RoR: Forum

On the point of embargoes: The government has the right to halt trade with nations that are a threat and danger to us. To say that a sanction or embargo violates the rights of Americans is to assume that Iran has something that we cannot get someplace else (or make ourselves). And further down that road, those Iranians you call peaceful are the Iranians who allow their government to play the role of the Middle-East bully-fool.

Post 21

Thursday, December 18, 2008 - 3:42pm

those Iranians you call peaceful are the Iranians who allow their government to play the role of the Middle-East bully-fool.

I guess that would mean that if you are an American, then you are to blame for the unwarranted and aggressive invasion of Iraq and all of the consequences that have come to bear as a result of that.

What kind of collectivist nonsense are you peddling?

Are all Russians responsible for what their government does? Entirely liable, or just partially? All 1.5 billion Chinese are "guilty, guilty, guilty" because of their government?

Does that make you responsible for the War on Drugs your government wages? (and they all do.)

The government has the right to halt trade with nations that are a threat and danger to us.

What? Is that one of the legitimate functions of government, to block American businessmen from trading with Iranian businessmen simply because the latter is of a certain nationality?

If the government wants to impose sanctions on certain things, like weapons and plutonium and nuclear-reactor heads, I am all fine and good with that. But you're saying that because nation's X government may or may not be a threat to the United States, it's OK to restrain an individual American from trading with another individual abroad? An Iranian Coca-Cola buyer is a threat to this nation...how again?

When you say "halting trade with nations", you're collectively lumping all Iranians into one faceless mass and saying "Sorry Cholly, but your government's actions means that you, the individual Iranian, cannot buy American stuff"; conversely, you're looking at Americans as one big mass and saying "you're not individuals; we will collectively restrain you from trading with people who are from a certain place!"

Collectivist.

To say that a sanction or embargo violates the rights of Americans is to assume that Iran has something that we cannot get someplace else

The rights of Americans are not dependent on whether something CAN be domestically produced. That would make rights conditional on whether American factories could or could not produce a certain item. Rights are not conditional.

So, what you're saying is, is that there really is no right to peacefully trade with another adult if the "American nation" can get those goods somewhere else?

Well, I hope you don't think you have the right to trade for Florida oranges...you can get those from California, you know.

Are you for real with this?

Post 22

Thursday, December 18, 2008 - 4:32pm

To SD

It is because we are responsible, and will be held responsible, for our government and what it does that we must care so much about what kind of government we have. I've posted on this before.

Yes, the Russians, all the Russians, are responsible for what their government does. Yes, the over 1.3 billion people in China are responsible for what their government does. If they don't like it they should seek to change it or move to a place that is freer. The USA has worked well for that in the past.

If this supposed peaceful Iranian businessman really desired peace and freedom he would not desire to live in a dictatorship. He would do everything he could, pulling out all the stops, to free himself. If he does not he will pay the price for bad policies of his government. If this Iranian businessman wants to be free he should become an American businessman.

I wont comment on your last few sentences - they are silly and meaningless – but I'll close with this:

I'm amazed at how readily people will take the blame when their nation and their nations government acts correctly. But let that government become corrupt, let it become Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, and suddenly no one is to blame but the government itself.
It's very convenient to pass the buck of responsibility when the government is involved.

Post 23

Thursday, December 18, 2008 - 4:52pm

you understand that you just, in a nutshell, endorsed the notion of collective guilt, correct?

If this supposed peaceful Iranian businessman really desired peace and freedom he would not desire to live in a dictatorship.

I desire a low-tax, pro-property-rights nation that recognizes the principle of self-ownership and is anti-interventionist in its foreign policy. And yet here I sit in America.

Post 24

Thursday, December 18, 2008 - 5:37pm

This post, your last Steve D., is a much better attack on my thought than your previous post. But, you still miss the mark. Don't the Christians call that sin?

You may, if you like, call this collective guilt, though I have not insinuated that in any way. I find the individual citizens of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and “Republican” Iran guilty all on their own.

If you think they are innocent of the crimes their countries have committed, not just against others but against themselves, go right ahead. I for one think there are very few innocent people there.

If and when we attack Iran it wont be hard to find the innocent. They wont be walking the streets, going to school, or selling carpets. They will be in prison, where almost all innocent people are sent in a peccant and corrupt country.

Post 25

Thursday, December 18, 2008 - 8:16pm

You may, if you like, call this collective guilt, though I have not insinuated that in any way. I find the individual citizens of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and Iran guilty all on their own.

On what grounds? Does their failure to individually act (which would certainly be futile) constitute guilt for what their government does?

In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand wrote:

Some young men seem to labor under the misapprehension that since the draft is a violation of their rights, compliance with the draft law would constitute a moral sanction of that violation. This is a serious error. A forced compliance is not a sanction. All of us are forced to comply with many laws that violate our rights, but so long as we advocate the repeal of such laws, our compliance does not constitute a sanction. Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom..."One does not stop the juggernaut by throwing oneself in front of it."

(emphasis my own)

So, is the Iranian supposed to engage in "mere disobedience and futile martyrdom", else he is 'guilty' of the immoral things his government does?

Post 26

Thursday, December 18, 2008 - 9:37pm

Oh, I see we've gotten our Bible's out. Too bad you're mixing issues though.

I'm curious, do the Iranians have nowhere to turn? Are they not allowed in America or Europe?

Let's put this into great context though. If you agree that the US is the most free nation on this planet then you agree that there is a place for those who wish to be free to go. After all, Rand left Russian dictatorship for American freedom.

And, pulling this back to the subject of war and economic sanctions, I'll say this: economic sanctions are not a very good tool of negotiation, as far as I can tell. People, and countries, who engage in aggression and force (and usually against their own people!) don't respond positively to withholding their allowance. When a bully threatens you repeatedly he may not get the hint that you don't like him if you're response is to buy popcorn from someone other than him. It's a lot harder for a bully to miss the point when you've punched him face.

Post 27

Thursday, December 18, 2008 - 10:16pm

Funny, Steve, that we faeries are the strongest advocates of face punching. STD's quote applies to one's opinion of oneself internal to a state. It does not imply that the citizens of a state can expect immunity from the actions of the dictatorship they live in in a state of war. War is the interaction of states acting at a higher level. A state goes to war with another state, not with individual citizens. Those citizens may be innocents so far as criminal matters. But war is not the prosecution of criminals. And in war "innocents" die.

It is those who want to wait until Israel or New York is vaporized before we act that have no regard for the innocent.

The most morally reprehensible person here is the one who voted that we wait for Iran to bomb Israel before we attack her.

Post 28

Thursday, December 18, 2008 - 11:22pm

STD's quote applies to one's opinion of oneself internal to a state. It does not imply that the citizens of a state can expect immunity from the actions of the dictatorship they live in in a state of war.

Acknowledged, but note that I used that quote as a refutation of the notion that Iranians are guilty for what the Iranian state does. Like The Woman said, are Iranians just supposed to throw themselves in front of the juggernaut to be judged "not guilty" for what their governments do?

People, and countries, who engage in aggression and force (and usually against their own people!) don't respond positively to withholding their allowance.

There you go with the collectivism again. First of all, economic sanctions punish innocent Americans for the actions of the Iranian government. Secondly, unless you are baldly stating that the individual peaceful Iranian citizen is responsible for the actions of his government, your argument does not stand.

Again, why should Coca-Cola NOT be allowed to sell soda to Iranians who want to drink soda? Who does that harm? When you "withhold" American products, you provide a cheap and easy scapegoat for dictators to radicalize the population. I would rather that free trade occur with the Iranian people so they see what it is they are missing. That, more than sanctions, is going to provide them with incentive to get in the streets and overthrow their government.

I mean, do you know how instrumental illegal copies of American music and movies were behind the Iron Curtain to inspire those first brave souls to stand up to the USSR? Imagine if the beauty of American culture were allowed to freely pervade Iranian society. Talk about radicalizing (for the good!) the populous.
(Edited by Steven Druckenmiller on 12/18, 11:29pm)

Post 29

Thursday, December 18, 2008 - 11:28pm

I'm curious, do the Iranians have nowhere to turn? Are they not allowed in America or Europe?

Ha. Generally speaking, the answer is "no". I imagine that, on top of the difficulty of getting out of Iran permanently, the United States and Europe are ignorantly bigoted towards Middle Eastern Muslim immigrants.

Not only that, but the United States is statutorily limited to 700,000 immigrants per year. There are 72 million people in Iran. So, yeah, if we exclusively committed our 700K legal limit just to Iranians, we could have the entire population here in about 102.8 years.

Post 30

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 5:41am

"First of all, economic sanctions punish innocent Americans for the actions of the Iranian government." -STD

According to this "reasoning" WWII was a punishment of Hawaii, since we didn't let the Japanese invest in Hawaiian real-estate.

Post 31

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 9:14am

STD's quote applies to one's opinion of oneself internal to a state. It does not imply that the citizens of a state can expect immunity from the actions of the dictatorship they live in in a state of war. War is the interaction of states acting at a higher level. A state goes to war with another state, not with individual citizens. Those citizens may be innocents so far as criminal matters. But war is not the prosecution of criminals. And in war "innocents" die.

It is those who want to wait until Israel or New York is vaporized before we act that have no regard for the innocent.

The most morally reprehensible person here is the one who voted that we wait for Iran to bomb Israel before we attack her.

This is the exact point I was trying to make. I couldn't agree more. Waiting for truly innocent people to die before doing something about the mad dog is the worst kind of mealy-mouthed altruism.

Post 32

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 9:40am

Yes, yours was a good post, and I went back to check, but saw I had already sanctioned it. Thanks for filling out your profile. I assume Cat Who Walks Through Walls must be your favorite?

Post 33

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 11:54am

According to this "reasoning" WWII was a punishment of Hawaii, since we didn't let the Japanese invest in Hawaiian real-estate.

Due respect, but are you really this stupid? You don't see a difference between "economics" and "force"?

Nah, couldn't be.

Post 34

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 9:33pm

Absolutely Immediately. This is a country that has attacked us in the past and is preparing to do so now. I am a believer in the theory that when someone says "My stated goal is to destroy your way of life, there can be no other resolution." you have got to act and act quickly.

Post 35

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 10:07pm

Hey Ryan. Sounds good to me. It may have been SunTzu who said war exists once the enemy has the desire to attack? Iran has made that quite clear. It's not like we're talking a tank invasion of Israel through Iraq with a few hours warning. We're talking about waking up to find a city has been vaporized.

Please do fill out your extended profile to some extent when you get the chance.

Welcome to the site.

Post 36

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 11:18am

Ted: Thanks for filling out your profile. I assume Cat Who Walks Through Walls must be your favorite?

Why would you assume that beside the fact that a bonsai tree (Maple-san) figures a bit in the book? Seriously, I do like that one but prefer Time Enough for Love, Glory Road, Starship Troopers, and especially The Number of the Beast.

Post 37

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 11:33am

A bonsai also figures in F.Paul Wilson's An Enemy of the State...

Post 38

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 11:35am

Yes, for the Bonsai. :)

Time Enough for Love is also my favorite.

Post 39

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 2:48pm