It’s been quite an interesting week, what with arguing with Craig Moore about the Lancet study on Iraq deaths and all. Plus, as Steve points out below, Electric City Weblog has been great fun. A lot of it has to do with Budge being back on beam, but the subject matter and the wide range of personalities have a lot to do with it too.
That is what blogging is about, in my mind. We don’t inform, we are a small community, the world doesn’t care about us, but it is fun.
I did learn one thing, however, something as obvious as the nose on my face; something that, once I realized it, cleared a whole lot of smoke from the air around US foreign policy.
It is the definition of “terrorism”. Here’s what the Army Field Manual says:
the unlawful use–or threat–of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.”
Here is what it means in actual practice as the U.S. patrols the world:
Shooting back.
Piece of Mindful 
I think it’s the CIA definition stresses that terrorism can only be committed by “non-state actors.” Why on earth would they have such a caveat?
LikeLike
It’s like after World War II, at Nuremberg, they had to define what a war crime was. Bombing cities to kill and terrify civilian populations is an obvious war crime. The Germans did it to London. However, the Allies did it to German and Japanese cities alike.
Hence, it is not a crime and was not prosecuted.
LikeLike
Steve T.
That is a fallacy of definiton, Steve.
Create a definition that excludes yourself should you excerise the same action as someone else.
“It’s not murder if I do it, but it is if you do it”
It’s called “Polylogism”, a different set of logic tools for a different set of people.
LikeLike
OT. If you haven’t noticed there’s an argument between me and members of the anarchist wing of the libertarian sympathy in the “The Evils Of Government Part 10,985,632” thread over there.
You get to see that libertarians too eat their young. (And you guys thought I was an ideologue.)
LikeLike
No, Dave.
The heat of fire makes steel stronger by burning out impurities.
We are still working on you.
LikeLike
I’ve been reading, Dave – and it’s been fun. I guess I mistook BF for an anarchist. But if you say he’s a libertarian, I’ll take your word for it! From now on I’m using his words against you. 🙂
LikeLike
No, Steve, you didn’t mistake him for an anarchist. He is an anarchist. In libertarian speak he’s an econo-anarchist – a subset of the greater libertarian ideology.
Mark has several times said that I was a “moving target” because I had called myself a minarchist – thinking that I was disavowing my libertarian underpinnings I suppose. But for those of us that have been in the weeds traversing the ideological range from no-government (anarchy) to limited government(minarchy) understand the long term debate within our ilk. Kind of inside baseball for ideologues. But there’s been no change on my position for a very long time.
But be careful how you use BFs words against me insofar they are more easily used against you.
LikeLike
Dave,
Your warning to Steve is accurate. Hope he listens.
Further…
…Dave, I will challenge you to the point of exhaustion.
You hold a premise of ‘pragmatism’ – whatever it takes to win.
You, unlike your common foe, labeled incorrectly as the “left” – are saddled with a bizarre sense of morals – so unlike them, you are hesitant to slaughter millions innocent people to achieve your goal – but you are willing to slaughter a few more than a handful.
Where I see the mindless “left” as hopeless – they haven’t a reasoned argument in 150 years, it is you that is the most frustrating.
You have 90% of it right – and of that, nearly 100% reasoned.
But that last 10% – you just can’t let go. It scares you – free men being …well… really FREE!
You still have impurities in that steel of yours.
I’ll turn up the heat….
LikeLike
I think, since you’ve accused me of going ad hominem elsewhere, that you’ve far too much opinion of yourself. Ergo, I must refer to the simple thought of Socrates:
…that one who assumes that he is 100% right must be wrong by definition.
Whatever your assumptions about me let me remind you that man’s fatal flaw is assuming that what he knows to be correct is truth.
You won’t challenge me to the point of exhaustion. You’ll pop-off to the point of dismissal – most likely as you have done to so many others.
Your message is meaningless if no one listens.
LikeLike
Dave
How can some hold “too much” opinion of who they are?
That doesn’t even make sense, Dave.
I know what I know, and know I know nothing of a few other things, and know I don’t even know anything about things I don’t even know exist.
How’s that?
Indeed – but I don’t assume.
Start with a premise and using reason – the out come must be in agreement with the Universe – and the Universe is never wrong.
Man’s fatal flaw is imposing his assumptions on his fellow men.
I have no chains on your mind – you can come and go as you please, of course.
I’ve seen your type many times – hold core beliefs but act wholly in contradiction to them.
And then you will fight like hell – not to return to your core belief – but to hold onto the contradictions that have made you wealthy – and evil.
I do not own your ears.
LikeLike
Geez… no room for humor on the intertubes…
LikeLike
You’re not getting humor out of this exchange? It’s rife!
I am so glad not to be a part of this one.
LikeLike
Just keep that in mind next time you call me an extremest.
LikeLike
Dave, Dave, Dave
You have such a problem with labels, don’t you?
LikeLike
It’s an insiders comment. There you go making assumptions again.
LikeLike
I only see what I read, Dave. Sorry mind-reading not my skill.
Is it yours?
LikeLike
Both you and Dave are wrong.
The only reason you are wrong is because you both hold a incorrect definition of anarchist.
So, I am NOT what you think an anarchist is…
…I AM what an anarchist is.
LikeLike
I’m not wrong and I don’t use the term anarchist in the pejorative sense. You’d be well advised not to tell me what I don’t know on this subject.
As a matter of fact, I’ll bet you two Rothbards and one Nozick that I know what you are.
LikeLike
Hmm,
Well, a small inside to warn – and maybe to arm – you.
I play high stakes tournament poker.
I’ll raise you all in.
LikeLike
BF,
Now that I’ve realized what a self-aggrandizing sot you are let’s take a minute to test your consistency.
Do you always start conversations with people by first insulting them?
Dave, I’ve asked a few questions so to get to know you, but you ignored them – yet, you happily continue to repeat things that contradict the basis of freedoms.
After trying for a time to determine things, and failed – one has only one recourse – assumption, and see if that gets you off your butt.
Nope, and given your attitude – I doubt I will.
You confuse belief with tactics – typical.
You can too – we use words and words have definitions. You simply like to change those definitions to justify your actions – but the Universe is not fooled.
Kinda is what the Universe does, Dave – self-consistency. Your existence is predicated on it.
Absolutely – randomness does not defile consistency. Do you think a dice is consistent? Does it not provide an ‘answer’ with a range? Every time? Today as it did yesterday, and will tomorrow?
What is this love affair with Rand? I do not defend her – she has written enough for her to do that on her own.
So?
I do – by definition.
A contradiction cannot exist in the reality of the Universe. Man’s attempt to manifest a contradiction into reality is the root of all evil.
Whether I support an argument or dispute it, so be it.
You are the one with the label gun, not me.
Why does that bother you, Dave?
You have a low opinion of yourself and you’re jealous?
It might be simple – but it works.
You’ve got nothing, hence you’re jealous.
Since you can’t even answer the simplest of questions, the debate hasn’t even started and you’ve surrendered.
Interesting debate tactic, Dave.
One, I didn’t call you a liar – I said misrepresenting the message is lying.
I see that “pushing the margins” – where you continue to justify the use of violence on non-violent people, because you believe telling the people the whole truth (frontal assault) – that there is no justification for such a thing, even by an entity created by man – is a “all right” so that we are not labeled “crazy”.
I said I called that ‘lying’ – I apologize if you felt I was calling YOU a liar.
But, you and that label gun – it scares you, doesn’t it.
Pragmatism leads to evil – it is the setting aside of one’s principles so to achieve an aim – believing the end justifies the means.
If a man abandons his principles to achieve such aims, what else will he abandon them for? He loses his certainty and trust of his fellows – and in the end, may suffer far greater losses because of that then gain by mere pragmatism.
But you are willing to use, IMO, deceptive means to obtain them.
Like many, you believe freedom is a place – a noun – where once ‘its found’ its proven.
But freedom is a verb – an action – that you can seize today.
Because you are looking for the place called “Freedom” you miss it for yourself right now.
Hans Hoppe has made similar arguments too.
Slippery slope is not a fallacy unless the conclusion stated contradicts the premise or one of the statements in the argument.
“Logical conclusion” is not a fallacy, Dave.
I haven’t seen your argument with him, so I cannot comment on his statement.
However, as long as the rules placed upon government are enforced by government at the whim of government, tyranny will always be the eventual conclusion.
As long as the People believe that government retains the right to use violence on non-violent people to enforce its edicts, there is nothing to stop your miniarchy from turning wholly into a massive tyranny.
How can a man can say that destroying the freedom of the innocent pushes freedom forward?
Until you realize it is the tools you use that creates the chains, you will perpetually create them – no matter what your goal is.
You cannot achieve an end that is good by using the means that are evil.
You believe that changing the system – by using the tools that created the system – will negate the tools that created the system you do not like.
And you dared call me ‘naive’.
I am not talking FOR you, Dave – I am exposing you.
I am exposing those that believe in pragmatism over principles, politics over freedom, and exposing the roots of tyranny that has enslaved men for 10,000 years.
I do not own your time to waste.
LikeLike
No, I only insult those who insult me first.
You make a fatal assumption, that I would use violence against non-violent people. Unsubstantiated and made up out of your idea that for government to exist is “must” use violence. How about Nokick’s notion of government by consensus or unanimous consent?
But now, I know your opinion and conclude that you have noting new to tell me.
And, by the way, do you always ignore the predicate of a sentence when you argue against it? You obviously don’t know what the slippery slope fallacy is.
Why don’t you do this for your benefit. Tell me how John Locke was wrong, how is Hayek is wrong, and why Rand is wrong.
LikeLike
Dave Budge
As I pointed out before – you point to a definition that simply has zero examples anywhere. And you call my notions Utopian?
What definition do you hold for government? I think I stated some assumptions as you weren’t forthcoming, but now you have another chance.
As per non-violent government (a contradiction – but whatever, let’s fantasize)
As Hoppe proved – such a government cannot exist.
The other parts to the definition of government – monopoly over geography, for example, disallow the existence of competition to itself.
If I started a competing Nokick government, how would yours resist mine? It would either have to attack to enforce its monopoly or risk being eroded by competition – to the point eventually that everyone is their own sovereign – and essentially no government exists.
They are all dead.
How about you fight for them?
LikeLike
Hoppe didn’t prove anything. He made a case but that’s hardly proof.
Secondly, what governments can I point to making my case – native American tribal governments.
Last, I’ve made the case for and against all of them. I ask you to in order to see if you have background. I guess not.
LikeLike
And if one did not consent to the tribe, what did the tribe do, Dave?
LikeLike
They banished him.
LikeLike
So if the tribe decided to take the property of another on whim, do you believe the tribe had the right?
LikeLike
That’s a hypothetical. First, I’m not aware of the practice and secondly, they had a different understanding of ownership.
LikeLike
But, no, if they took property on a whim I would call that wrong.
LikeLike
Thanks, Dave.
LikeLike
And again, do you always make a habit of ignoring the predicate of a sentence or thought?
LikeLike
Oh, and if was I to choose a definition of government I call it a social compact of like minded individuals. If you were to ask me what the ideal form of that government would take I’d say it would look something like what’s in Locke’s Second Treatise.
But he’s dead so I guess he is meaningless. Feh!
LikeLike
Dave, you are so easy to anger…
Regarding your definition – if I am not of your like mind, does your government-by-definition still hold control over my actions?
Why does Locke’s government appeal to you Dave?
LikeLike
My compact only holds control over your actions only to the extent that infringe on other’s rights.
LikeLike
So, within your compact-society model, a person who is not of like mind, but does not infringe on another can co-exist with your society, then?
LikeLike
Of course.
LikeLike
Then we’d be fine, Dave.
You’re an anarchist after all.
LikeLike
No, I’m not. I’m a minarchists and I have reasons for saying that.
Although we might be fine.
LikeLike
So what part do you believe makes a mini-archist(as you appear to be) any different from anarchist?
“Mini” – least or small
Archist – right to rule
LikeLike
Have you read Locke? Have you compared him to other enlightenment philosopher – Hume, Hobbes, Rousseau, Burke, etc?
I like Locke because: he puts sovereignty of the individual as supreme, he makes the ethical case for property ownership, he provides for the dissolution of the government, and he articulates the non-violence principals of libertarianism.
Most of all other enlightenment thinkers required either we cede some rights to government in exchange for security or bias toward majoritarian rule.
LikeLike
Yes, but you see Dave, I’m chatting with you, not them – because they’re dead, and hopefully, you’re not.
I find Locke is incomplete – he left out the means by which a government is dissolved.
It the people cede their rights to this entity to do legitimate violence – but use the same entity to define when and how such violence is used; over time, there are those that will cease such legal violence and create closed loop – where attempting to dissolve the government wholly becomes an illegal act.
LikeLike
I don’t believe that’s true. Locke asserted that as soon as the government no longer served the people the people could simply abandon, and thereby disband, the government. Secondly Locke never said that any rights needed to be ceded to the government. He only asserted that the people allowed it to exist for a common purpose – to respect the sovereignty of the individual. I think he was the original libertarian.
Locke did not attempt to construct the mechanics of government but, rather, the ethic. I think you’re looking for too much.
LikeLike
But in Chapter 11, does he not say …roughly…
The first rule of the legislative power is the preservation of the society. No one may challenge the power of the legislative body, or pass laws of their own; all such power is invested in this body by the majority (the majority can, of course, challenge the legislative in some instances). Every member of society must adhere to the laws laid down by the legislative body.
So what prevented the legislative from creating the laws prohibiting its dismissal?
Anyway – I’ve a grasp of some of your philosophies – so thanks!
LikeLike
Sect. 149. THOUGH in a constituted common-wealth, standing upon its own basis, and acting according to its own nature, that is, acting for the preservation of the community, there can be but one supreme power, which is the legislative, to which all the rest are and must be subordinate, yet the legislative being only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends, there remains still in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them: for all power given with trust for the attaining an end, being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly neglected, or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into the hands of those that gave it, who may place it anew where they shall think best for their safety and security. And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of any body, even of their legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish, or so wicked, as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the subject: for no man or society of men, having a power to deliver up their preservation, or consequently the means of it, to the absolute will and arbitrary dominion of another; when ever any one shall go about to bring them into such a slavish condition, they will always have a right to preserve, what they have not a power to part with; and to rid themselves of those, who invade this fundamental, sacred, and unalterable law of self-preservation, for which they entered into society. And thus the community may be said in this respect to be always the supreme power, but not as considered under any form of government, because this power of the people can never take place till the government be dissolved.
LikeLike