I am a supporter of the Libertarian party and even more so of the Constitution Party. I believe in limited government....There is coming a time when control oriented governments and cartels will be a thing of the past.
"The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States from foreign sources."
In other words, the government will command you not to engage in trade that they disapprove of. They will command you as to what you are allowed to put into your own body.
"The Constitution Party finds that a cause of this national state of disgrace is the deterioration of personal character among government leaders, exacerbated by the lack of public outcry against immoral conduct by public office holders."
In other words, only people whose character meets their arbitrary standards are worthy of honor and respect. The government will command you as to that which is considered "moral".
"We stand against so-called 'sexual orientation' and 'hate crime' statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression."
In other words, the government will command you as to what "appropriate" sexual behavior is and they will support those who wish to abuse those who fall outside of government standards.
"Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country."
In other words, the government will command you to not gamble.
"We commend Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his defense of the display of the Ten Commandments, and condemn those who persecuted him and removed him from office for his morally and legally just stand."
In other words, the government will command that Christianity receive special blessing from the government.
The Constitution party is not a party that loves indivudal liberty. It is a Christian party that seeks to impose Christian ethics on everyone through the force of government. It seeks to create the "control-oriented" government that you claim will be a "thing of the past".
Fair enough. Are you sure that Western violence/war exceeds that of Islamic Jihad?
2. Epic cultural destruction
My first thought is, "So what?" My second thought is: do you not realize that Muslims widely regard all non-Islamic cultures as trash? Are you not aware that part of the jihad is to eradicate these cultures? Do you fail to see the destruction of priceless buddhist statues in the name of Allah?
3. Economic terrorism
That is likely Marxist garbage.
If you can reference incidents where Jihad has caused death, pain and suffering we can start to tally them up and see how they compare against Western "Protecting National Interests".
My god, where to start! Certainly you are aware that Muhammad was a barbarian who conquered the Arabian peninsula by force?
We are not fighting "a bully".
Like hell we aren't. The idea that Islam will conquer the entire world is a mainstream Muslim belief. Not an "extremist" belief. A mainstream belief. The penalty for homosexuality in Islam is death. The religion is to be spread with lies (I have had Muslims on Slahdot admit that lying is "sometimes permissible") and violence (jihad). This has been the pattern of Islam since its inception. How did the Muslims end up owning Spain? By invading it and conquering it by violence!
The USA has been involved with Islamic terrorists since before it was a phrase. The USA played a crucial role in developing what are now known as "the terrorist networks".
In other words, the Islamic Muhajideen are only bad because the evil USA had their evil tentacles where they didn't belong.
The USA has more sole searching to do than any Muslim. But I have not heard anything from official US representatives that suggests they are going to rethink policies so as to improve the lives of everyone on the planet rather than a select few.
If you think that the USA is evil, then it makes sense that you would impose that kind of penance on them.
You could say that this is what 9/11 was all about.
Of cousre. The fact that we aren't allowing the Muslims to run rough-shod over the world and impose Shari'a by force on everyone is "oppression" to the Muslims. The fact that we resist them is "bullying" to them.
I do not see "capitalism" as _the problem_. I do see the USA's economic policies as a major part of the problem.
Specifically?
As do I, but the USA seems to be above accountability.
That is code for, "The USA deserves to be punished because they're evil". You are an anti-American hate-slave and I'm done. I think you hate the USA so much that if a Muslim terrorist were to murder me then you would see that as an awesome opportunity to bash the USA.
Because it is worse, more prevalent and more enduring.
What kind of measurement do you use to judge that Western violence/war is
A. worse B. more prevalent C. more enduring
than Islamic Jihad?
I ask becuase I can't differentiate between your claim that "Western violence/war is worse than Islamic Jihad" and general anti-Americanism/anti-capitalism. Meaning, if you were anti-American (you believe axiomatically that "America is evil") then it would make sense that you would argue that Western violence/war is worse than Islamic Jihad beacause just such an argument furthers your goal. A way for you to prove that you're not merely an anti-American is for you to explain to me the measurement that you use in order to judge that Western war is worse than Islamic Jihad.
I think that showing a willingness to disarm, listen and adapt would go a lot farther to achieving peace than invading, killing and dictating.
You can never defeat a bully with kindness. The only way to defeat a bully is to make him know that his bullying will have harsh, immediate, and consistent negative consequences.
I appreciate your point concerning the distinction between Islamic violence and "Christian" violence. I just don't think the distinction is useful in terms of solving problems.
I think you and I disagree on what "the problems" are. My differentiation between Islamic Jihad and "Christian violence" is probably not useful to you, especially if you perceive "the problem" as the USA/Capitalism.
No one on this planet should be pointing the finger or feeling the victim.
I think that those who harm others should be held accountable for it, regardless of whether or not that looks like "finger pointing", regardless if it infringes on someone else's "religious freedoms". Furthermore, I don't think it's honest of you to decry finger-pointing when it looks like you're pointing your finger at the USA.
If you can accept this, then the body counts fall where I said.
I can accept parts of what you wrote, but it does not fulfill what I would consider a fair comparison between the two religions.
For the "Christian violence" to be comparable, it would have to be done by a Christian, for the sake of holy war, in the name of Jesus Christ. The Muslims are very, very explicit about these things when they commit Islamic violence, whereas you have to stretch Western violence to make it fit just such a pattern. It is for this reason that I see Islamic violence as it is whereas I can't categorize Western violence/war in the same manner.
Mind you, I am not a Christian and, in fact, feel threatened by Christians in many cases. I am a gay adoptive parent, I have good reason to feel threatened. I only argue that Islam is worse for their violent proclivities that are spelled out in and justified by the Quran.
My question for you: why are you trying to make Western violence/war look "just as bad" as Islamic jihad?
And yet you didn't choose Buddhism as your example for comparison. Could it be that Buddhism doesn't have the anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-jew record that Christianity has? Christianity seems the better fit, correct?
Here's an example: say someone was singling out America for massive consumption of oil because of cars, lifestyle etc. and implied this made them evil. So I might point out that other countries in Europe, say France or the UK consume quite a lot of oil too, so does that make them evil?... It does not mean I am criticising France or the UK. I am refuting the idea that the original argument was a sound basis on which to make a judgement.
If Christianity is NOT anti-woman, anti-gay, and anti-jew, then you have made no statement about Islam since you are differentiating it from Islam and you've made no effort to refute the argument that Islam IS thouse things.
If Christianity IS anti-woman, anti-gay, and anti-jew, then you are admitting to what I'm accusing you of: you're trying to change the subject by playing the, "Hey, Christianity is just as bad as Islam!" game.
Jesus, is this really so hard to understand? Apparently so.
What you're arguing is nonsensical, so I think you're lying to me. Your ad hominems are evidential of your being backed into a corner with no way out. I notice you make no effort to answer the question as to whether or not my questions of Islam are true. Was I correct in guessing that you were uncomfortable in answering it? A simple "yes" or "no" will do fine.
you made excellent rebuttals to points I didn't make.
I didn't see what I wrote as much as a rebuttal as it was in effort to turn the discussion back to Islam, which is where it started. You tried to divert it to Christianity, and it seems that you're agreeing with me that such a diversion is unwarranted. Is Islam a religion that has well-evidenced proclivities for violent imperialism, subjugation of women, abrogration of press freedoms, degredation of non-Islamic cultures, murder of homosexuals, barbaric justice system, and desecration of art? This seems to be a question that many people are afraid of answering as long as the religion in question is Islam, but they'll harp all day if the religion is Christianity. And that was what I perceived you as doing: trying to change the subject to something more comfortable to you.
I don't accept your list as "Chrisitan killings". Allow me to explain.
When I describe "Islamic violence", I am talking about violence that:
* is done by a Muslim * is done for jihad * is done in the name of Allah
When I describe "Christian violence", I am talking about violence that:
* is done by a Christian * is done for Christian holy war * is done in the name of Jesus Christ
I think you will find that there are hundreds upon thousands of examples of Islamic violence and very few examples of Christian violence. There is not even such a thing as "Christian holy war" in Christian scripture whereas jihad is well-explained and, in fact, mandated in the Quran. Mohammad was fulfilling the will of Allah when he conquered, by violent force, the Arabian peninsula, and there is no Islamic scholar who will deny that. If such an action was moral back then, then why would it be wrong now? I don't think *any* of the examples you listed are Christian violence, as many of them are done for the sake of American interests or in the name of containing Communism.
My point actually had nothing to do with criticising Christianity. Nothing at all. My point was that you could just as reasonably* claim that Christians hate the things --
I don't see how you can claim that your point had "nothing to do with criticizing Christianity" when you are implicity criticizing Christianity. Are you, perhaps, merely saying, "I'm not criticizing Christianity, but I understand that you could defend Islam by stating that such criticisms of Islam also apply to Christianity!"? If that is the case, then I agree with you that one could argue that way, but it is merely a "tu quoque" defense that does not render invalid the criticisms of Islam.
So the attempt to align Muslims with Nazis on this basis was flawed.
Any attempt to align anyone with Nazis is flawed. I think Islam's deficiencies stand on their own. Who needs Nazis when you can merely observe Islam and see its proclivities for violent imperialism, subjugation of women, abrogration of press freedoms, degredation of non-Islamic cultures, murder of homosexuals, barbaric justice system, and desecration of art?
My point was, as I believe I hinted at, that such terms describe such a vast number of people --
I am criticizing the religion, not individual Muslims or "all Muslims".
If you want to start with the one with the greatest pentiant for killing, then we should start with Christianity as Christian nations have been responsible for several magnitudes more deaths than any other religion this past century.
Prove it. Make sure you take into account Muslim imperialism.
But then you would prabobly have to take a long hard look at yourself, whcih is far less appealing than pointing fingers.
I am an ex-Christian and an anti-Christian. I routinely beat Christians under the table for their sanctimony, their hypocrisy, and their religious-inspired abuse. As a gay adoptive parent, I have good reason to.
At the same time, I freely admit that every bad thing that I see in Christianity I see to an even greater degree in Islam. Can you prove otherwise? Perhaps you can try by openly discussing with me the state of gay rights and the rights of adoptive parents under Shari'a.
But I would have prefered the newest party line read: guarantees every American will have affordable access to health care within five years.
Yes, everyone should have "affordable access to health care".
But what kind of health care? The fact of the matter is that the more money a person makes, the more they choose to spend on health care.
A rich person might choose to go the extra mile and pay more money to have that expensive MRI. I mean, how much is that peace of mind worth? Sure, it's expensive, but they have the money to spend, so why not ensure that you have the best quality health care you can afford? A person of more meager means may decide that it's acceptable to live with the risk. There are no guarantees in life, after all.
This is when the socialist health-care advocates will amend their request to say, "guaranteed access to basic health care". Well, what exactly is "basic"? The answer to that question usually involves a knee-jerk response along the lines of, "You don't want people to just DIE if they get cancer, do you?" whereas what I'm looking for is an answer to the much more difficult question: how will the government ration the health care?
In fact, why the fuck did you drag your racist view of your perceived Dutch problem into this discussion?
Islam is not a race. His argument was not racist.
Notice that when Muslims tout Islam, they talk about how it "transcends racial barriers" and other such glowing praise. Then when someone points out the Muslims who go out of their way to blow up a busful of children and claim that it was the will of Allah that such a thing happen, then the "that's racist!" canard starts rearing its ugly head.
This is the second-most common tactic used in Muslim apologetics. When someone criticizes Islam, change the subject to Christianity! I've seen this done by Muslims and Leftist defenders of Islam many, many times.
Here's an idea: let Islam stand on its own and be judged on its own merits. We'll do Christianity next, but I think we should start with Islam since its adherents seem, by far, most prone to violence, threats, intimidation, car burnings, suicide bombings, and general religious psychosis.
So in essence, what you're doing is paying taxes for security, and that security provides you freedom to develop as an individual. So why with that logic not extend that in to, let's say, security from poverty? Security from disease and illness? Security from joblessness?
You misinterpret my argument which leads you to a conclusion that I don't support.
I don't think that the military and police exist to provide me security. I maintain that the military exists to protect our country from foreign invaders. I maintain that the police exist to enfoce the law. And as far las law goes, I maintain that no act should be illegal if it does not deprive any other individual of life, liberty, or property. The police and military are valid functions of government, becuase there are some functions that cannot be performed without the right to use deadly force (namely those that involve killing -- hence, military and police). Government is the only entity that has the legal right to use deadly force.
You may say, "But those functions provide security!" They might provide security, and they also might not provide security. My point is that the end of those functions is NOT security. Security is hopefully the beneficial by-product.
Since I don't think the military and police (government) exist to provide security, it renders your conclusion ("so why with that logic...?") irrelevant.
My libertarian counterpoints
on
Netroots Politics
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You and I are friends of each other, so let not my disagreement spoil that.:)
The Libertarian economy: Runaway to Ruin
And what evidence do you have to support this assertion? A libertarian economy is one where anyone is allowed to compete. Regulated markets usually end up as government protectionist schemes which stifles competition and thus decreases intention.
Libertarianism is like communism: both look great on paper.
We can point to several failed communist states to show that "communism only looks great on paper", but what "libertarian" state will you point to to show your point? There has never been one, because there have always been people in government power who use force to attain their goals. We can see numerous examples in China where the state gives up regulation, allows for capitalistic reforms, and China's economy prospers as a result.
Libertarians never seem to understand that lifting all constraints from powerful organizations ultimately means the end of freedom and democracy. Why can't they see the end game of their simplistic thinking?
It's not that I don't see that point of view -- rather, it's that I don't believe you. You can't just say that increasing individual liberty will end up decreasing it without supporting that statement with evidence and expect me to believe you. "Simplistic thinking" seems to be the hallmark of those who argue by assertion only!
Libertarianism constitutes the ultimate in linear thought processes.
This is a repeat of the "simplistic thinking" statement.
The central problem (and irony) with big-L Libertarianism is that ultimately, in this linear system of thinking, all liberty is lost. Libertarianism always seems to leave out the concept of the big-power players, who obviously will always exist and will always work to build their power at the expense of the masses. Libertarianism leads to a feudalist society with no liberties.
Now you're just building on your second point by adding some collectivist arguments to it. Your argument that "Libertarianism leads to a feudalist society" is false because feudalist implies static social classes, such as lords and vassals. Why does individual liberty (including your hated individual right to property) necessarily lead to static social classes and the implied lack of social mobility?
That's why I say Yes to small-l libertarianism for individuals, and No to big-L Libertarianism for corporations and industries, which I believe must *always* be regulated by small-d democratic fiat.
The one point that I wish anti-libertarians would realize is that they seem to solve the problem posed by "big powerful organizations" by replacing it with one single big powerful monopoly organization: the government. Simultaneously, they believe that since there is a voting system in place, the government will necessarily be free(er) from corruption than non-governmental entities. I think this is very much an article of faith. There is little data to support it. Governments draw their people from the same group of fallible humans that non-governmental entities do, and those people are in no way free from the negative traits that we've seen in the people in non-governmental entities.
However, there is one crucial difference between government and non-government which is the primary and overpowering reason that I want to decrease the power of government: government is the one entity that has the legal right to use deadly force to achieve its goals.
I'm a small-l libertarian who votes Libertarian simply because no one else stands up for individual liberty.
How, in any way, does my statement even imply that civil liberties are seperate from "liberty" as you have defined it?
Because "civil liberties" is progressive rhetoric which is used completely differently from the concept of liberty. Since you yourself separate them in your post below, I was not at all unfair to assume that you viewed them separately.
And how do civil liberties, liberty and freedom have such distinct definitions to you?
Because of the way that "civil liberties" and "freedom" are used by progressives and conservatives, respectively. They are spin on liberty, which neither group supports.
If someone is monitoring the books I check out from the library, that violates my freedom (I am not "free" to read certain books), it violates my liberty (I can't read, as you so elqoquently put it, "whatever the fuck I want") , and it violates my civil liberties (guaranteed by the constitution and bill of rights).
And here is where you define the three separately, something that you apparently decry and then do.
If you are being monitored by a government spook for reading a particular thing in the library, your right to privacy is infringed upon and you are deprived of life since the purpose of such monitoring may be to punish you through intimidation for not complying with the wishes of government bastards.
And why do you assume I'm a Democrat or that I'm spouting democratic rhetoric?
I assume that you likely vote Democrat when you spout progressive rhetoric. "Civil liberties" is progressive (and Democrat) rhetoric.
To me Democrats and Rebublicans in congress (with a few exceptions) are just the same load of crap, shovelled into two piles.
I agree: they are very much the same.
The patriot act gives the government unprecedented powers to control and monitor citizens without constitutional protection. This is against our civil liberties, it's against our freedom, it's against our liberty.
Why not just stand up for liberty? Those things all mean the same thing except for the nasty layers of SPIN applied to the first two.
You're probably right that many (most?) voters would sacrifice freedoms/liberty/civil liberties/etc. for security.
All it takes is opening one's eyes to see that fact.
I think Ben Franklin had a quote about that;-)
Yeah, progressives think that they're really sticking it to "conservatives" that they can quote one of our Founding Fathers. Then they start whining about Nationalized (DMVS-style) Health Care. Fucking hypocrites!
Truth is if our elected leaders keep pushing america in this direction, it will no longer resemble the republic that our founders had envisioned and it will be damn near impossible to regain those liberties we've lost. That's why the 10 senators who voted against the Patriot Act are the only ones who are standing up for our Constitution and all the freedom/liberties/civil liberties/etc. it guarantees.
The truth is that those quasi-socialist senators who voted against the Patriot act wouldn't know liberty if it bit them in the ass. They are playing to the fears of progressives who fear (yet want to be) persecuted by the fascict police state that they claim to fear (but really really want Bush to turn into).
Provided that I harm no one else, I want to do whatever the fuck I please without government interference or monitoring. That is what liberty is, and no politican stands up for it.
Hi Loundry! I mighta known you'd be a Randite Libertarian (I assume you won't take that as an insult).
I don't, but it's inaccurate nonetheless. I'm a Eudaimonist. I vote Libertarian, but I am not a member of the party.
In fact I never mentioned "government interference" I said "regulation" which is a less rhetorically loaded word.
They are both equally rhetorically-loaded. Obviously, you think that government's interference in the actions of free indivduals who are doing no harm is sometimes good. Obviously, I strongly disagree.
But in any case your accusation of logical fallacy is at least as well directed at your straw man here. It is impossible for me to list all possible outcomes of a nearly infinite spectrum of activities so providing a single illustrative example of one possible outcome is perfectly valid logically.
My accusing you of a logical fallacy was valid and continues to be, as your implication was that no government interference leads to the shithole of Somalia. I don't expect you to examine something worthy of tens of thousands of words. I only ask you to own up to the fact that it's not fair to hold up the Somalia as necessarily what follows from lack of government interference. I only held up Hong Kong as that which was minimally necessary to show that you were bifurcating.
Government is not always bad. It keeps Elohim City terrorists from murdering you in your sleep, for example. Your "all government bad, no government good" absolutism is as overly simplistic as your anti-Islam nonsense.
Government cannot protect me from terrorists, and I understand that the Supreme Court has held that citizens cannot sue the government for failing to protect them. I never argued that government is always bad, so your accusation of my absolutism is a straw man. My antagonistic feelings toward Islam are not nonsense, and I am happy to discuss them with you. You may begin by explaining to me why the violent verses of Sura 9 are not binding upon Muslims today. As a gay parent, I think I have good reason to be greatly concerned about Islam.
Your proposal that "they couldn't have gotten as far" without "government interference" is just another instance of you trotting out the "government interference" meme at the slightest opportunity.
This borders on ad hominem. You yourself admitted that the government plundered money from taxpayers and seized property from other individuals to give to the men that you hate. It is the government's actions here (and in countless other examples in this and other countries) that you have admitted to which causes me to distrust government. Do you agree that the government was party to the wills of the evil individuals that you deplore?
You said "show me these evil men you call Robber Barons". Actually everybody calls them that
No, everyone does not call them that.
Have you ever heard of the Walker Expedition? Does paying mercenaries to take over another country as a business gambit
No, I have not. And this was the very point of my third question: show me how their actions are consistent with objectivist ethics. You mentioned that "Randites" would love this man, but if his actions are inconsistent with objectivist ethics, then why would they?
as far as I can tell "objectivism" is a schlock excuse for a philosophy that was fundamentally created as a marketing vehicle when Ayn Rand's fantasy of being raped by Frank Lloyd Wright (Fountainhead) sold a lot of copies. Perhaps you can tell me why that's wrong?
It is wrong because it is an attack on Ayn Rand's character rather than a philosophical criticism of objectivism.
It seems to me that her winner-take-all-blame-the-victim attitude was mostly just playing up to the anti-communist fanatics (not that she didn't have reason to hate communism, I admit) so she wouldn't have to dig ditches for a living.
"Winner take all" is not part of objectivist ethics,
They were elected by voters in our election system. This causes some people to commit the non-sequitur to believe that they "represent" me and thus "represent" my wishes.
They are in the position not because of any demonstrated capability to lead, solve problems, or do good in the world, but rather because of their demonstrated ability to win elections.
I will never accept that the ability of one individual to win elections means that she or he "represents" me or "represents" my wishes. Politicians represent themselves.
Here's the only 10 senators with enough guts to stand up for america's civil liberties
I really hate it when the Republicans spout off rhetoric like, "They attack us because of our freedoms", actively separating "freedom" from liberty.
I also really hate it when the Democrats spout off rhetoric like yours, which actively separates "civil liberties" from liberty.
It belies the true feelings of both groups: neither one really cares about liberty -- the ability any individual to do whatever the fuck he or she pleases provided that he or she does not deprive anyone else of life, liberty, or property. It means they care about their agenda but need to spin it in terms that resonate with a sizeable-enough chunk of voters in order to gain or maintain political power. We Americans sure like liberty, right? No, most Americans are afraid or just plain ignorant of it.
I wish there were are few more politicans out there who would stand up for liberty, but I think there are far too many voters in the world who are much more interested in politicans who promise to CONTROL other people. "Security" is sooo much more appealing to people than liberty is.
Dick Cheney shooting his friend is a living metaphor for everything that is wrong with this administration (including restricting civil liberties). It got so much air time because no one could believed it hadn't happened sooner.
In other words, you wanted it to be true. When Cheney actually did actually shoot someone, it was likely a huge relief and joy to you because it confirmed what you wanted to be true.
I've seen this kind of behavior in others as well. Zealous people will often times wish for harm on other people just to prove that their convictions are true. I am a gay parent, and I have often read gay-bashing Christians relentlessly spout off statistics about the failure rates of gay relationships, the rates of child abuse committed by gay people, and the disease rates of gay men.
The particularly evil thing about gay-bashing Christians' desire fascination with those statistics is that they want all those things to be true -- for if it actually turned out that gay relationship were more successful than straight ones, if gay people were less likely than straight people to commit child abuse, and gay people were less prone to disease than straight people, then that would contradict their pre-conceived notions about gay people being evil and disgusting. Hence, gay-bashing Christians desire instability, child abuse, and disease to befall other people just so they can be right.
And so it is with many people who hate Bush. I think many of them were glad that an innocent man was shot in the face. It gave them opportunity to tell the world, "See! Cheney really is a KILLER! Well, he didn't actually kill anyone, but you get the idea..."
And that's my only word of warning to anyone who feels very, very, very strongly that they are right and the rest of the world "doesn't get it". Don't allow your desire to prove your Truth(tm) to everyone else to go so far that you would wish harm on other people!
A well-regulated capitalism is great. In an unregulated capitalism (such as Somalia) things don't work the way Penn Jillette seems to think they will.
Excluded middle fallacy. It is false that if we do NOT have government interference, then we necessarily have Somalia.
Why didn't you compare government interference to say, pre-PRC Hong Kong? Don't you think that Somalia, considering ALL the factors that make it a shithole, is a poor example to hold up as representative of something free from government interference? The Somalian government doesn't seem so keen on interfering with the pirates which plague their coastline!
The US federal government has given unbelievable amounts of tax money, public land, and land seized from private owners to railway profiteers from at least 1862 (look that up) to the present day (all aboard, Amtrak!).
I'm with you so far with the government being the bad guy.
Eventually private industry destroyed the US rail business
It seems like from your own reasoning above that it was government interference which was screwing things up all along! It's not like the "railway profiteers" could have gotten far without the deadly force of government, correct?
The men who did it were popularly known as the "Robber Barons" and they are idolized by the Ayn Rand gang.
Show me:
1) these evil men whom you call "Robber Barons" 2) what they did that infringed on other individuals' rights to life, liberty, and property 3) how what they did is consistent with objectivist ethics
Parroting the "Robber Baron" rhetoric proves nothing.
Great. Now when your parents get the popup that some application wants to access the network, and are presented with all these options for "finer granularity of which applications can use network resources", they'll just turn them all on and go instead of actually learning the ins and outs of TCP security. That's much more secure.
Are you actually suggesting that it's a Bad Thing that parents everywere are not going make "learning the ins and outs of TCP security" a priority in their lives?
I ask that you recognize that your knowing what "TCP security" is (and even what "TCP" stands for) puts you in the ultra-elite of the world's computer users. Granted, it may be very important, even indispensible, for you in your particular field of work/study, but for the vast majority (say, 99.99999% -- "five nines"!) of the other folks using computers, I will be so bold to mention that they shouldn't have to give a flying fuck about "the ins and outs of TCP security".
If you're convinced that I'm lying to you, what can I possibly say to prove to you that I'm not?
Good question! I notice you dodged my question about why I should take your word over the conflicting word of another Muslim. But rather than saying something, here's something you can *do* to make me trust you. Start sending money to fight against the muhajideen. Do it in the name of peaceful coexistance with non-Muslims.
everyone accused the Jews--
You're trying to change the subject again.
you're giving away that you don't understand a lot about Islam when you make a simple mistake like that.
I really only care about the parts of Islam which affect me. You know, the parts that dictate that I should be killed, or taxed (jizya), or humilated, or threatened. You know, things that eminate from Muslims with increasing regularity. But fine. Am I not a "Kuffar"? Does that not mean, "One who has heard Muhammad's message and rejected it"? I claim it as a term of pride, personally.
The rest of what you say are only accusations.
You lie like a Persian rug. Not only did I make statements, but I also asked questions that you saw fit to ignore. What's wrong?
For example: So how do you define "justice" and "oppression"? Is it "just" that Shari'a be imposed on the entire world? Are Muslims "oppressed" if the Kufr resist their desires to impose Shari'a on the entire world?
You let those *VERY* pertinent questions slide by you.
Another example: I went to that web page, and it only had data up to 2003. Furthermore, I didn't see a way to measure that South America has "more" terrorism than the Middle East. More in terms of people killed and injured? More in terms of number of incidents? More in terms of property damage? Furthermore, I'm more interested in stats of terrorist acts committed by non-Muslims versus terrorist acts committed by Muslims in the name of Allah (jihad). Where can I get those stats?
It kind of decimates your flimsy "terrorism" comparitive stats, doesn't it? Particularly when you refuse to answer questions?
I compare to Christianity because nobody seems to have a problem with that.
No, you try to change the subject to Christianity because the tenets of your wicked religion (bash gays, demean women, expand empire, kill all those who resist) are indefensible. Show me a Christian terrorist attack that was done for the sake of holy war in the name of Jesus Christ in accordance with the Bible. Just one. Then we'll start looking at the many thousands of Muslim terrorst attacks that were done for the sake of jihad in the name of Allah in accordance with the Koran.
So "Muslims" have expressed their support of violence? How can people get away with saying such broad overgeneralizing false stereotypes?
I suppose I just imagined all of those signs reading "kill those who insult islam" and "behead those who insult islam" and "Europe: your 9/11 is coming" that were being carried by chanting, rioting Muslims. I suppose I willfully blocked out the massive, Muslim counter-demonstration to the former group. Give me a break. There is nothing false about what I say about Muslims. Maybe it doesn't apply to you, but you certainly are defending your rioting, car-torching Muslim brothers.
Heck, keep it up, you're only hurting yourself. When people stupidly attack ALL Muslims, then even the secular and liberal Muslims are forced to pick a side.
Show your true side. "Your standing up against Islam will only resort in more terrorism!" Violence becomes you, Muslim. I *hope* that secular and liberal muslims will be force to pick a side much like secular and liberal Americans will. It's clear which "side" you're on: the side that wishes for Islam to dominate the world. You have NOT denied this, nor have you indicated that it's wrong to seek it. Nor have you indicated that any of the methods used (da'wa, jihad, lying) are wrong. (You admitted that lying is *sometimes* permissible!) Your religion is evil, and I will resist it. Each word you say betrays you as a violent killer who's willing to force others to submit to the will of his imaginary god or die. Islam means "submit", correct?
You have already made up your mind about Islam and Muslims, and not interested in dialogue or open minded enough to be receptive of the possibility that Muslims (like most humans) want to live and let live.
That's because Muslims, including you, have done little to nothing to inform me that they want to "live and let live". Instead of showing me how interested you are in that kind of lifestyle, all you wish to do is call me a bigot. Why not work on improving your image instead of attacking people who merely make casual observations about the violent barbarity of millions of Muslims? Probably because that would go against your true intentions, correct?
You have chosen to believe that Islam is evil incarnate.
It can't be evil "incarnate" since Islam is a religion, not a person. But yes, I have chosen to believe it is evil, and not without mountains of evidence that you and others fail to refure. As I have seen time and again, Muslims try to change the subject and play "tu quoque" instead of refuting anything.
Therefore, you have apriori conclusions, and there is no point in responding to your points... In a nutshell: what you said above is incorrect.
No, I have well-evidenced conclusions that are more strongly supported with each new day chock-full of jihad attacks that kill and maim dozens around the world. The point in responding to my points is to separate yourself from the muhajideen who want to kill me. Perhaps you see that as fruitless? And merely stating "you're wrong!" proves nothing if you can't provide the reasoning behind it.
Who says I am in the USA? I am in a more tolerant, more accepting country in the West.
More tolerant of Shari'a, no doubt. More accepting of dhimmitude. Islam will wreck Europe and transform it into a waste dump. Remember all of those priceless Buddhist statues that were destroyed by Muslims? What do you think will happen to the Virgin in the Rosebush, the Anunciacion of the Magi, and who knows how many other millions of irreplaceable (yet "blasphemous" to primitive and violent Muslims) once the Muslims start "taking over"? That is your goal, correct? To take over Europe and then the rest of the world?
The US us overtaken by bigotry, and has to find an external enemy: first Manifest Destiny, then the Nazis and Japanese, then Communism, then Islam, then China... etc.
So typical of the Muslim mindset. "Don't look at the PRESENT and CURRENT sins of Muslims. Look at the PAST sins of the United States!" I suppose you don't think that Nazis were worth resisting? There seems to be a lot of love for Hitler in the Middle East Nowadays! Furthermore, what you're doing here is an awful lot of projection. Muslim "scholars" (poo be upon them) write very openly and freely about "do not take any friends among the Kufr" and "do not ever yield to the Kufr" and "you must hate the Kufr", so, take a bit of your own medicine.
But I suppose you're a bit to busy with your plans of violent Empire-building to care about that.
... "I don't *usually* bother discussing with Muslims."
I've actually gone out on a limb and chosen to debate a couple of Muslims on this board. It's interesting to say the least to see what they do.
1. "Christianity does the same thing!" (change the subject) 2. "Western culture is just as bad!" (tu quoque)
And, as I predicted, I can't tell if they're lying or not. They all seem to have different opinions on the exact circumstances which indicate that it's permissible for a Muslim to lie to a non-Muslim, but they all seem to agree that there are, at least, *some* instances where it is permissable to do so.
And none of them speak out against Muslim violence. The "behead those who insult Islam" threat signs carried by Muslims during the cartoon jihad are, evidently, completely unobjectionable to them. Perhaps they are completely unaware of the hideous image problem they have.
Slashdot Mirror
I am a supporter of the Libertarian party and even more so of the Constitution Party. I believe in limited government....There is coming a time when control oriented governments and cartels will be a thing of the past.
From the Constitution Party Platform:
"The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States from foreign sources."
In other words, the government will command you not to engage in trade that they disapprove of. They will command you as to what you are allowed to put into your own body.
"The Constitution Party finds that a cause of this national state of disgrace is the deterioration of personal character among government leaders, exacerbated by the lack of public outcry against immoral conduct by public office holders."
In other words, only people whose character meets their arbitrary standards are worthy of honor and respect. The government will command you as to that which is considered "moral".
"We stand against so-called 'sexual orientation' and 'hate crime' statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression."
In other words, the government will command you as to what "appropriate" sexual behavior is and they will support those who wish to abuse those who fall outside of government standards.
"Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country."
In other words, the government will command you to not gamble.
"We commend Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his defense of the display of the Ten Commandments, and condemn those who persecuted him and removed him from office for his morally and legally just stand."
In other words, the government will command that Christianity receive special blessing from the government.
The Constitution party is not a party that loves indivudal liberty. It is a Christian party that seeks to impose Christian ethics on everyone through the force of government. It seeks to create the "control-oriented" government that you claim will be a "thing of the past".
1. Body counts
Fair enough. Are you sure that Western violence/war exceeds that of Islamic Jihad?
2. Epic cultural destruction
My first thought is, "So what?" My second thought is: do you not realize that Muslims widely regard all non-Islamic cultures as trash? Are you not aware that part of the jihad is to eradicate these cultures? Do you fail to see the destruction of priceless buddhist statues in the name of Allah?
3. Economic terrorism
That is likely Marxist garbage.
If you can reference incidents where Jihad has caused death, pain and suffering we can start to tally them up and see how they compare against Western "Protecting National Interests".
My god, where to start! Certainly you are aware that Muhammad was a barbarian who conquered the Arabian peninsula by force?
We are not fighting "a bully".
Like hell we aren't. The idea that Islam will conquer the entire world is a mainstream Muslim belief. Not an "extremist" belief. A mainstream belief. The penalty for homosexuality in Islam is death. The religion is to be spread with lies (I have had Muslims on Slahdot admit that lying is "sometimes permissible") and violence (jihad). This has been the pattern of Islam since its inception. How did the Muslims end up owning Spain? By invading it and conquering it by violence!
The USA has been involved with Islamic terrorists since before it was a phrase. The USA played a crucial role in developing what are now known as "the terrorist networks".
In other words, the Islamic Muhajideen are only bad because the evil USA had their evil tentacles where they didn't belong.
The USA has more sole searching to do than any Muslim. But I have not heard anything from official US representatives that suggests they are going to rethink policies so as to improve the lives of everyone on the planet rather than a select few.
If you think that the USA is evil, then it makes sense that you would impose that kind of penance on them.
You could say that this is what 9/11 was all about.
Of cousre. The fact that we aren't allowing the Muslims to run rough-shod over the world and impose Shari'a by force on everyone is "oppression" to the Muslims. The fact that we resist them is "bullying" to them.
I do not see "capitalism" as _the problem_. I do see the USA's economic policies as a major part of the problem.
Specifically?
As do I, but the USA seems to be above accountability.
That is code for, "The USA deserves to be punished because they're evil". You are an anti-American hate-slave and I'm done. I think you hate the USA so much that if a Muslim terrorist were to murder me then you would see that as an awesome opportunity to bash the USA.
Because it is worse, more prevalent and more enduring.
What kind of measurement do you use to judge that Western violence/war is
A. worse
B. more prevalent
C. more enduring
than Islamic Jihad?
I ask becuase I can't differentiate between your claim that "Western violence/war is worse than Islamic Jihad" and general anti-Americanism/anti-capitalism. Meaning, if you were anti-American (you believe axiomatically that "America is evil") then it would make sense that you would argue that Western violence/war is worse than Islamic Jihad beacause just such an argument furthers your goal. A way for you to prove that you're not merely an anti-American is for you to explain to me the measurement that you use in order to judge that Western war is worse than Islamic Jihad.
I think that showing a willingness to disarm, listen and adapt would go a lot farther to achieving peace than invading, killing and dictating.
You can never defeat a bully with kindness. The only way to defeat a bully is to make him know that his bullying will have harsh, immediate, and consistent negative consequences.
I appreciate your point concerning the distinction between Islamic violence and "Christian" violence. I just don't think the distinction is useful in terms of solving problems.
I think you and I disagree on what "the problems" are. My differentiation between Islamic Jihad and "Christian violence" is probably not useful to you, especially if you perceive "the problem" as the USA/Capitalism.
No one on this planet should be pointing the finger or feeling the victim.
I think that those who harm others should be held accountable for it, regardless of whether or not that looks like "finger pointing", regardless if it infringes on someone else's "religious freedoms". Furthermore, I don't think it's honest of you to decry finger-pointing when it looks like you're pointing your finger at the USA.
If you can accept this, then the body counts fall where I said.
I can accept parts of what you wrote, but it does not fulfill what I would consider a fair comparison between the two religions.
For the "Christian violence" to be comparable, it would have to be done by a Christian, for the sake of holy war, in the name of Jesus Christ. The Muslims are very, very explicit about these things when they commit Islamic violence, whereas you have to stretch Western violence to make it fit just such a pattern. It is for this reason that I see Islamic violence as it is whereas I can't categorize Western violence/war in the same manner.
Mind you, I am not a Christian and, in fact, feel threatened by Christians in many cases. I am a gay adoptive parent, I have good reason to feel threatened. I only argue that Islam is worse for their violent proclivities that are spelled out in and justified by the Quran.
My question for you: why are you trying to make Western violence/war look "just as bad" as Islamic jihad?
It's got nothing to do with Christianity.
... It does not mean I am criticising France or the UK. I am refuting the idea that the original argument was a sound basis on which to make a judgement.
And yet you didn't choose Buddhism as your example for comparison. Could it be that Buddhism doesn't have the anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-jew record that Christianity has? Christianity seems the better fit, correct?
Here's an example: say someone was singling out America for massive consumption of oil because of cars, lifestyle etc. and implied this made them evil. So I might point out that other countries in Europe, say France or the UK consume quite a lot of oil too, so does that make them evil?
If Christianity is NOT anti-woman, anti-gay, and anti-jew, then you have made no statement about Islam since you are differentiating it from Islam and you've made no effort to refute the argument that Islam IS thouse things.
If Christianity IS anti-woman, anti-gay, and anti-jew, then you are admitting to what I'm accusing you of: you're trying to change the subject by playing the, "Hey, Christianity is just as bad as Islam!" game.
Jesus, is this really so hard to understand? Apparently so.
What you're arguing is nonsensical, so I think you're lying to me. Your ad hominems are evidential of your being backed into a corner with no way out. I notice you make no effort to answer the question as to whether or not my questions of Islam are true. Was I correct in guessing that you were uncomfortable in answering it? A simple "yes" or "no" will do fine.
you made excellent rebuttals to points I didn't make.
I didn't see what I wrote as much as a rebuttal as it was in effort to turn the discussion back to Islam, which is where it started. You tried to divert it to Christianity, and it seems that you're agreeing with me that such a diversion is unwarranted. Is Islam a religion that has well-evidenced proclivities for violent imperialism, subjugation of women, abrogration of press freedoms, degredation of non-Islamic cultures, murder of homosexuals, barbaric justice system, and desecration of art? This seems to be a question that many people are afraid of answering as long as the religion in question is Islam, but they'll harp all day if the religion is Christianity. And that was what I perceived you as doing: trying to change the subject to something more comfortable to you.
As for "Christian" killings, Post WWII:
I don't accept your list as "Chrisitan killings". Allow me to explain.
When I describe "Islamic violence", I am talking about violence that:
* is done by a Muslim
* is done for jihad
* is done in the name of Allah
When I describe "Christian violence", I am talking about violence that:
* is done by a Christian
* is done for Christian holy war
* is done in the name of Jesus Christ
I think you will find that there are hundreds upon thousands of examples of Islamic violence and very few examples of Christian violence. There is not even such a thing as "Christian holy war" in Christian scripture whereas jihad is well-explained and, in fact, mandated in the Quran. Mohammad was fulfilling the will of Allah when he conquered, by violent force, the Arabian peninsula, and there is no Islamic scholar who will deny that. If such an action was moral back then, then why would it be wrong now? I don't think *any* of the examples you listed are Christian violence, as many of them are done for the sake of American interests or in the name of containing Communism.
My point actually had nothing to do with criticising Christianity. Nothing at all. My point was that you could just as reasonably* claim that Christians hate the things --
I don't see how you can claim that your point had "nothing to do with criticizing Christianity" when you are implicity criticizing Christianity. Are you, perhaps, merely saying, "I'm not criticizing Christianity, but I understand that you could defend Islam by stating that such criticisms of Islam also apply to Christianity!"? If that is the case, then I agree with you that one could argue that way, but it is merely a "tu quoque" defense that does not render invalid the criticisms of Islam.
So the attempt to align Muslims with Nazis on this basis was flawed.
Any attempt to align anyone with Nazis is flawed. I think Islam's deficiencies stand on their own. Who needs Nazis when you can merely observe Islam and see its proclivities for violent imperialism, subjugation of women, abrogration of press freedoms, degredation of non-Islamic cultures, murder of homosexuals, barbaric justice system, and desecration of art?
My point was, as I believe I hinted at, that such terms describe such a vast number of people --
I am criticizing the religion, not individual Muslims or "all Muslims".
If you want to start with the one with the greatest pentiant for killing, then we should start with Christianity as Christian nations have been responsible for several magnitudes more deaths than any other religion this past century.
Prove it. Make sure you take into account Muslim imperialism.
But then you would prabobly have to take a long hard look at yourself, whcih is far less appealing than pointing fingers.
I am an ex-Christian and an anti-Christian. I routinely beat Christians under the table for their sanctimony, their hypocrisy, and their religious-inspired abuse. As a gay adoptive parent, I have good reason to.
At the same time, I freely admit that every bad thing that I see in Christianity I see to an even greater degree in Islam. Can you prove otherwise? Perhaps you can try by openly discussing with me the state of gay rights and the rights of adoptive parents under Shari'a.
The complaints against Islam were intended to be racist.
How do you know? It sounds like you are mind-reading.
But I would have prefered the newest party line read: guarantees every American will have affordable access to health care within five years.
Yes, everyone should have "affordable access to health care".
But what kind of health care? The fact of the matter is that the more money a person makes, the more they choose to spend on health care.
A rich person might choose to go the extra mile and pay more money to have that expensive MRI. I mean, how much is that peace of mind worth? Sure, it's expensive, but they have the money to spend, so why not ensure that you have the best quality health care you can afford? A person of more meager means may decide that it's acceptable to live with the risk. There are no guarantees in life, after all.
This is when the socialist health-care advocates will amend their request to say, "guaranteed access to basic health care". Well, what exactly is "basic"? The answer to that question usually involves a knee-jerk response along the lines of, "You don't want people to just DIE if they get cancer, do you?" whereas what I'm looking for is an answer to the much more difficult question: how will the government ration the health care?
In fact, why the fuck did you drag your racist view of your perceived Dutch problem into this discussion?
Islam is not a race. His argument was not racist.
Notice that when Muslims tout Islam, they talk about how it "transcends racial barriers" and other such glowing praise. Then when someone points out the Muslims who go out of their way to blow up a busful of children and claim that it was the will of Allah that such a thing happen, then the "that's racist!" canard starts rearing its ugly head.
What do Christians hate?
This is the second-most common tactic used in Muslim apologetics. When someone criticizes Islam, change the subject to Christianity! I've seen this done by Muslims and Leftist defenders of Islam many, many times.
Here's an idea: let Islam stand on its own and be judged on its own merits. We'll do Christianity next, but I think we should start with Islam since its adherents seem, by far, most prone to violence, threats, intimidation, car burnings, suicide bombings, and general religious psychosis.
So in essence, what you're doing is paying taxes for security, and that security provides you freedom to develop as an individual. So why with that logic not extend that in to, let's say, security from poverty? Security from disease and illness? Security from joblessness?
You misinterpret my argument which leads you to a conclusion that I don't support.
I don't think that the military and police exist to provide me security. I maintain that the military exists to protect our country from foreign invaders. I maintain that the police exist to enfoce the law. And as far las law goes, I maintain that no act should be illegal if it does not deprive any other individual of life, liberty, or property. The police and military are valid functions of government, becuase there are some functions that cannot be performed without the right to use deadly force (namely those that involve killing -- hence, military and police). Government is the only entity that has the legal right to use deadly force.
You may say, "But those functions provide security!" They might provide security, and they also might not provide security. My point is that the end of those functions is NOT security. Security is hopefully the beneficial by-product.
Since I don't think the military and police (government) exist to provide security, it renders your conclusion ("so why with that logic...?") irrelevant.
You and I are friends of each other, so let not my disagreement spoil that. :)
The Libertarian economy: Runaway to Ruin
And what evidence do you have to support this assertion? A libertarian economy is one where anyone is allowed to compete. Regulated markets usually end up as government protectionist schemes which stifles competition and thus decreases intention.
Libertarianism is like communism: both look great on paper.
We can point to several failed communist states to show that "communism only looks great on paper", but what "libertarian" state will you point to to show your point? There has never been one, because there have always been people in government power who use force to attain their goals. We can see numerous examples in China where the state gives up regulation, allows for capitalistic reforms, and China's economy prospers as a result.
Libertarians never seem to understand that lifting all constraints from powerful organizations ultimately means the end of freedom and democracy. Why can't they see the end game of their simplistic thinking?
It's not that I don't see that point of view -- rather, it's that I don't believe you. You can't just say that increasing individual liberty will end up decreasing it without supporting that statement with evidence and expect me to believe you. "Simplistic thinking" seems to be the hallmark of those who argue by assertion only!
Libertarianism constitutes the ultimate in linear thought processes.
This is a repeat of the "simplistic thinking" statement.
The central problem (and irony) with big-L Libertarianism is that ultimately, in this linear system of thinking, all liberty is lost. Libertarianism always seems to leave out the concept of the big-power players, who obviously will always exist and will always work to build their power at the expense of the masses. Libertarianism leads to a feudalist society with no liberties.
Now you're just building on your second point by adding some collectivist arguments to it. Your argument that "Libertarianism leads to a feudalist society" is false because feudalist implies static social classes, such as lords and vassals. Why does individual liberty (including your hated individual right to property) necessarily lead to static social classes and the implied lack of social mobility?
That's why I say Yes to small-l libertarianism for individuals, and No to big-L Libertarianism for corporations and industries, which I believe must *always* be regulated by small-d democratic fiat.
The one point that I wish anti-libertarians would realize is that they seem to solve the problem posed by "big powerful organizations" by replacing it with one single big powerful monopoly organization: the government. Simultaneously, they believe that since there is a voting system in place, the government will necessarily be free(er) from corruption than non-governmental entities. I think this is very much an article of faith. There is little data to support it. Governments draw their people from the same group of fallible humans that non-governmental entities do, and those people are in no way free from the negative traits that we've seen in the people in non-governmental entities.
However, there is one crucial difference between government and non-government which is the primary and overpowering reason that I want to decrease the power of government: government is the one entity that has the legal right to use deadly force to achieve its goals.
I'm a small-l libertarian who votes Libertarian simply because no one else stands up for individual liberty.
How, in any way, does my statement even imply that civil liberties are seperate from "liberty" as you have defined it?
;-)
Because "civil liberties" is progressive rhetoric which is used completely differently from the concept of liberty. Since you yourself separate them in your post below, I was not at all unfair to assume that you viewed them separately.
And how do civil liberties, liberty and freedom have such distinct definitions to you?
Because of the way that "civil liberties" and "freedom" are used by progressives and conservatives, respectively. They are spin on liberty, which neither group supports.
If someone is monitoring the books I check out from the library, that violates my freedom (I am not "free" to read certain books), it violates my liberty (I can't read, as you so elqoquently put it, "whatever the fuck I want") , and it violates my civil liberties (guaranteed by the constitution and bill of rights).
And here is where you define the three separately, something that you apparently decry and then do.
If you are being monitored by a government spook for reading a particular thing in the library, your right to privacy is infringed upon and you are deprived of life since the purpose of such monitoring may be to punish you through intimidation for not complying with the wishes of government bastards.
And why do you assume I'm a Democrat or that I'm spouting democratic rhetoric?
I assume that you likely vote Democrat when you spout progressive rhetoric. "Civil liberties" is progressive (and Democrat) rhetoric.
To me Democrats and Rebublicans in congress (with a few exceptions) are just the same load of crap, shovelled into two piles.
I agree: they are very much the same.
The patriot act gives the government unprecedented powers to control and monitor citizens without constitutional protection. This is against our civil liberties, it's against our freedom, it's against our liberty.
Why not just stand up for liberty? Those things all mean the same thing except for the nasty layers of SPIN applied to the first two.
You're probably right that many (most?) voters would sacrifice freedoms/liberty/civil liberties/etc. for security.
All it takes is opening one's eyes to see that fact.
I think Ben Franklin had a quote about that
Yeah, progressives think that they're really sticking it to "conservatives" that they can quote one of our Founding Fathers. Then they start whining about Nationalized (DMVS-style) Health Care. Fucking hypocrites!
Truth is if our elected leaders keep pushing america in this direction, it will no longer resemble the republic that our founders had envisioned and it will be damn near impossible to regain those liberties we've lost. That's why the 10 senators who voted against the Patriot Act are the only ones who are standing up for our Constitution and all the freedom/liberties/civil liberties/etc. it guarantees.
The truth is that those quasi-socialist senators who voted against the Patriot act wouldn't know liberty if it bit them in the ass. They are playing to the fears of progressives who fear (yet want to be) persecuted by the fascict police state that they claim to fear (but really really want Bush to turn into).
Provided that I harm no one else, I want to do whatever the fuck I please without government interference or monitoring. That is what liberty is, and no politican stands up for it.
Hi Loundry! I mighta known you'd be a Randite Libertarian (I assume you won't take that as an insult).
I don't, but it's inaccurate nonetheless. I'm a Eudaimonist. I vote Libertarian, but I am not a member of the party.
In fact I never mentioned "government interference" I said "regulation" which is a less rhetorically loaded word.
They are both equally rhetorically-loaded. Obviously, you think that government's interference in the actions of free indivduals who are doing no harm is sometimes good. Obviously, I strongly disagree.
But in any case your accusation of logical fallacy is at least as well directed at your straw man here. It is impossible for me to list all possible outcomes of a nearly infinite spectrum of activities so providing a single illustrative example of one possible outcome is perfectly valid logically.
My accusing you of a logical fallacy was valid and continues to be, as your implication was that no government interference leads to the shithole of Somalia. I don't expect you to examine something worthy of tens of thousands of words. I only ask you to own up to the fact that it's not fair to hold up the Somalia as necessarily what follows from lack of government interference. I only held up Hong Kong as that which was minimally necessary to show that you were bifurcating.
Government is not always bad. It keeps Elohim City terrorists from murdering you in your sleep, for example. Your "all government bad, no government good" absolutism is as overly simplistic as your anti-Islam nonsense.
Government cannot protect me from terrorists, and I understand that the Supreme Court has held that citizens cannot sue the government for failing to protect them. I never argued that government is always bad, so your accusation of my absolutism is a straw man. My antagonistic feelings toward Islam are not nonsense, and I am happy to discuss them with you. You may begin by explaining to me why the violent verses of Sura 9 are not binding upon Muslims today. As a gay parent, I think I have good reason to be greatly concerned about Islam.
Your proposal that "they couldn't have gotten as far" without "government interference" is just another instance of you trotting out the "government interference" meme at the slightest opportunity.
This borders on ad hominem. You yourself admitted that the government plundered money from taxpayers and seized property from other individuals to give to the men that you hate. It is the government's actions here (and in countless other examples in this and other countries) that you have admitted to which causes me to distrust government. Do you agree that the government was party to the wills of the evil individuals that you deplore?
You said "show me these evil men you call Robber Barons". Actually everybody calls them that
No, everyone does not call them that.
Have you ever heard of the Walker Expedition? Does paying mercenaries to take over another country as a business gambit
No, I have not. And this was the very point of my third question: show me how their actions are consistent with objectivist ethics. You mentioned that "Randites" would love this man, but if his actions are inconsistent with objectivist ethics, then why would they?
as far as I can tell "objectivism" is a schlock excuse for a philosophy that was fundamentally created as a marketing vehicle when Ayn Rand's fantasy of being raped by Frank Lloyd Wright (Fountainhead) sold a lot of copies. Perhaps you can tell me why that's wrong?
It is wrong because it is an attack on Ayn Rand's character rather than a philosophical criticism of objectivism.
It seems to me that her winner-take-all-blame-the-victim attitude was mostly just playing up to the anti-communist fanatics (not that she didn't have reason to hate communism, I admit) so she wouldn't have to dig ditches for a living.
"Winner take all" is not part of objectivist ethics,
[Our elected officials] represent the people.
No, they don't.
They were elected by voters in our election system. This causes some people to commit the non-sequitur to believe that they "represent" me and thus "represent" my wishes.
They are in the position not because of any demonstrated capability to lead, solve problems, or do good in the world, but rather because of their demonstrated ability to win elections.
I will never accept that the ability of one individual to win elections means that she or he "represents" me or "represents" my wishes. Politicians represent themselves.
Here's the only 10 senators with enough guts to stand up for america's civil liberties
I really hate it when the Republicans spout off rhetoric like, "They attack us because of our freedoms", actively separating "freedom" from liberty.
I also really hate it when the Democrats spout off rhetoric like yours, which actively separates "civil liberties" from liberty.
It belies the true feelings of both groups: neither one really cares about liberty -- the ability any individual to do whatever the fuck he or she pleases provided that he or she does not deprive anyone else of life, liberty, or property. It means they care about their agenda but need to spin it in terms that resonate with a sizeable-enough chunk of voters in order to gain or maintain political power. We Americans sure like liberty, right? No, most Americans are afraid or just plain ignorant of it.
I wish there were are few more politicans out there who would stand up for liberty, but I think there are far too many voters in the world who are much more interested in politicans who promise to CONTROL other people. "Security" is sooo much more appealing to people than liberty is.
Dick Cheney shooting his friend is a living metaphor for everything that is wrong with this administration (including restricting civil liberties). It got so much air time because no one could believed it hadn't happened sooner.
In other words, you wanted it to be true. When Cheney actually did actually shoot someone, it was likely a huge relief and joy to you because it confirmed what you wanted to be true.
I've seen this kind of behavior in others as well. Zealous people will often times wish for harm on other people just to prove that their convictions are true. I am a gay parent, and I have often read gay-bashing Christians relentlessly spout off statistics about the failure rates of gay relationships, the rates of child abuse committed by gay people, and the disease rates of gay men.
The particularly evil thing about gay-bashing Christians' desire fascination with those statistics is that they want all those things to be true -- for if it actually turned out that gay relationship were more successful than straight ones, if gay people were less likely than straight people to commit child abuse, and gay people were less prone to disease than straight people, then that would contradict their pre-conceived notions about gay people being evil and disgusting. Hence, gay-bashing Christians desire instability, child abuse, and disease to befall other people just so they can be right.
And so it is with many people who hate Bush. I think many of them were glad that an innocent man was shot in the face. It gave them opportunity to tell the world, "See! Cheney really is a KILLER! Well, he didn't actually kill anyone, but you get the idea..."
And that's my only word of warning to anyone who feels very, very, very strongly that they are right and the rest of the world "doesn't get it". Don't allow your desire to prove your Truth(tm) to everyone else to go so far that you would wish harm on other people!
A well-regulated capitalism is great. In an unregulated capitalism (such as Somalia) things don't work the way Penn Jillette seems to think they will.
Excluded middle fallacy. It is false that if we do NOT have government interference, then we necessarily have Somalia.
Why didn't you compare government interference to say, pre-PRC Hong Kong? Don't you think that Somalia, considering ALL the factors that make it a shithole, is a poor example to hold up as representative of something free from government interference? The Somalian government doesn't seem so keen on interfering with the pirates which plague their coastline!
The US federal government has given unbelievable amounts of tax money, public land, and land seized from private owners to railway profiteers from at least 1862 (look that up) to the present day (all aboard, Amtrak!).
I'm with you so far with the government being the bad guy.
Eventually private industry destroyed the US rail business
It seems like from your own reasoning above that it was government interference which was screwing things up all along! It's not like the "railway profiteers" could have gotten far without the deadly force of government, correct?
The men who did it were popularly known as the "Robber Barons" and they are idolized by the Ayn Rand gang.
Show me:
1) these evil men whom you call "Robber Barons"
2) what they did that infringed on other individuals' rights to life, liberty, and property
3) how what they did is consistent with objectivist ethics
Parroting the "Robber Baron" rhetoric proves nothing.
Great. Now when your parents get the popup that some application wants to access the network, and are presented with all these options for "finer granularity of which applications can use network resources", they'll just turn them all on and go instead of actually learning the ins and outs of TCP security. That's much more secure.
Are you actually suggesting that it's a Bad Thing that parents everywere are not going make "learning the ins and outs of TCP security" a priority in their lives?
I ask that you recognize that your knowing what "TCP security" is (and even what "TCP" stands for) puts you in the ultra-elite of the world's computer users. Granted, it may be very important, even indispensible, for you in your particular field of work/study, but for the vast majority (say, 99.99999% -- "five nines"!) of the other folks using computers, I will be so bold to mention that they shouldn't have to give a flying fuck about "the ins and outs of TCP security".
Get off your high horse!
If you're convinced that I'm lying to you, what can I possibly say to prove to you that I'm not?
Good question! I notice you dodged my question about why I should take your word over the conflicting word of another Muslim. But rather than saying something, here's something you can *do* to make me trust you. Start sending money to fight against the muhajideen. Do it in the name of peaceful coexistance with non-Muslims.
everyone accused the Jews--
You're trying to change the subject again.
you're giving away that you don't understand a lot about Islam when you make a simple mistake like that.
I really only care about the parts of Islam which affect me. You know, the parts that dictate that I should be killed, or taxed (jizya), or humilated, or threatened. You know, things that eminate from Muslims with increasing regularity. But fine. Am I not a "Kuffar"? Does that not mean, "One who has heard Muhammad's message and rejected it"? I claim it as a term of pride, personally.
The rest of what you say are only accusations.
You lie like a Persian rug. Not only did I make statements, but I also asked questions that you saw fit to ignore. What's wrong?
For example: So how do you define "justice" and "oppression"? Is it "just" that Shari'a be imposed on the entire world? Are Muslims "oppressed" if the Kufr resist their desires to impose Shari'a on the entire world?
You let those *VERY* pertinent questions slide by you.
Another example: I went to that web page, and it only had data up to 2003. Furthermore, I didn't see a way to measure that South America has "more" terrorism than the Middle East. More in terms of people killed and injured? More in terms of number of incidents? More in terms of property damage? Furthermore, I'm more interested in stats of terrorist acts committed by non-Muslims versus terrorist acts committed by Muslims in the name of Allah (jihad). Where can I get those stats?
It kind of decimates your flimsy "terrorism" comparitive stats, doesn't it? Particularly when you refuse to answer questions?
I compare to Christianity because nobody seems to have a problem with that.
No, you try to change the subject to Christianity because the tenets of your wicked religion (bash gays, demean women, expand empire, kill all those who resist) are indefensible. Show me a Christian terrorist attack that was done for the sake of holy war in the name of Jesus Christ in accordance with the Bible. Just one. Then we'll start looking at the many thousands of Muslim terrorst attacks that were done for the sake of jihad in the name of Allah in accordance with the Koran.
So "Muslims" have expressed their support of violence? How can people get away with saying such broad overgeneralizing false stereotypes?
I suppose I just imagined all of those signs reading "kill those who insult islam" and "behead those who insult islam" and "Europe: your 9/11 is coming" that were being carried by chanting, rioting Muslims. I suppose I willfully blocked out the massive, Muslim counter-demonstration to the former group. Give me a break. There is nothing false about what I say about Muslims. Maybe it doesn't apply to you, but you certainly are defending your rioting, car-torching Muslim brothers.
Heck, keep it up, you're only hurting yourself. When people stupidly attack ALL Muslims, then even the secular and liberal Muslims are forced to pick a side.
Show your true side. "Your standing up against Islam will only resort in more terrorism!" Violence becomes you, Muslim. I *hope* that secular and liberal muslims will be force to pick a side much like secular and liberal Americans will. It's clear which "side" you're on: the side that wishes for Islam to dominate the world. You have NOT denied this, nor have you indicated that it's wrong to seek it. Nor have you indicated that any of the methods used (da'wa, jihad, lying) are wrong. (You admitted that lying is *sometimes* permissible!) Your religion is evil, and I will resist it. Each word you say betrays you as a violent killer who's willing to force others to submit to the will of his imaginary god or die. Islam means "submit", correct?
You have already made up your mind about Islam and Muslims, and not interested in dialogue or open minded enough to be receptive of the possibility that Muslims (like most humans) want to live and let live.
... In a nutshell: what you said above is incorrect.
... etc.
That's because Muslims, including you, have done little to nothing to inform me that they want to "live and let live". Instead of showing me how interested you are in that kind of lifestyle, all you wish to do is call me a bigot. Why not work on improving your image instead of attacking people who merely make casual observations about the violent barbarity of millions of Muslims? Probably because that would go against your true intentions, correct?
You have chosen to believe that Islam is evil incarnate.
It can't be evil "incarnate" since Islam is a religion, not a person. But yes, I have chosen to believe it is evil, and not without mountains of evidence that you and others fail to refure. As I have seen time and again, Muslims try to change the subject and play "tu quoque" instead of refuting anything.
Therefore, you have apriori conclusions, and there is no point in responding to your points
No, I have well-evidenced conclusions that are more strongly supported with each new day chock-full of jihad attacks that kill and maim dozens around the world. The point in responding to my points is to separate yourself from the muhajideen who want to kill me. Perhaps you see that as fruitless? And merely stating "you're wrong!" proves nothing if you can't provide the reasoning behind it.
Who says I am in the USA? I am in a more tolerant, more accepting country in the West.
More tolerant of Shari'a, no doubt. More accepting of dhimmitude. Islam will wreck Europe and transform it into a waste dump. Remember all of those priceless Buddhist statues that were destroyed by Muslims? What do you think will happen to the Virgin in the Rosebush, the Anunciacion of the Magi, and who knows how many other millions of irreplaceable (yet "blasphemous" to primitive and violent Muslims) once the Muslims start "taking over"? That is your goal, correct? To take over Europe and then the rest of the world?
The US us overtaken by bigotry, and has to find an external enemy: first Manifest Destiny, then the Nazis and Japanese, then Communism, then Islam, then China
So typical of the Muslim mindset. "Don't look at the PRESENT and CURRENT sins of Muslims. Look at the PAST sins of the United States!" I suppose you don't think that Nazis were worth resisting? There seems to be a lot of love for Hitler in the Middle East Nowadays! Furthermore, what you're doing here is an awful lot of projection. Muslim "scholars" (poo be upon them) write very openly and freely about "do not take any friends among the Kufr" and "do not ever yield to the Kufr" and "you must hate the Kufr", so, take a bit of your own medicine.
But I suppose you're a bit to busy with your plans of violent Empire-building to care about that.
... "I don't *usually* bother discussing with Muslims."
I've actually gone out on a limb and chosen to debate a couple of Muslims on this board. It's interesting to say the least to see what they do.
1. "Christianity does the same thing!" (change the subject)
2. "Western culture is just as bad!" (tu quoque)
And, as I predicted, I can't tell if they're lying or not. They all seem to have different opinions on the exact circumstances which indicate that it's permissible for a Muslim to lie to a non-Muslim, but they all seem to agree that there are, at least, *some* instances where it is permissable to do so.
And none of them speak out against Muslim violence. The "behead those who insult Islam" threat signs carried by Muslims during the cartoon jihad are, evidently, completely unobjectionable to them. Perhaps they are completely unaware of the hideous image problem they have.