| | Joel,
You wrote:
"Jihadism and Communism, two of the worst totalitarian ideologies, are alive and well."
Agreed. To that, I'd add state fascism (particularly the Ba'athist variety), and state socialism.
"I don't ask you 'n slaps' per state. That's pure Marxism, and I will assume you don't think this way. That's why I ask you: perhaps do you think the United States is the worst of all 'states'? If not, why you don't give more slaps to the most tyranical 'states' that today are concocting and acting against the freest 'states' of the world?"
No, I do not think that the United States is the "worst" state. As a matter of fact, I think it's among the "better" ones, possibly even the "best." But remember, I am an anarchist. I oppose the state per se. "Better," with respect to the state, means nothing more than "less bad." It doesn't mean "good."
Since I aim to persuade others to adopt that opposition as well, where do I focus my energies? On the states that virtually everyone I communicate with already agrees are bad? That would be of no effect whatsoever in discrediting the state as such. I can bash Ba'athist Syria, Islamist Iran, Communist North Korea, et al all day long -- and they deserve it -- but it would be to no avail. But if I discredit the "better" states, those "worse" states are implicitly incorporated within that indictment. On a tactical level, one attacks the weakest point in the enemy's line -- but on a strategic level, it is the strongest points which must, sooner or later, be outflanked and reduced.
I am simply not interested in defending the "better" states against the "worse" states. I am out to take them all down. To the extent that I act politically within the paradigm of statism, it is to gain tactical advantage and preserve such freedom as possible against the day when the strategic point can be pressed.
"Perhaps before you purchase the ticket to Manila, the Philippine state will have been divided into an Islamic and a secular state"
That wouldn't surprise me a bit. There's never really been an effective state power covering the entire archipelago. Mindanao is probably "naturally" a separate polity. It's never been effectively governed from Manila, and the tax revenue base from it has probably never covered the outlay from Manila in trying to effectively govern it.
I suspect that if Mindanao and the smaller islands gained autonomy, the Islamists and Communists would be even less successful in governing them than Manila has been. For decades, the insurgents have had it easy -- throw a few bombs, behead a few innocents, fade back into the shadows. Let them come out and try to govern, and they lose whatever patina of "underdog rebel" they may have gained over time.
"But without the American state, with all the flaws it has, you would not have any immunitary system actively defending your rights to life and liberty against the much more metastatic states Communist and Jihadist states are."
With the American state, I do not have any immunitary system actively defending my rights to life and liberty against anyone. I just have a big parasite that demands not only to be fed, but to be thanked for eating.
Insofar as metastasis is concerned, Communism reached its high tide and receded, with the Cold War being only partially responsible (if at all -- it's entirely possible that the ability to cite an external enemy increased its lifespan), more than a decade ago -- and the Islamists have never successfully taken over a country which was not either directly handed to them by the West (Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, for example) or where Western support of corrupt states gave Islamist rebellion popular cachet (Iran).
In every place where the West has butted out, or never been involved, the Islamists have been ineffective most of the time and routed when they've become effective enough to pose any threat at all. As a matter of fact, the increasing success of Abu Sayeff/MILF in the Philippines correlates directly in time with the renewed US "assistance" to the Philippines in fighting them. It costs the Manila government more in public support than it gains them in military efficacy to bring in foreign "assistance."
If Islam is metastatic, then US intervention is a catalyst for that metastasis.
Tom Knapp
|
|
