RoR: Forum

Post 40

Wednesday, February 13 - 8:58am

Link

Edit

Ed,
I thought Jesse Ventura had some good points regarding the issues of fear and security as they relate to terrorism (the youtube clip is a little long though): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm2weLS5gJ4

I'm sorry but, like you, I just don't share the fear that others aparently have.

Post 41

Wednesday, February 13 - 12:29pm

Link

Edit

Michael�I�m not sure what you�re arguing for (or against), but I�m really, really glad you aren�t in charge of security for the flights I get on.

Jim��Please try to keep it civil�?� Is it now considered �uncivil� to openly state that you regard a particular viewpoint as foolish and refuse to debate it? Feeling offended does not make the person who dislikes your viewpoint �uncivil.� Maybe he�s just being honest.

�Mumbo jumbo, rhubarb rhubarb, chickadee bu-bob, yak yak yak��

That�s about how much progress we would make by pursuing this discussion further. I don�t want to insult anyone, but the gulf is way too great to offer any hope of bridging it. We can all go re-read the endless discussions going over and over the same ground, ad infinitum, with nobody changing their views one iota because they are coming from opposite philosophical foundations (acknowledged or not). So what�s the point?

Don�t know about you, but I have more entertaining ways to waste my time.

Post 42

Wednesday, February 13 - 1:29pm

Link

Edit

Armaos wrote:

Anarcho-capitalism again is the absence of a monopoly government within a specific geographical area.

Is the North American continent a "specific geographical area"? How about the South American continent? Or the European Continent? Or the African continent?

Your definition needs work.

Post 43

Wednesday, February 13 - 1:33pm

Link

Edit

Thanks, Steven.

I agree that some arguments here are fear-based rather than mind-based. My favorite quote from "The Body" was at the end:

[on Martha Stewart and Iraq] When the government lies to us, we go to war. When we lie to the government, we go to prison. We're getting the short end of the stick here.

;-)

Ed

Post 44

Wednesday, February 13 - 2:30pm

Link

Edit

Michael�I�m not sure what you�re arguing for (or against), but I�m really, really glad you aren�t in charge of security for the flights I get on.

I will make a general announcement here on RoR when I am.

This month's New Individualist had a letter to the editor in reply to "The Excuse-Making Industry."

The general point was that you are responsible for your own outcomes and it is excuse making to expect the government to do this for you.

In criminology, there is a theory called Routine Activities. According to this, there is a triangle of crime:

1. a willing offender

2. an convenient target

3. lack of a capable guardian

The capable guardian could be a neighbor who watches the street. It could be a parent at home. That lack of a parent in the home is attributed to the historically well-established spike in delinquency between 3:00 pm and 5:00 pm Mon-Fri, Sept-June. One criticism of this is that it blames the victim. See, point 2 says that if the target is not convenient, there will be no crime. If you take precautions, you avoid the problem. The response though is that you have a perfect right to live your life any way you want and no one has a right to violate you. As the feministas say during their Take Back the Night marches: "Yes means yes. No means no. Whatever I wear. Wherever I go." See, you can leave your car unlocked with $1000 on the seat and no one has a right to take it.

If you are victimized, you call the government police and they make a report.

You might expect them to dust for prints and take DNA samples and use timelapse from satellites to review the scene, but none of that will happen because there is no profit motive for that. The government police are a socialist institution.

Now, going back, though, the thing with the victim is this: if blaming the victim is wrong, then all you have to do is show that you are a victim and you become blameless.

So, if you lived in a bad neighborhood, you were victimized.

If the blackboards in your school are broken, you were victimized.

If the library books had pages torn out, you were victimized.

If you parents hit you, you were victimized.

If other kids made fun of you, you were victimized.

If other kids would not play with you, you were victimized.

If you are black you were victimized by racism

If you are female you were victimized by sexism.

If you are old you were victimized by ageism.

If you are handicapped you were victimized by the existence of healthy people.

If you left your car door unlocked with $1000 on the seat, you were victimized by a range of the moment whim worshipping looter moocher ... who apparently was one tad smarter or luckier than you...

So, the answer to airline safety is: I don't know. I guess it depends.

Myself, I am always armed. I have a pencil in my shirt pocket at all times and I go straight for the brain through the eye... but that's just me... and I believe that violence is the last resort of the incompetent.

Post 45

Wednesday, February 13 - 3:16pm

Link

Edit

Michael -- another great post!

They let you bring an obvious weapon like a sharpened pencil, worn in plain sight, on a plane, but search or confiscate WMDs like shoes or water bottles?

Then there was the time airport security gave me the suspected terrorist treatment, complete with the machine that hits you with puffs of air to check for traces of explosives, because my driver's license, which had been perfectly acceptable identification for the past 10 years, was now over ten years old and thus unacceptable proof of identity, even though I still looked like the person on the license.

And the time they gave my luggage the extra thorough security search because the person in front of me had taken the last gray screening bin, so I grabbed one of the bigger red screening bins that were stacked right by where the grey screening bins had been -- the red bins for the suspected terrorists.

And the time I got the extra screening because I was carrying a copy of Discover magazine, which is owned by that terrorist organization The Walt Disney Company, because the title on the cover in big block letters read "Science and Islam". I'm assuming the "Islam" was the screenable item, though given the attitude toward science of recent administrations, the "Science" part might have set off flags too. The stinkeye I gave the government security agent might have been a contributing factor, too, as I was getting unaccountably hostile toward the TSA by then.

Yes, the TSA is making us much safer. We'd have buildings blowing up right and left if the airlines were in charge of protecting their customers, because people keep right on flying airlines with shaky safety and anti-terror measures. The marketplace doesn't punish bad actors.

Post 46

Wednesday, February 13 - 4:15pm

Link

Edit

Marotta:

ONE
Multinational corporations could not function unless they admitted to and made use of competing legal systems. Look at the labels of the things you buy. They are made in China or Mexico, or assembled in Taiwan or El Salvador.

All you have proven is that Multinational corporations operate in different legal systems existing in different geographical areas. Hence the term MULTINATIONAL corporation. This does not at all mean they operate in multiple competing legal systems in one specified geographical area. US law does not compete with Taiwanese law. When those products are assembled in Taiwan, the factories and workers in that specific geographical area called "Taiwan" follow the laws of Taiwan. That is one monopoly government. When the clothes are then shipped into the United States, the trade agreements between Taiwan and the United States fall under one set of laws over Taiwanese imports. Once those imports are in the United States, they fall under the monopoly government of the United States. This isn't at all anarcho-capitalism because it fails to meet the definition of multiple sets of legal-frameworks competing under one specific geographical area. What you fail to understand is that products and people can be transported to other jurisdictions, it does not mean that multiple sets of legal frame-works exist in each of those jurisdictions.

TWO
Do I have a right to hire a guard? Does my neighbor have a right to hire a guard? If my neighbor accuses me of stealing his wallet and we each call our guards, do they have a right to work it out or are they required to kill each other for the amusement of Objectivists?

Why would they be required to kill each other? Provided you worked out an agreement where both parties consented to the outcome fine, but what if there wasn't mutual consent, such as "Let's agree I take your money or else I'll have my bodyguard kill you", that is of course an agreement made under duress, and you definitely do not have a right to do that.

THREE
Airplanes are dangerous. Cars are dangerous. Should the government put a policeman in every car to avoid the 40,000 deaths (2.7 million injuries) a year from automobiles?

Are they the same? Can a car fly in the air with tons of jetfuel contained in them crashing into a skyscraper? Obviously the answer is no. But police do patrol the streets and pull over people suspected of being drunk or driving recklessly, so actually conceptually it is the same thing, only the particulars and thus the specific way force is applied is of course different.

Rick:

Is the North American continent a "specific geographical area"? How about the South American continent? Or the European Continent? Or the African continent?

Your definition needs work.

I don't think so. Your understanding of the definition is what needs work. What I define is a jurisdiction. A legal-frame work that exists within a specified set of boundary lines. For example the jurisdiction of Connecticut falls within a specified set of boundary lines, which looks like this on a map:

And from dictionary.com

ju�ris�dic�tion /ˌdʒʊərɪsˈdɪkʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[joor-is-dik-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
�noun
1. the right, power, or authority to administer justice by hearing and determining controversies.
2. power; authority; control: He has jurisdiction over all American soldiers in the area.
3. the extent or range of judicial, law enforcement, or other authority: This case comes under the jurisdiction of the local police.
4. the territory over which authority is exercised: All islands to the northwest are his jurisdiction.

(Edited by John Armaos on 2/13, 5:28pm)

(Edited by John Armaos on 2/13, 5:29pm)

Post 47

Wednesday, February 13 - 6:51pm

Link

Edit

I didn't (and still don't) see the word "jurisdiction" in your definition. Was it in invisible electrons?

Post 48

Wednesday, February 13 - 6:55pm

Link

Edit

Well that's just weak. Is that the best you can muster up?

Rick, why would I use the word I'm defining in its definition?

Rick check this website out, it let's you take a word and find other words with similar meanings. It's really great. It's called a Thesaurus. That's how I got the word jurisdiction.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/

A jurisdiction is a specific territory with defined boundaries that has one legal frame-work, that means the same thing as a monopoly government.

Duh!!

Seriously this isn't that hard to grasp.

(Edited by John Armaos on 2/13, 7:00pm)

Post 49

Wednesday, February 13 - 7:09pm

Link

Edit

John A:

Rick, why would I use the word I'm defining in its definition?

Not using the word defined in a definition makes no sense.

A definition is a statement of the meaning of a word or phrase. The term to be defined is known as the definiendum. The words that define it comprise the definiens.

:-)

I have no idea what Rick is saying.

Post 50

Wednesday, February 13 - 7:41pm

Link

Edit

Jim:

We'd have buildings blowing up right and left if the airlines were in charge of protecting their customers

(I'm assuming this is sarcasm) You know what's funny Jim? On 9/11 with little to no government oversight the airlines failed to protect their customers and two buildings blew up. Actually I'm sorry that isn't funny at all.

Did you mean to be sarcastic or did I miss something here?

Again I'm not saying airlines shouldn't be in charge of security, but they can't use shoddy safety standards that endanger the lives of people who live on the ground who never had a choice to avoid an airline using shoddy safety standards.

(Edited by John Armaos on 2/13, 7:41pm)

Post 51

Wednesday, February 13 - 8:46pm

Link

Edit

John, there was definitely sarcasm there. Wasn't sure a /sarcasm tag was necessary, so I left it out in a misfiring attempt at brevity.

Are you saying that if the government had taken over airline security with a TSA-like system, they would have prevented 9/11? Are you saying that anytime something bad happens, it is justification for the federal government taking over a private enterprise, even if the federal government has a track record of incompetance (see Katrina, Hurricane and FEMA, Heckuvajobandhere'syourmedaloffreedom), instead of letting private enterprises learn from this utterly unexpected occurrence that the federal government itself did not anticipate or prevent? Do you really think that airlines, faced with the prospect of losing their customers to competitors if another such incident occurred and losing their assets to the subsequent lawsuits, wouldn't step up to the plate and do a cheaper and better job than the effing TSA? Have you had the kind of braindead TSA employee run-ins that I mentioned elsewhere today, and if so, why would you trust those clowns to stop terrorist attacks?

Sorry if I seemed rather blunt here, but man, from my direct personal experience with the TSA, I have no confidence in their ability to stop terrorists, not trammel unnecessarily on our civil rights, or treat passengers with even a modicum of courtesy or respect. There's a reason they are by far the most despised federal agency, even below FEMA and the IRS. They should all be fired and replaced with airline-selected security.

Post 52

Wednesday, February 13 - 10:16pm

Link

Edit

Jim:

Are you saying that if the government had taken over airline security with a TSA-like system, they would have prevented 9/11?

Not necessarily. I'm saying you can't think the airlines always had passenger safety in mind and that left to their own devices they would always provide adequate security to prevent 9/11. Obviously they didn't, and 3,000 people died. I have nothing against making the airlines provide adequate security, and I don't think the TSA was a good idea, I think it would've been better to establish a regulatory body to oversee private security and make sure they follow adequate safety standards and protocol.

Just as I wouldn't necessarily trust you Jim if you had a nuclear warhead in your basement that you would keep it safe from theft or accidental arming without transparency from you that you were indeed following a reasonable standard of safety. I wouldn't just accept from you "Hey I'm a member of the free market, just trust me! No mushroom cloud evaporating you and your family will occur with me at the helm!"

Post 53

Wednesday, February 13 - 11:00pm

Link

Edit

I agree substantially with these comments by Jesse Ventura (see post #40):

�If America is changing because of the war on terrorism, the terrorists are winning. If we�re getting out freedoms taken away, and America is changing because of the fear of terrorism and the government being there �to protect us and make us safer,� then the terrorists are winning�.We�re now fighting in Iraq, a country that never attacked us�.If we go back to World War II, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, we would have attacked Korea instead of Japan. That�s the mind-set that was used [to justify invading Iraq]��

This inadequate military response is the same context I cited in post #5:

I believe we could put a stop to the situation tomorrow by taking appropriate military measures, but the lambs who condemn all proposed attacks on bin Laden�s �innocent� fellow travelers in the Middle East are the same ones having conniption fits over the Department of Homeland Security. As long as we�re acting like cowering altruists who don�t have the moral courage or self-esteem to destroy those who would destroy us, we don�t have any choice but to let the FBI disrupt their murderous plots by any reasonable means necessary. Until and unless we decide to start defending ourselves, if letting the government read my e-mails is the price I have to pay for not getting blown up, I will gladly pay it.

Domestic spying and intensified airport security are only necessary because we don�t have the cashews to do what should be done militarily. But because we don�t, I am willing to tolerate some temporary loss of certain freedoms for the enhanced safety. And it is ridiculous to suggest that such measures are not working. Whatever criticism we want to make of George W. Bush�and I have made more than my share�the fact that we have not been attacked again since 2001 shows that the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI are clearly doing something right.

Even so, these �protective� government measures are lamentable, and should only be tolerated during a time of war. The problem is, our government is unwilling to fight the war the way it should be fought, making what should be a short-term crisis a chronic situation. But as long as our leaders continue to display cowardice and knuckle under to the bogus �moral� arguments in opposition to appropriate self-defense, we had better be willing to tolerate the consequent loss of freedom in the name of survival.

The basic �fear� behind it all is our leaders� lack of moral courage. And if we are unwilling to defeat those who want to destroy us, we had damn well better be afraid.

Post 54

Thursday, February 14 - 12:16am

Link

Edit

Dennis while I defended some of your previous comments that doesn't mean I'm not going to hold you accountable for your last post.

Of course Dennis you haven't actually outlined what that moral courage to win the war on terrorism means concretely other than criticizing the rules of engagement, as you have said in a previous post. Nor is your logic coherent that says since our leaders lack the moral courage to go after terrorists, they should take our liberties away, on the contrary, since our leaders lack the moral courage (whatever that means) it means they should get moral courage or change leadership to those who have moral courage, not suspend our liberties. That is the same argument that since we have a welfare state, we should restrict the freedom of movement and stop immigration, or that since the government puts draconian measures on industry to protect the environment, such as protecting Alaskan wilderness from oil exploration thereby driving up the cost of gasoline, we should in the meantime have government price controls at the gas pump.

I don't buy that. Nor do I buy the government's insistence reading millions of random e-mails is very useful in tracking down terrorists. It would be like spending the time to look into every single New Yorker's apartment looking for a murder weapon from a crime that occurred on 32nd street in Brooklyn last week. Not very effective policing, and just a colossal waste of time. Nor do I buy the argument there isn't enough time to get approval from a judge to execute a search, since the FISA court allows for post hoc approval of an executed search. Nor do I buy the argument we don't want to compromise national security by having to go to a judge, since FISA court orders are sealed from public viewing.

There just isn't a good excuse for taking liberties away.

Post 55

Thursday, February 14 - 7:52am

Link

Edit

As I've long suspected, John doesn't know what he's talking about. In post #33 he wrote:

Anarcho-capitalism again is the absence of a monopoly government within a specific geographical area.

And then when I pointed out specific geographical areas that are not examples of anarcho-capitalism yet meet his definition his response is:

Rick, why would I use the word I'm defining in its definition?

To which I can only say "Huh?" The word being defined was 'anarcho-capitalism' and there was no suggestion that he should use that word in it's definition.

And then he tries to confuse things even further by bringing in 'jurisdiction', a term he clearly does not understand. Jurisdiction means which court has the ability to hear which case. It has no necessary relation to geographical area (although it sometimes does). In fact there have been several recent cases of lawyers picking which of several state courts or federal courts to file their suits in. Any of those courts could have jurisdiction but only the one where the suit is filed actually does.

Furthermore, here in the US there are city police, county police, state police, and the FBI — any of which could claim 'jurisdiction' depending on the facts of the particular case and the desires of the particular agencies. Hardly a case of monopoly.

He might have been better off to claim that the areas I mentioned had several monopoly governments, but then I would have questioned his definition of 'monopoly.'

Post 56

Thursday, February 14 - 9:26am

Link

Edit

John: From the corporation's point of view, it makes no difference that the governments are territorial monopolies. The corporation picks and chooses where it wants to make things and sell them on the basis of the laws. Restrictive laws are bad for business.... unless they are good for your business... Two MNCs can be in two different countries, one makes things in a third country and the other sells them in a fourth. The contractual terms -- not the daydreams of the politicians -- define what part of this or that comes under what jurisdiction. It might be that the contract specifies some fifth place where both companies have a common interest.

Toyota in Japan makes a car in Canada that BMW of Germany sells in Sierra Leon and if there is a problem with the terms of the contract, the laws of the United States apply.

On the other hand, there was the Pastry War. Some French guys in Mexico thought the food was an insult. So, they trashed teh bakery. The police were called. In retaliation, the navy shelled the town. People hundreds of miles away had their taxes raised to pay the indemnity of the loser. That is one kind of "competing governments" but it is not what is being suggested.

You do not need to go so far in place and time and theoreticals. Look at your own AUTOMOBILE LOAN. In which state was the car made? In which state did you buy it? Now: in which state are the laws to be interpreted? Could it be DELAWARE? Mortgages are a big example, but even the extended warranty on a DVD stereo.

The point is that minarchists claim that there must be a geographic monopoly to the law. As you can see, there is not. The miniarchists are proposing a theoretical construct. The anarcho-capitalist evaluation is in and of the real world of human action.

Another way to look at it is from my childhood, Jim Ryan, quarterback for the Browns held a PhD in mathematics. The NFL had all kinds of rules about scrimmage lines and illegal receivers and that had nothing to do with balancing the equations properly. He was subject to two different sets of laws. He voluntarily obeyed them but they both came with serious sanctions if he violated them. Each of us adheres to all kinds of societies in our lives, every club you join has rules, even informal groups like this one.

There is not one geographic monopoly for all laws.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 2/14, 9:45am)

Post 57

Thursday, February 14 - 10:27am

Link

Edit

John,

Of course Dennis you haven't actually outlined what that moral courage to win the war on terrorism means concretely other than criticizing the rules of engagement, as you have said in a previous post.

I have been a staunch defender of ARI�s well-known position in regard to what we should do. I have yet to read a single opinion piece on the war to come out of there that I do not wholeheartedly endorse. And that includes the very specific proposals made by Craig Biddle.

Nor is your logic coherent that says since our leaders lack the moral courage to go after terrorists, they should take our liberties away, on the contrary, since our leaders lack the moral courage (whatever that means) it means they should get moral courage or change leadership to those who have moral courage, not suspend our liberties.

Of course I would like for them to grow some cashews, but have you seen any signs of that happening any time soon? Do you really want to get blown up while we sit around waiting for them to wake up? The other examples you cite do not involve a similar threat to our short-term survival.

Nor do I buy the government's insistence reading millions of random e-mails is very useful in tracking down terrorists�

Whatever they�re doing, it seems to be working. That�s all I know.

Post 58

Thursday, February 14 - 11:08am

Link

Edit

John, I substantially agree with you on post #52, and I sanctioned it.

The problem with government oversight of private security is that any government agency engages in "mission creep", and pretty soon oversight can turn into the government effectively running things. While I agree with you that it is not a good idea to let private citizens own nuclear bombs -- I've had too much experience with really tweaked-out members of the public -- I don't think any airline would consider owning nuclear weapons as a deterrance against terrorist hijacking. Businesses aren't going to waste money like that. Unlike government agencies, they have to be efficient or they go under.

I'd rather have the airlines checking up on each other and advertising to their customers any security lapses by their competition, than letting government bureaucrats try to get their foot in the door. If some bright person could propose some way of definitively preventing governmental "mission creep", then maybe I'd be less averse to the idea of allowing them very limited oversight.

Post 59

Thursday, February 14 - 11:18am

Link

Edit

Michael -- sanctioned post #56. What you appear to be saying is that with sufficient interjurisdictional mobility, government monopolies over a given territory can morph into something rather closely resembling anarcho-capitalism, even if some might quibble about the details or the definitions. The trick to achieving anarcho-capitalism lies in extending that mobility to individuals, so that they can flit from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in their transactions. The internet hollows out a little piece of such mobile anarcho-capitalism, and perhaps further philosophical or technological advances will allow even more such hollowing-out of statism to occur.

Neo-Conservative: a heuristic (operational) definition