Muslim extremism. Do they know something we don't?

[zippy]

I haven't said US or Israel are their only targets, Mr Strawman.

The best we can do is defend ourselves. Are you saying that invading, bombing and preemptive "blind" attacks is the best way of defending ourselves? (I say blind because buildings are bombed, and they contain civilians to)

We have every right to defend ourselves, but this must be strictly confined to self-defense, I.E an aggressive act on us or our property must be taking place.

Justice means protection of each individual's liberty, or right, to work out his destiny free from interference or expropriation by others.

The function of government is to administer justice, that is, to preserve freedom, not to dictate activities. And government means, not "society" or "all of us," but those persons designated to prevent each individual from interfering with the liberty of any other.

So according to libertarian principles, governments are not allowed to interfere in the lives of "it's" citizens. How then can we justify governments (US State) interfering in the lives of people in other countries in the Middle East.

It depends on each countries constitution what their govt can and cant do. The US constitution requires that the federal govt defend the country against foreign aggression. Because of the attacks on 9/11, the US has decided its at war and therefore its going after those responsible and anyone who supports them.

As far as intefering in the lives of its own citizens, who decides what is intefering as opposed to applying the constitution ? Looking at the US constitution again, it details what the federal govt can and cant do. America is a democracy. Ofc, its not perfect. Nothing involving people is perfect.

But, if you compare the quality of life to people in America, and for that matter other western democracies, they have a much better quality of life. Yes, its not perfect, but which countries are people desperate to leave and which countries are they desperate to get into ?

You say the function of the govt is to administer justice. Thats a massive statement. From that you can argue for anything to a police state. How they practice that is up to them. Thats what independance is.

And interefering in other countries ? Well, providing training camps for people who want to fly passenger jets into your skyscrapers is probably going to piss someone off. Amazed that people still ask, why the US and NATO are in Afghanistan. doh !

 

[Palimino]

bs - i dont believe that its the only one

If you believe in true freedom then free-market capitalism is THE ONLY answer.

Edited from other posts.
It’s not – in fact it restricts freedom and risk taking. When the Republicans snipe at the Democrats they generally use Obama’s health reforms. “Creeping socialism” they trumpet. “An erosion of risk taking and freedom of the Great American Way”. This is absolute rubbish and the opposite is true. Imagine the freedom and enhanced risk taking of individuals if the burdens of health and education are removed. The freedom to take risks. Not being trapped into having to kow-tow to a boss because you can’t afford to lose your job (health & schooling). Not having to laugh at his jokes if they aren’t funny. Not having to brown-nose and being able to stand on principle. You have the **freedom** to take risks because you can quit if things become intolerable (remember, an off-balance boss is a good boss). I would imagine that if the health and schooling burdens are carried by the state that would raise the happiness quotient of citizens by an order of magnitude. For example (horrors! Socialism!). Lift the burden of health care and education from the citizen (socialism), turn down the money-grubbing volume in American (free-market capitalist) societies – the person with the most toys when they die, wins. We all know that big bux rule <gag>. Socialistic’ free medical care and education without the outraged squealing from a society who worships the $? Profits being reduced because of a higher tax obligation? An end to the obsessive deification of money? Blasphemy!

 

[Alan]

Edited from other posts.
It’s not – in fact it restricts freedom and risk taking. When the Republicans snipe at the Democrats they generally use Obama’s health reforms. “Creeping socialism” they trumpet. “An erosion of risk taking and freedom of the Great American Way”. This is absolute rubbish and the opposite is true. Imagine the freedom and enhanced risk taking of individuals if the burdens of health and education are removed. The freedom to take risks. Not being trapped into having to kow-tow to a boss because you can’t afford to lose your job (health & schooling). Not having to laugh at his jokes if they aren’t funny. Not having to brown-nose and being able to stand on principle. You have the **freedom** to take risks because you can quit if things become intolerable (remember, an off-balance boss is a good boss). I would imagine that if the health and schooling burdens are carried by the state that would raise the happiness quotient of citizens by an order of magnitude. For example (horrors! Socialism!). Lift the burden of health care and education from the citizen (socialism), turn down the money-grubbing volume in American (free-market capitalist) societies – the person with the most toys when they die, wins. We all know that big bux rule <gag>. Socialistic’ free medical care and education without the outraged squealing from a society who worships the $? Profits being reduced because of a higher tax obligation? An end to the obsessive deification of money? Blasphemy!

Yeah nothing gives people freedom like taking their hard earned cash away from them. Why don't you just give the indivual freedom to decide what he wants to do with his money.

The world works on the basis of currency. Get used to it. This fallacy of "lifting the burden" is rubbish. Nothing's free, the people still pay for socialism so it's still their burden.

 

[Palimino]

Yeah nothing gives people freedom like taking their hard earned cash away from them. Why don't you just give the indivual freedom to decide what he wants to do with his money.

What rot! Their ‘hard-earned cash’ (obsessive deification of money). No problem in principle ‘giving the individual the freedom to decide what he wants to do with his money’. Problem is that if he decides to opt-out he can’t not be treated. Are you advocating that non-contributors be left to die?

The world works on the basis of currency. Get used to it. This fallacy of "lifting the burden" is rubbish. Nothing's free, the people still pay for socialism so it's still their burden.

Maybe in America. Most of Europe (especially Northern Europe) seems to do OK.

 

[Alan]

What rot! Their ‘hard-earned cash’ (obsessive deification of money). No problem in principle ‘giving the individual the freedom to decide what he wants to do with his money’. Problem is that if he decides to opt-out he can’t not be treated. Are you advocating that non-contributors be left to die?

If somebody doesn't want to pay for certain coverage then they should not be forced too. As for non contributers it depends. If somebody is a fat, lazy, chainsmoking, drug taking, junk food eating moron I see no reason why I must pay for his/her health care.

Maybe in America. Most of Europe (especially Northern Europe) seems to do OK.

Yeah that's why they're running around burning cars and protesting constantly. These small states no bigger than individual federal states in the U.S is hardly a comparison. Of course they let the U.S pay mostly for their defence as well.

This is going way off topic now. I've leave it at that as far as this thread is concerned

 

[WilD_CaT]

It depends on each countries constitution what their govt can and cant do. The US constitution requires that the federal govt defend the country against foreign aggression. Because of the attacks on 9/11, the US has decided its at war and therefore its going after those responsible and anyone who supports them.

As far as intefering in the lives of its own citizens, who decides what is intefering as opposed to applying the constitution ? Looking at the US constitution again, it details what the federal govt can and cant do. America is a democracy. Ofc, its not perfect. Nothing involving people is perfect.

But, if you compare the quality of life to people in America, and for that matter other western democracies, they have a much better quality of life. Yes, its not perfect, but which countries are people desperate to leave and which countries are they desperate to get into ?

You say the function of the govt is to administer justice. Thats a massive statement. From that you can argue for anything to a police state. How they practice that is up to them. Thats what independance is.

And interefering in other countries ? Well, providing training camps for people who want to fly passenger jets into your skyscrapers is probably going to piss someone off. Amazed that people still ask, why the US and NATO are in Afghanistan. doh !

Try reading.

Justice means protection of each individual's liberty, or right, to work out his destiny free from interference or expropriation by others.

So when I say the government is there to administer justice, it cannot mean a police state, since that goes against individuals freedom.

Don't talk about the U.S. constitution. The US legal system is NOT a constitutional legal system, where as South Africa's is.

The US constitution specifically LIMITS powers of government and the president, and most of the limitations have been completely ignored over the last 100 years or so. There are many laws that override constitutional statues in the US. In a constitutional legal system no laws can override the constitution.

The US has not issued a formal declaration of war since WW2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

By finding those responsible and bringing them to justice, you cannot kill innocents. That is NOT justice. No matter which way you look at it, it is simply not. I am shocked to hear people say in order to bring murderers to justice you can kill innocents as well. I mean if life is SO important that when it is forcefully taken away from us we are prepared to scoure almost till the ends of the earth to find the perpetrators, how can we so easily kill innocents, take away life and look the other way, and say things like it is necessary.

The founding fathers of the United States specifically had the opinion that the US SHOULD NOT get involved in the affairs of others, JUST as the believed the BRITISH had no reasons for getting involved in the lives of the colonialists in the new world. These are the guys who frikkin wrote the constitution.

The founding fathers and the US consitution favours non-intervention.

Quality of life in America is so good because they have been the most capitalist society/nation ever. Simple. Freedom, liberty and hence the principles of the free-market, laissez faire capitalism works.

However despite this fact, the whole planet wants to go more socialist.

Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried;
We all know this, and therefore;
We need more socialism.

That seems to be the mantra of every nutter these days, but I digress.

Why in Afghanistan, military-industrial complex. Imagine they had no war in this economy? I wonder with all those soldiers back home what the official unemployment rate in the US would be? Worst in US's history?

 

[WilD_CaT]

Are you advocating that non-contributors be left to die?

To say yes would be harsh, but lets look at healthcare.

By "Right to health" you mean people MUST be given access to healthcare. This right is enforced by the violent arm of the law if necessary.

What does that entail? Medicines, equipment and healthcare professionals. So a doctor MUST treat you. A doctor MUST give up his labour to benefit you.

Forced labour is slavery. Thats what the so called "right" to healthcare entails.

In South Africa we don't have the "Right to healthcare" as is. You have "A right to go to a government hospital and get treatment, if the doctors, equipment and medicines are their." So if there are no resources in the government hospitals, and you cannot afford a private one, tough. That's life.

The same with other property. Taxation is theft. That FACT you cannot argue. You can try argue that it is necessary etc. but you cannot claim it is not theft, it is. Besides, it takes someones labour to earn money which is then taxed. Basically again, people are working for no compensation by force. Slavery.

You are stealing from me to ensure someone else gets healthcare. I don't owe you anything. I am not obligated naturally to provide for others. You are poor, eish man. Sorry for you, thats life. It ain't fair, get over it. Try working for instance...

I'm sorry Palimino, but you have NO understanding of what freedom means. To you it means living in the status quo, every person is equal. I got news for you, out of the almost 7 billion people on this plant, not one is identical or equal to me. Not 1.

And judging from your socialist views, no understanding of economics either.

Bastiat: "As it is certain, on the one hand, that we are all making some similar request to the Government; and as, on the other, it is proved that Government cannot satisfy one party without adding to the labor of the others, until I can obtain another definition of the word Government, I feel authorized to give it my own.… Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." "Government" (1848)

 

[WilD_CaT]

It sure beats isolationism

What do you mean by isolationism?

Do you mean not interfering by sending military forces? If so than most countries are isolationists.

To me isolation means closing of all ties.

Thats not what I'm saying.(Strawman)

I favour trade, I favour building relationships, I favour dialogue, communcation etc. Thats non-interventionism and not isolationism.

 

[Alan]

What do you mean by isolationism?

Do you mean not interfering by sending military forces? If so than most countries are isolationists.

To me isolation means closing of all ties.

Thats not what I'm saying.(Strawman)

I favour trade, I favour building relationships, I favour dialogue, communcation etc. Thats non-interventionism and not isolationism.

In military context. Preemptive policies include building relationships, dialogue, communcation. What it comes down to is dealing with your enemies on their terms or yours. You can't run and hide from conflict.

You don't honestly think that non intervention against the Nazis would have been justified?

 

[WilD_CaT]

If the US people didn't want to go to war, the US state should've forced it on them?

And if the US didn't intervene, and the Nazi's won, it would be their fault and not the Nazi's?

 

[WilD_CaT]

Its like somehow if someone commits an evil act I am obligated to put myself in harms way in order to administer justice on behalf of someone else? If I don't do this, I have to provide justification or reasons why, or I am seen as the bad guy?

Sounds like Boondock Saints , can't wait for the next one!

 

[Lightscribe]

When you step up....You should not be thinking hero thoughts.

Be calm and just "neutralise" the person....with extreme prejudice, of course.

 

[Alan]

If the US people didn't want to go to war, the US state should've forced it on them?

And if the US didn't intervene, and the Nazi's won, it would be their fault and not the Nazi's?

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing

Edmund Burke

 

[WilD_CaT]

So we are obligated to step in when we see evil being done?

Who interprets what is evil? Couldn't some people see your intervention as an evil act of aggression in itself and step in themselves, further escalating conflict?

 

[Mineer]

Ppl should stop thinking the USA is a democracy it is a fact that the majority vote does not mean that person running for president will get the presidency, but where it becomes a huge problem is when they start imposing this "non-democracy" on other countries look up the Palestinian elections of past where Hamas was elected by the people of Palestine but the USA did not like that idea then just put in a party of their choosing .... democracy!! I think not

you guys can debate bout Hamas is a a terrorist group and yada yada but the fact remains the people of Palestine wanted to be represent by Hamas but people still call America "the the land of the free" what BS and Islam is the religion that hates freedom

wiki

Final results show that Hamas won the election, with 74 seats to the ruling-Fatah's 45, providing Hamas with the majority of the 132 available seats and the ability to form a majority government on their own.

 

[Palimino]

This is going way off topic now. I've leave it at that as far as this thread is concerned

I rest my case.

 

[Palimino]

By "Right to health" you mean people MUST be given access to healthcare. This right is enforced by the violent arm of the law if necessary.

Yep! Selected by democratic means first (you are a democracy?) and then enforced by the violent arm of the law if necessary. Like anything else.

What does that entail? Medicines, equipment and healthcare professionals. So a doctor MUST treat you. A doctor MUST give up his labour to benefit you.

Yes. <rolls eyes> Isn’t this obvious?

Forced labour is slavery.

In the context you’re using it, working at a normal job to earn money is ‘forced labour’. Technically, I suppose it is. We are all ‘forced’ to labour to keep from starving.

In South Africa we don't have the "Right to healthcare" as is. You have "A right to go to a government hospital and get treatment, if the doctors, equipment and medicines are their." So if there are no resources in the government hospitals, and you cannot afford a private one, tough. That's life.

SA’s health care is a massive cock-up. You cannot compare a 1st world country with skills, resources and a huge tax base with a 3rd world country with no skills, massive ignorance and superstition, no resources and a minute, overburdened tax base intended to serve a huge uneducated, non tax paying patient pool.

The same with other property. Taxation is theft. That FACT you cannot argue. You can try argue that it is necessary etc. but you cannot claim it is not theft, it is. Besides, it takes someones labour to earn money which is then taxed. Basically again, people are working for no compensation by force. Slavery.

I am not (and never have) argued that taxation is theft. It’s a necessary evil although I don’t like political fatcats wasting it (that’s another thread). Are you a Waco crazy? An Oklahoma bomber?

You are stealing from me to ensure someone else gets healthcare. I don't owe you anything. I am not obligated naturally to provide for others.

This is back to the “taxation = stealing”. Get a grip!

I'm sorry Palimino, but you have NO understanding of what freedom means.

You have absolutely no clue of freedom. I have experienced (through different means) the freedom of having health (and schooling) burdens lifted. When my wife and I got married, we both had good jobs. We resolved to never allow our lifestyle to grow dependant on both our salaries. She stayed in her job (30 years and counting) because that was her character. I flitted about from job to job because that was my character. This gave me the freedom to take risks because I didn’t worry about health care or children’s schooling. I was never trapped into having to kow-tow to my boss because I couldn’t afford to lose my job (health & schooling). I didn’t have to laugh at his jokes if they weren’t funny, I didn’t brown-nose and I could afford to stand on principle because I could quit at any time (an off-balance boss is a good boss). I was once unemployed for 3 months. This involved some belt-tightening but the essentials (health & schooling) were maintained BECAUSE I wasn’t concerned about routine burdens. So, the idea that universal health care would erode freedom is just crap. The opposite is true.

 

[WilD_CaT]

Freedom is not about doing whatever you want to do because you have no responsibilities?

Imagine everyone wanted to live like you, move from job to job, no stable income, who will be paying for schools hmm?

"Free" schooling is not free. People pay for it through taxes. You in fact living off of others.

If public education becomes free, then that will raise the cost of private schooling drastically(Market forces). Thus if I want to send my kids to a private school, I will have to pay FAR more for it whilst still paying for public schools that I don't want.

That FORCED levy is not line with principles of freedom.

I have experienced (through different means) the freedom of having health (and schooling) burdens lifted.

You have experienced through different means, living off of other peoples backs. Pay for it yourself.

 

[WilD_CaT]

Freedom is not about doing whatever you want and having everything. Life is harsh, its tough.

Next you are gonna say food must be provided for free and thus you don't have to worry about buying food. What about insurance? That must be free so you don't have to worry about getting in a car accident for example.

Basically you are saying that if it is free, we will be able to have more use of our disposable income, thus greater freedom? Correct.

But if you remove taxes, then that will achieve the same result. You will have more disposable income, thus greater freedom.

Whats more is that education and healthcare through taxes is basically run by a giant bureaucracy. This makes them inefficient and uneconomical.

The private sector is far more efficient and economical in proving products and service to the public than any bureaucracy not bound by market forces. (Think Telkom vs more open telcom. markets overseas)

Whats more freedom is about having the CHOICE to do what I want (within certain boundaries). You are saying by having a greater disposable income, you have more choices in life. Correct.

However you have REMOVED the choice of consumers to pay for education or healthcare on their terms, as it comes from taxes which is a COMPULSARY levy.

So you remove peoples freedoms in order to promote freedom? That does not equal freedom.

We all have to work for the things we want. We are not entitled to it.

 

[Palimino]

Freedom is not about doing whatever you want to do because you have no responsibilities?

What? This has no bearing at all. This is anarchy.

To conduct a meaningful debate requires rationality and coherence (especially in this medium). NOT waving your arms around hysterically and spewing whatever enters your head. Meaningful debate cannot be conducted under these circumstances.

Imagine everyone wanted to live like you, move from job to job, no stable income, who will be paying for schools hmm?

I thought this was clear. The taxpayer (my wife). I still pay taxes.

"Free" schooling is not free. People pay for it through taxes. You in fact living off of others.

No, living off the tax paid by my wife (note – I still pay taxes even though I flit from job to job. I just don’t benefit from them.)

If public education becomes free, then that will raise the cost of private schooling drastically(Market forces). Thus if I want to send my kids to a private school, I will have to pay FAR more for it whilst still paying for public schools that I don't want.

Boo hoo hoo. So shoot-down the system because you may want to send your kids to private schools. Besides, if market forces govern private schools and they are expensive, government schools must be meeting standards. Supply and demand (this is elementary). Universal ‘free’ education will have no impact whatsoever on private schools.

That FORCED levy is not line with principles of freedom.

All civilised behaviour is FORCED. That’s what the police, IRS, etc. are for.

You have experienced through different means, living off of other peoples backs. Pay for it yourself.

No-one else’s back was involved. You could (weakly) argue that my wife’s back was involved, but that was convenience. I paid taxes. In sum, the system came out ahead. I just exploited it for sudden big expenses. By paying my tax throughout my working life (and not claiming) no-one lost.

You are being irrational and incoherent. I suspect these are Republican ploys to snipe at Democrats. If this is the Republican’s best shot, it is super lame.