Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Ron Paul's Delaware Surge
Sitting in a Brew Ha Ha in north Wilmington, DE, trying to finish* David Halberstam's Playing for Keeps, I overheard a girl who'd just come back from New Hampshire talking to her dad and one of his friends. She was talking about her work in a physical rehabilitation center but the friend wanted to know if she'd seen any candidates.
"Out on this main street there were dozens and dozens of people waving signs for Obama," she said. "I'm starting to look at Obama. Actually, I think I might vote for Ron Paul. You heard of Ron Paul?"
The two men thought, then nodded.
"He wants to end the war," she said. "And he's for alternative medicine. The FDA keeps holding back on approving natural medicines, you know, and he wants to get them off the case, you know, deregulate things."
Her dad's friend "hmmed." "Well, I like that 'end the war.' I guess everyone wants to end the war now."
"Not Bush!" A tracksuited lady at the cream-and-sugar stand had overheard this and butted in. "He's not gonna end it. Thank God he can't run again."
If we apply Tom Friedman rules and extrapolate this conversation wildly, we learn:
1) People in the primary states are actually hearing the more outre parts of Paul's agenda and liking it. The first TV ad was right!
2) People want the hell out of Iraq. (Not the biggest breaking news.)
*Not actually a difficult task. It's a great book.
Bingo|12.24.07 @ 4:37PM|#
I've always considered pub conversations to be a better indicator of popular opinion than most scientific polls.
Thalidomide|12.24.07 @ 4:57PM|#
Boooooooooo!!!!! HaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Without the FDA..... Nothing can stop my
return!
Edward|12.24.07 @ 5:01PM|#
I've heard that the number of new baby boys being named either Ron or Paul is up by 7%, which is about where Ron Paul is in some polls (okay, maybe one), and if this isn't an indication of a Ron Paul surge, I don't know what is. Also more people with very low IQs are voting than ever before, and low-IQ folks go for the candidate with the shortest name, another big advantage for Ron Paul. Oh, it isn't over yet.
|12.24.07 @ 5:11PM|#
Without the FDA..... Nothing can stop my return!
1. The FDA approved Thalidomide the first time.
2. The FDA has reapproved Thalidomide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
|12.24.07 @ 5:15PM|#
People want the hell out of Iraq.
And folks think the masses are dumb. They haven't even been here
and they want out already! The masses are prescient, sez I.
Edweird says:
I've heard that the number of new baby boys
being named either Ron or Paul is up by 7%, which is about where
Ron Paul is in some polls (okay, maybe one), and if this isn't an
indication of a Ron Paul surge, I don't know what is.
A lso more people with very
low IQ s are voting than ever before, and low-IQ
folks go for the candidate with the shortest name, another big
advantage for Ron Paul. Oh, it isn't over yet.
I knew there was truth in there somewhere; don't make me have to
dig like that again for it, though. *Whew* Truth is exhausting;
time for a smoke.
Fluffy|12.24.07 @ 5:16PM|#
I don't think that Edward got the joke here.
This is a Tom Friedman joke thread, Ed. And maybe also a David
Broder joke thread. You mistook it for a Ron Paul thread, but the
Ron Paul content is incidental.
|12.24.07 @ 5:18PM|#
Joe S. stole my thunder.
What's that novel where the government creates problems just so it
can solve them and be a hero?
Although I don't believe it was intentional, just the nature of the
State.
Mad Max|12.24.07 @ 5:18PM|#
Joe S.,
1) They rejected it the first time (1960-1962), and the drug
inspired Congress to strengthen the FDA's powers in 1962.
2) In 1998, the FDA approved it for the first time - although, even
before then, it had been available on a restricted basis for
certain patients. Since 1998, doctors can prescribe it, subject to
severe restrictions aimed at avoiding more "Thalidomide babies."
The manufacturer can promote it for two uses: Dealing with a
particular complication of leprosy, and (with limitations) treating
multiple myeloma. Doctors aren't limited to those uses when they
prescribe.
Edward|12.24.07 @ 5:19PM|#
Fluffy, you airhead bag of shit, Ron Paul is ALWAYS the joke. That's the whole basis of his candidacy. You didn't send him money, did you? It's all just a joke.
|12.24.07 @ 5:25PM|#
Another just-so story: A friend of mine bought an independent
coffee shop two weekends ago. I went in last Monday to see how
things were going. Pretty well, actually, but she did express some
frustration about the absurd number of city and county permits she
needed in order to legally serve coffee. I told her she ought to
think about voting for Ron Paul (never mind that he couldn't, and
wouldn't, do anything about state/county/city health codes). She
said she'd already been thinking about it because the guy in the
real estate office across the street, who comes in for a coffee
every morning, had a big Ron Paul banner in his front window and he
told her the same thing. At this point some guy sitting nearby
reading the paper piped up, "You wanna mess with their heads?
Definitely vote for Ron Paul."
Selection bias or not, something is happening...
Mad Max|12.24.07 @ 5:30PM|#
C'mon ed, who ya trin' to fool?
If it's a joke, then the jokes on you.
Don't call people names - that's hard to rebut
How'd you like it if we called you an ignorant slut?
You think you're hip, but you're out to lunch
If Dr. Paul is such a joke, why are your panties in a bunch?
[oh - that visual image stopped me cold - I have to recover]
CPSC|12.24.07 @ 5:36PM|#
But....But.. with No FDA or other Federal regulatory agencies keeping us safe who knows what our children are consuming? There could be lead or asbestos, or date-rape drugs!
Edward|12.24.07 @ 5:39PM|#
Mad Max
Your poetry's bad
but better
than your political sense
Like Ron Paul the libertarian
building his fence
along the border
or seeing God
and order
in the Constitution
and the universe
Makes you want to curse,
doesn't it?
|12.24.07 @ 5:40PM|#
Considering how the FDA kept us safe from Vioxx and Fen-Phen, I can't see any reason to get rid of it.
|12.24.07 @ 5:42PM|#
This is a Tom Friedman joke thread, Ed.
Woo-hoo! Open Season:
Q: How long does it take Tom Friedman to screw in a
lightbulb?
A: "The next six months."
Q: What does Tom Friedman say to Ann every night
A: "Well, Suck. On. This."
Q: What do Friedman and Popeye have in common?
A: They both talk about being "Addicted to Oil"
*groan groan groan*
If Dr. Paul is such a joke, why are your panties in a
bunch?
Well, more like diapers, but yeah, the question stands: I've never
seen someone obsess about what a non-entity Ron Paul is. He's like
some sort of reverse deluded lover:
"RON'S NOT REALLY IMPORTANT!! HE REALLY ISN'T! I KNOW NO ONE CARES
ABOUT HIM! LISTEN TO ME TALK ABOUT HIM...SEE! HEH, NO ONE CARES,
RIGHT?"
Sort of reminds me of the teensy little thread where a bunch of us
were heckled about how unimportant we were for 2000+ posts.
Christ.
Edward:
A thought on your poetry
Edward|12.24.07 @ 5:43PM|#
Truth is, I got bored beating my kids and thought I'd show every
how pathetic I really am by coming over here and acting like a
douche on Christmas Eve. I so totally get off on this, because I am
the biggest douche in the universe. If you have a moment to feed
me, please do; your tears are my fuel.
I blow goats, too.
Edward|12.24.07 @ 5:45PM|#
Hey, I comment on Ron Paul only on threads where he's being treated as the fucking messiah. When it comes to obsession, you guys are projecting. Just don't like outsiders at your cult worship services. Genuflect, genuflect.
|12.24.07 @ 5:47PM|#
Considering how the FDA kept us safe from Vioxx and
Fen-Phen, I can't see any reason to get rid of it.
Its larger crimes are all the AIDS, cancer and other sufferers who
are/were at the end of their lives and still aren't/weren't allowed
to try anything to save their own lives.
The FDA kills. When it's all about image, no wonder it takes north
of 1/5 a billion dollars to convince Big Nanny to take a risk.
Edward|12.24.07 @ 5:48PM|#
That fist up my ass sure feels great. I might get bored beating my kids and ramming cucumbers up my ass, but right now I'm fapping to how incredibly awesome I am by being a troll on H&R. I am the best person alive. Look at how I fail, repeatedly, to dash anyone's hopes!
Edward|12.24.07 @ 5:49PM|#
For colon cancer, I suggest wiping your ass with Ron Paul's picture. Really, the FDA won't care.
|12.24.07 @ 5:50PM|#
I comment on Ron Paul only on threads where he's being
treated as the fucking messiah.
Loathe though I am to take you seriously, how is that the case in
this thread at all.
I swear it's like you see Ron Paul in your fucking Frosted Flakes
or something.
|12.24.07 @ 5:55PM|#
Uh, the thread's called "Ron Paul's Delaware
surge"
Did you actually read the post, or did you see "Ron Paul" and start
acting like Pavlov's dog, only dumber and more tiny-minded?
Edward|12.24.07 @ 5:58PM|#
No, I don't bother to read the post. Why? Isn't it about Ron Paul? If not, I spologize. What is it about?
|12.24.07 @ 6:09PM|#
Ayn_Randian:
Actually, the estimate to bring a new drug successfully through the
FDA approval process is $800M+, and 15 years from first testing it
in rats, to getting a decision from the FDA.
Upon approval, costs of getting FDA approval for the factory to
make it, and other marketing costs, must also be added in.
Doesn't leave much time on patent to recoup; no wonder they have to
charge a lot.
(A friend of mine is a professional regulatory consultant to pharma
companies.)
|12.24.07 @ 6:12PM|#
No, I don't bother to read the post. Why? Isn't it about Ron
Paul? If not, I spologize. What is it about?
*mutterstoselfdeargodicantbelieveimdoingthis*
Ed-ward,
You said he was being treated like the "fucking messiah"; if you
didn't read the post, what on this holy Earth would compel you to
say it?
Ali|12.24.07 @ 6:27PM|#
Ayn_Randian,
I recently received a booklet from the Ayn Rand Institute with the
books they publish. I have to say, the list of authors does not
come across as very libertarian and very very hard line right wing
war mongering bunch (Pipes et al.).
What's your take on the ARI?
|12.24.07 @ 6:38PM|#
What's your take on the ARI?
Peikoff sucks my ass. He really understands very little about the
philosophy he so readily expounds...Ayn Rand herself was pretty
much an "America First-er": she opposed U.S. entry in WWI, WWII
(and yes we had decided which side we were going to support prior
to Pearl Harbor), Korea and Viet Nam.
For all these reasons, I can reasonably infer she would have been
opposed to Grenada, Somalia, Kosovo/Serbia and Iraq.
Can't speak to Afghanistan: I supported it.
Oh-kay, anyway, back to ARI: Peikoff sucks because Rand went a
little fruity towards the end and issued excommunications like a
crazy old pope, so Peikoff sticks around long enough to become her
heir. He doesn't understand benevolence, harmony of interests, why
it's dumb to get stuck on left-vs.-right just because Rand made
some offhand remark about libertarians.
Well, anyway, ARI needs to quit with the warmongering. Seriously,
their credo is like "War Before...War Now...War Forever".
bastards.
Ali|12.24.07 @ 6:46PM|#
Ayn_Randian:
'nough said. You get my vote. We're fiends! :-)
No seriously, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Here is a great Ayn
Rand video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTf6NK0wsiA
Enjoy!
Ali|12.24.07 @ 6:50PM|#
The (only?) other time that I was disturbed by something that she said was about "our oil being under their sand"... yada yada yada... but that is okay. We all have our bad moments and biases. I started reading her "On Selfishness" and I do not disagree with her. I think people act altruistically, ultimately, out of selfishness.
|12.24.07 @ 7:00PM|#
Careful, Ali. Some folks 'round these parts don't take kindly to anyone who reacts to Ayn Rand with anything other than sputtering dismissive contempt.
Ali|12.24.07 @ 7:05PM|#
Graphite:
I say it as I see it. I may change my mind. Her Atlas Shrugged is a
drag to read, though.
|12.24.07 @ 7:08PM|#
Careful, Ali. Some folks 'round these parts don't take
kindly to anyone who reacts to Ayn Rand with anything other than
sputtering dismissive contempt.
Word.
The (only?) other time that I was disturbed by something that
she said was about "our oil being under their sand
Well, if that was it for you, you're better than I am. I think Rand
knew more than she even thought she knew, sometimes.
Her point, I think, was the whole "mixing land with labor" thing;
the argument being that the Middle Easterners had done nothing
significant with the oil.
|12.24.07 @ 7:09PM|#
Her Atlas Shrugged is a drag to read, though.
DOUBLE word. I know, I know, heresy! I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
Ali|12.24.07 @ 7:13PM|#
Her point, I think, was the whole "mixing land with labor" thing;
the argument being that the Middle Easterners had done nothing
significant with the oil.
Yeah, homesteading. Well, centuries and thousands of years roaming
the desert at least makes the sand and the land well homesteaded.
As far as the oil that is under their sand, well no one
has homestead that oil either! If the argument is that the
West made use of that oil first, then they certainly have
to get permissions to use the land (that was homesteaded by the
Arabs) and other resources before getting that oil.
Without such permissions, no one can possibly legitimately get to
that oil.
So yeah, that was very militant of her to say.
I think Ron Paul also called her to militant for him.
Do you like Paul, btw? At least on some of the issues?
|12.24.07 @ 7:35PM|#
Ali - in all fairness, I understand that a lot of the problems
that have come about in the Middle East was Britain basically
taking a crayon to a big vast area and forcing opposing nomadic
tribes to live based on arbitrary lines. Isn't that why there were
"Neutral Zones" with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq, because of the
nomadic tribes refusing to be herded in to one spot or the
other?
Also, you have to ask yourself if a government that doesn't
recognize property rights has any right to, um, property. And, to
me, roaming implies not homesteading. It implies nomad;
without a home.
A lot of Objectivists don't like Paul; I'm not sure why...in the
current political context, he believes in law and institutions that
do more to foster individual rights than anybody else. Just because
he's a Christian, or a Rothbardian, or has messed-up metaphysics
doesn't mean I shouldn't support him.
Objectivists who don't like Paul would be like atheists who won't
go to a Christian doctor: why should we care what he believes
metaphysically if he's going to fix us?
Ali|12.24.07 @ 7:52PM|#
Ay_randian,
Agreed on the first paragraph.
Regarding the second, my claim that the nomads homesteaded the
lands refers to a practice that far predates any modern government.
Nomads do have a home. It is the entire land. They know it by
heart. They dig wells when they find the water, and would often
form communities around it. Plus, if it is not their land, can we
kick them all out and claim that this is no man's land?
regardless, KSA is a kingdom. I.e., the land is owned by the King.
Whether you like kings or not (I do not, especially the KSA one ;-)
), they still technically own the land. Before the Saud family rose
to power there was the Ottomans, before them God knows who, but
there was one all the way back to Muhammed's time. Before that
there were communities and nomads, granted.
Plus, if the KSA government does not respect property rights, so
shouldn't we (i.e., the West, Americans, or whoever respects
property rights)?
I like your reasoning a lot. You are a fair person, e.g. your views
on ARI and on Objectivists vis a vis Paul
|12.24.07 @ 7:52PM|#
Also, you have to ask yourself if a government
that people who don't recognize property rights have any
right to, um, property. And, to me, roaming implies not
homesteading. It implies nomad; without a home.
This is what I as going for, not government.
Ali|12.24.07 @ 7:57PM|#
Ayn_Randian...
Then I take some of what I said back regarding governments.
Note: The nomads are Muslims. And property rights in Islam are
super-fundamental. I can try to dig something for you online if you
wish to have a reference.
Tess|12.24.07 @ 8:01PM|#
I see Ron Paul signs everywhere and I do a lot of traveling. He has been ignored by the mainstream media for so long, if a person only watches TV or reads the paper and stays home all the time, of course they would not know who Ron Paul is, but once they get on line or go driving around they will know and they will be smacked with the truth, Ron Paul would have every American's vote, unless they are for social programs and believe in warmongering. That is every American that believes and agrees with our Constitution would be voting for Ron Paul. He has my vote and support here in Southern California. http://RonPaul2008.com
Ali|12.24.07 @ 8:02PM|#
Tess I just drove through New Hampshire's North Country. I was disappointed to see, from afar, a huge Mitt sign. As I got closer I got pleased, very pleased. The single Mitt sign was sprinkled all around with Ron Paul signs :-)
|12.24.07 @ 8:04PM|#
the land is owned by the King. Whether you like kings or not
(I do not, especially the KSA one ;-) ), they still technically own
the land
Well, now we're getting down to it, no? Given that Saud family used
guns and clubs to gain the land, any particular reason they
shouldn't lose it that way?
More abstractly: the notion of what is and is not a "legitimate
government" is a very messy subject. The United States wouldn't
want to declare that "anybody who doesn't live up to our exact
standards of freedom isn't legitimate", because that leaves us open
to hypocrisy calls and illegitimate call-outs on the U.S. from
other nations.
However, we're pretty uncomfortable simply looking at the guy who
happened to bargain, kill, intimidate to gain power, else we
sanction that path and set a bad example for other nations.
I think, when it comes to judging nations, we kind of pull a Potter
Stewart and go "I'll know it when I see it."
Alright, shorter version: When you said "The land is owned by the
King", Rand would say "By what right does he own it?"
Ali|12.24.07 @ 8:14PM|#
Sure, mostly agreed...
"By what right does he own it?"
But by what right does the West own it? guns and clubs, errr, F-16s
and F-117s? But seriously, if the illegitimately "own" it, how
would the West lay any legitimate claims? They have been there
first, no?
I am not sure if you are hinting at it in your argument, but
wouldn't the implications be embarrassing also vis-a-vis the
Europeans colonizing North America?
|12.24.07 @ 8:35PM|#
OK, Ali, I have to confess that a lot of what I learn comes from
arguing with others. If crimethink hadn't stolen avocado diaboli,
I'd have taken it myself!
Although I do have beliefs, lots of 'em.
Rand's argument would have been that the illegitimacy of the
ownership entitled the West to take ownership of it, by virtue of
the United States written Constitution that is dedicated to the
notion of individual rights.
Erm, short answer is that Western culture and beliefs in freedom
were more advanced and better; can't say I argue with that,
anyway.
Of course, that's convenient in that we determined what is and is
not legitimate, and we looked at ourselves and said "Yep, we're
good...but how did we get here?"
I don't have a lot of answers for this right now.
The only thing I can say is that I always found it strange that
Rand talked about the individual so much but then talked about
America in the terms of "we". Hrm. Of course, once you dig around
in Rand's stuff a little, you'll wish to god you could have just
boggled your eyes at her and been like "wtf did you mean by
THAT?"
|12.24.07 @ 8:40PM|#
well, here's a quote so you know where I was going with
this:
Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right
to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet
Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses
to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of
respect for the non-existent "rights" of gang rulers. It is not a
free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of
self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and
if it so chooses. - VoS
I always wondered, if government has only the privilege of
retaliatory force (as opposed to initiation), how does a nation
choose to project itself elsewhere?
Shorter me: Rand talked about a nation having a right to invade an
illegitimate one...but nations don't have rights. They have
obligations we grant it.
|12.24.07 @ 8:43PM|#
oh, I don't know if you're religious, but happy Eid ul-Adha. The Iraqis have been peaceful lately...
Ali|12.24.07 @ 8:48PM|#
Ayn_Randian-- Sure. But which part of the West is actually
"free"? The West is freer, true, but to what extent do we mean by
"free"?
Regardless of religiosity (see my blog to get a snippet of my
religious views), thank you very much for the Eid wishes. If
you are religiousChristian, Merry Christmas to you!
|12.24.07 @ 9:07PM|#
If you are religiousChristian, Merry Christmas to
you!
Oh, you've got jokes. :-)
I'm all in on Saturnalia, though.
Ayn_Randian-- Sure. But which part of the West is actually
"free"? The West is freer, true, but to what extent do we mean by
"free"?
you see that I anticipated this? Certainly, though, we can do our
best to judge what is free and what is not free (hint to the
anarchotards: it isn't black and white, there are varying levels of
freedom); maybe assign a freedom # and go from there?
Regardless, though, I think that trade is more effective at getting
individuals the goods they want without having to run over the
tribes with the Big Mighty Boot of the West...you should see the
way the nomads snatch up the spent shell casings from
weapons...these people are not that expensive anyway! :-D
Dennis Steele|12.24.07 @ 9:48PM|#
Ron Paul's policy of non-intervention is genius!
Don't be fooled by those who call it isolationism... like the
neocon Bill Kristol does.
The US Empire is occupying 130 countries. This is absurd! We can't
afford this anymore. It takes 1 trillion dollars a year to support
this. Paul wants to bring all of our troops home. This is the most
sensible idea I have ever heard from any candidate.
He is the only candidate making any sense on either side of the two
neoconservative parties.
Go Ron Paul!
Dennis Steele
US Army Veteran
Play some free online
chess and read the article...Paul plays chess with the
neocons.
Ali|12.24.07 @ 9:53PM|#
Dennis Steele-
Greetings to you sir! Most of these bases around the word are
remnants of WWII and the Cold War. As far as I can tell they both
over. The Wall was torn down, but the US forgot to tear down its
own symbols of the war. Why in the world is there still a base in
Japan? Makes no sense to me!
|12.25.07 @ 12:29AM|#
Ok, now I have a question about this quote:
"Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its
own self-interest, not of respect for the non-existent "rights" of
gang rulers."
What differentiates a small gang of dictators from the large gang
of a democracy? Seriously, a 200 year old document is all we really
have and it's taking hits from all sides.
|12.25.07 @ 7:01AM|#
Eddy - that's a valid question. Of course, we have to recognize
that freedom is relative; it exists within a spectrum.
Shorter point: Don' throw out the baby with the bathwater. America
is still one of the freest countries on earth.
|12.25.07 @ 8:45AM|#
ali, by what right do arabs claim lands outside of ksa? those
were also gained by conquest and genocide.
lebanon for the phoenicians!
the reality is that the vast majority of the world is occupied by
people who are not autochthonous. since neither you nor i are
christian, i'll send you sowell's "conquests and culture" as a
christmas present if you'll email me you address.
|12.25.07 @ 9:24AM|#
edna
We've had this discussion before. Perhaps no peoples are
autochthonous. This is not so much the argument that I think is
made against, say, Israel (ironically Israel's claim is that THEY
are autochthonous to the "holy lands" as mentioned in the Big Book
of Fairy Tales).
What claim is made against the actions of nations like Israel (and
many others, China for example) is that 1. at some point it has to
stop (the conquest of other people), and Israel 1947-8 and Six Days
War (and now, with settlements still being built) certainly knows
and knew better and 2. it's wrong to conquer lands that have been
possessed by generations of folks.
It was wrong for the Romans to forcefully disperse the Jews from
their lands twenty centuries ago. But it was wrong for the Jews to
dispossess and disperse the Palestinians and Arabs who had lived
there for centuries in 1948 and after the following wars. In fact,
Zionism has always struck me as one of the most truly insane ideas
of the last century. A bunch of Europeans, whose ancestors had
lived in Europe for centuries, decided to "go home" to the Middle
East, a place vastly different in geography, culture and history,
and just "re-establish" a nation that had not existed in centuries
on land lived on by others for centuries. Most of the world sees
this as nuts, and most Americans who actually read just a little of
what occurred tend to agree (which is why various pro-Israel
organizations work their tails off to keep any discussion of this
out of the media). That they, and we, have had endless trouble as a
result is actually not surprising.
The Geneva Conventions expressly forbid the occupation of lands via
war. The world knew better when Israel did what it did (and is
doing).
|12.25.07 @ 9:42AM|#
As to the oil and Ayn Rand
Again, while any given people may not be autochthonous, the folks
who had lived for many years on top of the land certainly had the
better argument for ownership. Curiously the argument that he who
can really use the land better should have it would support
something like eminent domain.
My take on Rand is that she should be seen as a polemical writer
much like Harriet Beecher Stowe or Upton Sinclair. Her work We the
Living was very, very good I thought. Works like Atlas Shrugged or
Anthem are unintentionally hilarious in their terrible, artificial
and polemical dialogue and simplistic black and white thinking and
ideas that border on unintentional parody. Her philosophy is a
dishonest joke (in For the New Intellectual she basically argues
that EVERY philosopher besides Aristotle is horribly ignorant, had
no interesting insights or ideas, and is a source of great evil to
boot).
|12.25.07 @ 9:45AM|#
Notice though that Upton Sinclair and Stowe get favorable
treatment in academe and from the literati but Rand usually does
not. This, in my opinion, is flat out bias and is stupid.
I did have one lit professor tell me that she wanted to use more
Rand in a class but that whoever owns the rights to Rands works are
true d*cks and wanted an obscene amount of money for its use. IF
this is true then there may be a non-bias reason why her stuff is
under-referenced.
|12.25.07 @ 10:06AM|#
mng, how many years is 'many'? is there a particular number or cutoff, or is it 'whatever mng feels is right and proper'?
Ali|12.25.07 @ 10:09AM|#
ali, by what right do arabs claim lands outside of ksa?
those were also gained by conquest and genocide.
edna- Which lands? Be specific. For example, while Arabs "opened"
Egypt, they left its administration to the Egyptians, save for the
Amir and army roles. So the Arabs did not go and replace Egyptians.
(Technically Egyptians are certainly not Arab --neither back then,
nor today. There, however, Arab speaking.)
|12.25.07 @ 10:19AM|#
There is probably no set cutoff, but "centuries" will do it
pretty much every time.
I can of course turn this around much better on you: how little
time does someone (or "some people") need to be on land before it
becomes theirs? If I spend the night on your lawn is it now mine?
If Canadians squat on Maine for two weeks is it theirs? Two years?
Twenty? What is your cutoff? Is every conquest fair game?
Ali|12.25.07 @ 10:24AM|#
ali, by what right do arabs claim lands outside of ksa?
those were also gained by conquest and genocide.
Genocide? What are you talking about exactly? Which genocide did
Arabs commit exactly?
More to my previous point. Conquest took place by Arabs of the
Arabian peninsula for about 40 years, when power was transfered to
Damascus, then within 100 years or so to Baghdad. While these two
capitals are perceived today as "Arab", bck then certainly not
"Arab" as in "Arab of the Arabian peninsula". Once power transfered
to the Saracens and the Ottomans, we are from that point onward
certainly not "Arab".
robc|12.25.07 @ 10:43AM|#
Very, very loosely paraphrasing Mises on property rights:
All property was originally taken by force, but at some point, rule
of law is established and from that point on taking by force is no
longer legitimate. You have to just draw the line and some point
and say, "we ignore anything before this line". It sucks to be the
last to lose the land this way, but tough.
Like I said, a VERY loose paraphrase. And Im sure some of that,
like the last sentence, is me and not Mises.
M. Simon|12.25.07 @ 10:45AM|#
Ron is not the Messiah. He is God.
If you guys don't stop dissin' him I'm going to call the Stormfront
Troopers on you.
robc|12.25.07 @ 10:52AM|#
After quickly skimming thru Chap I, section 2 of Socialism by von Mises, I think my paraphrase above was pretty dead on. And much shorter than Mises' version.
Ovid and/or A. Pope|12.25.07 @ 10:54AM|#
Conquests stand until reversed.
Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
Ali|12.25.07 @ 10:55AM|#
robc:
After quickly skimming thru Chap I, section 2 of Socialism by
von Mises, I think my paraphrase above was pretty dead on. And much
shorter than Mises' version.
May you please re-write Human Action for me. You'd probably do it
in 50 pages or so ;-)
But seriously, how far back do we go to draw the line?
M. Simon|12.25.07 @ 10:57AM|#
Israel belongs to the Jews for as long as they can hold
it.
Just think of the deal the Arabs could have gotten in 1949, or '68,
or 2000.
Every time they refuse a deal the next one has less on offer. The
Israeli incentive plan.
My guess? The Palis are leaving their "homeland" just as fast as
they can get out. Self cleansing if you will. With a big push from
the Israelis.
It is too bad they didn't take Rundstedts
advice.
robc|12.25.07 @ 10:58AM|#
Ali,
But seriously, how far back do we go to draw the
line?
How about at the point when a reasonable rule of law government is
established over that piece of land?
Which means the KSA is still up for grabs. :)
Ali|12.25.07 @ 11:05AM|#
There was rule of law in Palestine as far back the Old Testament and even before that. We may not have proof of who owned what back then and how it got transfered from one hand to another, and what got "snatched".
robc|12.25.07 @ 11:07AM|#
Ali,
I think they "lost" rule of law for some periods between now and
then. If you cant hold it, it dont count.
In some senses, property rights discussions always end up back as
"might makes right".
Ali|12.25.07 @ 11:10AM|#
robc-
True. But that contradicts Mises' statement that you quote. Once we
have established ownership at some point no "might makes right" law
would be valid.
But if do assume the "might makes right" argument, if the
Palestinians hold an uprising and things get out of hand and
somehow seize all of the land (or most of at least) and retain it
(i.e., in the face of worldwide resistance, diplomatic and
otherwise), so then that is it? They get to keep it?
M. Simon|12.25.07 @ 11:15AM|#
Ali,
Of course they get to keep it. Unless some one decides that their
keeping it is a bad idea.
See Kuwait 1990/91.
Also see Iraq 2003.
robc|12.25.07 @ 11:32AM|#
Ali,
But that contradicts Mises' statement that you quote. Once we
have established ownership at some point no "might makes right" law
would be valid.
No it doesnt. Governments MUST have the might to enforce those
laws. If they cant enforce them, they arent valid.
if the Palestinians hold an uprising and things get out of hand
and somehow seize all of the land (or most of at least) and retain
it (i.e., in the face of worldwide resistance, diplomatic and
otherwise), so then that is it? They get to keep it?
Yep. And "eventually" its accepted as valid. They are the
legitimate holders of the land by establishing the law over it. See
the Normans and england.
Actually, the interesting test case is going to be Cuba. The longer
that Castro et al. last, the less legitimate the claims of the
pre-revolution land holders will be. If the Bay of Pigs had
succeeded, Im sure they would have got most of their land back. In
another 50 years, they wont get any. If Cuba fell today? It would
be very interesting chaos. A democratic Cuban government would have
to make some tough decisions about policy really, really quickly.
And, if they are a stable government, whatever decision they made
would be legitimate, although a lot of people are going to be
pissed either way they decide.
robc|12.25.07 @ 11:40AM|#
The part of Mises I failed to paraphrase is "natural law is bunk". The concept of some natural property right just doesnt make sense. Property is granted via "authority". Mises makes the distinction between legal property and economic property. Economic property is what you possess. If you have an apple, you can consume it, from an economic stand point, it is your property, whether you bought it legally or stole it. From a legal stand point, it isnt yours just because you possess it. But, there isnt some natural law that makes it belong to the person you stole it from, its government enforcement that makes it his. In anarchy, there is only economic property, it is yours as long as you can hold it. A deed is only as strong as the government issueing it.
|12.25.07 @ 11:43AM|#
unfortunately, the mises construction merely shifts the question
to, "at what point is the rule of law considered to be in
place?
and who gets to define "rule of law"? which law? an islamist (for
example) would argue that there is no rule of law absent a caliph,
so it would be perfectly ok to displace a popularly elected
government with a monarchical theocracy.
Ali|12.25.07 @ 11:53AM|#
edna makes a good point. Whose law? I think that this kind of
line of thought will ultimately lead to nothing but utter
destruction and endless warfare. So may be M. Simon is correct
after all.
I personally will take an anti-war position of nonintervention and
trade as the best tool to fight extremism, restore people's rights
around the world, and having peace. I may be naive, may be too
idealistic, but this is the only thing that makes sense to
me.
If M. Simon believes that fighting in Iraq is going to bring
liberty to the region, I think that that is the hight of folly.
There could be a lull in Iraq right now, but anyone he really does
know something about Iraq and the region would tell you that the
shiites and the sunnies, alike, are just waiting till the US is out
to rage a severe sectarian war on each other. This is something the
pro-war people would never admit or want to believe. Let them dream
on, let them dream on.
|12.25.07 @ 11:54AM|#
I personally will take an anti-war position of
nonintervention and trade as the best tool to fight extremism,
restore people's rights around the world, and having
peace.
couldn't agree more.
|12.25.07 @ 11:55AM|#
Guys, don't confuse two different kinds of claims:
A factual one like "Most occupations don't end until the occupier
is forced out."
A ethical or normative one: "An occupation is morally OK until the
occupier is forced off."
The first one is certainly true (though probably a tautology). The
second one is clearly insane (under the same principle if I can
rape your wife it's morally OK, if I can take your car, it's
morally ok, if my country can enslave yours, then it is morally ok,
etc).
Ali|12.25.07 @ 11:55AM|#
correction: "he really does"--> "who really does"
But let me add that if the US leaves Iraq, I think that there will
be a sharp rise in sectarian violence for a while. It will be
severe, but eventually something like the situation we have in
Lebanon will arise. And that is not necessarily good for liberty
after all. Oh well!
Ali|12.25.07 @ 11:57AM|#
couldn't agree more.
edna- I know you'd agree. But do you agree that the Israeli
government should also do the same internally? I.e., restore
Palestinians' rights and eliminate laws that are discriminatory
(e.g., land sales, settler expansions, etc.) and assume a hands off
policy?
Ali|12.25.07 @ 11:59AM|#
A ethical or normative one: "An occupation is morally OK
until the occupier is forced off."
It is morally ok as long as you are the occupier I guess ;-)
|12.25.07 @ 11:59AM|#
For something to be moral it does not need the "authority" of
government and its laws, no more than for 2+2=4 one needs the
"authority" of a teacher to tell you that...
Our government has the force to enforce its drug laws on you guys
and to take your property and use it to develop a strip mall. I
guess that makes it morally right, eh?
|12.25.07 @ 12:02PM|#
""If a rhinoceros were to enter this restaurant now, there is no denying he would have great power here. But I should be the first to rise and assure him that he had no authority whatever." G.K. Chesterton
robc|12.25.07 @ 12:04PM|#
Our government has the force to enforce its drug laws on you
guys and to take your property and use it to develop a strip mall.
I guess that makes it morally right, eh?
No. Its makes it legally right.
robc|12.25.07 @ 12:05PM|#
I only discussed economic and legal property above. Moral property might be completely different, although under a just government I think legal and moral property is the same.
|12.25.07 @ 12:06PM|#
People's thinking in the U.S. gets very muddled when it comes to Israel. This is understandable as Israel is populated by very Western people with a great internal democracy, a people much like us and a people with a special place in our major religion, a people the West unfairly and horribly persecuted for centuries. People WANT very badly to come up with a sensible argument as to why Israel deserves the position it holds in many Americans eyes. But the reason why their arguments and thinking get all muddled is that Israel asks for special treatment. They want to be exempt from general moral stances (its wrong to occupy anothers land, its wrong to keep war gains, its wrong to prevent people from governing themselves, etc). They want "special treatment."
|12.25.07 @ 12:09PM|#
"No. Its makes it legally right."
If nation x conquers nation y then whose laws will be used to
determine what is "legally right?" A person can rape a woman and be
in the legal wrong, though they had the force to make it happen.
Just because one party has the force to do x does not make it
right, morally or legally.
The closest thing we have to a law for all nations is things like
the UN and the Geneva Convention, which have called Israel's
actions illegal.
I'm not sure what gives one a moral right to property, but I think
living their for centuries will do the trick every time...
robc|12.25.07 @ 12:12PM|#
I'm not sure what gives one a moral right to property, but I
think living their for centuries will do the trick every
time...
As does being granted the land by a direct order of God.
When those are in conflict, which outweighs the other?
|12.25.07 @ 12:14PM|#
How many of you have heard of this very interesting case in
Colorado where this couple owned this vacant lot and this other
couple tended part of it and used it as a cut-through for decades
with no protest from the owners. The owners tried to do something
with the land and in a court the squatters were awarded adverse
possession to about a 1/3 of it. There is a big "property rights"
movement getting all wound up over it in CO.
How many of Israel's supporters think the squatters are right? If
not why not and how is their claim different?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-land3dec03,0,3770348.story?coll=la-home-center
|12.25.07 @ 12:17PM|#
"As does being granted the land by a direct order of God."
robc, I can never tell if someone is being serious when they say
such things. Are you saying that the Israelite citizens have a
moral right to the land because God gave it to them? If so it has
to be shown that
1. God did give the land to them (the evidence there comes from one
party's Holy Book, and many think that Book is a bit suspect as far
as being 100% accurate on its claims)
2. That what God decreed is morally right (is something moral
because God wills it, or is morality independent of God's
will?)
robc|12.25.07 @ 12:17PM|#
MNG,
adverse possession has a huge English common law tradition behind
it. Im not sure the middle east falls under any kind of English
common law (anymore). :)
Also, isnt property rights an individual right? If so, who has
managed to live on land for centuries?
Ali|12.25.07 @ 12:18PM|#
When those are in conflict, which outweighs the other?
Not God! But even if it were to be God, the Muslims were granted
"Jerusalem" in their holy book. So should we now discuss which book
is more legitimate than the other?
When I say "Not God!", it is not a statement of convenience for me
as a Muslim. For a Muslim, there is no right to acquire land
through conquest. Now you may say, but what about the wars,
especially in the first 40 years of Islam? I could answer that, but
I would really like to stay on the I/P and Iraq issue a little
more. FWIW, I believe that many of the conquests by the Muslims are
illegal and un-Islamic, though I would be in the minority among
many Muslims with that view.
robc|12.25.07 @ 12:22PM|#
MNG,
I was being semi-serious. As in my last post, I doubt any of the
current Israelis have been directly granted land by God, so the
same comment applies there.
On the serious side, #1 is of course the big question.
As far as #2, I would say that what is decreed by God is morally
right. Morality is a representation of God's will. I believe that.
I recognize that has led to lots of evil over the years, but I have
the easy out - they misinterpreted God's will.
|12.25.07 @ 12:23PM|#
"Also, isnt property rights an individual right? If so, who has
managed to live on land for centuries?"
I should think land could be passed down to one's descendants. The
group of individuals known as the Palestianians, who had lived on
the land for centuries passing it down to their ancestors, were
pushed off by a group of individuals known as Jews. It's much worse
than adverse possession of course, they just used guns and
such.
Ali|12.25.07 @ 12:26PM|#
robc-
You are digging your own hole my friend.
Which "God's will" are we talking about? The Palestinians' or the
Israelis'? I mean, the Palestinians have a version of "God's will"
too, no? Then you get into "interpretations of God's will". That
even gets murkier! Even within one religious tradition, there are
plenty of "interpretations"! That won't get us anywhere!
robc|12.25.07 @ 12:27PM|#
BTW, I find Cuba a much more interesting discussion than Israel.
Anyone got an answer to that property rights problem if communism
collapses anytime soon?
"Ive got a deed from 1950"
"Ive been working on this land for 40 years"
Its going to be "fun"
|12.25.07 @ 12:31PM|#
Ali|12.25.07 @ 12:31PM|#
Lets try this one more time.
No hole. Only the real one counts. :)
Haha!
Cuba is very murky too. A short-period version of the P/I issue,
but way simpler to resolve, but that does not make it easy to
resolve ;-)
|12.25.07 @ 12:34PM|#
Not speechless, just enjoying a very good and civil discourse on a huge subject. Thank you very much.
|12.25.07 @ 12:38PM|#
Cuba is a thorny one too. I think those who were forced off
their land by the Commies were wrongfully forced off (unless they
used force to have the land in the recent past). How long these
claims should be observed is difficult, but 40 years does not sound
like enough time to ignore them.
I think with the Cubans who got the lands, and the Israelis who are
own plainly Palestinian (or Syrian) lands, some system should be
worked out to compensate them so that they are not just thrown to
the wolves landless when the others rightful claims are exercised
(since most of them were not necessarily the original "forcer
outers").
|12.25.07 @ 12:41PM|#
By "plainly Palestinian...lands" I mean lands the UN has called
for them to give back as war gains from the 6 days war, etc.. The
1948 boundaries are much thornier, but there was here a UN mandate
that had some (not total mind you) legitimacy. There is also 20
years or more difference...
You steal my property. You give it to Ali. Now I sue for it back.
Does Ali get any kind of compensation?
|12.25.07 @ 12:45PM|#
As to whether something is good because it is God's will, Plato
dealt with that (I'm not saying he did so definitvely, mind
you)
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Euthyphro_dilemma
Ali|12.25.07 @ 12:51PM|#
You steal my property. You give it to Ali. Now I sue for it back.
Does Ali get any kind of compensation?
Hey! :-)
Oh, well, hell no. I'd fight for it endless! :-)
Just kidding. If I were an honest person, I'd give it back. If I
were a realistic person, I'd fight for it somewhat (though I would
not fight for it very well because I did not work hard for it in
the first place --easy come, easy go). If I were a mean person, I'd
fight for it to death (and I'd probably die in the cause because
the other side would fight better --easy come, easy go).
robc|12.25.07 @ 1:03PM|#
MNG,
Euthyphro_dilemma
I would debate that but I dont debate religious issues with people
who dont accept one of my premises (and so far Ive never met anyone
else who accepted it):
I believe in both predestination and free will. They are not
incompatible.
Ali|12.25.07 @ 1:04PM|#
I believe in both predestination and free will. They are not
incompatible.
Are you Muslim? Though Muslims, I believe, tend more pro-free will
than "predestinationist".
Guy Montag|12.25.07 @ 1:14PM|#
2) People want the hell out of Iraq. (Not the biggest
breaking news.)
Yea Dave, a huge majority do want us out of Iraq, but we would
prefer leaving it after it has stabilized, not the wholesale
retreat and surrebder that Dr. Paul and Reason advocate.
Not sure if you got the news, that bunch of people who became a
majority in both houses and were going to end the Global War on
Terror only managed to change the name of said war in a few
committees. It is still funded.
All they had to do is stop funding it and everybody would be coming
home, Dave. Ever wonder why they are still funding the war Dave?
Ever think that it could be a majority of their voters are telling
the Congresscritters that they better not abandon the troops this
time?
No, I am not talking about the constituents that most off the
commenters here are familiar with, i.e., the
beltway/manhattan/L.A./S.F./chicago crowd.
If the polls that will be quoted by others in response to this post
are anything like accurate, the Defense Supplimental Bill would
have gone through twice, the second time overriding the president's
veto, with no GWAT money at all.
Guy Montag|12.25.07 @ 1:20PM|#
Something that must be some sort of misstatement by Dr. Paul is
this notion that any presence of USAian troops in another country
is an "occupation".
Is that his true position or is he being misquoted?
Ali|12.25.07 @ 1:21PM|#
Guy Montag-
Yea Dave, a huge majority do want us out of Iraq, but we would
prefer leaving it after it has stabilized, not the wholesale
retreat and surrebder that Dr. Paul and Reason advocate.
Keep dreaming my friend keep dreaming!
Take this from a person who knows more about the region by virtue
of actually living there for 22 years of his life (from an earlier
post above):
If M. Simon believes that fighting in Iraq is going to bring
liberty to the region, I think that that is the hight of folly.
There could be a lull in Iraq right now, but anyone he really does
know something about Iraq and the region would tell you that the
shiites and the sunnies, alike, are just waiting till the US is out
to rage a severe sectarian war on each other. This is something the
pro-war people would never admit or want to believe. Let them dream
on, let them dream on.
Don;t bother to respond Guy, because, firstly you won't (this
"Ay-rab" never seemed worth responding to by Guy, though you seem
to be for helping the "Ay-rabs" in the middle east), and secondly
because I am signing off too! See ya later! Oh, and keep the good
dreams.
|12.25.07 @ 1:32PM|#
But do you agree that the Israeli government should also do
the same internally?
i'm not an israeli, i'm not being bombed and shelled. i'm not being
told by my neighbors that they want me dead. my neighbors' children
are not being taught that killing me is the highest form of
religious ecstasy. on the contrary, i'm sitting in a comfortable
house in california. who am i to tell the israeli government how to
conduct its internal policies to maximize the safety of its
citizens?
a side question- is it true that any palestinian arab who would
like citizenship in the other 80% of the former british palestine
(the relatively peaceful and prosperous arabic hashemite kingdom)
may get it by renouncing his/her citizenship in the as-yet
non-existent country of arab palestine?
Ali|12.25.07 @ 1:41PM|#
i'm not an israeli, i'm not being bombed and shelled. i'm
not being told by my neighbors that they want me dead. my
neighbors' children are not being taught that killing me is the
highest form of religious ecstasy. on the contrary, i'm sitting in
a comfortable house in california. who am i to tell the israeli
government how to conduct its internal policies to maximize the
safety of its citizens?
I'm not Palestinian ;-) , but funny because your reasoning is
exactly the same that the Palestinian militants use to
fire up their brethren to rise up and use violence against Israel
(after all, Palestinians too are being shelled by the IDF). It is a
two way street that will get us to nowhere, you know.
That kind of mentality will get us absolutely nowhere.
I am off! See ya'll later.
|12.25.07 @ 1:53PM|#
edna
Are you talking Jordan? I dunno, but one reason they may not want
that deal is that the Jordanians killed thousands of Palestinians
and vice versa...
Perhaps it is true and many Palestinians want their own land back
and a state of their own rather than becoming Jordanians. People
are like that about their land and governance though...
|12.25.07 @ 1:55PM|#
"who am i to tell the israeli government how to conduct its
internal policies to maximize the safety of its citizens? "
You're a citizen of a nation that props Israel up economically,
militarily and diplomatically, that's who. If you pay your sons
rent you can tell him to not be so mean to his neighbors.
You're also a human being with normal moral senses that is appaled
when millions are pushed off their land and deprived of a voice in
their own governance, arent' you?
Guy Montag|12.25.07 @ 2:26PM|#
MNG,
Edna does not sound like a Mexican name, but there are always
exceptions.
Those so-called 'palestinians' need to be talking to Lebanon about
that 'getting their land back' nonsense. BTW, non-Jews do get to
vote in Israel, 'case 'ya didn't know.
|12.25.07 @ 2:33PM|#
mng: i think that's not historically accurate.
it was british land before 1947, turkish land before 1918. afaik,
it has never been arab land. the brits gave 80% of palestine to the
arabs; "jordan" is a modern construction, but it was indeed
palestine. that was apparently not enough- it is necessary for the
middle east to be judenrein. the 0.5% of the m.e. that is not
arab-islamic is clearly the reason that most other arab countries
are dictatorial shitholes; of course the arabs are indignant! it's
the jews' fault!
i don't follow your analogy- israel is in no way our child.
as for our foreign aid... all i can say is, i'm a libertarian. cut
it all off, including egypt.
|12.25.07 @ 2:35PM|#
gm, no, i'm not mexican. i am mizrahi (i.e., descended from middle eastern jews). when my family was (like millions of others) expelled from their homes in muslim countries, we found our way to the u.s.
Guy Montag|12.25.07 @ 2:41PM|#
edna,
I was making a crack at MNG's comment about land being taken and
not getting to vote.
You know, that whole business that you really live in northern
Mexico bur the mean old USAians won't give it back. Probably an
inappropriate analogy.
|12.25.07 @ 2:48PM|#
Do the American indians have a argument that can be made here concerning millenia of occupation as compared to the europeans 4 or 5 hundred years?
|12.25.07 @ 6:51PM|#
I wouldn't say the Europeans that settled in the Middle East
caused all of the problems in various Arab nations. I would say
they caused problems for the people whom they pushed off of the
land they had been living on for centuries or whose land they have
military occupied locking them up in camps with no say in governing
themselves.
You dispute that we prop up Israel through gobs of economic,
military and diplomatic aid? 3 billion a year little to ya? Sharing
intelligence and weaponry? Being the only numbskull nation to veto
and vote against numerous UN resolutions condemning the Israeli
occupation? I'm glad if you think it is inconsequential, because I
think we should cut it off, and then give the Palestinians some
support to make up for our lopsided support for their enemies for
so long, and then cut it all off and let these nations fend for
themselves.
|12.25.07 @ 6:55PM|#
After WWII people realized that self-determination and
self-government was other people's basic rights. So decent nations
freed as many nations as they could (though they did it sloppily).
Of course living in cities walled off by Israeli army walls and
checkpoints with regular incursions by armed patrols and cutting
off trade was not the kind of "self-determination" or
"self-governance" that was being talked about...
I repeat: people who lived in Europe and whose ancestors did not
live on the land for close to 20 centuries have very little claim
on such land. The Turks wrongs in not giving the ruled populations
self-governance does not make the Europeans who squatted there and
then pushed folks off their land right. It makes for two
wrongs.
|12.25.07 @ 7:36PM|#
mng, you're not particularly clear on israeli demographics,
despite me having patiently explained it to you. sigh. one more
time: the majority of jewish israelis are (like me) mizrahi or
sephardic, not european.
and trust me, they're not anxious to go back to the countries (like
iraq, yemen, turkey...) from which they were expelled or fled.
|12.25.07 @ 9:19PM|#
edna
As we have discussed before, the relevant date is 1948. Do you deny
that at the time of the announcement of the State of Israel that
the majority of jews in the State/region were European born? I
didn't think so. Hence my statement of the insanity of a bunch of
Europeans plopping down in the middle of the Middle East where
their ancestors had not tread for 20 centuries and claiming it as
"their land."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions#Israel.3B_The_Exiles_Ingathered
|12.25.07 @ 10:41PM|#
ok, now we're getting somewhere. you assert that 1948 is a
particularly privileged date. please justify. what is special about
it?
i don't know offhand the exact ethnic breakdown of british mandate
palestine (which was partitioned into an arab and a jewish state in
an 80:20 ratio) but if it was majority european, i'll push a peanut
from berkeley to boston using my hooked semitic nose.
Guy Montag|12.25.07 @ 10:54PM|#
edna,
He is talking about the date that the states surrounding Israel
urged the Arabs in Israel to flee while they shoved the Jews into
the sea, with assistance from the french and British.
Unfortunatly, the plan did not work. So now Israel needs to give up
Israel because the neighbors did not destroy her.
Same with any land captured by Israel in any war. Israel needs to
give it back because the agressors failed to shove all the Jews
into the sea and burn the ones who refuse to be shoved.
When Egypt and others prepare to attack Israel, Israel is supposed
to wait for the attack, because if she doesn't then she is the
agressive whore-dog that must be shoved into the sea.
Weren't you familiar with this logic already?
Ebeneezer Scrooge|12.26.07 @ 2:16AM|#
Some interesting discussion here. Too bad I'm just tuning in,
but I'm a nocturnal creature. I usually get to comment on the tail
end of things.
The creation of Israel in 1948 was a really, really stupid thing to
do. Britain (where the idea was incubated if I recall right) had
finally gotten smart enough to abandon the project, so the US takes
over.
Really, really stupid.
That given, at this point I have a certain sympathy toward the
Israelis today. For the simple reason that they've created the only
reasonably civilized order that seems to exist in the ME today. At
least that's my sense from the media, which may be biased. Egypt
probably comes in second place.
OTOH, if the Europeans hadn't dicked around all through the 19th
century, the ME might not be the mess it is today. I recall there
being a ruler who arose in Egypt, somewhere around 1840-1850 time
frame. Seems that he'd gotten on the road toward building a
respectable nation for himself. Not to mention an army that was
kicking the snot out of the decrepit Ottomans.
The Europeans couldn't take it so they ganged up, smashed Egypt and
gave it back to the Ottomans.
That was really, really stupid too.
There isn't much of the third world that hasn't been fucked over by
the Europeans, the Americans, or both over the past few centuries.
A sad, sad truth.
By the time you're done looking at the whole mess, the question of
who rightfully owns what becomes a moot point.
Which is only one of my many bones of contention with the UN (a
European brain child).
But then, I have no particular love for European thinking on
international relations.
Ali|12.26.07 @ 2:34AM|#
Muhamed Ali is the "Egyptian" ruler you are referring to. He's actually Macedonian, but aconsidered an Egyptian by all Egyptians. Great liberal-minded, progressive man.
Ali|12.26.07 @ 2:38AM|#
Since Napoleon in around 1800 Egypt ceased to be Ottoman. Never again was Egypt under Ottoman rule. Britain messing around Egypt in second half of 1800s is true though, partly due to the stupidity of one ruler --Khedevi Saed (or was it Ismael? --one of the two). At the time Egypt was NOT a third world. As early as the early 18th century, Cairo had a sewage system, where only Paris and a couple of other European cities had one. It was a cultural center where Opera houses emerged, and libraries flourished (all started by Ali).
Ebeneezer Scrooge|12.26.07 @ 2:39AM|#
On the one hand I'm sympathetic to people like Ali who say that
war ultimately solves nothing. The ME is the perfect case in
point.
OTOH, history says that great civilizations are always built on top
of a grave yard. Always has been, and I strongly suspect it always
will be. I do not believe human nature admits of any other
possibilities.
If the day ever comes that the news papers are telling us "The
Israelis feel bad for taking all that land back in 1948 and they
want to give it back, but the Palistinians and all the Arab world
are saying "no no, it's okay, let's not fight now, you just keep
it", so now the land is vacant and nobody is claiming it -- if that
day ever comes, then I will believe that great civilizations could
be built without great wars.
Until then, the UN is nothing more than a self-dillusional exercise
for European intellectuals.
The ME will never settle down until somebody gets big and strong
enough to knock everybody's heads together, and force them to toe
the line. Something like the Romans did, way back when.
But this cannot happen until the UN finally dissolves, because if
it starts happening they'll get all fucked up about it and send in
"peace keepers" (who would more rightfully be called "war
perpetuators"). And they will stop the whole process in its
tracks.
Which, in the long run, is a genuinely criminal act. It is rare
indeed that a leader arises, at the right time and in the right
place, to create a new order out of chaos. Egypt 19th century is an
example. Who knows what this man would actually have accomplished
in the long run? But if he had succeeded in creating a stable
order, think of all the fighting that would not have happened
later.....
Hence I contend that the UN is at least 50% criminal by nature at
its best, and much of the time its worse than that.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|12.26.07 @ 2:42AM|#
Ali, just saw your posts. I'd forgotten about Egypt breaking
free of the Ottomans. I knew they'd become respectably well
developed for a time, but didn't realize it was as you say.
All the more reason to despise what the British did. But it seems
like they had French help on and off, except when the French were
running one of their regular cross-currents.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|12.26.07 @ 2:53AM|#
btw, somewhat on thread, I hope RP wins. But I'm afraid the
American system is too corrupted for that to happen.
Yet I hope to be proven wrong.....
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 5:55AM|#
edna,
Forgot about another 1948 thing: right of return. Of course, the
current "right of return" is for anybody who the New York Times
classifies as a 'palestinian'. For example, Sirhan Sirhan, former
Syrian, became a 'palestinian' in the pages of the NYT a couple of
years ago. So did everybody in Gaza, no matter where their origin,
etc.
|12.26.07 @ 7:43AM|#
Guy-you still believe such fairy tales (that all the displaced
palestinians fled at the urging of Arab states and not due to
Israeli terrorism)? How quaint. I guess if one sticks one's head in
the sand long enough one can believe anything...
Another fashionable thing among the right concerning Israel is
endless assertion that there is indeed no such thing as the
"Palestinian" people. You see, there are only Syrians, Jordanians
and Egyptians who should just shut up and join their respective
nations allowing Israel to have their own (this is how the goofy
narrative goes). But Guy, let's move beyond the fact of there
being, according to linguists, anthropologists and historians from
across th globe many facts establishing the people who lived in
Palestine as a distinct ethnic group (after all, they are all just
part of some massive UNESCO conspiracy, right?). There were
certainly people, whatever you may want to call them, living in the
80:20 partition plan that edna mentions that lost their lands in
the conflict of 1948, 1967, et al. These people had been living on
said lands for many years. As the world recognizes in various
Geneva Convention articles and UN resolutions it is morally wrong
to occupy and settle lands gained through war. The reason should be
quite plain, even to an authoritarian such as yourself: everyone
has a right to self-governance. Even among aggressor nations there
are numerous old men, women, children, et al, who had NO PART in
the aggression and who deserve to live their life free, self
governing and unmolested despite what their young men did. In
addition there are the new generations. Locke, that dead old white
Christian guy upon whom our nation is based wrote about this in his
Second Treatiste.
edna: you are free to offer up any proof you find that the 20 part
of the 80:20 British Palestine mandate that was declared the State
of Israel in 1948 (ur, that is what "priviliges" this date, it was
this nutty bunch of Europeans who declared a state in the middle of
other people's lands) was not majority-European Jews. I just don't
think you'll find one as this is, or should be, commonly accepted
by most istorians. I understand your difficulty in accepting it
though: it does make it really hard to argue your point as it makes
the creation of the State of Israel look like one of hte nuttiest
ideas of the 20th Century. It looks that way because it was...
|12.26.07 @ 7:52AM|#
One nice indicator that historians have pretty much put the myth
of the Palestinains fleeing as a result of Arab orders to rest is
that on Wikipedia's entry on the Israeli-Arab conflict this myth is
not even mentioned (everything on this topic on wiki is hotly
contested, but eventually even most Likudian stalwarts must have
found this assertion hard to offer with a straight face):
"Some claim that the Palestinian villagers were forcibly expelled
and others, that the villagers fled in fear before Israeli forces
arrived."
Notice that there is not even a "others claim they fled due to Arab
orders."
Of course wikipedia is not the last word on anything. Read anything
by the New Historians, Israeli historians who demolished such myths
long ago (except in the minds of those who get their
Israeli-Palestinain history from Bill Kristol, National Review and
Michelle Malkin).
|12.26.07 @ 8:36AM|#
...while they shoved the Jews into the sea, with assistance from the french and British.
Ummm...hold it! Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, but are
you saying that the french and British took the side of the
Arabs in the 1948 conflict?
|12.26.07 @ 8:53AM|#
mng, you pull an interesting demographic trick by only taking a
tiny slice of palestine to play the demographics game. we're
talking about 20% of palestine (the palestinian arabs got the other
80%, including areas where non-arabs lived) and 0.5% of the
m.e.
what do you do about the mizrahim who lost "their" lands and can't
return?
|12.26.07 @ 9:23AM|#
At the risk of sounding anti-semitic, I really have to state
that I am sick and tired of MY country being involved in a
(conservatively) centuries-long dispute between Jews and those
A-rabs. I don't care about Israel and I don't care about Palestine.
Let them fight it out and let THEIR God sort it out.
Uncle Sam: quit stealing my hard earned money and sending it over
to that backwards, hate-obsessed region.
|12.26.07 @ 9:44AM|#
Well, it's hardly a representative sample, but most anti-semites
I know are pro Israel. They want a homeland for "those people"
(actually, they use some other words) so they won't come and live
in America.
On the other hand, most of the Jews I know personally are
anti-Zionists. But again that's a tiny sample and hardly
representative. They're also mostly whiny communists with a huge
sense of self-entitlement too, but that's another matter.
However two things stand out in my mind. One, western anti-semitism
provided a huge impetus for the establishment of Israel and two,
anti-Zionism is not the same thing as anti-semitism.
Fluffy|12.26.07 @ 9:51AM|#
The dispute over Palestine/Israel is too often treated as a
purely ethnic issue when in fact it is a goverance issue. It's kind
of funny to see this tendency so pronounced even on a libertarian
website.
The ethnic character of the state or states making up the land area
of Palestine would not matter if those states were properly
governed. There would be no problem with a single state
encompassing the entire area if that state recognized the absolute
individual rights of every inhabitant of that state regardless of
ethnicity.
Similarly, if you remove the obscuring veil of ethnicity the
problem with the governance of the West Bank becomes pretty
straightforward: some inhabitants there have full political and
economic rights in the state that governs them, and some
inhabitants have no political and economic rights in the state that
constitutes the ultimate authority, although they are allowed some
participation in a make-believe regional body whose authority is
ultimately circumscribed by military force.
I would say that the first governance problem above is largely the
fault of the Palestinians: the Jews believe, probably rightly, that
the majority Palestinian population cannot be trusted to respect
the rights of minority Jews over the whole of Palestine, if the
patchwork that has been put in place to insure a Jewish majority in
Israel were removed. I would say that the second governance problem
above is largely the fault of the Israelis, who insist that
"security" gives them the right to remain the ultimate government
of territory they have occupied but decline to assimilate.
If each party to the conflict could concede on these meta-issues,
the specific conflicts and sticking points in negotiations really
would not mean a hell of a lot.
|12.26.07 @ 10:11AM|#
Something I noticed about Ralph Nader fans eight years ago was
that they projected their own opinions onto him. Many, many Ralph
Nader voters just assumed he was a vegetarian or vegan, for
example.
I suspect Ron Paul fans are doing this same thing this year. Not
the hardcore political geeks.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 10:25AM|#
IB,
Ummm...hold it! Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, but
are you saying that the french and British took the side of the
Arabs in the 1948 conflict?
Yes, there were french and British officers both commanding and
assisting the armor (and other) units surrounding Israel. Guess
what? In the 1950s both of those nations egged on BOTH sides and
once the Suez was taken they came in and stopped the conflict and
wanted to take control of the canal. Ike had something to say about
that after he discovered the motovation behind it and tried to kick
the europeans out of the area.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 10:28AM|#
Scroll up for MNG rewording what I said into a bunch of cutsie
language that means the same thing I said: the idea (that I do not
subscribe to, but he and he and others do) is that the Jews must
leave no matter what, everything they did was wrong and they are
bad.
Plus he ads that the real terrorists are the Jews.
|12.26.07 @ 10:48AM|#
Guy, I'd really like to see some kind of citation to back up
your assertion that "there were french and British officers both
commanding and assisting the armor (and other) units surrounding
Israel."
As to Suez, the British and French attacked Egypt to take back the
Canal that Nasser had nationalized. Hey, it was their
canal, after all. The Israelis were mostly along for the ride on
that one.
Of course, the Suez Canal Co didn't actually belong to Britain and
France but to British and French investors. This, naturally, is
rather odd, since both countries were busy nationalizing businesses
at home, but got upset when foreign governments did it. See also
Iran and what the socialist (real genuine state ownership of the
means of production socialists) government of Clement Atlee did
there. Or rather got the US governement to do for him since the UK
govt didn't have the means. And this was right after Labour had
finished nationalizing the Steel, Coal and Road Transport
industries as well as the Railways.
I sometimes wonder if Ike didn't stand up to the Limeys and Frogs
oveSuez because he realized what a bad mistake installing the Shah
had been. Pure speculation, of course.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 11:35AM|#
IB,
I bet you have no knowledge of the Israelis purchasing a German
bomber in East Germany, purchasing bombs for it in Poland and
flying it non-stop to it's bombing run in Egypt in 1948 either.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 11:43AM|#
Isaac,
might want to refresh your memory on the Transjordan Arab Legion
Army Commander from 1939 - 1956, Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot
Glubb.
|12.26.07 @ 11:44AM|#
"the idea (that I do not subscribe to, but he and he and others
do) is that the Jews must leave no matter what, everything they did
was wrong and they are bad.
Plus he ads that the real terrorists are the Jews."
Guy, you are in an even bigger fantasy land than usual. I said, and
stand by, the idea that the Zionist movement was nearly insanely
nutty: these Europeans just squatted on a piece of land their
ancestors had not tread for centuries and which was lived on by
others and claimed it as "their nation."(btw edna what difference
does it make that the piece of land was small? My point is that it
had folks ALREADY LIVING ON IT whom were pushed off, and then there
are other lands which were later occupied and then settled and
claimed by Israel. They have no rights to such land, I'd love to
see you articulate a general principle that defends that. I also
await your proof refuting the fact that the 20% UN partition that
was declared the state of Israel was NOT majority European Jews.
Better get some kneepads for that peanutroll...).
That said, I acknowledged above that the original UN partition has
some legitimacy, and the fact that we are now 70 years and two
generations down the road may justify keeping that 20%
partition.
As for "everything they did was wrong and they are bad" you'll have
to show me where I said that. I realize you are one of these people
who, in the face of ANY criticism of Israel think the criticizer
thinks that way, but let's see some proof, eh? What they did
specifically that "was bad" was the occupation of lands via war and
the denial of self-governance to the occupied. That's not such a
controversial premise, as I have said the entire world recognizes
that principle (as enshrined in the Geneva Conventions and various
UN Resolutions).
"Plus he ads that the real terrorists are the Jews." I guess you
are referring to my comment in which I made fun of your silly myth,
held by only the most stalwart Likudians these days, that the
Palestinians all fled their lands because of Arab orders only. I
mentioned that it has been conclusively demonstrated that Israeli
actions, and yes many were what we would call "terrorism" (the
targeting of civilians to achieve a military or political goal)
were often the cause of the fleeing. Do you deny that Israeli
forces committed such acts Guy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks_during_the_1930s
If you want to deny Israeli's, before they had military power (much
like the Palestinians today) resorted to terrorism, then I think
you need a five day stay in the King David Hotel my myopic
friend...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel#History
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 11:47AM|#
MNG,
So now is your position modified that they should willingly march
into the sea rather than being pushed there in front of tanks
commanced by the likes of Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot
Glubb?
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 11:49AM|#
Oh, missed the obligatory King David hotel story where the targets were British Military and the civilian deaths were accidental, vs. Hamas where the civilians are the only ones targeted.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 11:51AM|#
BTW, LTG Glubb is in your precious Wiki if you care to look him
up.
For others, hare are some
facts to counter the ANSWER crowd.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 12:29PM|#
Sunday reminder for some:
Don't forget to attend the Rachel Corrie pancake breakfast at your
local Denny's Restaurant. Puppet show to follow in the parking
lot.
|12.26.07 @ 12:57PM|#
Well, Guy, mentioning a case of aid to the Israelis and
the actions of a single old British Colonial relic does nothing to
prove your case that the Arabs tried to shove "...the Jews into the
sea, with assistance from the french and British." (my
emphasis).
The "shoving into the sea" part I got, but the only European help
they got was from a few Nazi deadenders who trained their armies
and who most certainly would have been arrested if they had tried
to set foot back in Europe.
Still don't see any Frenchies yet. I'm sure they must have been
involved in some way in Syria, mind you, but you really have
stretched this much too far (as you all to frequently do, by the
way).
So where is all this official support for the Arab cause from the
Limeys and Frogs?
|12.26.07 @ 12:59PM|#
By the way, I had heard of Glubb Pasha, but I had never heard the story of the German bomber. But I'm sure there are many such stories that neither of us have heard.
|12.26.07 @ 1:11PM|#
"So now is your position modified that they should willingly
march into the sea rather than being pushed there in front of tanks
commanced by the likes of Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot
Glubb?"
Guy, are you in fact insane or just retarded? My position is
clearly stated (one would think a person with the handle "Guy
Montag" would be able to read):
1. Zionism was a mistake, European Jews were crazy and wrong to
create a homeland in land that their ancestors had not tread upon
for twenty centuries and that was already occupied.
2. However, they did petition (and terrorized) the English and the
UN, who had the recognized "deed" on the area and got the UN
Partition.
3. They then expanded much beyond the partition as a result of
conquest (1948, 1967, etc). That was wrong and they should
withdraw.
Sorry, nobody wants them pushed into the sea.
"Oh, missed the obligatory King David hotel story where the targets
were British Military and the civilian deaths were accidental, vs.
Hamas where the civilians are the only ones targeted."
Did you even look at the list I posted? Many are clearly targeting
civilian targets. Of course not, you already know the answers don't
you, like the ones you find in your link, a "project of the
American-Israeli Cooperative" and therefore a great source for an
objective view of such things, eh?
So why don't you put up or (or rather and) shut up? Got any answers
to:
1. Is it morally permissible to settle lands gained from war? On
what principle?
2. By what right did the European Jews who made up the majority of
the original state of Israel occupy lands that others were living
on?
3. Did Jewish groups agitating for the state of Israel commit any
attacks on civilian targets?
4. Is it morally correct to deny millions of people self-governance
via force?
Someone like Guy would shit a brick of rage at the mention of
eminent domain, but he's OK with thugs like Irgun forcing people to
leave the land they possessed for centuries at gunpoint.
"LTG Glubb is in your precious Wiki if you care to look him up."
You seem to have read a bizarre, irrelevant fact somewhere and now
cling to it with a presumed hard on as if it means
something...Exactly what are you arguing by referencing this
guy?
|12.26.07 @ 1:13PM|#
"Sorry, nobody wants them pushed into the sea." Well, nobody here. I'm sure some of their enemies wanted and want that, just as I'm sure many Zionists want a "Greater Israel" that pushes Arabs pretty far, if not in a sea in particular.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 1:20PM|#
IB,
Might want to check out the British fighter planes, flown by the
British, flying for Egypt and shot down by Israel.
The British and french Officers in Transjordan were not working
without authority of their home countries, they were overtly
working for their home countries.
The Israelis did get arms from france, through the black market
with some official "looking the other way" by french officials.
Might have had something to do with the common Socialist leanings
of both governments. Heard that motovation from an retired Israeli
Intelligence official on C-SPAN (official source) and others
(unofficial sources), but not sure if it was just an excuse to sell
weapons.
The bomber information came from a historian at the US Army
Aviation Center during my advanced course. A couple of the others
in my class had studied that too, during their undergraduate work,
but I have not found an online source for it. Need to check some
libraries, maybe that big one on Capitol Hill.
Not seeing why you find any of this "stretching", unless you are
just unfamiliar with it due to its wholsale absance from history
101 and PBS. My first prompt to look into the British and french a
bit more was a mention of them on an ABC News "network history"
show back in the last century.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 1:27PM|#
MNG,
Such long winded cuteness and stop telling me to shut up or you may
scare me and force me to change my trousers.
No, you don't want the Jews in the sea, you just want to flood
their country with people who will do it for you and have
demonstrated that time and time again.
Yes, it is perfectly fine to occupy land won in war, especially
when it is the land of the people who attacked you, UN be
damned.
And stop spreading the demographic fiction that edna has already
refuted.
Yes, dismiss every fact that does not support your fiction, really
does not make a bit of difference to me. I am done with reading
your revisionism.
|12.26.07 @ 1:34PM|#
A small portion of the list of Irgun's (Israeli terrorist group)
bloody deeds since Guy is too obtuse to read it:April 20, 1936 - 2
Arab workers in a banana plantation killed
March, 1937 - 2 Arabs killed on Bat-Yam beach
November 14, 1937 - 6 Arabs were killed in several shooting attacks
in Jerusalem.
April 12, 1938 - 2 Arabs and 2 British policemen were killed by a
bomb in a train in Haifa.
April 17, 1938 - An Arab was killed by a bomb detonated in a cafe
in Haifa
May 17, 1938 - An Arab policeman was killed in an attack on a bus
in the Jerusalem-Hebron road.
May 24, 1938 - 3 Arabs were shot and killed in Haifa.
June 23, 1938 - 2 Arabs were killed near Tel-Aviv.
June 26, 1938 - 7 Arabs were killed by a bomb in Jaffa.
June 27, 1938 - An Arab was killed in the yard of a hospital in
Haifa.
July 5, 1938 - 7 Arabs were killed in several shooting attacks in
Tel-Aviv.
On the same day, 3 Arabs were killed by a bomb detonated in a bus
in Jerusalem.
The Lehi thugs were also a bunch of fun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_%28group%29#Assassination_of_Count_Folke_Bernadotte
Fluffy|12.26.07 @ 1:36PM|#
If it's perfectly OK to occupy land seized by war, wouldn't that mean that you'd have to be perfectly OK with it if the Arabs ever won and did, in fact, push the Israelis into the sea?
|12.26.07 @ 1:45PM|#
edna refuted my revisionism? Pray tell where and when? Offer up
some proof. I put forward (9:19pm post) the well known fact that at
the time of the declaration of the State of Israel the majority of
the Jews in the State were European born. He made no attempt to
refute it, he just declared he did not believe it (10:41 pm) and
then in a subsequent post (8:53 am)mentioned that the original
state covered a small amount of land. Indeed it did, and that small
amount was populated by a majority European born population. Please
refute it if you can.
It is perfectly fine to occupy and settle lands won by war? So the
women and children and old men who waged no war against you can be
occupied, pushed off their land? By what principle is that?
Here's what John Locke had to say about such a silly arugment (from
his Second Treatiste Ch.16, forgive the length of the excerpt but
you could use the schooling):
Sec. 178. But supposing, which seldom happens, that the conquerors
and conquered never incorporate into one people, under the same
laws and freedom; let us see next what power a lawful conqueror has
over the subdued: and that I say is purely despotical. He has an
absolute power over the lives of those who by an unjust war have
forfeited them; but not over the lives or fortunes of those who
engaged not in the war, nor over the possessions even of those who
were actually engaged in it.
Sec. 179. Secondly, I say then the conqueror gets no power but only
over those who have actually assisted, concurred, or consented to
that unjust force that is used against him: for the people having
given to their governors no power to do an unjust thing, such as is
to make an unjust war, (for they never had such a power in
themselves) they ought not to be charged as guilty of the violence
and unjustice that is committed in an unjust war, any farther than
they actually abet it; no more than they are to be thought guilty
of any violence or oppression their governors should use upon the
people themselves, or any part of their fellow subjects, they
having empowered them no more to the one than to the other.
Conquerors, it is true, seldom trouble themselves to make the
distinction, but they willingly permit the confusion of war to
sweep all together: but yet this alters not the right; for the
conquerors power over the lives of the conquered, being only
because they have used force to do, or maintain an injustice, he
can have that power only over those who have concurred in that
force; all the rest are innocent; and he has no more title over the
people of that country, who have done him no injury, and so have
made no forfeiture of their lives, than he has over any other, who,
without any injuries or provocations, have lived upon fair terms
with him.
Sec. 180. Thirdly, The power a conqueror gets over those he
overcomes in a just war, is perfectly despotical: he has an
absolute power over the lives of those, who, by putting themselves
in a state of war, have forfeited them; but he has not thereby a
right and title to their possessions. This I doubt not, but at
first sight will seem a strange doctrine, it being so quite
contrary to the practice of the world; there being nothing more
familiar in speaking of the dominion of countries, than to say such
an one conquered it; as if conquest, without any more ado, conveyed
a right of possession. But when we consider, that the practice of
the strong and powerful, how universal soever it may be, is seldom
the rule of right, however it be one part of the subjection of the
conquered, not to argue against the conditions cut out to them by
the conquering sword.
|12.26.07 @ 1:47PM|#
Might want to check out the British fighter planes, flown by the British, flying for Egypt and shot down by Israel.
The British and french Officers in Transjordan were not working without authority of their home countries, they were overtly working for their home countries.
Well, you might have saved me a lot of typing if you'd posted this
when I first asked the question.
Still don't see a linkee, but I'll have to concede you're right. I
am always willing to admit it if I'm wrong. But I'll be back if I
find out any of those claims are false too.
Strikes me as a matter of people following lawful orders (something
you never seem to have a problem with in other contexts) from
governments in pursuance of treaty obligations (which sometimes get
awfully messy).
By the way, I have no problem accusing the Limeys and Frogs of
nefarious actions I just don't like ubsubstantiated ones. I also
have no doubt that there may have been anti-semitic feeling among
the officer class of the two countries, especilly if the had "gone
native" among the Arab Nationalists and all.
It's also worth noting that Israel's action was widely regarded a
illegal at the time, even in the US government. God knows, if Harry
Truman hadn't wanted the Jewish vote so much he might have hung the
Israelis out to dry too. (There was a precedent for that too, in
the twenties HST resigned from the KKK so he could go after the
Catholic vote).
|12.26.07 @ 2:14PM|#
Guy-I'm not trying to make you shit your pants, I suspect a
retarded fellow like yourself has gotten quite used to that little
problem...
Locke's point is continued:
Sec. 182. But because the miscarriages of the father are no faults
of the children, and they may be rational and peaceable,
notwithstanding the brutishness and injustice of the father; the
father, by his miscarriages and violence, can forfeit but his own
life, but involves not his children in his guilt or destruction.
His goods, which nature, that willeth the preservation of all
mankind as much as is possible, hath made to belong to the children
to keep them from perishing, do still continue to belong to his
children: for supposing them not to have joined in the war, either
thro'infancy, absence, or choice, they have done nothing to forfeit
them: nor has the conqueror any right to take them away, by the
bare title of having subdued him that by force attempted his
destruction; though perhaps he may have some right to them, to
repair the damages he has sustained by the war, and the defence of
his own right; which how far it reaches to the possessions of the
conquered, we shall see by and by. So that he that by conquest has
a right over a man's person to destroy him if he pleases, has not
thereby a right over his estate to possess and enjoy it: for it is
the brutal force the aggressor has used, that gives his adversary a
right to take away his life, and destroy him if he pleases, as a
noxious creature; but it is damage sustained that alone gives him
title to another man's goods: for though I may kill a thief that
sets on me in the highway, yet I may not (which seems less) take
away his money, and let him go: this would be robbery on my side.
His force, and the state of war he put himself in, made him forfeit
his life, but gave me no title to his goods. The right then of
conquest extends only to the lives of those who joined in the war,
not to their estates, but only in order to make reparation for the
damages received, and the charges of the war, and that too with
reservation of the right of the innocent wife and children.
As to the majority of Jews in the newly christened State of Israel
being European born see the charts and text at this Library of
Congress Country Profile (edna, I suggest a walnut for the cross
country roll, they roll better):
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+il0047)
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 2:21PM|#
IB,
Just a hunch, but I suspect that the British *might* have been
leaning to the payback side for a few things that went on during
their presiding over the Palestinian Mandate. There is information
and links to the Egyptian/British thing in the one link I provided
a few posts ago. Had forgotten about that before that site
refreshed my memory.
Something that has not gone past my notice, when rogue Zionist
terrorists went after non-military targets they usually got rolled
up or, when the British were in charge, turned in by their freedom
seeking bretheren. Same now with radical Israeli groups trying to
do violence to the Arabs. Can't say the same thing for the
'palestinians' in the slightest. That is one of the reasons why you
only see home-made mortars and rockets firing in just one direction
across the borders.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 2:31PM|#
Isaac and edna,
BTW, some time ago I came up with a slogan for Israel that I tend
to live by: "Leave us alone and nobody gets hurt."
It would fit great in one or both of the blue stripes.
I did not go back and look who said it, but I saw some comment
(this or another thread) that Americans say they want Israel so the
Jews will move there instead of living here? Not sure if that is
right, but I think that was the message. Anyway, even the most
'fundie' leaning an Fundamentalist Christian peope I know (from
back home in East Tennessee) support Israel because, in their view,
the Jews are G_d's chosen people and are to be protected, even if
they do not believe in Jesus yet. My sample is limited, your
kosherness may vary.
|12.26.07 @ 2:46PM|#
"Yes, it is perfectly fine to occupy land won in war, especially
when it is the land of the people who attacked you, UN be
damned.'
But, did the UN have the right to take that land away from some to
give to others in the first place?
|12.26.07 @ 2:49PM|#
"BTW, some time ago I came up with a slogan for Israel that I
tend to live by: "Leave us alone and nobody gets hurt."
In other words, "Leave us alone to treat you as second class
citizens and then you won't get hurt."
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 3:05PM|#
RJ,
Every Israeli gets the same vote, no matter what their ethnicity.
You must be confusing them with almost every other stinking country
between the Med and Japan.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 3:07PM|#
RJ,
The UN was removing the rule of a foreign occupier, England, and
giving it to the people who lived there, the Jews and the Arabs.
The Jews agreed to a partitioned state and the Arabs attacked them
over and over again.
Seems you must be following along in some alternative thread or
something?
Big Nanny|12.26.07 @ 3:18PM|#
"The FDA kills. When it's all about image, no wonder it takes
north of 1/5 a billion dollars to convince Big Nanny to take a
risk."
NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! My brother and I are here for your own good!!!!
Don't you people understand that yet?!?!?!?!?
|12.26.07 @ 3:22PM|#
I did not go back and look who said it, but I saw some comment (this or another thread) that Americans say they want Israel so the Jews will move there instead of living here?
See my comment at December 26, 2007, 9:44am
Note that I say this represents my own limited sample. Just as I am
sure the limited sample of anti-Zionist Jews is not representative
either.
I would certainly not say it about Americans in general. In fact
the USA is probably the most hospitable country for Jews anywhere
in the world.
There is antisemitism to be sure. But it is largely of the "I don't
want them in my Country Club" variety.
Somehow I don't see that coming anywhere near "I want them all put
in gas chambers" for moral equivalence.
|12.26.07 @ 3:26PM|#
...the Jews are G_d's chosen people and are to be protected...
...
I'm not entirely sure exactly what plonking them down in the middle
of some of their most implacable enemies does to protect them, but
hey, whatever.
|12.26.07 @ 3:26PM|#
"Every Israeli gets the same vote, no matter what their
ethnicity. You must be confusing them with almost every other
stinking country between the Med and Japan."
All synthetic. Anytime that anybody is not allowed the right to
marry whomever they want, they're second class citizens as far as
I'm concerned. For instance, a ban on marriages between Israel's
Palestinian population and Palestinians living under occupation to
prevent a right of return "through the back door."
|12.26.07 @ 3:32PM|#
Also, re my 3:22 pm post.
Please note also that my statement is mostly snark.
I'm just getting really tired of hearing the old "anyone who
criticizes Israel is an ANTISEMITE".
One doesn't have to believe the Arabs are the good guys to
recognize the failings of the Israelis, especially the most extreme
Zionists, ie the "settlers".
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 3:37PM|#
RJ,
When are Israelis prevented by the Israeli government from marrying
whomever they like?
Are you yet again confusing other cultures that murder people, as a
regular course of events, when they marry the "wrong" people?
IB,
I certainly did not have you in the antisemite camp, but others on
this thread I am not so sure of their hearts.
Fluffy|12.26.07 @ 4:21PM|#
"Every Israeli gets the same vote" - Wrong.
This only occurs because the Israeli state declares a large number
of persons occupying land it has seized as non-citizens.
If the US simply declared all blacks not to be citizens, other than
a handful who live in Minnesota and Massachusetts, and then turned
around and said, "Every American gets a vote, regardless of color,"
we would rightly be laughed at.
Lately the Israelis have taken some steps back from this
decades-long policy of deliberately creating stateless persons and
then ruling over those persons - but those steps have not gone far
enough.
Fluffy|12.26.07 @ 4:24PM|#
When are Israelis prevented by the Israeli government from
marrying whomever they like?
The Israeli government only acknowledges rabbinical marriages.
Mixed-religion couples cannot legally marry in Israel.
|12.26.07 @ 4:37PM|#
"When are Israelis prevented by the Israeli government from
marrying whomever they like?"
Again "a ban on marriages between Israel's Palestinian population
and Palestinians living under occupation to prevent a right of
return "through the back door."
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 4:39PM|#
Fluffy,
Where are you getting that nonsense from? Islamic and Christian
Israelis do not have to go to a Rabbi for a marriage!
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 9:59PM|#
Yes, I find it bewildering that Israel has issue with 'palestinians' having ful rights when marrying Israelis and the 20 known and outed agresseors of 100,000 who have attacked Israel under the guise of being true Israelis seems harsh on the part of Israel.
|12.27.07 @ 2:12PM|#
Of course living in cities walled off by Israeli army walls
and checkpoints with regular incursions by armed patrols and
cutting off trade was not the kind of "self-determination" or
"self-governance" that was being talked about...
Probably not, but the loss of sovereignty is the traditional wages
of armed aggression.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245