toolboxnj

I would have prefered a nice tax cut instead of the Iraq War, but that's just me.

The UN gives sanction to dictatorships. I prefer to call it "the democracy of dictatorships" where you have countries like Sudan and Libya (or was it Syria.. same difference) on the Human Rights Committee. All it does is give the worst nations of the world a voice in global affairs that they aren't entitled to. And, oh yea.. it's good for making money on humanitarian programs that are designed to "help" those under terrible conditions (*cough* Oil for Food) http://www.unisevil.com

Like the "Land Reforms" in Zimbabwe, the Soviet Union and China that have historically led to massive famines? The problem with these states isn't the evil "capitalist" (although they aren't) nations like the United States. The problem lies in the massive corruption that exists in the third world, where leaders starve and kill for power (and then get a green card to another third world country when they run for cover). What is needed? No trade barriers. Allow the industies of the third world to compete in the global marketplace without barriers or force. Start with agriculture and textiles, the two dominant industries in the third world (ironicly, the two industries where the most trade barriers exist). Second: Government Accountablity. Make governments report their total budgets so their financies are translucent. Foreign money would flow into the countries that have the least regulation in regards to industry and where the investors don't have to stay awake at night worrying if their businesses become nationalized. There's more, but that's good for now.

Not quite, but if Congress has its way it would be that high. The EPA is a distasterous agency anyways (right there with the DEA). A little less funding would be a blessing, since its regulations and red-tape do much more damage than good.

Not suprised to see there are plenty of socialists here. In all honestly, the Western world is moving more toward fascism than socialism, even in the United States (fascism: private ownership, government control). I am a libertarian according to the quiz but I consider myself a L-F Capitalist. I find libertarianism abhorrent. There are also a couple questions here that wouldn't apply to atheists. Abortion: For Death Penalty: For Gun Control: Against Iraq War: Against War on Drugs: Against School Prayer: Only private schools Voted for Bush - would have voted for the challenger if the Democrats provided one (ahem, Joe Lieberman)

Why should the United States do anything about any of the regional conflicts in the world? A foreign policy of altruism is suicide, and the United States has been slipping down that slide since Vietnam. Expensive oil, eh? Plus, the United States only gets a fraction of their oil imports from the Middle East. Much of it comes from Canada and Mexico. There is no oil is Bosnia or Liberia either.

Correct, but also irrelevant. The criticism is that non-citizen Arabs in the occupied territories - we'll leave the question of Arabs with Israeli citizenship aside for now - are mistreated and denied their right to self-determination. It is not an argument to say that they could be worse off. Furthermore, A "Jewish state" is racist by definition. As is a black state, a white state, or an Arab state. Conquest, even in a war fought only in self-defense, is not recognized by international law (or any sane person) as a valid claim of sovereignty, and it would not be recognized in this case by those who do if the victims were, for example, European. The borders of France were not redrawn to include the Rhineland provinces of Germany after World War II. No argument on those grounds. If other states have the right to have nukes, so does Israel. So, you are equating Zionism with Racism? We've been down this road before with UN General Assembly Resolution 3379. Look at the approving countries.. you sure have good company. Interestingly, the most fervent anti-Semitists in Europe before the Second World War and after were among the most approving of a Jewish state. But, it's also necessary to observe that Israel is a secular state. I've never had the privilage of going there, but I have a friend from NYC who is an Israeli citizen as well as know other Jews that have either lived in Israel at one time or another. You'd be surprised (as I was) that orthodoxy is weak and that Israel is as "Jewish" as Canada is "Christian". Israel also has a mixed-socialist economy much like Canada's as well. I don't think you can dismiss the fact that Israeli Arabs have more rights in Israel than any other state as just some off-hand fact. The Palestinian Authority (as well as all Muslim/Arab states, including Iraq) enslave their own people, grant women no right to life, and advocate a culture of violence and death (80% of Palestinians support suicide bombing against Israeli interests) where not only Jews are the targets, but also moderate Muslims who wish to end the violence. Propety rights, human rights, civil rights and individual rights do not exist in the Middle East outside the Israeli state; it's not like this is some problem that only exists in the West Bank and Gaza. But, it's easy to spacegoat the Jews for all of the problems in the Middle East, just as the Jews were scapegoated in Nazi Germany starting with the accusations that the Jews were treasonous and the reason why WW1 was lost. On the issue of Israel's wars of self-defense, you are merely evading. Five major conflicts have been launched at the hands of Israel's neighbors against Israel and they've lost every time. Israel has fought every war in its history in self-defense against Arab aggression. As a moral state, they have the right to self-defense, even with nuclear weapons which they do have at this time. I also challenge you to find this specific section in international law that you are referring to. Perhaps you should put down the libertarian-left literature (aka, anti-Zionist, anti-US literature) and grasp more of an objective view of history.

Sure, they will die of natural causes and at the hands of tin-pot dictators like Mugabe and Putin.

Friedman, neo-liberal. Not a surprise there.

Israeli Arabs have more rights in Israel than any other state in the Middle East. I'd invite those to read counter arguments to articles like these at Capitalism Magazine. It was also noted in this thread that Israel has gained land through war, but the five major conflicts that Israel has fought have been defensive, sometimes against all 22 other Arab states. Israel has never fought a war other than in self-defense. On nukes, a moral state has the right to self-defense.

Sliting-throats is a metaphor, not something literal (although it can be). You are naive to believe that there are no criminal elements in society that would use force in order to gain power.

With current Senate rules, justices need 60 votes to get through a fillabuster (a tactic used by the minority party to block votes from occuring). The Republican Party has only 55 Senate seats, with a handful of their own not fully in Bush's court (Snow and Collins, for instance). So, whoever the nomination will be, he/she must get 6 votes from the Democrats which isn't an easy thing with the Senate being so polarized. So, King Bush couldn't just "appoint" Supreme Court justices, as he cannot (with one exception that I know of) appoint federal judges. I was disappointed by the address as well. His plan to privatize social security looks weak, and he does not set forth the correct moral argument for his plans. A worker's money is his own, not the government's. He also proposed several new spending plans and another budget increase. But, it's not Armageddon. You will still exist 3.75 years from now. It's silly to think that way.

Religion is bad, but nihilistic skepticism is much worse.

Libertarianism in the political sense is very broad. It's a big-tent ideology that includes classical liberals to the anarchists. So then, where do we look? What links all these groups together: The minimalization of government without really defining what a government's duty is. So far all I can read is "so government doesn't interfere with our lives". That's all well and good. I am a supporter of limited government, but also a defined moral purpose to government. All libertarianism - including anarchy - eventually ends up in the worst kind of communitarianism: gang warfare. Let me explain. Police are a necessary part of government, since man cannot donate all his waking hours to protecting himself. There are criminal elements in any society (since the dawn of civilization) the individual must defend himself from force and also has no agent to rely upon for retalitory force. This man cannot sleep because his throat may be cut in the night - he cannot work, since his house may be broken into - he cannot trade, since another may steal his goods. The men will eventually go crazy or kill himself, both result in death. This man knows he cannot give like this, so he gets the number of the local "boss" in the area, from which he can seek protection. This boss agrees to accept the man into his "company" and assigns tasks to the man in exchange for protection and defense. The trade works for about a year, and the boss becomes rich charging others (like the old and disabled) that cannot exchange anything but gold or money for services. One revolutionary figure sees how much the boss is earning, and gathers a group of violent men together. "Look how much the boss is earning" he would say, "that's OUR wealth, he didn't earn shit!". So the revolutionary severs ties with the boss and forms his own gang. His gang fights the boss' gang for power, killing many combatants and innocents. The warfare ends when everyone is dead. That simple narrative is why we need police, something that does not exist under true anarchy. Individuals have rights to self-defense, but not retalitory force. You cannot lead a mob to arrest a man accused of a crime in order to "seek justice", as what happened in the American South to many Blacks before the modern era. What is the answer? A government that follows an objective law (one defined by facts and reality, not myth, societal norms or personal whims) that has police, a military and a court system. The initiation of force on any party to another (including the government on its citizens) is banned and the government holds the monopoly on retaliatory force. All wealth is private, taxes are voluntary (akin to insurance) and trade is not restricted.

Free trade without force is the only "fair trade".

So, if dozens of credible news agencies (including foreign press not friendly to the Bush Admin) reported the same numbers without much question you still wouldn't be satisfied? Why are you sulking around when this is certainly a day to celebrate?

Why not? I created the thread, and in it a asked a relavent question on international affairs which several people responded. I do have a wealth of knowledge in this area, probably enough to discredit most claims that are contrary to mine. I would not, for instance, participate in a thread dealing with abstract art, cooking, or programing in C++ because I lack the necessary instruction.

It was the neo-conservative Jeane Kirkpatrick that was the US ambassador to the UN during the first part of Reagan's presidency that fostered these views. Unfortunatly, my book with the article I wish to reference is at work so I cannot give direct quotes. The United Nations is a failed international regime. I encourage everyone to take a look at The United Nations Is Evil, a subsection of Capitalism Magazine. That's quite a charge, buddy. Typical Leftist remark from someone who is blind to the facts. Although the United States is far from perfect, I would question anyone's intellectual honesty who says it's a "dictatorship". Go and read more Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. Quite correct. Amaziingly, nations like Iran, North Korea and Syria have just as many votes as the United States and Israel. The UN's lowest point was United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 equating Zionism with racism.

Amazingly, at the current moment, the world is quite at peace. There are no Great Powers at war, and the violence has been confined to small, regional and civil conflicts. That's something called "hegemonic stablity", where the Hegemon plays cop and everyone kinda gets along for a while. I would like you to find a point in history where power was divided or fractionalized in the international system and was also at relative peace. This could also be seen in the 19th century, when Great Britain was the dominant world power. There was relative world peace from the end of the Napoleanic Wars til World War I. Some think this is because of Capitalism and free-trade, and while this does have merits I give more to the fact there was a global hegemon. So, to say that the world would be better off without a Hegemonic power is quite disconcerting to me. And all this talk about Germany.. May I suggest the following: the EU has given billions of dollars in aid to the PLO and Yassar Arafat, who by all accounts is a terrorist. I'll read from the PLO's charter itself: "The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperial aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the liquidation of the Zionist presence in Palestine" (Emphasis Mine) So, it's not as if anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism (I clearly recoginize the difference) has been "99%" eraticated from Germany and the greater EU populace. It doesn't take much effort to search for articles on the phemomina in Europe today.[sarcasm] It's also a good time for Germany to start a World War, eh? I mean, it's been only about sixty years since they provoked the last one. [/sarcasm] Also, Canada as a global hegemon? C'mon. Perhaps I could have included it as a Great Power, but it lacks any kind of power projection to make it a serious hegemon (not Superpower or Hyperpower.. these things DO NOT exist, but are merely constructs created by second-rate political scientists). Power projection is the ability to globally assert the hard power that you have. A Blue-Water Navy is a good example of power-projection. While North Korea and Saudi Arabia may have hard power, for example (be it with nukes or oil), they have NO ability to project this power seriously. Would Canada be able to send 15k Marines and the necessary Aircraft Carriers to assist with the disaster in South Asia? I think not. And, in a unrelated point, this $350mil that the US government is giving in aid does not include the millions of dollars a day in costs that the military incurs in it's assistance in delivering food ans supplies to the region.

opinions from people like you is what they've been trying to quell for the last 50 years. hitler killed jews. last i checked, hitler was dead.. and besides that, i think you'll find that 99% of germany disagrees with what happened and would like to put it behind them, except they can't because history can never be forgotten. what terrible acts has germany done since the war? coincidentally, how many millions have the americans slaughtered during and since? If you can come up with stats from reliable historic researchers (ahem, not Noam Chomsky) I'll take a look at them. The facts on German nationalism, though, are not disputable. Their citizenship is blood driven and exclusionary, the opposite of France which generally accepts anyone. The Holocaust, IMHO, could not occur in France which has different, more liberal nationalistic tendencies. Plus, The Economist (probably a reactionary paper to those on this board) has chronicled the rise of neo-Nazi/Fascist poltical elements in Germany like the far-right NPD.

The Hegemon doesn't have power over everyone else. It is simply the nation with the most power in the system. What you are refering to is called a "Preponderance of Power", which means that a state has more power than all others combined. This is a rare and unsustainable occurance, but it did happen for a brief time after the United States emerged unscathed from a war that ravaged the world. It did not last long, though, since Europe used the markets to get back on their feet and Russia had the nuke. Please answer the question, because I think it's a good one. If not, make your own thread. Germany, a nation that provoked two world wars in the 20th century that killed tens of millions of people? Also, there is an element of exclusionism that Germans tend to have. It's no coincidence that the massacre of millions of Jews and non-blood citizens occured in Germany, a nation which historically views blood and race important to citizenship just as France hold the opposite opinion (just look at their processes for becoming a citizen and studies on nationalism in Europe).

The Hegemon is the nation in the International System that has the most power among the Great Powers; this nation sets the rules for the International System, as the United States did at the end of World War II (setting up the UN and NATO, for example). A Great Power is a nation that can challenge the Hegemon, and is generally a regional power. Currently, the Hegemon is the United States - This is fact and cannot be disputed. But, since most on the board dislike the United States being in the Hegemonic position, which of the Great Powers would you like to see replace it? This list is not mine, but rather the scholarly accepted list, although you can make a case for another if you'd like. Great Powers: China Japan France UK Germany Brazil (disputed) India (disputed) Russia

Now, I'm in the camp that's torn on Missle Defense, and even would oppose it if I had the power. But, to question the morality of the issue is not the correct approach. We can go on and on forever, but the United States has the moral right to self-defense just as Canada does.

The United States should only consider its self-interest when deploying or creating such a system, not the interest of other countries. Missle defense is not an offensive weapon used to initiate force, but a weapon of defense. It's no moral fault of the United States if Russia and China - for example - trigger an arms race by advancing their own weapons systems. Instead of focusing in on the defensive actions of the United States, focus on the offensive nature of China and Russia if these two countries insist on such an arms race since that is the immorality of it. It would be morally tantamount to calling a gun-carrying woman guilty of killing a man who was about to rape her. Who is at fault for the death: the woman or the rapist? It's happening anyways with Russia's arms sales to China (Sunburn Missles and SU-47 Fighters) in order to place pressure on Taiwan. In 2006, the United States will not be able to repel a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, as it was on several occasions in the past. This is not to say that arms races are good things, because they are not. A truely free nation has no incentive in war-profit any more than it has an interest in earthquake-profit or hurricane-profit (credit von Mises for that one).