About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 7:04pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Pete,
I'm talking about a little harmless civility. If one wants to find the line drawn in the sand, there must be communication at any level first. A little good will goes a long way with Muslims. If something superficial like facing Mecca will get them to the table to talk seriously I'm for it.  The trouble is; I fear that you would consider that to be compromising your morals.  If one is truly dedicated to finding peace; I am confident it will be found.  I have the utmost confidence in the power and creativity of the human mind. It is much more cost effective to send a brain into battle; but it seems to be the forgotten weapon.  Why would Objectivists place so little confidence in their powers of persuasion; when reason is man's basic means of survival?

Sharon




Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 41

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 7:20pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
No, Daniel, it is freedom, not peace that is the primary political value. Any so-called "peace" that comes at the expense of freedom is meaningless. The only meaningful security comes from the freedom to act to the best of one's knowledge and ability.

Properly understood, perfect freedom certainly is possible. On the other hand, any peace we might currently enjoy is subject to the irrational acts of others and our security is additionally subject to unforeseeable natural events.

Freedom first — peace and security will follow.



Post 42

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 7:35pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Daniel,

When talks truly break down; that is when the force of the United Nations is brought to bear; that's when the isolation of the marrauding country begins.  South Africa had a notion of a Divine right to keep the indigenous peoples in abject subjugation.  When finally, the whole world rose up against the apartheid government and imposed trade sanctions; the South African government had to yield and abolish apartheid.  The world will control the marauding Muslims as well; but  serious dedication to the task is required. 

I'll bet that if George Bush was obliged to sit down with the Leaders of the Middle East and come up with a peace agreement; or die in office trying; a solution would be found in a surprisingly short time.  It's a tragedy that this simplistic solution is so embarassingly complex that it will never be tried. There's too much shame in having to sit down face to face with one's enemy and admit that intelligent men who have the supposed respect of their various citizens have to talk about beating each other up. Their great-grandmothers must be shaking their heads as hard as I'm shaking mine.

Do you see why I disdain war.  It is beneath me.  To resort to war shows a complete bankruptcy of creativity and problem-solving ability. A total moral embarassment.         Sharon 




Post 43

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 7:36pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Sharon, I don't know what things are like in Canada, but in America we already have an objective line drawn in the sand, and a beautiful one at that.  It's in the first ammendment of the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
That's all you need.  Government is prohibited from endorsing and enforcing the edicts of any particular religion, yet yeople are free to practice whatever religion they like so long as they are not infringing on another's rights.  A perfect trade off. 

Islam is a totalitarian political ideology, and it demands the exclusive establishment of itself in government.  Its proponents will not just stop at one law, it is their religious duty to make sure the whole of society 'submits' to its strictures.

Personally, I do not favor a robust permanent military presence in the Middle East, and therefore am opposed to the current exercise in Iraq.  My feeling is that if we would have withdrawn from the region after the Soviets fell, 9-11 would have never happened.  But when Islamists seek to impose their religion on my society in such a manner as they are trying in Canada, I will fight it vehemently.

Muslims offended by our decadent culture?  They should have thought about that before moving here.      




Post 44

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 7:52pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Scott,
The Burka is a red herring; as in using a fish to catch a whale. I used it as an example of a small gesture that might extend some good will and compell the Muslims to come to the negotiation/problem-solving table.  I am not giving up on the idea that a solution other than war cannot be found. I am dead serious about this; and I hope I live long enough to see again, men smoking the peace pipe. (another figure of speech). I'll ak you too, why man's highest value reason, is the weapon that is used least in battle. Is man's self-esteem so under question that he is afraid that he will be seen as the fool he is; if he has to fight a battle with his wits?
That's my last argument Scott.  I'm going to bed to think on it.              Sharon



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 45

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 7:56pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Scott, regarding how I would've fought the war on terror -- I'm for a relatively simple-minded solution -- which may be even more unpopular with much of the world. I often have something off the wall to say, let's see if this isn't one of those times ...

--start a revolving, national, terrorism lottery with a 90% payout (keeping 10 cents of every dollar taken in -- for a 'finder's fund')
--offer the profits of the 'finder's fund' (or $1 Billion, whichever is the lesser) to the US team that assassinates: [insert terrorism leader here]
--let the Free Market handle it (and if Halliburton wants to team with Lockheed-Martin on a joint effort -- fine)
--keep the lottery going between assassinations -- to build up the funds between pay-offs
--alert the Middle East that replacing terrorist leaders with another, will result in similar consequence (perpetual assassinations)

Well, there you have it. All volunteer engagement, no terrorist warlords (at least none who can survive more than about a month or two), and no tax increases.

Got a difficult problem? Want a simple solution to it? Just ask Ed. Give him a call now at: 1-(999) TRY-THIS
[jingle] Difficult problems, simple solutions ... Just ask!
(pick up the phone now -- operators are standing by to take your call).

Ed





Post 46

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 8:00pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ed...

Your idea seems both hilarious and functional.

---Landon




Post 47

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 8:01pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
it is freedom, not peace that is the primary political value. Any so-called "peace" that comes at the expense of freedom is meaningless

Rick, you nailed the heart of the issue!  Thanks!




Post 48

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 8:02pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Rick,

My neighbours are fighting!   How can I have any freedom with all that chaos; when the unexpected has become  the norm?  Peace and freedom are mutually inclusive to me. If their battles are limiting my freedom; my own battles will definitely diminish it. Freedom to do battle is a forced choice to me; and therefore no freedom to choose, at all.

Sharon



Post 49

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 8:13pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Rick writes:
>Freedom first — peace and security will follow.

Hi Rick,

How, I wonder, could one find any kind of freedom in a war zone? How could one enjoy one's life and family, run a business, trade, travel freely etc? Everything would be threatened at every moment.

I suppose there is a kind of existential freedom in war - the type of thing Sartre talked about, for example, which I see as the kind of personal terror Rand described as "range of the moment' thinking. A freedom from all social restraints. But I am sure that is not what you mean.

So I say again: *peace* is a precondition for any kind of meaningful freedom. If peace must be fought for, then it must be fought for. But little or nothing can be achieved without it.

- Daniel




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 50

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 8:17pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ed:
>Got a difficult problem? Want a simple solution to it? Just ask Ed. Give him a call now at: 1-(999) TRY-THIS
[jingle] Difficult problems, simple solutions ... Just ask!
(pick up the phone now -- operators are standing by to take your call).


Do I get a free set of steak knives?

- Daniel



Post 51

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 8:25pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Sharon,

Are your neighbors initiating force against you? If not then their fighting among themselves does not affect your freedom. It might affect the environment in which you act but it does not affect your ability to act.



Post 52

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 8:31pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ed, are you familiar with Jim Bell's Assassination Politics?



Post 53

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 8:41pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Daniel,

It's a matter of focus. If your focus, your primary goal, is peace, then you will be willing to give up freedom to achieve it. If your focus is freedom peace will be (one of) the wonderful consequence(s).



Post 54

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 8:48pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
How, I wonder, could one find any kind of freedom in a war zone?

Britain, while they were being bombed by the Germans continued fighting, because to surrender would be to lose their freedom.  There was no freedom in Germany until after Hitler was defeated in war.  Even though there was peace after that, East Germany still didn't have much relative freedom until 1990.  Just wars are sometimes the only means to freedom for oppressed people.  Were we wrong to fight the Revolutionary War?




Post 55

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 9:33pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Rick writes:
>If your focus is freedom peace will be (one of) the wonderful consequence(s).

This will work only if *other guy's* focus is the same...he may, unfortunately, have other ideas...;-)

- Daniel



Post 56

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 9:42pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Daniel,

For someone who is not an expert, you certainly did a fine job of making a coherent argument!

Right now I have some personal matters to attend to that will prevent me from responding at length. But if you look into the sordid history of the rise of modern state-sponsored terrorism, you will find that there is more in common between the Cold War and the current situation than just institutional bureaucracy and established patterns of thought.

We first sat on our butts because the Cold War was still on with no end in sight. That established a dangerous precedent, but part of the reason we did nothing is that we knew the Sovs were backing it. Hence it fell under your eloquent locked-in-the-closet-with-the-psychopath case.

The Sovs believed that they could never win a straight internal fight for dominance in a country with an elected government that was even moderately committed to the rule of law. Hence, they established terror cells all over the world to place the governments in a position of cracking down and suspending liberty. They figured that if they could make the governments veer to a fascist position, then they could beat that and take over without a shooting war. This was based on their experiences in Cuba and parts of Africa. Most of these efforts fizzled after a couple of decades (but they sure had us scared in the 70s) but its just that in the Middle East the dominant culture was so prepped for that kind of thing anyway that it ballooned out of their control and ultimately outlived them. (To some extent, in the case of Afghanistan, we can say that it in fact buried them.)

The bottom line is that the Sovs were very gifted at terror, secret cells, subversion, propaganda, and destabilizing authoritarian governments. If you look at their history, you see all that goes right back to Lenin vs. the Tsars and even before. So some very, very shrewd, dedicated, experienced people wearing red stars on their shoulders designed the whole terror cell structure and its methods that we are facing today, and trained the trainers. This type of organization is as well designed for its purpose of undermining civilized life as, say, a particularly virulent computer virus is at taking over other peoples' machines.

-Bill



Post 57

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 9:45pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I wrote:
>>How, I wonder, could one find any kind of freedom in a war zone?

>Britain, while they were being bombed by the Germans continued fighting, because to surrender would be to lose their freedom....Were we wrong to fight the Revolutionary War?

I don't see how this contradicts what I wrote earlier ie "If peace must be fought for, then it must be fought for". Our freedoms in war are generally very restricted.

>There was no freedom in Germany until after Hitler was defeated in war. Even though there was peace after that, East Germany still didn't have much relative freedom until 1990.

I don't recall saying that freedom *inevitably* follows peace - it doesn't. You can certainly have a peaceful tyranny (though of course you could argue the violence has simply gone underground, as it did in East Germany with its Stasi). It's just an essential *precondition* to before real freedom can happen - freedom of expression, freedom to trade, freedom to enjoy our lives. Kinda like a fertile ground is essential to grow things, and nothing will grow in the flames.

- Daniel





Post 58

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 10:05pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Thanks Landon.

There are 4 imperfections with the Bush approach:

1--thousands of involuntary extensions of military service (ie. coercion)

2--some ineffectiveness regarding the "forced involuntary disappearance"** of terrorist leaders, such as ObL

**a government-originated euphemism for "killing" -- along with "permanent removal from society" (Doublespeak defined, William Lutz)

3--unnecessary hampering of the US economy

4--unnecessarily-high loss of innocent life

My solution averts all 4 of these imperfections.

Ed



Post 59

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 10:06pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Bill writes:
>Right now I have some personal matters to attend to that will prevent me from responding at length.

Oh don't worry, ditto.

>The bottom line is that the Sovs were very gifted at terror, secret cells, subversion, propaganda, and destabilizing authoritarian governments. If you look at their history, you see all that goes right back to Lenin vs. the Tsars and even before.

Yes. It's really horrendous when you look at the history of the KGB, for example. DM Thomas wrote about how, during the various terrors and famines of the early years of the Soviet Union, a massive population of children lost their parents. Most of these children died, but some survived, roaming in feral packs. Naturally, they became the most ruthless survivors possible - terrifying creatures. And then they *grew up*, and became the prime recruits of the various Soviet terror networks. Hence their famous amorality and skill.

- Daniel





Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.