RoR: Forum

Steve, thanks for your encouraging comment about my post. It means a lot to me, coming from you. I tried to sanction your post 57, so I clicked the check mark "your vote is registered."

Jay, I appreciate your willingness to consider the points I raised, especially about the logical priority of defending our own vanishing freedom in the US.

However, I don't share your view that the United States is constantly threatened by aggressive foreign states, eager to do us in. Nor do I think that "growing complexity" or rapid communications exposes Americans to new foreign threats.

The danger from abroad stems primarily from our own twisted politics at home: state-run capitalism and foreign military adventuring. Our mixed economy creates problems that politicians pretend to solve by intervening in other regions, where they want to "run things".

More basically, politicians like to fight wars, because they really believe in altruism. Most Americans don't want to fight a war for the sake of altruistic ideals, because the cost is lethal. So politicians have to use treachery and deceit to get their wars, using false flag operations, provocations, official lies, etc. In doing so, they fool people into believing that fighting the war is in their self interest--and actually necessary to their survival. When the war is concluded, state history books are riddled with lies and omissions to make the war look necessary and noble.

Today, the threat of a terrible terrorist attack here in the US is very real. Obviously, cold blooded thugs who routinely resort to murdering innocent people for the sake of their ethos are very bad people. However, our military adventuring greatly magnifies the dangers to which Americans are exposed from this quarter. When the military kills a lot of innocent people and destroys great swaths of homes and infrastructure, those on the receiving end of this carnage become embittered toward the US government. The carnage helps twisted thugs recruit vengeful young terrorists to their cause, which includes expelling the US from their region.

This is part of the reason that foreign policy ought to be consist with individual rights. If our government were to respect the rights of Americans, it would stop taxing and inflating. The funding for foreign wars and military adventures would vanish. If our government were to respect the rights of foreign people, it would end the invasions and bombings unrelated to repelling or retaliating a direct attack on America. Such a policy would have eliminated all the US wars of the twentieth century (including the Second World War, the Japanese "surprise attack" on Pearl Harbor notwithstanding. But that's another subject.)

Post 61

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - 10:57pm

Ted, perhaps you're acquainted with the concept of psychological projection. This concept might prove useful to you in grasping why you felt the need to accuse me of "bluffing".

I'm an advocate of a minimal government--"a night watchman state". Taxation is theft, the draft is slavery, war is the health of the State. People should voluntarily pay for services that they value and no more.

Rothbard enthusiasts believe that "anarchy" is the solution to all the world's problems, and the magic answer to man's suffering. They are, in important respects, nihilists and simple-minded ideologues.

The formation of government doesn't require trampling individual rights. In a "state of nature", private defense agencies coalesce into a federalized government, for the same reason that the market process selects one commodity as money: greatly enhanced utility.

I posed those questions in post 55 as the basis for discussion.

Post 62

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - 11:26pm

Friend John, we have some basic differences on the proper role and purpose of government. Out differences are so important that sometimes it's difficult to stop talking past one another.

There is a logical basis from which we could proceed to discuss our disagreements, however. This is the recognition that each of us believes in our ideas sincerely and passionately.

I posed the questions because I hoped to start a discussion about the role of government. I think one's answers would reveal, to oneself as well as to others, what one believes the proper role ought to be.

Obviously, no one here believes the President is a unique and divine source of moral insight. But if so, why is it so important for him to make moral pronouncements?

There is nothing wrong with taking actions--writing, speaking etc.--to help Iranians or North Koreans. There is nothing wrong with discussing these ideas on this thread.

The issue is one of proportionality or proper balance. If I spent inordinate time posting on this site while neglecting my work, we'd agree that my priorities were distorted. If I wasted inordinate amounts of time posting while my business was on the verge of failure, one could correctly point out to me that my behavior was confused.

Right here in the USA, today, our freedom is going up in smoke. We ought to fight to defend it, while we have the freedom to do so.

Post 63

Thursday, June 25, 2009 - 2:42am

More basically, politicians like to fight wars, because they really believe in altruism.

Speaking out against murder isn't altruism, Mark.

Post 64

Thursday, June 25, 2009 - 9:29am

"private defense agencies coalesce into a federalized government"

LOL!.

It is incredible that you have no trouble describing others as ideologues.

Post 65

Thursday, June 25, 2009 - 10:46am

Mark,

I did not suggest that we are constantly threatened by aggressive foreign states. Most states are bound by world politics and alliances which preclude all but desperate actions. I was solely talking about the constant barrage of information (and misinformation) seen and heard by the American public. If we want to preserve our values, we have to - as constantly - present our values, and provide comment and context.

jt

Post 66

Thursday, June 25, 2009 - 11:35am

Mark:

Obviously, no one here believes the President is a unique and divine source of moral insight. But if so, why is it so important for him to make moral pronouncements?

Just so I understand if you are being consistent with this condemnation of the President making any kind of moral statement, what would you say to an elected President that say condemned the forcible collection of taxation, would it be fair for others to quip back that you simply want an "Elected Moral Spokesman"? Worst still, let's say he's campaigning, what could he possibly say to convince you to vote for him if he should refrain from making any kind of moral statement? All of our actions should follow from the dictates of our morality, you can't escape that. To criticize the President for making a moral statement per se is condemning morality itself.

There is nothing wrong with taking actions--writing, speaking etc.--to help Iranians or North Koreans. There is nothing wrong with discussing these ideas on this thread.

The issue is one of proportionality or proper balance. If I spent inordinate time posting on this site while neglecting my work, we'd agree that my priorities were distorted. If I wasted inordinate amounts of time posting while my business was on the verge of failure, one could correctly point out to me that my behavior was confused.

Right here in the USA, today, our freedom is going up in smoke. We ought to fight to defend it, while we have the freedom to do so.

Obviously one should prioritize the things that one values, and not sacrifice a lesser value for a greater one. But you are certainly not in any position to dictate to others how to prioritize decisions to discuss a particular topic.

(Edited by John Armaos on 6/25, 11:40am)

Post 67

Thursday, June 25, 2009 - 2:53pm

Teresa, here is your comment:

"More basically, politicians like to fight wars, because they really believe in altruism."

Speaking out against murder isn't altruism, Mark.
*************************************************************

My comment, in quotes above, doesn't mention "speaking out", does it? It only references fighting wars.

You seem to attach great moral weight to the President's "speaking out" for us all, at least on this particular issue. But I do not think of the President as national spokesman on politics-ethics. Why should I?

If you want to speak out, or form a crusade on behalf of Iranians, then perhaps you should do so. There's nothing wrong with helping others fight their battles, provided you don't waste disproportionate effort on a project that is of marginal importance, compared with trying to defend our own freedom.

Jay, I thought you wrote something about rising complexity bringing new foreign threats to bear against the US. If I misread your comment, sorry.

It seems to me that the increased volume of information available today includes much analysis that was previously suppressed by the establishment's media. I think that's a large net benefit.

John, I wrote that politicians will always speak about ethics, because politics is about ethics. However, since most politicians today are corrupt, I'd rather they just get on with stealing and extorting, and skip the rhetoric.

I don't care if some politician announces that taxation is theft, or that taxation is the necessary price of civilization. But it ought to be understood that he is speaking as a private citizen, not issuing ethical proclamations on behalf of "the people".

I have the impression that those on this site who demand that the President speak out against Iranian atrocities, see him as National Moral Spokesman on their favorite issue. But why would any sensible person want another to assume such a role? I also get the impression that some of those favoring this Presidential role tend to see his speech making as a warning to Iran--a prelude to possible subsequent US action. But I think that is improper policy.

Come to think of it, no one has answered the questions I posted. That's interesting.

Finally, John, I have the impression that you misunderstand the point I was trying to make about moral priorities. I was not objecting to the existence of this thread or to any of us spending time posting about this subject. (Who would I be to cast stones here?)

I was warning against promoting American wars of foreign liberation. I've noticed that this subject is a pet cause, on this site and on talk radio. My point is that this infatuation with making "good" wars is incongruent with the primary cause of defending our own vanishing liberty here, today, in the US. I raised this point on this thread because I think the cry for the President to "speak out" is often issued, especially by hawks, as the "first step" by our government to "righting Iranian wrongs". Since I object to non-defensive wars, this makes me even more leery of Presidential Ethical Proclamations.

Post 68

Thursday, June 25, 2009 - 3:27pm

To Mike Erickson, what is an ideologue? I understand the term to refer to one who takes crucial aspects of his ideology on faith. This requires that crucial subject matter must be declared by the ideologue to be "off bounds" to inquiry.

Here is your comment:

"private defense agencies coalesce into a federalized government"

LOL!.

It is incredible that you have no trouble describing others as ideologues.
*********** ************ ************

My one-sentence comment, which is off the topic of this thread, summarized the thinking of Robert Nozick, as discussed in Anarchy State and Utopia. The idea is that competing defense agencies in a "state of nature" benefit financially from getting together to agree on norms of justice and rules of procedure. They benefit, because fighting is expensive and destructive. Clients tend to favor defense firms that can offer reliable service, meaning satisfactory resolution of property and personal crimes. An important aspect of such reliability is knowledge that if a client of another firm steals something, the other firm will have agreed in advance to norms of justice and rules of resolution. So clients favor firms that enter the Federation.

Similar incentives operate when the market process selects a single commodity as money. A single money-commodity has more utility, if acceptable to everyone else, then several such commodities. Similarly, a single Federation of agencies, each with clients, has more utility to any particular consumer than numerous disconnected agencies that have no choice but to wage war on behalf of their clients.

Perhaps you disagree with my brief idea here. But am I an ideologue? Or is it simply the case that my ideas make you angry?

Post 69

Thursday, June 25, 2009 - 4:04pm

Mark:

I don't care if some politician announces that taxation is theft, or that taxation is the necessary price of civilization. But it ought to be understood that he is speaking as a private citizen, not issuing ethical proclamations on behalf of "the people".

I have the impression that those on this site who demand that the President speak out against Iranian atrocities, see him as National Moral Spokesman on their favorite issue.

So you would rather he just say "I'm appalled" rather than "the American people are appalled" at what murderers do? Who is not appalled for it be so presumptuous for him to make such a statement? Other dictators and murderers? What if we were speaking about 9/11, would it be so arrogant for the President to express the sentiment that the American people are appalled by such a thing? It's just stating the obvious. When Barack Obama says the American people are appalled by the treatment of the Iranian protesters, your offense to it is misdirected. If you valued human life, you would be equally appalled.

So let me just sum up the sentiment you're expressing here so that I can understand where you're coming from:

It's not right for the President to speak on behalf of the American people concerning how appalled they feel at innocent people being murdered because there might be some murderers in America who don't share that view, and thus it would be incorrect for him to express such a sentiment.

(Edited by John Armaos on 6/25, 4:35pm)

Post 70

Thursday, June 25, 2009 - 7:21pm

Sorry, John. I don't have any more time to spend on this.

Post 71

Thursday, June 25, 2009 - 10:16pm

Mark,

Your ideas don't make me angry. They are not original to you, I hardly know you and they are very familiar to me. Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" resides on my bookshelf, somehow qualifying to be there next to Mises and Hayek over the boxes and boxes of books in my attic. Your self-righteous statements of the obvious, your straw man mis-characterizations of other peoples thoughts, your simple minded, no, mindless repetition of "force has no place in the world of rational men", combined with your smugness, yeah, that annoys me sometimes. There is so much pretense in your words. You undoubtedly live a peaceful life, insulated from any violence, I'm sure you are very comfortable. You are living, personally experiencing, a life undreamed of by Kings in earlier ages. Yet you have nothing positive to say about the society and the country you live in. Nothing short of Utopia will do for Mark Humphrey. People in other countries can dream about the opportunity of coming here and getting a chance to live a life with some semblance of freedom, have some control over their own life. But you are unsympathetic to them, no words of encouragement, their problems are their problems. Their misfortunes are their misfortunes, none of your business, nothing you have to care about. But what they would risk their lives for, no, that's not good enough for you, Utopia or nothing Mark says. Let's find a book that contains a thought experiment about how to make Utopia's and rub everyone's face in it at every opportunity. Forget the real world, forget that a fraction of a percent of the population of even this country has read or even cares about it, let's pretend that it counts more than the real lives people live or the ideas that they have and also that fact that this world is made mostly of these people and whatever happens for the good or ill will happen because these people agree or disagree with the vision that they can personally understand and relate to. Let's just call these people stupid, and do nothing about anything because, hey, nobody can make me do anything if I don't want to. And inaction is the highest form of morality. You can't be initiating force if you do nothing and don't agree to anything.

Post 72

Friday, June 26, 2009 - 12:53pm

Mike, I won't bother to respond to most of what you wrote about me.

However, I am interested in your remarks that I am "Utopian", hiding out in my ivory tower while blood runs down the streets. "Nothing short of Utopia will do for Mark Humphrey."

Now, of course, I don't know exactly what you think about all this, since your stream-of-consciousness commentary isn't all that clear.

Apparently, you think that it is hopelessly unrealistic to attempt to make clear sense of events by reference to ideas that most people don't know about or understand. "Forget the real world, forget that a fraction of a percent of the population of even this country has read or even cares about it (the idea that government can arise naturally, without violating individual rights), let's pretend that it in counts more than the real lives people live or the ideas that they have..."

Judging from your comment, you and I have radically different perspectives about the validity, relevance and power of ideas.

I get tired of the infatuation with military crusading so apparent among those who often post here. World War II is the Model War, used to justify all subsequent interventions. However, if free enterprise war hawks were willing to look at certain facts about the events leading up to American involvement, it would inevitably challenge their beliefs about the necessity and virtue of American foreign military crusades.

Probably my thinking does seem Utopian to you. If you believed in the false history of capitalism written by those who hate it, of the alleged evils of sweatshops and monopolies, those who advocated free markets would appear Utopian. Similarly, if it happens to be true that you are ignorant about certain facts concerning US war history, then my opposition to war adventuring would seem unrealistic--detached from the facts of life.

Concerning my alleged heartlessness, I can't resist pointing out that I have written quite a few blog posts elsewhere arguing for freedom of emigration to the US from abroad. I am the one who has objected to the murder of large numbers of foreign people in US military adventures, "for their own good".

(I was somewhat unfair in characterizing Rothbard enthusiasts as "in important respects simple-minded ideologues". I don't like the religious outlook of the Rockwell crowd, which blinds them to all sorts of important insights. I resent their "simple-minded" devotion to anarchism as the alleged solution to all of mankind's problems.

However, everything I know about economics, I owe to the Austrian tradition, which is profoundly valuable. I owe a great debt of gratitude to Murray Rothbard, whose writing fortified my understanding at a time when such insight was almost extinct. I owe a lot to Ralph Raico, who first opened my eyes to facts about the Second World War that long ago disappeared down the collective memory hole. I appreciate Lew Rockwell, whose writing usually evokes my heartfelt sympathy, and who has performed a valuable service in promoting good Austrian ideas and war facts that would otherwise be suppressed.)

(Edited by Mark Humphrey on 6/26, 1:12pm)

Post 73

Friday, June 26, 2009 - 1:36pm

Ted,

Whether you mind me saying so or not, there's a subtle contradiction with how substantially heavy your focus is on foreign policy (during our country's time of debating immanent global warming and socialized healthcare legislation) -- and what you had appeared to be supporting with that quote from Brant Gaede (valuing -- most and first -- what affects you and your life).

Ed

Post 74

Friday, June 26, 2009 - 1:52pm

Are you saying, Ed, that I would be a happier person if only I posted more often about domestic rather than foreign threats to my welfare?

Post 75

Friday, June 26, 2009 - 3:43pm

I agree with Ed Thompson that we face far more immediate and profound attempts upon our liberty regarding domestic affairs. The U.S. House is voting on cap-and-trade today, which amounts to a huge power grab and a huge tax increase. Whether that goes through may hinge on a handful of votes.

And, I would add, we have far more control over what happens in Congress than we do in Iran.

That being said, it would be far more beneficial, if Iran has or acquires nukes, for them to be controlled by an elected secular democracy than the current theocracy. I just don't think our government is capable of overt action in this situation that won't make things worse for the Iranian dissidents.

Post 76

Friday, June 26, 2009 - 4:54pm

I have been trying to call the different phone numbers to register my opposition to the Cap-and-Trade which will be far worse than anything passed so far, and worse than anything that is planned. (Just think of Henry Waxman as the economic czar of America.)

But every line has been busy every hour I've tried for the last three days - I'll be real curious to see if this passes over what I imagine to be enormous opposition from the voters.

Post 77

Friday, June 26, 2009 - 9:08pm

Well, it has passed the House... will it do the same with the Senate is the big question...

Post 78

Friday, June 26, 2009 - 9:52pm

Robert,

If it does pass the senate, I think it will definitely be time for me to buy a boat and get ready to go sailing. It would be too heart-breaking to hang around and watch the end arrive.

Post 79

Friday, June 26, 2009 - 10:27pm