
> > you and the rest from taking them?
>
>
> People do take them. However, these movements don't expand
> very rapidly, for reasons which I've given several times
> before, evidently without making any lasting impression.
> I suppose people see what they want to see and hear what
> they want to hear.
More likely they are not hearing anything they consider worth listening to.
Alex K
>
> Alex K <alex...@gmail.com>:
>
>>> So what we observe are people that exhibit a great interest in word
>>>definitions, but none whatsoever in clarifying what they stand for.
>>>
>>> By contrast, if words like "libertarian," "capitalist" "right wing"
>>>and so on are forbidden or become meaningless, I am still able to
>>>describe in meaningful terms what I stand for, and I can explain why
>>>prosperity and freedom would likely be the result.
>>> But this is so because there is something of substance in my position
>>>-- unlike the position of what I can only call the left-over left.
>
>
> gra...@ccsi.com (Dave Nalle):
>
>>Very well put. If leftists were to attempt to describe their beliefs in
>>plain, practical terms, they would either be unable to do so, or if they
>>succeeded they would be shocked at what they admitted to believing
>>in because what they think they believe and what those beliefs actually
>>mean in practice are radically different.
>
>
>
> On the contrary, if leftists were to attempt to describe their
> beliefs in plain, practical terms, non-leftists would simply
> reject their ideas out of hand because they don't have the
> same intuitions, emotions and experiences as the leftists do.
In fact, it is possible to make arguments for and against various
political systems, and they can be conclusive sometimes.
For instance, the popularity of state socialism dropped greatly after
its implementation started and certainly after it ended. The reasons
they ended were the plain and even boring reasons that capitalists were
pointing out for a long time.
You seem to be saying that since by and large people form opinions
based on sentiment rather than calculated reason, you should use only
emotional "arguments" in propaganda. This may or may not be true, but it
doesn't excuse the fact that even in non-propagandistic contexts leftist
use only emotionally appealing "arguments."
I've searched hard and long for hard-core reasoning in leftist
writings and I could not find much of it.
I will take your claims as an admission that you favor a strategy of
"argumentation" that doesn't appeal to reason -- which is what I've
pointed out all along.
> Two good examples of putting forward plain, practical leftist
> beliefs which went nowhere until a lot of trouble was made
> about them (by leftist minorities) were the Civil Rights and
> anti-war movements of the 1960s.
However good arguments can be presented for such positions and good
arguments _were_ presented for them -- this quite independently of any
other "strategies" for making the message heard.
In economical matters such arguments are unheard of from radical
leftists -- and both theory and experience go against them.
Of course, before you present an argument you should make it clear
what you stand for -- but for "strategic" reasons it seems, the
alternative to state-socialism and capitalism is kept a well guarded
secret.
And the emperor really did have clothes, it's just that people were
too stupid to see them.
Cheers,
Alex
Timmy Ramone
>
> Timmy Ramone
> > I've read your responses, below, and it's pretty obvious that
> > no amount of criticism of the French government is going to
> > satisfy you,
>
> Most people in the world saw the terrorist who had sought to
> surrender to the marines being shot on camera. How many
> people saw civilians shot by french soldiers dying on camera?
Thanks for proving my point: No amount of criticism of the French
is going to satisfy you.
Oh, and I'm sorry I called you a troll. Most trolls are a lot
smarter than you.
Timmy Ramone
>
> Timmy Ramone
> > What "enemy" are you talking about? Fallujah didn't attack
> > the U.S.,
>
> Fallujah, or rather people that control Fallujah, keep coming
> out of Fallujah to attack men women and children, of all races
> and nationalities, Americans among them.
Your pathetic attempts at rationalizing the murder of innocents
and the destruction of their homes do not get any more valid
simply by repeating them. Like I said, this racist crap about
flattening entire cities at the whim of the U.S. government might
find a more receptive audience at a Klan rally, down a festering
sewer hole, or in some other habitat more friendly to your species
of vermin.
Mike
<<Thanks for proving my point: No amount of criticism of the French
is going to satisfy you.>>
Not that we've seen a lot of it from you, hypocritical motherfucker.
<<Oh, and I'm sorry I called you a troll. Most trolls are a lot
smarter than you.>>
An Islamofascist WHORE gives lessons in smartness. You're about to
become extinct, buddy. How "smart" is that ?? See you in hell, dear.
cheers,
-Mike
Mike
you should post your racist, warmongering bullshit to alt.klan or
some other newsgroup where it might have a more receptive audience.>>
Well, Timmy, perhaps you should kiss terrorist arses some place else.
That you, as a declared and assumed Islamofascist WHORE, are implying
that the terrorists are the only legitimate voices of the Iraqi
people, bespeaks volumes about what a dangerous and sick idiot you
are. Go fuck yourself, or kiss Osama's ass, if you can find him. You
aren't worthy of getting a girlfriend without syphilis. Similar to the
Chomskyite cunt Josh Dougherty, you would give her rapist a pat on the
back rather than defending her. You suck, you scum.
cheers,
-Mike
Dan Clore
> Well, Timmy, perhaps you should kiss terrorist arses some place else.
> That you, as a declared and assumed Islamofascist WHORE, are implying
> that the terrorists are the only legitimate voices of the Iraqi
> people, bespeaks volumes about what a dangerous and sick idiot you
> are. Go fuck yourself, or kiss Osama's ass, if you can find him. You
> aren't worthy of getting a girlfriend without syphilis. Similar to the
> Chomskyite cunt Josh Dougherty, you would give her rapist a pat on the
> back rather than defending her. You suck, you scum.
The quality of anti-Chomsky trolling continues its steady
decline.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
G*rd*n
> > Well, Timmy, perhaps you should kiss terrorist arses some place else.
> > That you, as a declared and assumed Islamofascist WHORE, are implying
> > that the terrorists are the only legitimate voices of the Iraqi
> > people, bespeaks volumes about what a dangerous and sick idiot you
> > are. Go fuck yourself, or kiss Osama's ass, if you can find him. You
> > aren't worthy of getting a girlfriend without syphilis. Similar to the
> > Chomskyite cunt Josh Dougherty, you would give her rapist a pat on the
> > back rather than defending her. You suck, you scum.
> The quality of anti-Chomsky trolling continues its steady
> decline.
They have some new words now, like "Islamofascist". Five
syllables! It's like finding a shiny new toy fire engine
under the Christmas tree. You can not only race it around
making siren sounds but hit your little brother over the
head with it. Oh, boy!
From Neo-Mattel.
Dave Nalle
> Dave Nalle:
> gra...@ccsi.com (Dave Nalle):
> > This is why it's so apt to compare socialist/communist allegiances
> > to a religion rather than a political system, because only faith or
> > complete irrationality can justify adherence to these failed systems
> > in the face of the overwhelming evidence showing them to be
> > unustainable and in real world practice.
>
> However, this isn't peculiar to socialist and communist
> allegiances. Ardent believers in all political systems appear
> to ground their belief in emotion or intuition. This is not
> difficult to observe: believers in any ideology almost invariably
> are absolutely sure that their favorite system must be the
> one true and good one.
Have to admit you've got a point here. I encounter extremist
true believers on all ends of the political spectrum. My observation
has been that most of them are irrational on only an issue or two,
but true leftists seem to be emotionally driven on more of a full
slate of issues or a complete philosophy. For example, a pro-lifer
may be completely rational on every other issue, but you don't
see one-issue leftists like that, except perhaps for your log-cabin
republican types.
>But reason and experience teach us
> that our knowledge is imperfect, and attempts to impose
> one's belief on another using them seldom gets anywhere;
> the target simply fights back with the same weapons.
But reason is the only tool we have to argue with reasonable
people. And many leftists aren't stupid. If you argue with them
from a basis of reason they sometimes reluctantly acknowledge
the logic of wha tyou're saying. They tend to bounce back to
their emotionally held beliefs pretty quickly though.
I think a lot of this has to do with personal insecurity.
Leftist ideologues want to believe they are 'good' people and
the package of leftist beliefs and programs make them feel
better than a more pragmatic, realistic and perhaps less
humane belief system.
> This is as true of most liberals and especially libertarians
> as it is of the believers of any other political persuasion.
There are all sorts of libertarians, but I certainly have encountered
some who are dogmatic and irrational as they come. But at least
the dogmatic version of libertarianism is less negative and destructive
than most other political philosophies.
> gra...@ccsi.com (Dave Nalle):
> > Very well put. If leftists were to attempt to describe their beliefs in
> > plain, practical terms, they would either be unable to do so, or if they
> > succeeded they would be shocked at what they admitted to believing
> > in because what they think they believe and what those beliefs actually
> > mean in practice are radically different.
>
> On the contrary, if leftists were to attempt to describe their
> beliefs in plain, practical terms, non-leftists would simply
> reject their ideas out of hand because they don't have the
> same intuitions, emotions and experiences as the leftists do.
Except that people come out of the same background and experiences
as leftists and often become something else alltogether. And there
ARE people out here who base their beliefs on reason and understand
both leftist and rightist positiions and can weigh the plusses and minuses
of each and do so relatively objectively. Not everyone rejects ideas
out of hand that they don't agree with. I know I believe in a lot of
things traditionally considered somewhat left wing, but end up
supporting republicans more often than not, because they tend to
hit the right positions on the issues that I think are real turning
points for the nation.
> Two good examples of putting forward plain, practical leftist
> beliefs which went nowhere until a lot of trouble was made
> about them (by leftist minorities) were the Civil Rights and
> anti-war movements of the 1960s. The emotional attachment of
> the majority to racism and militarism was simply too strong
> for mere reason to overcome; otherwise there would have been
> no need for the movements in the first place.
The problem with these two examples is that they weren't really
liberal issues at all. Civil Rights is a universal issue which has
been championed by as many people on the so called 'right' as
on the left. The perspectives on how to implement it most
effectively might be slightly different, but the belief in freedom
and equality isn't really a left-wing issue, much though they
want to claim it and deny it to anyone else. The same is true of
Vietnam. Although leftists were very outspoken about the war,
the fact is that there were many people on the right who opposed
the war from the very beginning, not because 'war is bad', which
is an emotional response to war, but because the war was poorly
conceived and executed.
G*rd*n
>>>> So what we observe are people that exhibit a great interest in word
>>>>definitions, but none whatsoever in clarifying what they stand for.
>>>>
>>>> By contrast, if words like "libertarian," "capitalist" "right wing"
>>>>and so on are forbidden or become meaningless, I am still able to
>>>>describe in meaningful terms what I stand for, and I can explain why
>>>>prosperity and freedom would likely be the result.
>>>> But this is so because there is something of substance in my position
>>>>-- unlike the position of what I can only call the left-over left.
gra...@ccsi.com (Dave Nalle):
>>>Very well put. If leftists were to attempt to describe their beliefs in
>>>plain, practical terms, they would either be unable to do so, or if they
>>>succeeded they would be shocked at what they admitted to believing
>>>in because what they think they believe and what those beliefs actually
>>>mean in practice are radically different.
G*rd*n:
> > On the contrary, if leftists were to attempt to describe their
> > beliefs in plain, practical terms, non-leftists would simply
> > reject their ideas out of hand because they don't have the
> > same intuitions, emotions and experiences as the leftists do.
Alex K <alex...@gmail.com>:
> In fact, it is possible to make arguments for and against various
> political systems, and they can be conclusive sometimes.
> For instance, the popularity of state socialism dropped greatly after
> its implementation started and certainly after it ended. The reasons
> they ended were the plain and even boring reasons that capitalists were
> pointing out for a long time.
In other words, experience, not theory, changed people's
minds. If indeed people's minds were changed.
Alex K <alex...@gmail.com>:
> You seem to be saying that since by and large people form opinions
> based on sentiment rather than calculated reason, you should use only
> emotional "arguments" in propaganda. This may or may not be true, but it
> doesn't excuse the fact that even in non-propagandistic contexts leftist
> use only emotionally appealing "arguments."
> I've searched hard and long for hard-core reasoning in leftist
> writings and I could not find much of it.
That's most likely because you don't want to -- or because
what you mean by "hard-core" is "based on the same axioms,
emotions, intuitions and experiences as mine." There's certainly
a lot of reasoning in leftist writings, reams and reams of
it. Write to Dr. Sokal, the great enemy of postmodernism,
who is a physicist and a leftist -- maybe he'll send you a
few cartons. But you probably won't like it any better than
the stuff you've seen already.
Alex K <alex...@gmail.com>:
> I will take your claims as an admission that you favor a strategy of
> "argumentation" that doesn't appeal to reason -- which is what I've
> pointed out all along.
I didn't say anything about my personal behavior. It is
precisely my attraction to reason, and the disappointing
futility of employing it, that have brought me to the
conclusion that most people don't want it and think they do
very well without it.
G*rd*n:
> > Two good examples of putting forward plain, practical leftist
> > beliefs which went nowhere until a lot of trouble was made
> > about them (by leftist minorities) were the Civil Rights and
> > anti-war movements of the 1960s.
Alex K <alex...@gmail.com>:
> However good arguments can be presented for such positions and good
> arguments _were_ presented for them -- this quite independently of any
> other "strategies" for making the message heard.
> ...
In the case of Civil Rights, I can assure you the majority
paid no attention to the arguments. After all, they could go
to the bad part of town and _see_ that Black people were
poverty-stricken, badly dressed, ignorant, lived in shabby
housing, had poor taste, and spent a lot of time hanging around
on streetcorners. And talked funny. White people's immediate
experience, and their need to have a set of people they could
look down on, defeated any theoretical arguments among the
great majority.
Alex K <alex...@gmail.com>:
> In economical matters such arguments are unheard of from radical
> leftists -- and both theory and experience go against them.
As I said, you see what you want to see and hear what you
want to hear.
> ....
Mike
> > This is why it's so apt to compare socialist/communist allegiances
> > to a religion rather than a political system, because only faith or
> > complete irrationality can justify adherence to these failed systems
> > in the face of the overwhelming evidence showing them to be
> > unustainable and in real world practice.
>
>
> However, this isn't peculiar to socialist and communist
> allegiances. Ardent believers in all political systems appear
> to ground their belief in emotion or intuition. This is not
> difficult to observe: believers in any ideology almost invariably
> are absolutely sure that their favorite system must be the
> one true and good one. But reason and experience teach us
> that our knowledge is imperfect, and attempts to impose
> one's belief on another using them seldom gets anywhere;
> the target simply fights back with the same weapons.
>
> This is as true of most liberals and especially libertarians
> as it is of the believers of any other political persuasion.
So that a Swiss citizen tries to "impose his beliefs" on another Swiss
citizen is as true as it was for the German Nazis or for the Russian
Communists doing that to their entire countries.
Garden, you believe you are "subtle", an "intellectual". In fact your
entire brain is worth less than the smallest hole in a piece of Swiss
cheese. I wouldn't call you a whore, like the happy trio Rapagnetta,
Philippic & Dougherty, because you would even be incompetent to fuck
an old goat, while they can do that much. However, Dan Clore or Noam
Chopsky might accept your services. If he's drunk enough.
cheers,
-Mike
G*rd*n
> > > This is why it's so apt to compare socialist/communist allegiances
> > > to a religion rather than a political system, because only faith or
> > > complete irrationality can justify adherence to these failed systems
> > > in the face of the overwhelming evidence showing them to be
> > > unustainable and in real world practice.
G*rd*n:
> > However, this isn't peculiar to socialist and communist
> > allegiances. Ardent believers in all political systems appear
> > to ground their belief in emotion or intuition. This is not
> > difficult to observe: believers in any ideology almost invariably
> > are absolutely sure that their favorite system must be the
> > one true and good one. But reason and experience teach us
> > that our knowledge is imperfect, and attempts to impose
> > one's belief on another using them seldom gets anywhere;
> > the target simply fights back with the same weapons.
> >
> > This is as true of most liberals and especially libertarians
> > as it is of the believers of any other political persuasion.
mikeho...@yahoo.com (Mike):
> So that a Swiss citizen tries to "impose his beliefs" on another Swiss
> citizen is as true as it was for the German Nazis or for the Russian
> Communists doing that to their entire countries.
That would depend on _how_ the imposer imposed his beliefs,
wouldn't it? Which doesn't always have a lot to do with the
content of the beliefs supposedly being imposed. A lot of
people have been tortured and killed on behalf of a man who
said things like "If someone strikes you on the right cheek,
offer him the left," and "Put up your sword, because all those
who lift up the sword will die by the sword" and "Blessed are
the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of
God." Beautiful thoughts, but those who were tortured and
killed still suffered and died, regardless of their beauty
and the fact that they contradicted the very actions which
were being performed to advance them.
And just so George Bush has invaded and occupied Iraq and is
slaughtering people there to bring them liberalism, capitalism
and democracy, even though liberalism, capitalism and democracy
are supposed to be opposed to invading countries and slaughtering
the people in them. At least, that's what their fans tell
me.
It seems that the content of true belief doesn't restrain some
true believers from actions which I, at least, find rather
off-putting. And of course you also see people with fanatical
beliefs who manage to avoid burning the rest of us at the
stake, so I guess it works both ways.
mikeho...@yahoo.com (Mike):
> Garden, you believe you are "subtle", an "intellectual". In fact your
> entire brain is worth less than the smallest hole in a piece of Swiss
> cheese. I wouldn't call you a whore, like the happy trio Rapagnetta,
> Philippic & Dougherty, because you would even be incompetent to fuck
> an old goat, while they can do that much. However, Dan Clore or Noam
> Chopsky might accept your services. If he's drunk enough.
You certainly have intriguing fantasies, but do you think
these newsgroups are the right places to expose them?
LeftRight
> > The quality of anti-Chomsky trolling continues its steady
> > decline.
>
>
> They have some new words now, like "Islamofascist". Five
> syllables! It's like finding a shiny new toy fire engine
> under the Christmas tree. You can not only race it around
> making siren sounds but hit your little brother over the
> head with it. Oh, boy!
>
> From Neo-Mattel.
What nation in the world would protect those 'Isalmofascists'? Follow the
link.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=15344
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG204A.html
LeftRight
it is out of step with Marxism because in Marx subjectivism and objectivism
are reconciled in the social condition. Marx, as much as I have knowledge of
his works, did not entertain the 'you're guided by your emotions and I am
not' debate (I should say 'tactic'). I should say that the envolvement of
emotions in the thought process entertaining human action as its' subject is
a true scientific application, and the thinking of oneself using that
intrument of the mind yeilds reliable information of self and others. But
this is psychology and therefore not the central focus of Marxs theorectical
contructing (some of which is class conflict model of social developement
and historical and projective dielectical materialism). Ironically, much of
this is disasterously missing in leftist action. I think this is because
that Marx had no time to develope a dielectical psychology which may be
found in Frederick Sigmund Perls (especially search for title 'Ego, Hunger
and Aggression' published in 1947 [excellent]).
"Dave Nalle" <gra...@ccsi.com> wrote in message
news:eeb2a654.04112...@posting.google.com...
Alex K
> Alex K <alex...@gmail.com>:
>
>> In fact, it is possible to make arguments for and against various
>>political systems, and they can be conclusive sometimes.
>> For instance, the popularity of state socialism dropped greatly after
>>its implementation started and certainly after it ended. The reasons
>>they ended were the plain and even boring reasons that capitalists were
>>pointing out for a long time.
>
>
>
> In other words, experience, not theory, changed people's
> minds. If indeed people's minds were changed.
>
My interest is not in propaganda here, so what changes people's minds
is irrelevant in this context.
>
> Alex K <alex...@gmail.com>:
>
>> You seem to be saying that since by and large people form opinions
>>based on sentiment rather than calculated reason, you should use only
>>emotional "arguments" in propaganda. This may or may not be true, but it
>>doesn't excuse the fact that even in non-propagandistic contexts leftist
>>use only emotionally appealing "arguments."
>> I've searched hard and long for hard-core reasoning in leftist
>>writings and I could not find much of it.
>
>
>
> That's most likely because you don't want to -- or because
> what you mean by "hard-core" is "based on the same axioms,
> emotions, intuitions and experiences as mine."
Nonsense. The above seems to assume that reasoned arguments are
impossible -- which is a throughly bogus position.
The fall of socialist states was predicted since 1922 at least with
specific arguments -- and not just by claiming that they would be
authoritarian and hence "exploitive", but by predicting a dramatic
economic failure.
This shows that we can use reason to guide us through systems of
human organization. So what I asked for was simply reasoned arguments
for leftist positions on economic issues. I'm not asking to be convinced
-- just for a reasoned argument for the position.
From my readings, modern leftists are very, very short on systematic
expositions of their economic view. Mostly they just throw around
anecdotes, which are supposed to instill horror at the evils of
capitalism, but are very deficient in systematic expositions of their
view of the economy. There are all sorts of paranoid speculations but
certainly nothing scientific.
To the extent that they do use economic arguments they just quote
some "moderate" economist when it is convenient to do so, but they don't
really have arguments of their own and certainly don't subscribe to the
views of the economists quoted.
Marx at least paid lip service to the scientific method and attempted
to provide a coherent view of the economic world. However Marx has been
throughly discredited in his main "scientific" views.
So, where is the Marx of today -- in the sense of someone exposing a
coherent leftist view of the economic world, which also tries to be
scientific?
This as opposed to people just pulling ad-hoc theories out of their hats.
>
> As I said, you see what you want to see and hear what you
> want to hear.
>
It is in fact precisely because I want to hear things that would
surprise me in their reasonableness that I insist on this.
Without any luck it seems -- all I get on the theory side are
interminable ramblings about the evils of capitalism, and on the
"proposals" part just lots of "radical democracy" statism.
Cheers,
Alex
G*rd*n
> This seems to be a subjectivist versus objectivist debate. If that is true,
> it is out of step with Marxism because in Marx subjectivism and objectivism
> are reconciled in the social condition. Marx, as much as I have knowledge of
> his works, did not entertain the 'you're guided by your emotions and I am
> not' debate (I should say 'tactic'). I should say that the envolvement of
> emotions in the thought process entertaining human action as its' subject is
> a true scientific application, and the thinking of oneself using that
> intrument of the mind yeilds reliable information of self and others. But
> this is psychology and therefore not the central focus of Marxs theorectical
> contructing (some of which is class conflict model of social developement
> and historical and projective dielectical materialism). Ironically, much of
> this is disasterously missing in leftist action. I think this is because
> that Marx had no time to develope a dielectical psychology which may be
> found in Frederick Sigmund Perls (especially search for title 'Ego, Hunger
> and Aggression' published in 1947 [excellent]).
What is the 'this' that is missing in leftist action? You
have quite a few antecedents there.
LeftRight
> "LeftRight" <gmen...@yahoo.ca>:
*This* >> that Marx had no time to develope a dielectical >>psychology which
may be
> > found in Frederick Sigmund Perls (especially search for title 'Ego,
Hunger
> > and Aggression' published in 1947 [excellent]).
>
>
> What is the 'this' that is missing in leftist action? You
> have quite a few antecedents there.
Perhaps we could adopt it as Marxistic psychology. While the book 'Ego,
Hunger and Agression' is a very good book, I would gather more from Marxs'
original works containing psychologistic.
Patrick Powers
> From my readings, modern leftists are very, very short on systematic
> expositions of their economic view. Mostly they just throw around
> anecdotes, which are supposed to instill horror at the evils of
> capitalism, but are very deficient in systematic expositions of their
> view of the economy. There are all sorts of paranoid speculations but
> certainly nothing scientific.
> To the extent that they do use economic arguments they just quote
> some "moderate" economist when it is convenient to do so, but they don't
> really have arguments of their own and certainly don't subscribe to the
> views of the economists quoted.
>
I define "leftist" as "favoring the interests of the poor."
I just read "The Mystery Of Capital" which concerns the fate of the
poor in Latin America. Basically he says they are poor because the
rich deliberately keep them that way. So he did a study in which he
opened a one-person business in South America. It took 35 weeks, six
hours a day, and cost the equivalent of 31 months of wages for the one
worker. He did another similar study for aquiring ownership of land.
His conclusion was that it was not possible for most Latin Americans
to participate in capitalism since it was not possible for them to
gain title to their capital, therefore little liquidity.
In the last few days I read that the US govt had informed Latin
American nations that foreign aid would be contingent on reducing
barriers to starting a business and owning land. Maybe they read the
book. Anyway, the US was pressuring Latin America to move to the
left.
michael price
> --
> michael price:
> > Remind me, who is fighting in accordance with the laws of war in
> > Iraq? Not the americans certainly, as the cutting off of water to a
> > city shows.
>
> Cutting off food and water to a city controlled by the enemy is fully
> in accordance with the laws of war
Actually no it isn't.
> - as is standing back, flattening
> the city from a distance, ploughing the rubble, and sowing it with
> salt, which would have accomplished a better result with zero american
> casualties.
>
> --digsig
> James A. Donald
> 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
> dT77UXiJ7U/BUgydA/+/DX9av2A9AyCDA0O4pBTR
> 4U2XxNLadn2yFJyjKZFxGqKq6nc/PEs48j4egLodb
michael price
> --
> James A. Donald
> > > Cutting off food and water to a city controlled by the
> > > standing back, flattening the city from a distance,
> > > ploughing the rubble, and sowing it with salt, which would
> > > have accomplished a better result with zero american
> > > casualties.
>
> > Since the U.S. had no business in Iraq in the first place
>
> Perhaps not, but it is fighting this war with considerably more
> restraint than any of the governments in World War II.
The "better than bomber Harris" excuse. Ranks in effectiveness
and morality about as high as the "Not as bad as Hitler" excuse.
>
> Why is no one complaining about the war crimes the French are
> committing against unarmed people in Africa?
>
> > it must justify its presence by pretending to improve the
> > situation there, which cannot be achieved by flattening the
> > cities
>
> Flattening cities in Japan and Germany did improve the
> situation - in Japan, improved the situation rather
> spectacularly.
Actually no it didn't. The bombing campaigns against civilian
targets actually improved ememy morale. The nuclear explosions are
generally given credit for the Japanese surrender, a surrender which
achieved nothing that the Japanese hadn't agreed to for months. The
emporer was still spared, justly or unjustly and that's the only
thing they asked for.
>
> --digsig
> James A. Donald
> 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
> BVVxGCwKyfilhL67QSyVe+M/H34GJEUkExn4BbF
> 4XGaHIL7qRJ5+OU9ikVj2FLKyhDAUYFjUC348EFI/
michael price
> nini...@yahoo.com (michael price) wrote in message news:<5678a39d.0411...@posting.google.com>...
> > frisbie...@yahoo.com (Patrick Powers) wrote in message news:<9511688f.0411...@posting.google.com>...
> > > James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message news:<jcjpp0hvc3fpe2umi...@4ax.com>...
> > > > Patrick Powers:
> > > > > The principal of universality has so little respect in the US that
> > > > > I've giving up even mentioning it.
> > > >
> > > > By "the principal of universality" I suppose you mean the principle
> > > > that we should treat terrorists and murderers the same way we treat
> > > > honorable warriors fighting in accordance with the laws of war.
> > >
> > Remind me, who is fighting in accordance with the laws of war in
> > Iraq? Not the americans certainly, as the cutting off of water to a
> > city shows.
>
> reduce civilian casualties.
This was the same effort to "reduce civilian casualites" that kept the
men aged 15-60 in the city despite the water cutoff? The same one that
saw tanks used liberally througout the city?
> Would it be better to provide water and then
> shoot the people?
Well since they still stop the people, it would be better than what they did.
> What kind of fool are you?
>
What kind of fool are you that claims that cutting off water in
a country as hot as Iraq is an attempt to minimise casualties.
> Dave
> http://www.torchofliberty.com
michael price
> --
> James A. Donald wrote:
> > > Why is no one complaining about the war crimes the French
> > > are committing against unarmed people in Africa?
>
> Timmy Ramone
> > I've read your responses, below, and it's pretty obvious that
> > no amount of criticism of the French government is going to
> > satisfy you,
>
> Most people in the world saw the terrorist who had sought to
> surrender to the marines being shot on camera.
The evidence that he's a terrorist being what exactly? What
we know about him is that he was wounded in a mosque that US
forces claim was being used as a base against them. Now assuming
that's true shooting at soldiers is not terrorism. There is
exactly zero evidence that he ever took part in a terrorist
attack.
michael price
> michael price wrote:
> > frisbie...@yahoo.com (Patrick Powers) wrote in message news:<9511688f.0411...@posting.google.com>...
> >>James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message news:<jcjpp0hvc3fpe2umi...@4ax.com>...
> >>>Patrick Powers:
> >>>
> >>>>The principal of universality has so little respect in the US that
> >>>>I've giving up even mentioning it.
> >>>
> >>>By "the principal of universality" I suppose you mean the principle
> >>>that we should treat terrorists and murderers the same way we treat
> >>>honorable warriors fighting in accordance with the laws of war.
> >>
> > Remind me, who is fighting in accordance with the laws of war in
> > Iraq?
>
>
> --
> Dan Clore
Yeah that was kinda my point. Of course it's possible someone
is and they just haven't gotten on TV.
>
> My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
> http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
> Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
G*rd*n
> > expositions of their economic view. Mostly they just throw around
> > anecdotes, which are supposed to instill horror at the evils of
> > capitalism, but are very deficient in systematic expositions of their
> > view of the economy. There are all sorts of paranoid speculations but
> > certainly nothing scientific.
> > To the extent that they do use economic arguments they just quote
> > some "moderate" economist when it is convenient to do so, but they don't
> > really have arguments of their own and certainly don't subscribe to the
> > views of the economists quoted.
frisbie...@yahoo.com (Patrick Powers):
> I define "leftist" as "favoring the interests of the poor."
>
> I just read "The Mystery Of Capital" which concerns the fate of the
> poor in Latin America. Basically he says they are poor because the
> rich deliberately keep them that way. So he did a study in which he
> opened a one-person business in South America. It took 35 weeks, six
> hours a day, and cost the equivalent of 31 months of wages for the one
> worker. He did another similar study for aquiring ownership of land.
> His conclusion was that it was not possible for most Latin Americans
> to participate in capitalism since it was not possible for them to
> gain title to their capital, therefore little liquidity.
>
> In the last few days I read that the US govt had informed Latin
> American nations that foreign aid would be contingent on reducing
> barriers to starting a business and owning land. Maybe they read the
> book. Anyway, the US was pressuring Latin America to move to the
> left.
Well, maybe. In many Latin American countries, the problem
is not just the acquisition of capital but the requirement
that one clear an extensive set of bureaucratic hurdles, each
generally associated with both a payoff and a delay. It would
be good to get this interference out of the way (usually) but
the United States may simply be interested in opening the way
for foreign investment and control. In any case removing
obstructions to the movement of capital is the purest liberalism.
Sometimes it benefits the poor, sometimes it doesn't.
Is Krugman a leftist economist?
keith
> >
> > gra...@ccsi.com (Dave Nalle):
> >
> >>Very well put. If leftists were to attempt to describe their beliefs in
> >>plain, practical terms, they would either be unable to do so, or if they
> >>succeeded they would be shocked at what they admitted to believing
> >>in because what they think they believe and what those beliefs actually
> >>mean in practice are radically different.
> >
> >
> >
> > On the contrary, if leftists were to attempt to describe their
> > beliefs in plain, practical terms, non-leftists would simply
> > reject their ideas out of hand because they don't have the
> > same intuitions, emotions and experiences as the leftists do.
>
> (snip)
>
> You seem to be saying that since by and large people form opinions
> based on sentiment rather than calculated reason, you should use only
> emotional "arguments" in propaganda. This may or may not be true, but it
> doesn't excuse the fact that even in non-propagandistic contexts leftist
> use only emotionally appealing "arguments."
> I've searched hard and long for hard-core reasoning in leftist
> writings and I could not find much of it.
>
> I will take your claims as an admission that you favor a strategy of
> "argumentation" that doesn't appeal to reason -- which is what I've
> pointed out all along.
That doesn't follow at all from what G*rd*n wrote. he seemed to be
pointing out that fact that those of us on the left often start from
different premises than that you right wingers, and which premises you
accept depend on your experiences and intuitions. There is a kind of
person who imagines that reasoning needs to be free of emotion and
intuition when in fact without depending on your emotion and intuition
you can't even begin the reasoning process because you won't have
selected any premises.
And given that a leftist starts with different premises that you, a
proper counter-argument to one of your arguments would be his noting
that your argument *concludes* with a proposition that he believes is
self-evidently wrong. It'd be equivalent to a mathematician who said
your argument was wrong because it depends on it being the case that 1
+ 1 equals 45. The argument might not convince *you*, but that doesn't
make the argument irrational.
Keith
James A. Donald
James A. Donald wrote:
> > Most people in the world saw the terrorist who had sought
> > to surrender to the marines being shot on camera.
michael price
> The evidence that he's a terrorist being what exactly? What
> we know about him is that he was wounded in a mosque that US
> forces claim was being used as a base against them. Now
> assuming that's true shooting at soldiers is not terrorism.
> There is exactly zero evidence that he ever took part in a
> terrorist attack.
I think we can be sure that no one in mosques to pray at the
time. The mosques were the headquarters of organizations that
did routinely use terror, so though we have no evidence that he
personally engaged in terror, and no proof of individual guilt
sufficient to convict somone in a court of law, he was in the
wrong place at wrong time, which is good enough evidence in
wartime that he was affiliated with a terrorist organization.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
7/gQMT3TH/P+3TgHNMSgDoZtgb7OWJRkaI9I1xpf
47zQfqmI5ffcg2a9ntLWfNBxopNj0Q9qvILM67Pj8
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > [The US] is fighting this war with considerably more
michael price
> The "better than bomber Harris" excuse. Ranks in
> effectiveness and morality about as high as the "Not as bad
> as Hitler" excuse.
Somebody shoots at you from a mosque. Do we flatten it, or
send in marines. Seems to me that sending in the marines
represents extraordinary restraint, absurd and superhuman
restraint, an absurd excess of poltical correctness. Any
other government or military organization in the world would
have flattened that mosque from a distance, rather than sending
in Marines one of which mistakenly short a wounded man who
sought to surrender. Look at the French cheerfully machine
gunning young women, and no one complains.
If you search really hard you can see young unarmed women
short by the french dying on camera. Why are we discussing a
marine shooting an unarmed wounded terrorist? Everyone says
"well maybe the french soldiers thought themselves
threatened.". Gee, only French are allowed to defend
themseves? Did not that marine think himself threatened?
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
ah4vq7B/dp39GkueYd9bTvzjNzfYd+LGSZ/QWMal
4jlFa4bcBHDQEzhgfAMPzWZVDvIkn9pCrCGps+8O0
James A. Donald
michael price:
> The evidence that he's a terrorist being what exactly? What
> we know about him is that he was wounded in a mosque that US
> forces claim was being used as a base against them. Now
> assuming that's true shooting at soldiers is not terrorism.
> There is exactly zero evidence that he ever took part in a
> terrorist attack.
Michael, you need to distinguish between criticizing the
American government, and criticizing Americans and America.
When you condemn a marine who risked his life by going into the
mosque to separate those who needed killing from those who did
not, applying to him standards no one would dream of applying
to french soldier, this sounds more like condemnation of
Americans, than condemnation of the American government.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
WmvPuQrk2g0wSyxTfJWqGJ6eC9hQTm69FxAJX/w1
4WJunaBKVmKuk8mb/VXQFgkobaPnZvnPLJCo3G4Gk
brique
> --
> James A. Donald
> > > [The US] is fighting this war with considerably more
> > > restraint than any of the governments in World War II.
>
> michael price
> > The "better than bomber Harris" excuse. Ranks in
> > effectiveness and morality about as high as the "Not as bad
> > as Hitler" excuse.
>
> Somebody shoots at you from a mosque. Do we flatten it, or
> send in marines. Seems to me that sending in the marines
> represents extraordinary restraint, absurd and superhuman
> restraint, an absurd excess of poltical correctness. Any
> other government or military organization in the world would
> have flattened that mosque from a distance, rather than sending
> in Marines one of which mistakenly short a wounded man who
> sought to surrender. Look at the French cheerfully machine
> gunning young women, and no one complains.
>
> If you search really hard you can see young unarmed women
> short by the french dying on camera. Why are we discussing a
> marine shooting an unarmed wounded terrorist? Everyone says
> "well maybe the french soldiers thought themselves
> threatened.". Gee, only French are allowed to defend
> themseves? Did not that marine think himself threatened?
>
that's cool.
M J Carley
>When you condemn a marine who risked his life by going into the
>mosque to separate those who needed killing from those who did not,
>applying to him standards no one would dream of applying to french
>soldier, this sounds more like condemnation of Americans, than
>condemnation of the American government.
That's not what the cameraman who filmed it says:
Immediately after going in, I see the same black plastic body bags
spread around the mosque. The dead from the day before. But more
surprising, I see the same five men that were wounded from Friday as
well. It appears that one of them is now dead and three are bleeding
to death from new gunshot wounds.
...
For a moment, I'm paralysed still taping with the old man in the
foreground. I get up after a beat and tell the marines again, what I
had told the lieutenant - that this man - all of these wounded men -
were the same ones from yesterday. That THEY HAD BEEN DISARMED
TREATED AND LEFT HERE.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1357396,00.html
[emphasis added]
--
E' la storia di un pasticciere, trotzkista, un pasticciere trotzkista
nell'Italia degli anni '50. E' un film musicale.
No MS attachments: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Alex K
> > "argumentation" that doesn't appeal to reason -- which is what I've
> > pointed out all along.
>
> That doesn't follow at all from what G*rd*n wrote. he seemed to be
> pointing out that fact that those of us on the left often start from
> different premises than that you right wingers, and which premises you
> accept depend on your experiences and intuitions.
But if personal experiences and intuitions are all that sustain the
leftist view of the world then they are in trouble -- if relying only
on emotional discourse is being in trouble. My investigation was
precisely about attempts at exposing a comprehensive scientific view
of economics from leftists.
There was such an attempt, by Marx, but he has long since been
discredited. If no other such attempts exist, then my point seems
proved.
> There is a kind of
> person who imagines that reasoning needs to be free of emotion and
> intuition when in fact without depending on your emotion and intuition
> you can't even begin the reasoning process because you won't have
> selected any premises.
>
The "kind of person" that imagines that reasoning needs to be free
of emotion is usually called a scientist. You can use intuition and
emotion all you want in reaching conclusions for yourself, but if they
can not be justified on the more solid grounds of evidence and reason,
then you don't have a reasoned argument.
I think that reasoned arguments are possible in economics, as shown
by, say, the accurate predictions of Von Mises about both the Great
Depression and the inevitable catastrophic economic collapse of
socialism (the latter he predicted in an article from 1922). Those
predictions were not just pulled out of his hat -- they followed from
his rather rigorous theories. And there are of course other examples.
This silly "it all depends on your emotionally based premises"
position seems to say that reasoned argument is not possible in
economic matters -- which could provide a rather lame justification
for why reasoned argument is conspicuously absent from leftist
writings, at least as far as comprehensive views of economics are
concerned.
Cheers,
Alex
Alex K
> Alex K <alex...@gmail.com> wrote
> > expositions of their economic view. Mostly they just throw around
> > anecdotes, which are supposed to instill horror at the evils of
> > capitalism, but are very deficient in systematic expositions of their
> > view of the economy. There are all sorts of paranoid speculations but
> > certainly nothing scientific.
> > To the extent that they do use economic arguments they just quote
> > some "moderate" economist when it is convenient to do so, but they don't
> > really have arguments of their own and certainly don't subscribe to the
> > views of the economists quoted.
> >
>
> I define "leftist" as "favoring the interests of the poor."
>
While I'm not going to stop you, I find this definition to be a poor
one if the purpose is to differentiate between different ideologies
for at least two reasons.
Firstly and most importantly, defining a political stance in terms
of outcomes, and in particular vague outcomes, does bad in
differentiating ideologies. After all, almost everyone is in favor of
peace, freedom and prosperity for all, if you ask them.
Secondly, you'll find plenty of capitalists that care for the poor
--Adam Smith, Hayek etc. -- so unless you want to include capitalism
into the "left" ideology, the definition doesn't seem to be all that
useful.
On the other hand, if the purpose is to make those on the left feel
good about themselves, yours is a pretty good definition.
> I just read "The Mystery Of Capital" which concerns the fate of the
> poor in Latin America. Basically he says they are poor because the
> rich deliberately keep them that way. So he did a study in which he
> opened a one-person business in South America. It took 35 weeks, six
> hours a day, and cost the equivalent of 31 months of wages for the one
> worker. He did another similar study for aquiring ownership of land.
> His conclusion was that it was not possible for most Latin Americans
> to participate in capitalism since it was not possible for them to
> gain title to their capital, therefore little liquidity.
>
Before commenting on specific points, I'll note that the above
doesn't seem like a "systematic exposition of [the leftist] economic
view" --the domain in which I claimed leftist are very deficient-- it
is more like the kind of conclusions drawn from anecdotes that I
mentioned. So, your example does not go against my observations.
Regarding your point, I find the results entirely believable, but it
seems to me that the explanation overlooks the obvious: governmental
bureaucracies tend to keep themselves employed by inventing as many
reasons as possible to make themselves indispensable.
The situation in my home country is similar to the one described (in
the sense of having to deal with lots of hassles to start a business,
although it's not quite as bad as what you describe) but I know enough
about the situation to be fairly confident that the result is simply
bureaucracy at work, not the conspiracy of the rich.
You have all sorts of bureaucrats, who driven by "public service
ethos" invent the most absurd and pathetic obstacles and time wasters
-- all with the justification of defending the interest of the public.
Also take a look at China. It has an Kafkaesque bureaucracy when it
comes to starting a private enterprise, yet capitalists are not even
allowed to be higher ranking members of the party (or this is what I
remember to be the case last I looked).
Bureaucracy that hurts the poor is the constant companion of
intrusive governments, so this is the parsimonious explanation of the
general phenomenon.
While in the particular cases that you mention it can be perfectly
true that the rich have a hand in it, this doesn't strike me as the
general explanation.
At any rate, you will find no radical capitalist that favors such
silly bureaucracy -- but plenty of self-described leftist who are
enthusiast about all sorts of regulations.
> In the last few days I read that the US govt had informed Latin
> American nations that foreign aid would be contingent on reducing
> barriers to starting a business and owning land. Maybe they read the
> book. Anyway, the US was pressuring Latin America to move to the
> left.
They're doing what has been done for a long time -- trying to move
countries towards classical liberal (that is, free-market capitalist)
policies. Whether you want to call this left or right is all the same
to me.
Cheers,
Alex
Marcus Welch
> I think we can be sure that no one in mosques to pray at the
> time. The mosques were the headquarters of organizations that
> did routinely use terror,
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=13714
The white dots represent mosques used as fighting positions.
keith
> keit...@yahoo.com (keith) wrote
> > > I will take your claims as an admission that you favor a strategy of
> > > "argumentation" that doesn't appeal to reason -- which is what I've
> > > pointed out all along.
> >
> > That doesn't follow at all from what G*rd*n wrote. he seemed to be
> > pointing out that fact that those of us on the left often start from
> > different premises than that you right wingers, and which premises you
> > accept depend on your experiences and intuitions.
>
> But if personal experiences and intuitions are all that sustain the
> leftist view of the world then they are in trouble -- if relying only
> on emotional discourse is being in trouble. My investigation was
> precisely about attempts at exposing a comprehensive scientific view
> of economics from leftists.
But personal experiences and intuition are what sustain *all*
views--the premises that come from the afformentioned determine how
you interpret the evidence you encounter and even what you count *as*
evidence. Perhaps your complaint is that leftists don't seem to be
accurate at all in their judgments about what facts are relevant. I
would not agree that folks on the left are worse than folks on the
right wrt that question, but I would understand what your objection
is.
>
> There was such an attempt, by Marx, but he has long since been
> discredited. If no other such attempts exist, then my point seems
> proved.
If by discredited you mean that most people no longer take his
opinions seriously, I agree. But I would not quite agree that such is
merited. I'd say that many of his insights are on target. But there
are also quite a few leftist intellectuals who have advocated the kind
of comprehensive economics you mention. And so what if a given leftist
doesn't produce a megatheory, how does that fact imply that his
arguments aren't scientifically based?
> > There is a kind of
> > person who imagines that reasoning needs to be free of emotion and
> > intuition when in fact without depending on your emotion and intuition
> > you can't even begin the reasoning process because you won't have
> > selected any premises.
> >
>
> The "kind of person" that imagines that reasoning needs to be free
> of emotion is usually called a scientist. You can use intuition and
> emotion all you want in reaching conclusions for yourself, but if they
> can not be justified on the more solid grounds of evidence and reason,
> then you don't have a reasoned argument.
You are mistaken that scientists don't depend on intuition/emotion to
choose their starting premises and to evaluate the evidence. There is
no mechanical objective method to determine what premises you *begin*
with nor to determine when the evidence is sufficient to justify a
conclusion. The solid ground of evidence you mention is itself
grounded on intuition/emotion. The difference betwen rationality and
irrationality has to do with the accuracy of ones intuitions, not with
whether or not intuition is the foundation.
>
> I think that reasoned arguments are possible in economics, as shown
> by, say, the accurate predictions of Von Mises about both the Great
> Depression and the inevitable catastrophic economic collapse of
> socialism (the latter he predicted in an article from 1922). Those
> predictions were not just pulled out of his hat -- they followed from
> his rather rigorous theories. And there are of course other examples.
Predictions made in the 1920s that "socialism"--i.e. soviet style
communism--would collapse, a prediction that was fulfilled because of
political decisions made by Gorbachev, aren't that impressive if you
ask me. The Soviet system survived quite a long time. But we don't
need to debate that; it is stil lthe case that the laissez faire
ecconomic theory depedns on premises that came from intuition/emotion.
>
> This silly "it all depends on your emotionally based premises"
> position seems to say that reasoned argument is not possible in
> economic matters...
On the contrary, it simply recognizes that ones reasoned
interpretation of facts depends on premises that are not themselves
derived from reasr interpretation. You can still argue that your
opponent's theory implies such and such (where such and such turns out
not to be the case). If your opponent agrees with you about what his
theory implies, and if he agrees with you that such didn't obtain,
then you can convince him to discard his theory. That obviously
doesn't rationally require him to accept your alternative though.
-- which could provide a rather lame justification
> for why reasoned argument is conspicuously absent from leftist
> writings, at least as far as comprehensive views of economics are
> concerned.
Do you have any leftist economic thinkers you are referring to here?
Or are you saying that leftists don't think about economics?
keith
>
> Cheers,
> Alex
keith
> keit...@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message news:<ba696799.04112...@posting.google.com>...
> > Alex K <alex...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:<41a836e0$0$560$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>...
>
> > > "argumentation" that doesn't appeal to reason -- which is what I've
> > > pointed out all along.
> >
> > That doesn't follow at all from what G*rd*n wrote. he seemed to be
> > pointing out that fact that those of us on the left often start from
> > different premises than that you right wingers, and which premises you
> > accept depend on your experiences and intuitions. There is a kind of
> > person who imagines that reasoning needs to be free of emotion and
> > intuition when in fact without depending on your emotion and intuition
> > you can't even begin the reasoning process because you won't have
> > selected any premises.
> >
> > And given that a leftist starts with different premises that you, a
> > proper counter-argument to one of your arguments would be his noting
> > that your argument *concludes* with a proposition that he believes is
> > self-evidently wrong. It'd be equivalent to a mathematician who said
> > your argument was wrong because it depends on it being the case that 1
> > + 1 equals 45. The argument might not convince *you*, but that doesn't
> > make the argument irrational.
>
> be worthless if the premises on which it is based are false or erroneous.
> I imagine that would be the interpretation that those of us who seem
> pretty sensible but hold opposing views would be most likely to accept as
> an explanation for why seemingly reasonable people hold what seem to us
> to be nonsensical beliefs.
Exactly. Obviously this doesn't imply that we cannot know anything by
way of reasoning, but it ought to make each of us a little less
arrogant when we debate people who disagree with us.
Keith
>
> Dave
> http://www.elitistpig.com
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > When you condemn a marine who risked his life by going into
> > the mosque to separate those who needed killing from those
> > who did not, applying to him standards no one would dream
> > of applying to french soldier, this sounds more like
> > condemnation of Americans, than condemnation of the
> > American government.
M J Carley
> That's not what the cameraman who filmed it says:
>
> : : Immediately after going in, I see the same black
> : : plastic body bags spread around the mosque. The
> : : dead from the day before. But more surprising, I
> : : see the same five men that were wounded from
> : : Friday as well. It appears that one of them is
> : : now dead and three are bleeding to death from
> : : new gunshot wounds.
The cameraman told us that they went into the mosque because of
reported fire from the mosque.
The sane reaction to reported fire from the mosque is not to go
in, but to flatten it.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
YAq34utBELzBHkJFjgSl1jOgAv6XXhPAD9ooxOvo
4H/Eq+JDn59CsGpWEnLs7ixBC7kNvzr4PY2UnebG4
keith
Then perhaps you'd like *this* vague definition based on outcomes
better: A leftist is one who believes that property rights are a
social construct a set of social rules, not inalienable rights, and
that society has ought to arrange the property rules so as to benefit
the non-rich. Moreover, the leftist believes that it is necessary to
diverge significantly from laissez faire capitalism to achieve the
obligatory outcome.
But we are not in favor of regulations we think are silly. Obviously
we believe that regulations we propose make things better.
see you later
keith
>
>
Bulba!
>> > > To the extent that anti-capitalists don't propose Stalinist
>> > > measures of state confiscation of means of production (the
>> > > state now having the new twist of being called a "radical
>> > > democracy") those type of leftists --those that only like
>> > > Stalin's propaganda but not necessarily his deeds-- simply
>> > > have no coherent alternatives to propose.
>> > Alternatives are certainly offered.
>James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
>> If you are really offering non violent alternatives, what stops
>> you and the rest from taking them?
>People do take them.
They demonstrably don't. Not in any significant numbers.
>However, these movements don't expand
>very rapidly, for reasons which I've given several times
>before, evidently without making any lasting impression.
Excuses, excuses.
People have no problem to go with whatever attractive
craze happens this year, be it singing mobiles or investing
in dotcoms.
And it's not like the public opinion is unsympathetic - hell,
why should they not like an idea of getting something
for nothing an pink bliss of security and somebody else
than them being burdened with hard problems, while they
are cared for "from cradle to grave"? Historically speaking,
such leftist crazes, as practiced by e.g. Robert Owen,
were even fashionable. Kibutzes, communes in sixties,
etc. All fell apart. Nothing significant remained - nothing
that is not ran by a few cranks obsessed by some ideology,
including but not limited by any means to religion.
Feminism serves as crankish substitute for religion in
communes for instance.
But again, those are cranks, living at the fringe of society. At
any time you can find quite a number of cranks in society, who
taken together are quite sizable group, but they are just
diverse cranks, not mainstream.
>I suppose people see what they want to see and hear what
>they want to hear.
And I have an impression you being typically leftist in
the aspect of systematic self-deception want us to
believe in yet another leftist pie in the sky.
Bulba!
>gra...@ccsi.com (Dave Nalle):
>> This is why it's so apt to compare socialist/communist allegiances
>> to a religion rather than a political system, because only faith or
>> complete irrationality can justify adherence to these failed systems
>> in the face of the overwhelming evidence showing them to be
>> unustainable and in real world practice.
>However, this isn't peculiar to socialist and communist
>allegiances.
In practical terms, it is. It's hard to draw the line, but
this thing is there.
>Ardent believers in all political systems appear
>to ground their belief in emotion or intuition.
There's a difference between incomplete knowledge
and hypothesis and emotion/intuition.
There's also a difference between value system that
doesn't have to place the strongest accent on material
"utility" and _secular faith_.
>This is not
>difficult to observe: believers in any ideology almost invariably
>are absolutely sure that their favorite system must be the
>one true and good one.
Which doesn't really matter, because the arguments are
shaped in a different way: an ethical argument or moral
conviction doesn't equal faith (as in "ir-rational faith"). Both
are convictions, but they are designed in different ways and
serve different purposes.
>gra...@ccsi.com (Dave Nalle):
>> Very well put. If leftists were to attempt to describe their beliefs in
>> plain, practical terms, they would either be unable to do so, or if they
>> succeeded they would be shocked at what they admitted to believing
>> in because what they think they believe and what those beliefs actually
>> mean in practice are radically different.
>On the contrary, if leftists were to attempt to describe their
>beliefs in plain, practical terms, non-leftists would simply
>reject their ideas out of hand because they don't have the
>same intuitions, emotions and experiences as the leftists do.
Untrue. This is not the case with conservatives, for instance.
I do not agree with the argument of this conservative,
about "need for hierarchy" in society:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=5315&issue=2004-11-27
However, his argument is at least made using rules of reason, not
appealing to emotions that you just should share, or else if
you don't, "you're nazi".
His argument is falsifiable (and probably false). But unlike
with the leftists, it's not an article of emotional faith.
It's grim. The words of the left never pertain grim realities,
except insofar escaping from it into pink delusion.
>Two good examples of putting forward plain, practical leftist
>beliefs which went nowhere until a lot of trouble was made
>about them (by leftist minorities) were the Civil Rights and
>anti-war movements of the 1960s.
People sometimes support rational causes due to religious reasons.
A good example is abolitionist movement, which was basically
motivated by religious mania.
Bulba!
>> I've searched hard and long for hard-core reasoning in leftist
>> writings and I could not find much of it.
>That's most likely because you don't want to -- or because
>what you mean by "hard-core" is "based on the same axioms,
>emotions, intuitions and experiences as mine." There's certainly
>a lot of reasoning in leftist writings, reams and reams of
>it. Write to Dr. Sokal, the great enemy of postmodernism,
>who is a physicist and a leftist -- maybe he'll send you a
>few cartons. But you probably won't like it any better than
>the stuff you've seen already.
It's a rather trivial insight that human mind is a complex
beast, but triviality of it doesn't make it any less
true - Dr Sokal is rational when it comes to physical
world, but irrational when it comes to social world.
I've known a few physicists who were strongly leftist.
It was clear that when they made their arguments, they
did it in a calmer way than run-of-a-mill leftist maniac,
but those still were based on pure emotion and irrational
faith. When talking about physical world, their PERCEPTION
was all right. I stress it again - perception, not intelligence.
When talking about social world, their PERCEPTION was
visibly warped by this faith and emotion. Intelligence can
work only with what perception will provide it with.
If you warp your perception enough and "tear" the words
and labels away from reality they signify, you can play with
your intelligence all day long showing that whatever socialism
is possible.
But you're in the business of making funny simulations
then, not talking about reality: nothing on input, nothing
on output. It's that much easier for physicists that physics
is basically about making models that are consistent
and parsimonious, but do not contain as many variables
as social reality.
Physical reality mercilessly falsifies physical models.
But in social reality there is no controlled experiment
in the lab - that is why Dr Sokal can make up models
that are not relevent to social reality out there. He
can let his emotions influence model without
consequences - smth he cannot do in physics.
Sokal is like this. He is, in his own words, "naive
realist", when it comes to physical reality. He's not a
realist when it comes to social reality.
Sometimes people can amend their perception without
really changing their intelligence. A case in point
is Hans H. Hoppe, who was formerly Marxist, and
now is an Austrian economist, but basically retained
his reasoning method - pure reason (after a priori
reasoning method of Ludwig von Mises).
Bulba!
Powers) wrote:
>> From my readings, modern leftists are very, very short on systematic
>> expositions of their economic view. Mostly they just throw around
>> anecdotes, which are supposed to instill horror at the evils of
>> capitalism, but are very deficient in systematic expositions of their
>> view of the economy. There are all sorts of paranoid speculations but
>> certainly nothing scientific.
>> To the extent that they do use economic arguments they just quote
>> some "moderate" economist when it is convenient to do so, but they don't
>> really have arguments of their own and certainly don't subscribe to the
>> views of the economists quoted.
>I define "leftist" as "favoring the interests of the poor."
AKA "exceptionally stupid faith" or "exceptionally sappy
way of narrowing your intellectual outlook".
>I just read "The Mystery Of Capital" which concerns the fate of the
>poor in Latin America. Basically he says they are poor because the
>rich deliberately keep them that way.
Then either he is an idiot or he distorts the argument because if the
poor were not born with this wealth, there is no way they could become
rich by taking away the money those poor never had.
Unlike in the delusions of the left, the rich and the poor
simply do not interact. They basically live in separate
worlds - literally separate.
>So he did a study in which he
>opened a one-person business in South America. It took 35 weeks, six
>hours a day, and cost the equivalent of 31 months of wages for the one
>worker. He did another similar study for aquiring ownership of land.
>His conclusion was that it was not possible for most Latin Americans
>to participate in capitalism since it was not possible for them to
>gain title to their capital, therefore little liquidity.
And the reason for it is that they ideologically hate capitalism,
free market and private property. IIRC, Hernando de Soto once
said to a private bus owner - "you're a capitalist". The owner
said smth like "No! No! I'm a worker!".
An owner in denial he's an owner.
>In the last few days I read that the US govt had informed Latin
>American nations that foreign aid would be contingent on reducing
>barriers to starting a business and owning land. Maybe they read the
>book. Anyway, the US was pressuring Latin America to move to the
>left.
Or maybe they listened to Hernando de Soto, who for a long time
has been harping about security of property rights being absolutely
essential to material development of society and doing away
with poverty.
Just like propertarian anarchists and Austrian economists.
The rich can afford to protect their property, so they
become even richer. The poor can't, so they stay poor.
Bulba!
> Secondly, you'll find plenty of capitalists that care for the poor
>--Adam Smith, Hayek etc. -- so unless you want to include capitalism
>into the "left" ideology, the definition doesn't seem to be all that
>useful.
I'd like to remind you that Frederic Bastiat (I'll never learn to
be as stylish and insightful in writing as that bastard was; I
hate him - if the French were rational enough to be as
laissez-faire as Bastiat was, they'd rule this world) sat on the
left side of the parliament.
Rothbard claims that basically in 18th century workers were
proponents of order like laissez faire, because they
understood it gives them higher standard of living and
breaking out of the ancien regime ran by aristocrats.
I also recollect vaguely that as recently as 1920s the
British Labour Party was in favor of REDUCING government
expenditures in times of econ crisis, not increasing
them. Mark Blaug in his history of economics quoted
the Labour leader saying smth like "in times of crisis
high govt expenditures are unbearable".
Industrialists and free traders at the time were progressives
(which doesn't mean they were socialists - they rather defined
"progress" in terms like nowadays Reason Magazine people
tend to define it).
Dinesh D'Souza defines conservatism as "being conservative in
America means conserving results of American revolution"
(hell, I'd die for my country being filled with such conservatives
and I'd identify myself with such value system myself - even
though I label myself as libertarian).
Conservative working for _revolutionary_ goals?
It's a paradox, not contradiction: what particular ideologies
actually stand for is hardly what button in your emotions
users of contemporary emotional slurs like "neoliberal darwinist"
try to push.
We understand that D'Souza doesn't mean any socialism, but
he stands for particular values, achievements and states
of social life - minimum of state, minimum of taxes, freedom
of religion, right to life, liberty and security of property; and
conservative lifestyle in the personal domain, like marriage.
Labels and sides of parliaments change; values and ideas at
the foundations of those don't.
Today the main purpose to the left seems to be obscuring
those and us all becoming brainless, because then maybe
we will become "equal" in our stupidity. I met this
exceptionally obsessive American woman statist-social-democrat,
authoritarian "equality must sein", proponent of equality forced
with an iron fist down the throats of everyone, "or else you're
bigot and a nazi", who argued that she didn't mind
dumbed-down education, because "it was more inclusive".
People like Dr Sokal are exceptions on the, not the norm.
Today, the left is the force of regress, not progress. The
leftists nowadays are literally regressives. They work
to achieve economic decivilization in the manner like
Hans H. Hoppe has explained, and cultural decivilization
in manner like this guy seems to understand so well:
Bulba!
>> I will take your claims as an admission that you favor a strategy of
>> "argumentation" that doesn't appeal to reason -- which is what I've
>> pointed out all along.
>That doesn't follow at all from what G*rd*n wrote. he seemed to be
>pointing out that fact that those of us on the left often start from
>different premises than that you right wingers, and which premises you
>accept depend on your experiences and intuitions.
That smacks of "religious enlightenment" mode of arguing: our
argument is true, but you will not understand it, because in order
to understand why it is true, you'd have to be a believer.
It's an anti-modernist argument. Just not as elaborate as
Pope Pius X made it (I'm in progressive mood today).
>There is a kind of
>person who imagines that reasoning needs to be free of emotion and
>intuition when in fact without depending on your emotion and intuition
>you can't even begin the reasoning process because you won't have
>selected any premises.
So? That doesn't mean that those "emotions and intuitions" are
unaccessible to non-believers. And more importantly, that they
are not possible to evaluate using rules of reason.
>And given that a leftist starts with different premises that you, a
>proper counter-argument to one of your arguments would be his noting
>that your argument *concludes* with a proposition that he believes is
>self-evidently wrong. It'd be equivalent to a mathematician who said
>your argument was wrong because it depends on it being the case that 1
>+ 1 equals 45. The argument might not convince *you*, but that doesn't
>make the argument irrational.
Yes, it does. Such mode of arguing _is_ irrational, and yes, you're
literally a regressive, a proponent of regress, not progress.
Some mathematician made a seemingly crazy proposition: to
make an imaginary number, whose square root equals minus
one.
Yet he had no problem showing this to other people, and today
complex numbers consisting of real part and imaginary
part are standard tool in many domains of engineering.
Apparently seemingly crazy argument _can_ be argued
for in a reasonable manner.
Bulba!
>But personal experiences and intuition are what sustain *all*
>views--the premises that come from the afformentioned determine how
>you interpret the evidence you encounter and even what you count *as*
>evidence.
That's el cheapo post-modernism.
Bulba!
>> That raises the basic problem that a logical, well-reasoned argument can
>> be worthless if the premises on which it is based are false or erroneous.
>> I imagine that would be the interpretation that those of us who seem
>> pretty sensible but hold opposing views would be most likely to accept as
>> an explanation for why seemingly reasonable people hold what seem to us
>> to be nonsensical beliefs.
>Exactly. Obviously this doesn't imply that we cannot know anything by
>way of reasoning, but it ought to make each of us a little less
>arrogant when we debate people who disagree with us.
Let a hundred flowers bloom and let's all sink in bullshit in
a very humble, un-arrogant manner.
Bulba!
>This seems to be a subjectivist versus objectivist debate. If that is true,
>it is out of step with Marxism because in Marx subjectivism and objectivism
>are reconciled in the social condition. Marx, as much as I have knowledge of
>his works, did not entertain the 'you're guided by your emotions and I am
>not' debate (I should say 'tactic').
No, he merely collectivised this sort of "reasoning". See what Popper
or Mises had to say on "scientific" value of marxism.
Bulba!
wrote:
>> > I've read your responses, below, and it's pretty obvious that
>> > no amount of criticism of the French government is going to
>> > satisfy you,
>>
>> people saw civilians shot by french soldiers dying on camera?
>Thanks for proving my point: No amount of criticism of the French
>is going to satisfy you.
Well yes, because for you any amount of criticism of the
French govt greater than zero is "too much".
Bulba!
wrote:
>> Most people in the world saw the terrorist who had sought to
>> surrender to the marines being shot on camera.
> The evidence that he's a terrorist being what exactly? >What
>we know about him is that he was wounded in a mosque that US
>forces claim was being used as a base against them.
And it was quite likely that he was about to blow himself
and Marines up. They routinely used suicidal attacks like that,
plus e.g. placing mines under the bodies of dead "insurgents"
(something that Serbs in the Balkans supposedly innovated).
You drag the body, the mine blows you up.
> Now assuming
>that's true shooting at soldiers is not terrorism. There is
>exactly zero evidence that he ever took part in a terrorist
>attack.
Technically speaking, it's true - but practically speaking, it's
not.
He was fighting for the system of govt and religion that uses
either terrorism or religious tyranny to achieve the domination
over individuals and societies.
Whether he used terrorist acts, guerilla tactics or was
involved in regular war makes only technical difference.
He's such an enemy that we have the right to kill and we
should kill anyway. And sooner or later we'll have to.
Bulba!
wrote:
>James A. Donald wrote:
>>
>> Cutting off food and water to a city controlled by the enemy is fully
>> in accordance with the laws of war - as is standing back, flattening
>> the city from a distance, ploughing the rubble, and sowing it with
>> salt, which would have accomplished a better result with zero american
>> casualties.
>
>What "enemy" are you talking about? Fallujah didn't attack the U.S.,
>the U.S. is attacking Fallujah -- or did I miss something on the
>evening news?
Islam attacked US on Sept 11 (and the whole western civilization
in my opinion) - have you missed it in the news?
Bulba!
wrote:
>> > What "enemy" are you talking about? Fallujah didn't attack
>> > the U.S.,
>> Fallujah, or rather people that control Fallujah, keep coming
>> out of Fallujah to attack men women and children, of all races
>> and nationalities, Americans among them.
>Your pathetic attempts at rationalizing the murder of innocents
>and the destruction of their homes do not get any more valid
>simply by repeating them. Like I said, this racist crap about
>flattening entire cities at the whim of the U.S. government might
>find a more receptive audience at a Klan rally, down a festering
>sewer hole, or in some other habitat more friendly to your species
>of vermin.
Go among the Muslim vermin, where is your place. This is the culture
you're whining for:
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articles/deatkine_arabs1.html
This war is worth it if only for saving future individuals from living
in this insanity upkept only by the system of tyrannical, theocratic
govt.
I'm sure in the past some maniacs like you whined about wars and
empires that caused social unrest big enough to change things
enough to at least think of doing away with serfdom and slavery.
Yes, it's bloody and costly, but the worst thing that can happen is
perpetuating such ancien regimes.
Bulba!
wrote:
>> threatened.". Gee, only French are allowed to defend
>> themseves? Did not that marine think himself threatened?
>Oh yeah, man lying dying on the floor.... very scary, waste the bastard,
>that's cool.
The bastard frequently blows himself and you up when you approach
them, after they cry for doctor.
They also shoot from ambulances, etc.
This is Muslim culture - a culture of a lie, cheating, deceit.
Any means that lead to an end are good - not even justification
is needed.
G*rd*n
> > Is Krugman a leftist economist?
frisbie...@yahoo.com (Patrick Powers):
> I don't know. Krugman seems rather neutral to me. But he did not
> write "The Mystery Of Capital." It was written by a Latin American.
I didn't mean that I thought he did. I was wondering who
might fit the category of "leftist economist".
Alex K
> But personal experiences and intuition are what sustain *all*
> views
Nonsense. There is no doubt a point at which we must accept things
as given -- as in I must trust my senses when I claim that I type on
this computer -- but to equate this with all views are sustained by
"personal experiences and intuition" is an attempt at making
toothpicks with an axe.
Both physicists and lunatic conspiracy theorists rely ultimately on
their senses, but there is a huge difference between the scientific
content of their views.
>
> If by discredited you mean that most people no longer take his
> opinions seriously, I agree. But I would not quite agree that such is
> merited.
He was discredited as in, his main points that the determinant of
exchange value is proportional with labor has been long since
abandoned -- and with this all his main "scientific" claims and
predictions plunge into nonsense.
For a 19th century refutation, see Eugen Böhm-Bawerk's "Karl Marx
and the close of his System":
http://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/bohm/index.htm
> But there
> are also quite a few leftist intellectuals who have advocated the kind
> of comprehensive economics you mention.
>
If by "advocated" you mean actually presenting such a scientific
view then go ahead and name them and their work. Remember that in this
context I'm talking about fairly radical leftists, and a modern
exposition, attempting to incorporate the available criticism --which
is what any scientific work must do-- i.e. not just a parroting of old
Marxist points.
> You are mistaken that scientists don't depend on intuition/emotion to
> choose their starting premises and to evaluate the evidence. There is
> no mechanical objective method to determine what premises you *begin*
> with nor to determine when the evidence is sufficient to justify a
> conclusion. The solid ground of evidence you mention is itself
> grounded on intuition/emotion. The difference betwen rationality and
> irrationality has to do with the accuracy of ones intuitions, not with
> whether or not intuition is the foundation.
Right. You equivocate between the "personal experience and
intuition" of say, a nutcase and the kind of experience necessary for
science.
For instance, your claim that the collapse of Soviet style socialism
was simply the result of Gorbachev rather than systematic economic
failure is an example of pure garbage, than can not be scientifically
sustained -- even if your "intuition" insists that it must be true.
> >
> > I think that reasoned arguments are possible in economics, as shown
> > by, say, the accurate predictions of Von Mises about both the Great
> > Depression and the inevitable catastrophic economic collapse of
> > socialism (the latter he predicted in an article from 1922). Those
> > predictions were not just pulled out of his hat -- they followed from
> > his rather rigorous theories. And there are of course other examples.
>
> Predictions made in the 1920s that "socialism"--i.e. soviet style
> communism--would collapse,
The prediction was not just about Soviet style socialism it was
about all "community ownership of means of production" -- if by that
we mean that for a sufficiently large population, there is no market
in means of production.
> a prediction that was fulfilled because of
> political decisions made by Gorbachev,
At this point you certify your views on this issue as nonsense which
has absolutely nothing to do with science. The collapse had everything
to do with economic failure. Political decisions were simply about
making a choice between letting the population suffer interminable
misery and changing the system.
>aren't that impressive if you
> ask me.
They are in fact very impressive since apparently even today they
are people like you that believe in the economic success of Soviet
socialism. Certainly at the time there were sufficiently many nitwits
that believed in the workability of centralized command economies.
> The Soviet system survived quite a long time. But we don't
> need to debate that; it is stil lthe case that the laissez faire
> ecconomic theory depedns on premises that came from intuition/emotion.
But we saw that for you, this phrase means essentially nothing --
according to you we can say the same thing about physicists.
If your phrases do not distinguish between the quality of scientific
views held by physicists and the quality of the views held by
believers in perpetual motion machines then your comments do not add
much of anything to the discussion.
Cheers,
Alex
Bulba!
>> But personal experiences and intuition are what sustain *all*
>> views
> Nonsense. There is no doubt a point at which we must accept things
>as given -- as in I must trust my senses when I claim that I type on
>this computer -- but to equate this with all views are sustained by
>"personal experiences and intuition" is an attempt at making
>toothpicks with an axe.
> Both physicists and lunatic conspiracy theorists rely ultimately on
>their senses, but there is a huge difference between the scientific
>content of their views.
It is precisely religious, anti-modernist argument: to claim
that due to uniqueness of experience (like "religious
enlightenment brought by deity"), the knowledge of this
phenomenon is fundamentally inaccessible to people who
do not have it.
It may be applicable to claim such things about metaphysical
matters, but not about matters from this worl.
Leftists are getting pretty religious in their attitudes
recently.
G*rd*n
> ...
> better: A leftist is one who believes that property rights are a
> social construct a set of social rules, not inalienable rights, and
> that society has ought to arrange the property rules so as to benefit
> the non-rich. Moreover, the leftist believes that it is necessary to
> diverge significantly from laissez faire capitalism to achieve the
> obligatory outcome.
Historically, and even in dictionaries, the Left refers to
the party of peace, freedom and equality, as opposed to the
Right, the party of authority, order, virtue, hierarchy,
in short, the military virtues. Today, almost everyone claims
to love freedom and peace, even George W. Bush, so the bone
of contention would appear to be equality: some believe that
equality is necessary to freedom, while others believe that
_inequality_ is necessary to freedom -- at least, the kind of
freedom they're interested in. I would say the former are
the _leftier_ leftists. Now, this is political theory, not
economics, but I suppose it might affect an economist's point
of view; for instance, she or he might be more interested in
the microeconomics of the poor than in the economics of the
major governments. But I don't know who or what falls into
that category. I'm sure rightists would huff off if they saw
anything like that, though.
Alex K
> > good about themselves, yours is a pretty good definition.
>
> Then perhaps you'd like *this* vague definition based on outcomes
> better: A leftist is one who believes that property rights are a
> social construct a set of social rules, not inalienable rights, and
> that society has ought to arrange the property rules so as to benefit
> the non-rich.
This part is not necessarily a good way to differentiate left and
right ideologies. Firstly one can be a capitalist (advocate of private
property rights in means of production) without believing that
property rights are inalienable rights. Secondly, property rights
being a "social construct" as in a consequence of the existence of
humans is not necessarily incompatible with property rights being
inalienable.
> Moreover, the leftist believes that it is necessary to
> diverge significantly from laissez faire capitalism to achieve the
> obligatory outcome.
I tend to agree that it is this that differentiates what is roughly
called left and right ideologies today -- but the PR department of
some leftist anarchists might disagree. But they will do so only
half-heartedly since centralized rule by "the people" is where their
heart is.
> >
> > At any rate, you will find no radical capitalist that favors such
> > silly bureaucracy -- but plenty of self-described leftist who are
> > enthusiast about all sorts of regulations.
>
> But we are not in favor of regulations we think are silly. Obviously
> we believe that regulations we propose make things better.
>
No doubt -- the Chinese Communist Party believes in the virtues of
burdening the poor with time-wasting bureaucratic road-blocks, since
without them all the evils of capitalism are unleashed.
Cheers,
Alex
G*rd*n
> > But personal experiences and intuition are what sustain *all*
> > views
alex...@gmail.com (Alex K):
> Nonsense. There is no doubt a point at which we must accept things
> as given -- as in I must trust my senses when I claim that I type on
> this computer -- but to equate this with all views are sustained by
> "personal experiences and intuition" is an attempt at making
> toothpicks with an axe.
> Both physicists and lunatic conspiracy theorists rely ultimately on
> their senses, but there is a huge difference between the scientific
> content of their views.
But you're still stuck with choosing your axioms,
definitions, and the operations you're going to consider
valid upon them. Those are, ultimately, intuitions. Or
if not, please tell us how you arrived at what must be
the one true truth, since it is not dependent on such
things.
> ...
Alex K
As I said, such a philosophy claims that reasoned argument is not
possible in economics -- a thing I disagree with.
Even though angst filled high-school students and some philosophers
find such arguments as yours worth a lot of thought, it is at a much
less pretentious level that I am asking for systematic expositions.
You can wonder all you want about how you can't prove that you exist
-- but the left lacks a systematic description of economics at a much
coarser epistemological level. I am not saying I would agree with such a
description -- but the description itself seems nonexistent.
Cheers,
Alex
Bulba!
>keit...@yahoo.com (keith):
>> ...
>> Then perhaps you'd like *this* vague definition based on outcomes
>> better: A leftist is one who believes that property rights are a
>> social construct a set of social rules, not inalienable rights, and
>> that society has ought to arrange the property rules so as to benefit
>> the non-rich. Moreover, the leftist believes that it is necessary to
>> diverge significantly from laissez faire capitalism to achieve the
>> obligatory outcome.
>> ...
>
>Historically, and even in dictionaries, the Left refers to
>the party of peace, freedom and equality, as opposed to the
>Right, the party of authority, order, virtue, hierarchy,
>in short, the military virtues.
Is that why outside of dictionaries, the left historically
has always supported collectivist autocracies?
It does that even today, in the form of insane defenses
of Castro's Cuba (mainly in America), or e.g. doing
the propaganda for Putin now.
>Today, almost everyone claims
>to love freedom and peace, even George W. Bush, so the bone
>of contention would appear to be equality: some believe that
>equality is necessary to freedom, while others believe that
>_inequality_ is necessary to freedom -- at least, the kind of
>freedom they're interested in. I would say the former are
>the _leftier_ leftists. Now, this is political theory, not
>economics, but I suppose it might affect an economist's point
>of view; for instance, she or he might be more interested in
>the microeconomics of the poor than in the economics of the
>major governments. But I don't know who or what falls into
>that category. I'm sure rightists would huff off if they saw
>anything like that, though.
Anything's good for the left to justify the coercive, collectivist
measures. If it's equality / equity, so be it.
Again, Gordon, you want us to be fooled with dictionary
definitions and take the face value for real while looking
away from their expression in the real world.
People who are smarter than that are able to see the
substance of the issue, the policies which the rhetorics
ultimately attempts to support, and the historical
experience. Such people are then labelled "rightwingers".