Nuking Japan

Contrary to the "view" that US citizens and servicemen must be sacrificed for some foreign policy boondoggle--instigated and perpetuated ala Lincoln, FDR and Truman style--a laissez faire Capitalist society does NOT need, nor should it go beyond the functions of such by partnering, sanctioning and supporting dictators like “Uncle Joe” Stalin and delivering one third of the world to Communism.

Sanctioning and supporting the politics, economics and rationalizations of sacrifice come from failing to understand and uphold the principles of laissez faire Capitalism. This failure is leading the USA to LESS freedom and security, NOT more. Joseph Stalin had the blood of 42 million dead human beings on his hands and for this he was rewarded, NOT with a rope, NOT with skin crawling revulsion and NOT with vomit, but with FDR’s friendship, a hug from Churchill AND a third of the World!

Abandoning the principles that supposedly distinguish the United States Government from ITS so-called enemies, and adopting and upholding expedience (need) and pragmatism (if it works do it), instead of adhering to the principles of laissez faire Capitalism--is precisely why the United States has become a perpetual Welfare Warfare State.

There are alternatives to expedience, pragmatism and the TRAGEDIES such false alternatives engender. And those alternatives do not trap one in taking sides with and supporting such dictators as “Uncle Joe” Stalin, Saddam Hussein and dozens of similar ones thru out S.E. Asia and Central and South America, NOR do they trap one in demanding that civilians become targets of terrorism, for problems created and perpetuated by rogue governments. Our rogue US Government, doing anarchic things in foreign countries, is the SOURCE of the hatred of Americans. No individual American could do what our tax supported government-run-amok has done.

If anyone should tell you that you must make sacrifices to deal with some--drooling beast--emergency, and tells you that you must suffer a loss of your rights, and tells you to cough up your papers or else shut up and obey, you should ask yourself "What makes that person any different from the criminals who created the emergency?"

Post 41

Friday, November 14, 2003 - 7:24pm

Linz quotes "The solution to the loss of innocent lives is not to support the guilty parties, but to support their annihilation".

I agree but Linz has lost sight of who or what the guilty party is. The guilty party is GOVERNMENT. It is government that we must seek to end.

As for Linz' hangup about names. Surely in a free society one can refer to ones self as one wishes. If you don't like No 6 you are free to call me what you like!

As for Linz claim that Saddam et al. are my pin-up boys, I will try to ignore the slur. Actually you Linz used to be someone I admired very much, until you threw yourself in behind the corrupt warefare fascist state of America. America no longer represents freedom Linz, and by supporting them, nor do you!

Post 42

Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 2:35pm

Linz,

Would you at least accept that it is possible for Objectivists to oppose dictatorships without neccessarily endorsing war as the preferable course of action for dealing with them?

Matthew Humphreys

Post 43

Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 3:16pm

I agree with Linz. This is a test post because two of my posts have been removed. Very odd given that I'm in like-minded company. Maybe someone can post here and explain why.

Post 44

Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 2:39pm

Right up to today, the demigods and the advocates of ever-greater Government intervention--and corresponding losses to our Liberties--continue to invoke the name of Lincoln as they sanction, support and progress the policing of the world and the waging of war on civilians.

Lincoln transformed American government from Constitutional Republic to consolidated empire. As General Lee presciently observed whilst responding to Lord Acton, Dec 15th, 1866: “…I consider—[“the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and the people”] as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the [coercive] consolidation of the states into a vast republic [is] sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, [and] will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”

Lincoln and his general’s train of abuses--which included “death is mercy” terror policies on civilian women and children--caught on like wildfire. A campaign of ethnic genocide was waged against the Plains Indians for the benefit of the railroad industry with much talk about extending “the American Empire” all the way to China.

This was followed up with the--US Government instigated--Spanish-American War, which in turn led to the take over of the Philippines and Teddy Roosevelt’s “…rules of just severity sanctioned by Abraham Lincoln. [By murdering tens of thousand of Filipino civilians,] We believe that we can rapidly teach the people of the Philippine islands. . . how to make good use of their freedom.”

The set up of “We the people…” was to continue with TR and WWI-Woodrow Wilson invoking Lincoln’s name as they unabashedly advocated wars of empire and righteousness.

This was followed up with the set up, keelhauling and nuclear incineration of civilian populations by Truman, which was in turn preceded by FDR’s set up of Pearl Harbor and one THIRD of the world for “Uncle Joe” Stalin, as a reward for visiting “death is mercy” upon 42 million human souls.

A major vice of interventionism is that it breeds more interventionism…

The set-ups, the flare-ups and the cover-ups continued thru Korea, Vietnam and on into Iraq. (I provide laissez faire capitalist solutions to the latest insanity in Iraq on “This war on terrorism is bogus” thread). Here is one of the solutions I refer to: http://www.capitalism.net/articles/Super-Weapon%20Economic%20Freedom.htm

Lincoln successfully destroyed Jefferson’s federal constitution and put America on the Hamiltonian Mercantilist road of ever-growing interventionism. What is needed is a rediscovery of the constitution that “We the people” were LED to believe we were getting--i.e. Jefferson’s federal constitution--but which was usurped.

A good place to start that understanding is the works I paraphrased from i.e. Thomas Dilorenzo’s book “The Real Lincoln.” And “’Godfather’ Kristol’s Statist/Imperialist Manifesto’” http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo50.html

Post 45

Friday, November 21, 2003 - 5:15pm

Dear No6 and astropolis,

Thanks for the kudos, support and reading my stuff.

Regards,

Anthony

Post 46

Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 2:50am

A lot of good stuff there Anthony, I'm a frequent reader of both LewRockwell.com and capitalism.net myself. I would certainly agree that there are laissez-faire solutions to this mess. As I suggest in my previous post, Objectivists can oppose Saddam's dictatorship while advocating alternatives to war.

Matthew Humphreys

Post 47

Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 5:37am

Thanks Anthony,

It is nice to see that some around here remain objective.

War is always a statist and collectivist solution. It is the biggest Con trick of Government. The state always grows during war and is never fully relinquished during peace. War is the health of the state. Indeed it is only through taxation that modern war can be waged.

The second mistake that collectivists make when discussing the pros and cons of war is the acceptance of collateral damage. One has to repair to the argument of what is best (In their opinion) for the greater number, and that the thousands of killed and maimed innocents are a price worth paying.

The third and most unforgivable error is the claiming that anyone against this war in Iraq is a Saddam supporter. This is a grotesque piece of spin to the point of blatant propaganda. For an Objectivist to use this line of reasoning is disgusting in the extreme.

The founders of the USA were very aware of the above and built in safeguards to try and prevent the mistakes the US has made over the last 100 years. Unfortunately they are now considered old hat even by some so called objectivists. Ayn Rand is oft quoted to defend foreign invasions and that is all the reasoning they put to the matter.

Frankly, I can only hope that some of these warmongering objectivist pretenders end up as collateral damage themselves. Maybe with a missing leg or arm they may be better able to sympathise with the victims of their crusade.

Post 48

Monday, November 24, 2003 - 10:45am

Our context-dropping appeasement-loving dogmatic pseudo-libertarian quasi-pacifists "friends" have joined our Islamo-fascist enemies in their hopes that we “end up as collateral damage”. This implies that they hope for another 9/11 or worse.

And then you wonder why we commit the "most unforgivable error" and "grotesque piece of spin" when we question whose side you are on. Thanks for the confession.

Post 49

Monday, November 24, 2003 - 9:09pm

“We--[laissez faire Capitalists]--seek not your [Lincolnesque] counsel, nor your [Interventionist] arms. Crouch down and lick the [statist] hand that feeds you; May your [Hamiltonian] chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

Sam Adams

Post 50

Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 1:40am

Rick:
I am on the side of humanity. Collateral damage on either 'side' sickens me.

Why do you think 9/11 happened? Obviously you think it had nothing to do with the US foreign policy.

Post 51

Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 4:51am

We have your number - you have shown your colours. You salivate for another attack on the US, which you think we deserve because of our foreign policy. You hide behind your cowardly moniker and rationalizations. No 6, you are not a man, you are a number.

Post 52

Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 10:33pm

Dear No 6 and laissez faire capitalists,

One of Stalin’s totalitarian trademarks was the demand, for "Your papers!", as issued by some morally-deficient cretin in a trench coat, or merely being held erect by a stiff woolen uniform.

Another signature of “salivating” statists are the calls for “good citizens” to report each other to the secret police for behavior or perceived attitudes that are even slightly suspicious -- meaning anti-interventionist in character and behavior.

Much like the rounding up of one third of the world for Stalin--From FDR, Churchill and Truman with Love--we are in far more danger from the belief that the ends justify the means than we are from terrorists. Fortunately, in our time of need Loyola College Professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo has stepped forward with a blockbuster of a book, “The Real Lincoln” Read it and regain perspective.

Lincoln believed that his ends justified his means. He used war to destroy the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a powerful central government…

..Lincoln …suspended habeas corpus, by instituting a secret police, and by arbitrarily arresting without warrants or due process thousands of leading citizens of Northern cities, state legislators, U.S. Congressmen, newspaper owners and editors, ministers, bankers, policemen--literally everyone who expressed the slightest reservation about Lincoln’s aims and means or who was anonymously denounced by a rival or envious neighbor…

In the thoroughness with which Lincoln suppressed dissent, he prefigured 20th century totalitarians. http://www.vdare.com/roberts/police_state.htm

Best Regards and good premises,
Anthony

Post 53

Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 10:38pm

Dear Matthew,

Thanks for the kudos, support and reading my stuff.

Regards,

Anthony

Post 54

Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 10:44pm

I'm not surprised at all to see a third-rate thinker defend the South and the War to Perpetuate Slavery. As usual, your hatred for the US pushes you on the side of every two-bit thug.

Over and over, you side with evil wherever you can find it. That you end up defending North Korea, Southern Slavery, and the Soviet Union would be an indicator to any rational person to check his premises. Obviously that doesn't include you. You're not a freedom-lover. You're just anti-American. And you're not fooling anyone.

Post 55

Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 3:32am

Rick avoided the question. No surprises there.

Joe. If you think that the civil war had anything to do with slavery, you are a bigger fool than I originally thought.

Anthony. Your comments are correct and obvious to all with a brain, which unfortunately does not include all who attend this site.

These no brainers including Linz fulsomely support this rotten war on supposedly "libertarian" grounds! (And as you can see from above they call anyone against it evil.). If this fourth-rate radio ranter is a libertarian, by any coherent definition of the term, then we truly have entered Bizarro World through a rip in the space-time continuum, and the plain meaning of words has not only been changed but inverted.

Post 56

Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 6:32am

Ok guys, please calm down a bit. Insulting comments like "third-rate thinker" and "fourth rate radio ranter" don't further the debate in any way.

Libertarians disagree on all sorts of issues, not least foreign policy. Can't we please debate those disagreements without resorting to petty name calling?

Matt

Post 57

Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 1:10pm

Dear No 6,

You have shown enormous restraint and objectivity in the face of repeated emotion driven attacks upon the rewritten version of my, your and other laissez faire capitalist views by the person in question. (All one has to do is to visit this and a prior thread “This war on terrorism is bogus” to confirm this). I can and do express 100% agreement with you and I admire your first handedness.

Dennis Wilson provided the following important point on that thread as an antidote to the evasions we encountered there and which continue here.

‘I "regurgitated" Galt's oath in an earlier posting and I have been amazed how many alleged Objectivists just gloss over it, both on this board and elsewhere. Below I have copied a portion of Galt's Speech that talks about initiation of force and retaliation. Those pseudo-Objectivists have completely wiped the meanings from their minds.

"This Is John Galt Speaking"
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
Part Three / Chapter VII

"Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate--do you hear me? no man may start--the use of physical force against others".

"It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use".

There is some more discussion on those points in Galt's Speech, none of which justifies the war mongers who masquerade as Objectivists. Shunning is the only way I can think of dealing with them [which is how I couch my posts]. Unfortunately, that would leave anyone new to Objectivism thinking that the war mongers represent Objectivism, which they definitely do NOT.’

Best Regards,

Anthony

Post 58

Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 1:43pm

The legend of Lincoln the Great Emancipator has grown to mythic proportions as hundreds of books, a National holiday and a monument in Washington D.C. extol his heroism and martyrdom…

In “The Real Lincoln”, author Thomas J. Dilorenzo uncovers a side of Lincoln not told by many history books and overshadowed by the immense Lincoln legend.

600,000 American soldiers did NOT die for the honorable cause of ending slavery, but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government.

For those of you with active minds, you will discover a side of Lincoln that you were probably never taught in school--a side that--calls into question the very myths that surround him and helps explain the true origins of a bloody and unnecessary war.

What if most everything you know about Lincoln were false? What if instead of an American hero who sought to free the slaves, Lincoln was in fact a calculating politician who waged the bloodiest war in American history in order to build an EMPIRE that rivaled Great Britain’s?

Lincoln’s train of abuses to life, liberty and property under the pretense of furthering the labors of “We the people…”, triggered an uncontrollable swelling of big government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our republic to this very day.

A peacefully negotiated secession was the best way to handle ALL the problems facing America in 1860. Peaceful emancipation was in fact accomplished in dozens of countries because the development of capitalism made it uneconomical. A peaceful solution to the entanglements of Iraq were provided in a prior post.

Laissez faire capitalist alternatives do NOT trap one in taking sides with and supporting such dictators as “Uncle Joe” Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Osama Ben Laden and dozens of similar ones thru out S.E. Asia and Central and South America, NOR do they trap one in demanding that civilians become targets of terrorism--ala Lincoln style--for problems created and perpetuated by rogue government interventions that breed more interventions, set-ups, flare-ups and cover-ups.

“…Those who do not recognize individual rights, will not recognize the rights of nations: a nation is only a number of individuals.” Ayn Rand.

Let's put myths to rest… http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo44.html

Post 59

Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 7:36pm