Terrorist Attack - World Trade Center & Pentagon

Training Bodybuilding
121

I’m posting this because I feel the need to clarify my position in a few areas regarding the events of the past few days. If you all recall, I was one of the first ones after the bombings urging us all to keep our heads and allow the investigation to progress. Well, I got flamed for it, mainly from those blinded by rage and the need for vengeance.
“Carpet bomb them NOW!” they said. “PC bleeding heart liberal bullshit,” they cried. Here’s a direct quote from Justin (not in
response to one of my postings, but important for my point): “carpet-bomb every arab nation in the middle east until somebody owns
up, then nuke the fuck out of the parties responsible.” THIS is the attitude that I was standing against. And I will continue to do so. We need all the help we can get in this fight. We also must remember WHO the enemy is, and WHERE they live. But that does not mean that I’m a “bleeding heart”. This message board is the FIRST place that that label has ever been applied to me (guess I better get rid of my gun collection and stop hunting). Nor do I care what is currently PC. Those who know me personally laugh at the mere suggestion.

Well, I urged us to wait, and we have. The investigation is far from over, but I believe we have the evidence we need. War is imminent, and based on the evidence I’ve seen, completely justified. To those who labeled me (and Michelle, among others) members of the PC corps: eat chain. I want vengeance as much as any of you. I just don’t want to target women and children. And I don’t want American Arabs and Muslims lynched and deported. I urge everyone to heed President Bush’s caution
that while this may have been perpetrated by Muslim extremists, not all Muslims are behind it. We will punish the guilty parties, and those who aid them. No “tactical strike” will be sufficient-this may take YEARS. I, for one, am ready to go if needed. Terrorists, their supporters, those harboring them (Hello Afghanistan, remember the weapons and
training we gave you a few years ago? Well, here’s the current version.) should be our targets. We MUST NOT kill indiscriminately.

Don’t get me wrong. If a woman or child picks up a weapon (as is apt to happen), they have just become a target, and should be destroyed. Until then, the Geneva convention, as well as basic human compassion applies.
Bill Roberts is absolutely correct. If we have to kill 10,000 terrorists, then so be it. Yes, innocents do die in war, but we must
NEVER kill them on purpose. If this happens, our war becomes American terrorism. And that is unacceptable. Unacceptable from a moral
standpoint, as well as a practical one; the terrorists will wipe us clean at their game. They have a thirty year head start, not to mention the fervor of religious fanatacism. We must (and WILL) find a new way to fight them.

In closing, on this day of mourning, please put those that America has lost in your hearts, minds, and prayers. Many more of our friends and family members will die in the coming times. Use this day to honor them as well. Tomorrow, we go to war.

122

Yup. 10000(Terrorists and those who harbour them etc.) or so should bite it. An eye for an eye. But innocent people shouldn’t suffer, or we are demons just like the terrorists.

On another line of thought, I think people on this board are getting absolutely nuts over different points of view. Personal attacks on people or saying they are as bad as the terrorists because they don’t believe in the bombing of them or whatever is childish. If you disagree then try and intelligently explain your side of the arguement. Save your anger for the terrorists not your fellow t-mag readers.

“Make Civil the Mind and Savage the Body!!!”

Keago

123

X-Man, the objections you raise to anarcho-capitalism are routine and dealt with extensively in the literature. You say there are two problems: 1), how would poor people afford security? This is a non-problem. First, the cost of minimal security would be quite small ($100 per person per year), so nearly everyone would be able to afford some form of protection. Second, for those who are extremely poor, you need to ask yourself, If they can’t afford even rudimentary protection, do they really have anything worth stealing? The answer is probably not. Third, even if the abject poor did require protection, there are a number of options available to them. They can defend themselves (as per ‘The Probability Broach’) or they can organize small groups of men from among themselves to act as a voluntary protection force, in much the same way that rural fire departments operate. Or perhaps some protection companies would offer free service to poor people, using that as an advertising gimick (‘We care about the poor and know you do, too. That’s why we offer free protection services to those less fortunate.’). Or perhaps people like you would donate money for protecting the poor. In any case, it is clear the ‘problem of the poor’ is not a problem at all under anarcho-capitalism.

The other problem you mention is the problem of transition. I know there are fiction books that describe a gradual transition from socialism to anarcho-capitalism – I just can’t recall the names. However, here is a scenario: due to expanding government programs, the tax burden increases to 70%. Unwilling to bear the government’s enormous financial burden, people begin to adopt alternative Internet currencies that permit easy tax evasion. Revenue begins to drop slowly but landslides when tax evasion becomes socially acceptable on a wide scale. The government finds itself unable to acquire loans sufficient to meet its financial needs, and unable to pay back interest on existing loans. This causes a collapse of the US dollar, which has widespread but modest effects on the free market (which has largely switched over to alternative currencies). The vast majority of government employees, who have not been paid in some time, quit their jobs and look for work in the private sector, which rebounds rapidly due to the net increase in real income. People find themselves needing services the government no longer provides, and so they look to the free market: instead of going to courts, which are few and far between due to a lack of income, they instead go to private arbitration firms. As they note the increase in violence (with fewer and fewer police working), they arm themselves and/or seek out the protection of private security companies, who rapidly evolve into protection agencies. Etc., etc…

It is conceivable that protection agencies would band together to fight off outside threats. But first you have to consider that such threats would be far less likely to occur, since there would exist no government to meddle in the affairs of others. In any case, banding together of protection agencies for a common purpose would NOT constitute the formation of a government, since you would not be obligated to pay them for their services. Consequently, they would be responsive to consumer needs (UNLIKE the government, which forces you to buy their services no matter how high the price and how low the quality).

Why do you object to leaving outsiders alone as long as they don’t attack the US? You must realize that any other stance will lead to terrorism.

The problem of negative externalities has been well addressed in the literature. The essense of the solution is this: ignoring transaction costs, any assignment of property rights leads to an efficient outcome (surprising, but true). Of course, in real life, there are transaction costs, and so the idea is to choose the assignment such that the the expected transaction costs will be minimized, and hence, the outcomes will be close to efficient. You can read a good article on this very subject at www.daviddfriedman.com.

124

dman, if the security firm starts becoming corrupt, then you won’t pay them, and they’ll starve to death. It’s as simple as that. You’ll only pay for services that you want; consequently, in the long run and on average, the services will tend toward your ideals.

As for Somalia, there are regions in Somalia where business is thriving, despite the fees charged by the rival clans. And the businesses there are working on financing their own protection service. Hopefully it will stay free and not devolve into a government.

125

nkeago, could you define for me “innocent people”? Were the Germans who worked in the ball bearing factories that the Allies bombed “innocent people”? If the citizens of the nations harboring the terrorists are truly “innocent” then they should be out rounding them up and doing something to prevent future attacks. Nothing less is just lip service to avoid an ass kicking. If these citizens are so “innocent” then why have they provided quarter to the terrorists for decades?

Think for a second - if someone here in the US knowingly hid and supported a known serial killer, wouldn’t that person be just as responsible for future killings? You don’t have to be the person pulling the trigger to be a killer.

126

mike, unfortunately you do make a somewhat decent case for anarchism. But the ever so neglected principle that you forget is of power. Whoever has the power makes the rules. In anarchism no one should have the power, or is supposed to anyway. The problem is “if the security firm starts becoming corrupt, then you won’t pay them, and they’ll starve to death. It’s as simple as that.” Wrong. If there is a security firm, especially with a monopoly on an area, over time it may become unsatisfactory. But if this firm has paramilitary units, tanks and the likes, can you really stop paying them and they die? No, the primary instinct of every organism and organization is of self preservation and since this organization has so much power, they more or less could quite easily instate themselves as a dictatorship or oligarchy over a given land and there goes all of your freedoms.

127

Thanos:

Thanks for a sane reply to my post. Define innocent people? Well in this situation that is something I’m having trouble with. So your question is a good one. Over the last couple of days I have been wrestling with the issue of the children and how they are brought up. Most have been conditioned their whole lives to hate the states. How could you turn out to be anything else unless you you recieved “unfiltered” information. But on the other hand if their a threat regardless of how unfortunate their upbring was, then their still a threat and deal with them as such. Lets think of this another way. What if 500 two year old americans were captured and taken to Osam bin suck my ass and brainwashed their whole lives to hate the states. Now lets say they didn’t do any terrorist activity yet. Are they innocent?

Harbouring a serial killer what if it was the killers mom?

I just try to look at things from every angle.

Now to answer your questions.

I don’t think the Germans who worked in those factories had much choice. They were probably forced to work there. I say they were innocent. Just like someone brainwashed their whole lives probably doesn’t have much of a choice but to believe bullshit. And people being people usually act in accordance with the popular opinion. So if all your friends hate the states…

As for the citizens protecting the terrorists. I think it’s more their government and would you route out terrorists if all you had was rocks? I think that would be a death sentence to the citzens.

The Taliban should be ripped to shreds along with any others who protect the terrorists.

Some may say I’m a “bleeding heart pc bastard”. However I just think in terms of serving justice properly. If you had 1000 men
10 of which are innocent and 990 which are ruthless killers but you didn’t know which are which. All are claiming innocence. Would you kill them all to get the killers? Or would you set them all free to make sure that you didn’t kill an innocent man?

I have tried to see everyones point of view on here. I don’t think anyone has been 100% right or 100% wrong. Well afew are 95% wrong. I don’t know what the answer is. The problem needs a Divine solution.

P.S.: Darkseid would kick thanos’ ass. :slight_smile:

Keago

128

I would have to say “kill the 10 innocents to get the 990 guilty”. It took 19 of them to kill approx. 5000 innocents, how much damage would be done by letting 990 go free? The math is pretty simple and the 10 would not be hard to live with. Allowing the 990 to go reek more havoc would be impossible to live with. IMO

129

You have a valid point. I didn’t say there was a right answer. :slight_smile: