Comments (89)

• Nick Bradley

  Lew,
  

  
  "Some people say that the real problem with the Bush administration is that it is too far left, and that a genuine right-wing government would be better. I'm disinclined to believe that, for I detect in the Bush administration a particular philosophy of governance that departs from that of the Clinton regime in many ways, except in its unlimited faith in government, that is, force and the threat of force."
  

  
  I happen to disagree. I am of the Hoppean viewpoint that Conservatism and Libertarianism are "attached at the hip", wherein conservatism is nothing more than defense of the natural order. The antithesis of "Natural Order Conservatism" is, of course, progressivism -- opposition to Naturally-occuring institutions.
  

  
  If you think about it, Progressivism is opposed to nearly every "natural" institution, primarily Church, Family, Culture, Free Exchange, and civil institutions (clubs, fraternal organizations, charities).
  

  
  And there is no doubt in my mind a Clinton/Gore Administration would have expanded the police state to an even greater extent than the GOP did if they were in office on 9/11. Think Waco x 10.
  

  
  Furthermore, a Clinton/Gore administration would have used the attacks for economic regulation and restricted free speech, a la FDR/Wilson.
  

  
  Current Democratic opposition to the War in Iraq (with the exception of a few like the Kookish Marxist Dennis Kucinich) is based primarily on envy, i.e. they oppose it because they are not running it. A Second reason they oppose the war is because it improves their electoral prospects.
  

  
  If you're the democratic party, the game plan is pretty simple: Publicly oppose the war and privately support it. A great example is the democratic increase in war funding while at the same time calling for de-funding of the war.
  

  
  And I believe many GOPers blindly support the war because it is a Republican war; many know little to nothing about international relations, and merely follow party policy.

  Published: April 25, 2007 9:54 AM

• jeffrey

  Nick, you raise an important point that is very puzzling and interesting, namely, is there anything distinctively "right wing" about Bush-style central planning such that it cannot be seen merely as a leftist corruption. That is the real debate here. I must say that it seems like there is something distinctively right wing in it: it favors nationalism over internationalism, family over individuals, large businesses over innovative ones, religion over secularism, and infuses a policy of war with a moral veneer of virtue, courage, and godliness. The left has a different take on all these issues. A form of central planning that purports to boost these right-wing values over left-wing values is, in fact, a distinctive ideology.

  Published: April 25, 2007 10:06 AM

• Dennis

  "I am of the Hoppean viewpoint that Conservatism and Libertarianism are 'attached at the hip', wherein conservatism is nothing more than defense of the natural order."

  I believe the important question is what the definition of conservatism is. If it is defined as a defense of the natural order, meaning market produced economic and social institutions, then conservatism and libertarianism have much in common. However, I know of few "conservatives", especially neoconservatives, that would define conservatism in this manner.
  

  Published: April 25, 2007 10:13 AM

• livingplanet

  good article.

  however, i wonder how many of your readers voted republican all these years and supported the iraq invasion.

  let the intellectual contortions begin.

  Published: April 25, 2007 11:26 AM

• Yancey Ward

  Livingplanet,

  From what I have read of the commentary of the readers of this site, I would guess that few supported the Iraq war. I don't doubt that a good number voted Republican, as do I, but it is clearly an attempt to pick the lesser of two evils, however unsuccessful it might turn out to be. If you are looking for intellectual contortions, you will have to go elsewhere.

  Published: April 25, 2007 11:59 AM

• Sag

  Wow, terrific article (previously a speech?). Absolutely magnificent. I'm tempted to buy the entire Mises Institute collection right now. But...that'll have to wait!

  Lew, if you are reading, you mentioned that if anyone is interested in supporting this project to let you know. Not sure what I could do but I am def. interested. I can not wait for this "naming names" by Rothbard himself. How timely. I can not wait for this book!

  Published: April 25, 2007 12:21 PM

• Brainpolice

  Hoppe's invocation of conservatism is flawed. Even if we do define conservatism as preserving those "natural institutions", most modern conservatives believe in using the state to do this, which is ultimately counterproductive to actually preserving those institutions. The question always arises, "how exactly do you intend to preserve your traditions?", just like with the left the question arises, "what exactly are we progressing to?". There is nothing intrinsically wrong with traditions or progress. The question is the means, what traditions to preserve and what directions to progress to.

  Contemporary conservatism is quite incompatable with libertarianism, particularly because it sees the state as the instrument for "protecting" their "traditions". They have a false "law and order" dychotomy going on, as Lew notes. They suffer from a severe case of confusing the difference between nation and state. So long as a hobgoblin is given to them, they will support the state full throttle in the name of defeating "the enemy", wether real or imagined. When a D is in office, they might huff and puff, but once their strong man gets in office the government is suddenly treated as a wonderful institution that we dare not scrutinize.

  I agree with the idea that the contemporary right is no better than the contemporary left. I agree with Walter Block that "Libertarianism is unique, it is neither left nor right". While the special interests may vary, it nonetheless remains that both groups view the state as an institution to subsidize them. Libertarians would be mislead to continue to take the contemporary right-wing's quasi-libertarian rhetoric at face value when it has obviously been a ruse for 50 years plus. I cannot take the claim that libertarianism and conservatism are connected at the hip when the past half-century or so of conservative politics has consisted of constant war-mongering, market socialism and an unyielding support for the police power.

  Published: April 25, 2007 12:46 PM

• Dennis

  One of the above comments has pointed out that I need to revise my previous posting. When I stated "a defense of the natural order", I should not have included the word "defense". What I should have stated is "intellectually supportive of the natural order." The word defense can have several interpretations.

  Published: April 25, 2007 1:22 PM

• Matt

  I voted Libertarian in 2000 because I knew Bush wasn't a conservative. I voted for him in 2004 only to avoid a repeat of the 2000 "national vote" brouhaha. I live in a firmly blue state, so my vote is close to meaningless.

  George Bush & the neo-conservatives represent a wholly different wing of the Republican party. It is nearly impossible to have a conversation with a self-identified conservative who will not trash Bush on several fronts, including the war.

  I don't doubt that Republicans have several anti-libertarian beliefs, but put them in relief. The 1994 changover resulted in capital gains tax cuts, budget restraint (including a brief government shutdown), and welfare reform. I think some Libertarians, either out of political calculation or a desire to appear "moderate" at cocktail parties, pour equal amounts of scorn on both parties. The Democrats are now pushing for socialized heathcare, which is the biggest step backward I can think of. They were against Bush's Medicare expansion because it wasn't big enough, while Republicans had to stretch the rules and twist arms to get the votes they needed. Democrats wanted Homeland security and Bush chose to deal. Ted Kennedy wrote Bush's education plan. Democrats are fighting a war against Wal-Mart! Many voted for the war in Iraq, and even recent history (Kosovo) shows they are no less ready to go to war.

  Published: April 25, 2007 1:59 PM

• Anthony Gregory

  Almost no conservative I've ever met wants to conserve the natural order of liberty. Almost all of them want to conserve the statist quo, except maybe cut taxes a bit.

  Published: April 25, 2007 2:04 PM

• kurtbattais

  I can understand putting a picture of Buckley up there, but why include the one with Russell Kirk? Kirk might have thought libertarian ideas on laissez-faire capitalism to be too materialistic, but he was a long time opponent of empire building by the state.

  Published: April 25, 2007 2:06 PM

• RogerM

  President Bush is very much like the typical voter in Oklahoma--conservative on social/moral issues, but socialist/mercantilist on economic ones. I don't know what ideological box you could put that in except maybe populism.

  Published: April 25, 2007 2:43 PM

• billwald

  Agree with Rockwell . . .

  There is something to the concept of one religon, one society, because religion is emotional, not logic. Switzerland, half Catholic, half Protestant, is the exception that makes the rule, probably because their true religion is money. Probably same with the USofA.

  Published: April 25, 2007 3:24 PM

• JIMB

  I.e. ** Freedom exists if libertarian rules are the pen-ultimate legal structure under which all other belief systems must remain submissive **. Doesn't this concern the reader that this is alarmingly close to a religious justification? I.e. I can make the same argument that once everyone is of religion X then - and only then - we can all get along, but only if everyone is submissive to religion X.

  Published: April 25, 2007 4:17 PM

• rtr

  No JIMB, by defintion of the existence of the material wealth increasing inescapable scientific economic laws of free trade and the division of labor, belief systems, religious or otherwise, are wholly immaterial to the existence of society, and thus by definition wholly immaterial to the existence of freedom. Thus, the justification is scientific, not religious. You could even say there is a Hayekian evolutionary pull toward the free market.

  Published: April 25, 2007 4:36 PM

• Todd Whitesel

  Frankly I think both the Left and the Right have much to answer for. Rich and poor, liberal and conservative, all are guilty of some genuine corruption and abuses of power. No matter how noble the intentions of government, once the legal pen begins to write, special interests jump into the process and try to steer more power and wealth in their direction.

  This guarantees that a history of documented manipulation by all sides will eventually be revealed. It will then be used as an excuse to yank the pendulum of popular opinion back and forth with no real end in sight.

  People need to stop arguing over what is right and wrong as if society will ever be finished, its laws perfect and needing no adjustment. They need to work together to anticipate and adjust to changes in the economy, rather than fighting to preserve their share of the income pie, whether it is the government with tax revenue, business with deregulation of unsafe practices, or labor with wages and rents.

  In short, we need to be adults. Clearly some taxes are needed for the common defense and the judicial system; but those taxes should be adjusted to encourage things we need more of, and to discourage things we wish to conserve or at least curb the excess of.

  Published: April 26, 2007 1:01 AM

• USpace

  The Far-Left is SO delusional it is scary...

  absurd thought -
  God of the Universe says
  destroy all corporations

  put people out of work
  make world a better place
  .
  

  Published: April 26, 2007 1:47 AM

• JIMB

  rtr - The entire Austrian tradition is apriori - not "scientific".
  

  Published: April 26, 2007 11:33 AM

• rtr

  JIMB: "The entire Austrian tradition is apriori - not "scientific"."

  Hmmmm. Economics isn't entirely Austrian. But you are correct that the reason trade occurs and the reason the division of labor exists is a priori deduced knowledge. I was sloppily thinking a priori is scientificly established epistemological knowledge, but yeah it's actually the other way around. Funny that "scientific" seems to carry more credibility than "a priori" or "epistemological" or "philosophically established". Accordingly, all knowledge whatsoever, including scientific methodology, is a priori. For example, statistics does not establish the validity of statistics. The validity of the scientific method is a priori established.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_%28philosophy%29

  "The terms "a priori" and "a posteriori" are primarily used among philosophers to refer to two different types of knowledge. Thus, they are primarily used as adjectives to modify the noun "knowledge", or taken to be compound nouns that refer to types of knowledge (for example, "a priori knowledge")."

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

  "Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning."

  Scientific method can never establish the validity of the knowledge that all knowledge in so far as it is known, is absolutely known. To declare otherwise would be to necessarily declare all that one speaks is gibberish which should be ignored. That's a priori known.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

  "Philosophers of science are interested in: the history of concepts and terms and how they are currently in used in science; the relation between propositions with arguments (Formal logic); the reasoning connecting hypotheses and conclusions (Scientific method); the manner in which science explains natural phenomena and predicts natural occurrences (observation); the types of reasoning that are used to arrive at scientific conclusions (deduction, induction, abduction); the formulation, scope, and limits of scientific understanding; the means that should be used for determining when scientific information has adequate support (objectivity); and the implications of scientific methods and models, along with the technology that arises from scientific knowledge for the larger society (applied science)."

  Published: April 26, 2007 1:14 PM

• alt1985

  Overall, the article is very good, but I do have a question regarding the idea that it is possible for all religions to live in harmony. While I believe it is true that Hindus, Christians, etc... can live in harmony with each other, I do not believe that Muslims who abide by pure Islamic philosophy can live peacefully among those who are for liberty (I will say that I believe there are Muslims who are not against liberty, but if you read about Islam in it's purest form, it is definitely against liberty). Pure Islam, as spelled out by Muhammad, is about conquering people with the sword. It is about killing the infidel. It is the very opposite of liberty. What do we do when such a backwards, anti-progress, anti-capitalistic, pro-violent religion is trying to destroy what we value so much...that is liberty? Would the solution to this be the citizens in the U.S. using their defenses from the private sector (ie guns, etc...) to defeat this? What, in theory, would we do to make sure liberty was maintained against those that abide by a philosophy of suicide to destroy liberty?

  Published: April 26, 2007 2:23 PM

• RogerM

  alt1985:"What, in theory, would we do to make sure liberty was maintained against those that abide by a philosophy of suicide to destroy liberty?"

  Very good question. Some would have us sit at home (in the US) and wait for them to attack, then hire private security guards. Do you think that would work, based on what you know about jihadist Islam?

  Published: April 26, 2007 2:43 PM

• David White

  The Jihadists don't want to destroy liberty; they want to destroy the US in retaliation for its government's decades-long military intervention in the Middle East.

  Not to excuse Islam for its inherent statism and the oppression that arises from it, but the US was and is the aggressor. And not until we leave them alone will they leave us alone.

  Which is essentially what bin Laden said nearly a decade ago:

  "Bin Laden and other militant Islamist leaders issued a 1998 manifesto denouncing the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia, U.S. support of Israel, and sanctions against Iraq. 'To kill Americans and their allies, both civil and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim who is able, in any country,' the manifesto reads, “until their armies, shattered and broken-winged, depart from all the lands of Islam.' ”

  http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/binladen.html
  

  Published: April 26, 2007 3:10 PM

• Scott D

  "What, in theory, would we do to make sure liberty was maintained against those that abide by a philosophy of suicide to destroy liberty?"

  Let's try trading with them peacefully, without intervention from the U.S. government, and see what happens.

  Yeah, like that'll ever happen.

  Published: April 26, 2007 3:38 PM

• Brainpolice

  The simple fact of the matter is that you are more likely to win the lottery or get in a car accident then be a victim of Islamic terrorism in America.

  Published: April 26, 2007 5:33 PM

• Brainpolice

  Additional comment: especially if you don't live in a city area.

  Published: April 26, 2007 5:36 PM

• JIMB

  rtr - The question is whether ** ethics ** falls into the category of apriori knowledge and if so, what that implies. It is not a given that man is a "self-owner" (even the phrase is contradictory). Pretty tough to make the leap here to "libertarianism is the overarching and correct dominating pardigm" which is in essentials what the article is saying.

  Published: April 26, 2007 5:55 PM

• JIMB

  DW - The Jihadists of course want to destroy liberty; and yes we are (probably) making it worse. The idea of containment (least loss of life) I don't think is incorrect. Over time, the market will work it's magic.

  Published: April 26, 2007 5:57 PM

• alt1985

  "Not to excuse Islam for its inherent statism and the oppression that arises from it, but the US was and is the aggressor. And not until we leave them alone will they leave us alone."

  Okay, so the U.S. hasn't been perfect by any means, but let's look at Islam back to the time after Christ. What happened to all those Jews and Christians in Jerusalem? How did a land that once belonged to those groups suddenly become almost 100% Muslim? Islamic aggression...they killed off the Jews and Christians. They were the aggressors in that case. Read the Koran...It states that everyone else is the infidel. Christians and Jews would die in their world. The fundamental tenant of Islam is for Islam to take over the world, and for Sharia law to be instituted. They do not care about free markets and free trade. Just look at Islamic states...look at the way women are treated. That is not liberty...that is slavery and oppression. This is the religion that states suicide on behalf of "Allah" will lead to paradise. This is not liberty.

  Bastiat said the natural order leads to cooperation. For the most part, it does, but there is a problem...there is evil in the world. Bastiat acknowledges the existence of evil and suffering in his book "economic harmonies," and he expressly makes the point that political economy (the subject of the book) is only one of many dimensions of our lives. Bastiat was a Christian, so he certainly understood there were many dimensions to human existence, the economic system being one of many. Islam was formed by someone that worshiped killing and many other sins (Muhammad), and if you just listen to some of the films/speeches by some major Islamic figures today, they have language reminiscent of converting the world to Islam and ridding the world of the infidel.

  So, will suddenly pulling out of the Middle East change this? No, it won't. Being there won't help either. These people have one goal in mind, and when they are willing to kill themselves for it, there is nothing you can do against it...unless, of course, you have a way to defend yourself. So again, I ask you, what do we do against a group that is expressly against liberty and is on a crusade to rid the world of such liberty? Look at Turkey where the Christian church has some activity in the Istanbul area...Christians are getting killed by Muslims. Look at Sudan...it is Muslim groups/governments starving Christians to death in mass numbers. All of this because they are not Islamic. This is not liberty. This is perversion and evil. If you don't think they want to take away the liberty we have here in the U.S. (albeit this is far from perfect liberty here, but it's much better than the rest of the world), you need to think again. Islam is the opposite of liberty.

  Published: April 26, 2007 10:53 PM

• alt1985

  I would like to clarify that when I said "Being there won't help either" that I mean in the capacity that we are right now. Obviously, U.S. policy is not helping the situation. What I wonder is, though, what we do to stop the jihadists from coming over here and killing us as they wish? Liberty is not in these people's vocabulary, so we must defend ourselves. I really feel like I haven't gotten an adequate answer for this from the Austrian camp, and trust me, when I say that I really desire a strong answer to this. However, the answer must come from someone that really understands Islam in its purest form as such jihadists believe. Putting Islam in the same camp as Christianity, Hinduism, etc... is just not acceptable. It is impossible for a lover of liberty to live in peace with someone that from the bottom of their heart believes you should be dead because you don't believe what they believe.

  Published: April 26, 2007 11:11 PM

• Brainpolice

  Alt's analysis suffers from a major case of collectivist generalization. There is no threat of "jihadists" invading the country and coming into your home. To believe so seems like nothing short of ignorance to me. People believing that others should be dead for not believing what they believe is a problem that can arise in any group. It's kind of hard to live in peace with people when you have concluded ahead of time that everyone within that person's identity group is some kind of threat.

  Published: April 26, 2007 11:24 PM

• alt1985

  Brainpolice: If you had looked at my previous comments, I said that I do not believe all Muslims believe this. However, if they don't, they don't believe in Islam in its purest form. There are those jihadists, though, that would love nothing more than to conduct suicide bombings in grocery stores here, etc... if they could succeed in doing so. What if we had sharia law instituted here nationally at some point? What if Christians and other groups die because they refuse to bow down to Allah? That happens in Saudi Arabia, you know, and it's happening in other Islamic states. It is happening in areas of the world that *used* to not be Islamic states. Those states did not used to be dominated by Islam. This has nothing to do with being collectivist. This has to do with the desire to not have a collectivist nation. It could just as easily happen here. I don't believe someone is going to come in my house tomorrow and kill me over jihad. I'm concerned about people tearing down the very fabric of this nation turning it into an actual Islamic state. I am simply asking that if such groups as Al Qaeda made it on to our soil and started conducting such attacks, what would be the appropriate market response? Do you really believe that this is not possible here? Do you really believe that the jihadists would love nothing more than to take away our liberty? Once again, I am receiving no answers as to how to defend ourselves if this becomes a reality. I am receiving zero answers on how to preserve our liberty if this in fact does start to occur here. It is an intelligent question to ask, sir, and it has nothing to do with me being collectivist. I am a Christian that believes in the reality of good and evil in the world, and I am looking at areas of the world right before our very eyes that are being destroyed by Islam, and I ask myself...Why couldn't that happen here as long as Americans seem so willing to throw their liberty down the toilet in the name of collectivism? I do not automatically assume that just because someone identifies themselves as a Muslim that they believe such things. There are terrorist groups, though, that are fueled by Islam and want sharia law to take over the world. Read the Koran, read the speeches of such Islamic leaders, and then come back to me and tell me that they are no threat to us here.

  Published: April 27, 2007 10:50 AM

• RogerM

  Bin Laden didn't invent jihad and does not control it. As one author wrote, jihad chose bin Laden. Jihad through warfare has been a central dogma of Islam since its beginning. The latest instantiation of it appeared after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WWI and Kamal Attaturk ended the Islamic Caliphate. The Muslim Brotherhood was formed soon after with the sole purpose of restoring the Caliphate through violent means, first in Arab countries and then throughout the world. The Wahabi Islam of Saudi Arabia and the Khomeini Islam of Iran all have the same goal as the Muslim Brotherhood, though they differ in details. Al Qaeda is just one of many franchises of the Wahabi/Brotherhood nexus.

  Bin Laden's references to Israel, Iraq, and US troops in Saudi Arabia have little to do with jihadist long term goals. He made them because he knew they would appeal to the anti-war segment in the US. Jihadis definately want to wipe out Israel, but their first goal is capturing power in all Muslim countries. Afterwards, the goal will be recovering Spain and Eastern Europe, because jihadis believe that once a region has tasted Islamic rule, it belongs to Islam forever. They attack the US because they believe all other states are too weak to oppose them, especially Israel, without US support.

  Proposals that we get out of the Middle East and leave them alone assume that jihadism was born a few decades ago solely in response to American "imperialism." That's simply not true.

  Published: April 27, 2007 11:36 AM

• Brainpolice

  The simple fact of the matter is that to actually believe that Americans face the threat of having their country taken over by "Jihadists" is outright nonsense. To actually believe that a modern Muslim "crusade" on western nations in the way being described is something we actually face is ridiculous. I assure you - you will spend the rest of your life in America without being effected by any Islamic terrorism. You might not be so lucky with respect to what your own government does to you (especially in the name of "counter-terrorism").

  Let's face it: All of this anti-Muslim talk, no matter how many half-truths it may contain, is propaganda designed to get Christians and Jews alike to support the warfare state and our absurd "war on terror". It is the primary reason for many on the right's support for the warfare state: I.E. they've been duped into believing that Islam itself actually presents a national security threat, and people like John Hagee are convincing them that the end times are here and that we have a "responsibility" to bring it about by supporting middle eastern warfare. Most Muslims do not want to come on our soil - they want us off of theirs.

  As for trying to reconcile liberty with the "war on terror", it's an oxymoron. I'll say it straight up: If you support the war on terrorism, you are not a libertarian. If you support the war in Iraq, you are not a libertarian. If you support a pre-emptive strike on Iran, you are not a libertarian. The reason is, first, that offensive war is the ultimate destruction of person and property, and second, that in practise, this is a form of statism and thus necessitates huge expansions of the government's power. As the article is titled, "Our Kind of Central Planning". Yes, yes - how much central planning are you willing to tolerate in the name of "fighting the jihadists before they make it to our soil!"?

  It simply IS true that the current "radicalization" of people in the middle east is almost entirely the consequence of post-WWII foreign policy. It doesn't mean that bad motives didn't exist beforehand. It means that it is obvious that when you meddle with people's internal affairs and occupying them, you are going to strengthen any such pre-existing motives. If you truly want to reduce the possibility of terrorism - stop terrorizing folks abroad. In either case, despite this radicalization, realism tells me that most people are not in danger from terrorists. They are in danger from their governments by a MUCH MUCH MUCH huger margin, and terrorism is just one out of many excuses the state is using to use such power.

  As for alt actually believing that America is going to be turned into an Islamic state (or faces a serious theat of it): COME ON. THIS IS COMPLETELY ABSURD BY ALL STANDARDS OF REASON. This is nothing short of silly propaganda. Extremely silly. To believe that we face a threat of global Islamic states, while in reality it is the U.S. state more than any nation-state that is engaging in global empirialism, is to reverse reality almost completely. As for Bin Laden's comments about Saudi Arabia, no, he made them because the U.S. is occupying that territory, and as any rational person wants when their territory is being occupied, they want the occupation to leave.

  "I am receiving zero answers on how to preserve our liberty if this in fact does start to occur here."

  This is because your scenario is ridiculous in the first place, and therefore I cannot answer to a scenario that is in itself not realistic. To me, it is no better than people throwing "life-boat situations" at libertarians as if this negates the entire philosophy. In either case, there is no threat of Muslim theocracy in America and there never will be. We do face a threat of our own government becoming totalitarian on it's own accord. This is happening right now, without the help of any "Jihadists". If you want to see the transformation of America into totalitarianism, look no further than our own anti-terrorism policies and the military-industrial-complex.

  "I am looking at areas of the world right before our very eyes that are being destroyed by Islam"

  We don't see the same thing. I'm looking at areas of the word right before our eyes that are being destroyed, not by Islam, but by GOVERNMENT. That is the central problem in our world - government power. Our world is being destroyed by governments; especially their wars, which have murdered countless innocent people and destroyed an endless sea of property.

  "Why couldn't that happen here as long as Americans seem so willing to throw their liberty down the toilet in the name of collectivism?"

  Sorry to break it to you, but that's just what your own position seems to boil down to in my eyes. I think that you are willing to throw your own liberty down the toilet in the name of collectivism, with Islam functioning as the hobgoblin. The essence of your question strikes me as being, "What should we do to throw away our liberty in the name of my doomsday scenario of a Muslim takeover?". The real question is: how much liberty are you willing to sacrifice in the name of counter-terrorism and "protection against Islam".

  Advocacy of leaving the middle east and persueing trade instead is the only position compatable with capitalism and liberty. Proposals that we get out amount to advocacy of PEACE (*gasp*). Proposals that we lead a "global crusade against terrorism" are completely incompatable with liberty and capitalism, as it necessitates government intervention (in the market, mind you). Supporting this global crusade is nothing short of abandoning the principles of liberty and excusing an increase in government intervention on kooky utilitarian grounds.

  Published: April 27, 2007 3:56 PM

• alt1985

  There is no use in continuing this argument unless you go back and read the history of Islam from the 7th Century to the 14th century. You must realize that trade is not going to work with people that abide by a philosophy that is fundamentally against freedom and capitalism. Once you have educated yourself on the history of Islam, and once you have educated yourself regarding the history of the nations where Islam is now dominant and how it became dominant, then you can continue this conversation. I have never once said during this debate that I fully support the state or anything. My "scenario" is not unrealistic to the nations in which Islam is not totally dominant and nations are being run by the principle of Sharia Law. This is not about doomsday. This is not about Revelation. This is about what has occurred in history, and what we would do, if in fact, we became a victim to something that has already occurred in other nations (that is Islam by the sword). Muhammad spread Islam by the sword. He created a religion founded on violence. Islam is violent...read their texts, read their history, and then come back and tell me it's just like any other religion. It is fundamentally against the freedom of the individual. Your idea that my scenario is unrealistic, once again, would certainly not be unrealistic to those nations that were conquered by the sword centuries ago.

  Of course, this ultimately boils down to if you believe in good versus evil. If you believe that we live in a sinful world, then you must surely believe that there are philosophies and groups that are opposed to freedom? People are not perfect. There are people that establish evil ideologies opposed to the very freedom you love. They aren't just opposed to that freedom either...they don't want you to have it. If such people become a threat to you, what do you do to defend yourself? This is the simple question I have been asking. If you believe that Islam is not opposed to freedom, you are wrong. Read the history books. They are not all just propaganda. Just because you choose not to believe something, doesn't make it propaganda. Read the history before you make such a sweeping and broad conclusion that somehow trade will make these people renounce all violence. It won't...because they oppose the very freedom by which you would wish to trade and get along with them.

  I am not getting my information from the U.S. government. Go and read the history books about Muhammad. He had epilepsy, he went into rages when he wouldn't get his way, he contradicted himself repeatedly when he was trying to get his followers to spread Islam by violence. Please, please, please read the history. This is not from George W. Bush. This is from books written by scholars that you wouldn't dare read in a public school.

  You cannot automatically assume that just because something is tagged a "religion" that it is peaceful. You must learn the foundation and the history behind that religion, and the history of Islam is slavery and forced conversions. Convert or die. That is not freedom.

  Published: April 27, 2007 9:35 PM

• alt1985

  correction to my last post *it should say "In which Islam is NOW dominant..."

  Published: April 27, 2007 9:39 PM

• Juan

  Alt1985,

  I fail to see what the highly libertarian Bastiat has to do with the ilegal invasions that an out-of-control American state carries on ? Do you think that Bastiat would aprove your murderous crusade in the middle east ???

  Please answer this : How many millions of westerners were massacred in the 20th century by WESTERN GOVERNMENTS ? Were those government, American, British, German, Russian, etc, run by 'islamic terrorists' ? Or were they run by caucasians and a lot of them 'christians' ??

  I suggest that before critizicing other people, you take a look at home first...

  Published: April 27, 2007 9:40 PM

• Brainpolice

  I'm sorry but I percieve all of this as simply unfounded bigotry and a completely unrealistic view of what's going on in the world. There is no realistic threat of Islam being imposed on you by the sword. Islam as a religion is not per se inherently interpreted in a pro-violence manner. The way things look, it would seem that Muslims are too busy killing eachother and resisting occupation from western governments to be concerned about invading you. Most people in the middle east do not want to invade America, they want America and Europe out of their internal affairs.

  As for the history (and questionable interpretation of it) that you are citing, I hold both sides complicit in those matters - both the western christian church-state and the muslims were guilty of various initial acts of aggression. I do not buy your interpretation of the crusades as the muslims being the only guilty party in the matter. I am also convinced that you are engaging in the collective anthropromorphicization of an entire group. In either case, if muslims are guilty of killing off anyone, it's the pagans.

  "Of course, this ultimately boils down to if you believe in good versus evil."

  Not at all. To imply that I do not believe in good vs. evil if I do not buy into your collectivst and innacurately bigoted dychotomy that essentially paints all of these people as evil, and "us" to be good, is silly. I do not believe that people are necessarily inherently evil in their actions because they read a particular fiction book vs. another one. Yes, I believe in good and evil, just not your particular interpretation of it. Evil acts are commited by individuals, not by group-identities in themselves.

  "the history of Islam is slavery and forced conversions."

  The history of all religious states and general forms of government in the times you are talking about is forced conversions and slavery. To act as if this is somehow unique to Islam is to ignore real history. I don't hold Christianity itself responsible for some of the horrors commited in its name in the past, I hold government involvement in and exploitation of religion responsible. Likewise, I apply the same to Islam. Islamic radicalism is largely the result of the politisization of this religion in my view. It is also, in part, the blowback from certain cold war policies.

  "Islam" is not responsible for anything anymore than "Christianity" is. Individuals are responsible for their actions.

  Published: April 27, 2007 10:03 PM

• RogerM

  Brain(less)police: "The simple fact of the matter is that to actually believe that Americans face the threat of having their country taken over by "Jihadists" is outright nonsense."

  Who are you responding to? I don't know anyone who believes that, except the jihadis. Jihadis, especially bin Laden, believe they caused the break up of the USSR and that they can do the same thing to the US. If you don't believe that, then you haven't read anything but leftist propaganda.

  Brainless: "Let's face it: All of this anti-Muslim talk, no matter how many half-truths it may contain, is propaganda designed to get Christians and Jews alike to support the warfare state and our absurd "war on terror".

  Or it could simply be true. Try reading anything by Bernard Lewis, the leading scholar on the Middle East, or Bat Ye'or, another leading scholar.

  Brainless: "If you support the war in Iraq, you are not a libertarian."

  Who made you the libertarian pope? I say anyone who doesn't support it is not a libertarian!

  Brainless:"It simply IS true that the current "radicalization" of people in the middle east is almost entirely the consequence of post-WWII foreign policy."

  Again, read a book, any book. Pick one of Lewis' at random and find out how wrong you are.

  Brainless:"As for alt actually believing that America is going to be turned into an Islamic state (or faces a serious theat of it): COME ON. THIS IS COMPLETELY ABSURD BY ALL STANDARDS OF REASON."

  Many scholars believe that Islam will take over Europe in the next generation. They have done it through immigration and intimidation. There is nothing to prevent them from doing the same in the US.

  One thing I've noticed about anarchists is that their strenght is their ignorance of history. That ignorance allows them to deny anything they find uncomfortable and incompatible with anarchism.

  Published: April 28, 2007 10:42 AM

• Juan

  RogerM,

  You, like Alt, should learn CONTEMPORARY WESTEN HISTORY and then come post somethinb sensible.

  Published: April 28, 2007 11:28 AM

• Juan

  typos corrected

  "You, like Alt, should learn CONTEMPORARY WESTERN HISTORY and then come back and then post something sensible."
  

  Published: April 28, 2007 11:31 AM

• Juan

  RogerM

  "Many scholars believe that Islam will take over Europe in the next generation. "
  Translation : Many unemployable 'intelectuals' sit confortably in state universities writing warmongering propaganda. Your assertion is a fallacy as well. It's called 'recourse to authority'. Scholars ? They should be cleaning bathrooms. Or better they should go to Iraq themselves if they are so brave...
  "I say anyone who doesn't support it[war in Iraq] is not a libertarian!"
  I say any warmonger like you is not a libertarian. And it turns out that my definition of libertarianism, wich is probably the same as Brianpolice's is a logically consistent one. That's not your case. Of course, you don't want to argue rationally.
  "One thing I've noticed about anarchists is that their strenght is their ignorance of history. "
  How many westerners were murdered by western governments ? Do you mind answering ? No ? Shame on you. Or perhaps yourhistory is a bit shaky ?
  

  Published: April 28, 2007 11:58 AM

• Brainpolice

  Thankyou, Juan.

  "Who made you the libertarian pope? I say anyone who doesn't support it is not a libertarian!"

  Then you have a very warped definition of libertarianism if you can muster support for the greatest possible violation of the non-aggression axoim: offensive war. Furthermore, here's some news for you: It is even more anti-libertarian than that, because it necessitates a rise in government power DOMESTICALLY as well: higher future taxes, more goverment spending, more inflation, more laws directed against your personal liberties, etc. In other words: In practise, in order to support the warfare state, you must support all of the growth in government power that comes with it. Followed through logically, it is completely incompatable with libertarianism, as it is an expansionist rather than reductionist position.

  "If you don't believe that, then you haven't read anything but leftist propaganda."

  Then apparently just about everyone at LewRockwell.com and this website are spouting leftist propaganda. Or, could it be that you have bought into neoconservative propaganda designed to make you support the warfare state? Much more likely. The point is to scare people into submission. Unfortunately, you have bought into the fear mongering it seems.

  "One thing I've noticed about anarchists is that their strenght is their ignorance of history. That ignorance allows them to deny anything they find uncomfortable and incompatible with anarchism."

  Actually, I'm not an anarchist (although damn close to it). Furthermore, you yourself are being very ignorant of history: particularly, the history of U.S. aggression against other nations and the history of religious conflicts in the middle ages (which is NOT as one-sided as you paint it). As for your latter statement, if you believe that a government aggressing against Iraq is compatable with anarchism, then you have a very odd definition of anarchism.

  As Juan points out, your entire position is one-sided and hypocritical. You try to paint people in the middle east as inherently violent, while you act as if this is something unique to the middle east. It isn't, it's a symptom of all political power. You point to "Muslim aggression" as if it is something unique to them, while completely ignoring the massive loss of lives created by the policies of western governments and completely ignoring the role that intervention by western governments has played in increasing internal strife and anti-americanism in these regions.

  In either case, you are simply using propaganda with respect to other people's cultures in a vein attempt to justify a peculiar form of statism.

  Published: April 28, 2007 12:45 PM

• Brainpolice

  This conversation is, in many ways, proving Lew's point in the original article: that the contemporary right is just about as bad as the left, only under somewhat different definitions and perhaps a somewhat different set of special interests. Note how someone is automatically branded as a "leftist" for not buying into the war drums. Note the incessant harping on a hobgoblin (in this case, Muslims). Note how this hobgoblin is used in the attempt to justify some kind of government intervention.

  The purpose of the reoccuring hobgoblin is to give people a rationale for supporting the military-industrial-complex, plain and simple. As Rockwell notes, the post-WWII right represents a major shift in the ideological orientation in the right. With the rise of the cold war, the right became war-hawks. When the cold war ended, into this void the central planners put terrorism and "radical islam", to provide a continual rationale for being war-hawks.

  In either case, Roger and Alt are only reinforcing Lew's notion about the false law-keeper vs. law-breaker dychotomy. They are further demonstrating the belief in a conflict model of society, where the it's "US vs. Muslims". Indeed, this is a classic false conflict model. These people seem to believe that it is impossible for conflict between the middle east and west to be resolved, that it is an irreconcilable conflict between Christianity and Islam that can only be addressed by "fighting them there before they come here". The irony is that it's their own attitude of endless conflict that makes peaceful coexistance so hard to achieve. As Rockwell notes as well in the article: "The current-day view of conservatives that we are in an intractable war against Islam also stems from the conflict-based view of society."

  In summation, this insistance that there is an irreconcilable conflict between Islam and "the west" is hogwash, and it certainly is not a rational arguement in favor of any government intervention, even if it were true (and it isn't). Lew's comparison of contemporary conservatism to an embrace of the Hobbesian state of nature concept is spot on. One can try to paint a picture of identity-conflict all you want, but it will always be a collective fallacy and a nonsensical rationale for letting government flex its power.

  Published: April 28, 2007 1:11 PM

• Juan

  Another funny, or rather tragic facet of this mess is that the people who cry so much against the terrorist 'threat' are themselves using fear as a means to further their ends.

  What the government wants is a tyranny. In order to achieve this 'ideal' they scare people : "if you don't obey our orders the evil arabs will come here an kill you". More generally, the whole government rests on terrorism. "If you take recreational drugs we will jail you - if you resist we'll kill you". Such a very real threat works because people fear for their lives and liberty. Global warming ? A terrorist trick - if you keep on driving your car, the world will melt. Scary. Every 'reason' for the alleged necesity of government rests on the real or imaginary fears fueled...by the government.

  Published: April 28, 2007 2:42 PM

• RogerM

  Brainless:"In summation, this insistance that there is an irreconcilable conflict between Islam and "the west" is hogwash"

  Nobody's blaiming all Islam or all Muslims. That's typical leftist propaganda, too. Most muslims are peaceful people. Only the jihadis are a danger.

  Published: April 28, 2007 4:28 PM

• RogerM

  Gardner: "Locke's assumption is invalid. Police protection is not a good shared equally by everyone." Locke assumed it was true and valid, so he couldn't be contradicting himself in his argument. Besides, only anarchists think his assumption is invalid.

  Gardner:"First, it is intellectually difficult to justify the idea that someone must be forced to pay for something because the majority assumes it is helping him, and the majority has voted to provide it."

  It's only difficult for anarchists. The rest of us have no problem with it.

  Published: April 28, 2007 4:35 PM

• Brainpolice

  I'm not an anarchist and I clearly see the inconsistancy being refered to. Indeed, it doesn't take an anarchist to see something as obvious as the fact that police protection is not a good shared equally by everyone. Neither does it take an anarchist to see a problem in the idea that it is justifiable to force people to do things on the utilitarian basis of majority vote. Of course, your entire arguement boils down to: "you're an anarchist, so your arguements must automatically be dismissed". That's not rational debate. I'm sure you meant to post this on the "beautiful chaos" thread.

  "Only the jihadis are a danger."

  The Jihadis present no real threat to you and they never will. There is no realistic threat of such people ever directly effecting you in any way. Such people will never come anywhere close to taking over America: most of them will never set their feet on American soil. So, again, you are creating a threat where none exists. You are engaging in fear-mongering with the purpose of getting people to concede war-powers to the state. In either case, what is your proposed "solution" for dealing with this "threat" of "the jihadis"? Let me hazard a guess - pre-emptive military action.

  "Most muslims are peaceful people. Only the jihadis are a danger."

  This statement is irreconcilable with your previous statements on this thread. You cannot claim this while simultaneously making blanket characterizations of the religion. Either most muslims are peaceful people, or their religion inherently preaches violence. You can't have it both ways.

  "That's typical leftist propaganda"

  The only proganda here is that which you have apparently bought into: the idea that there is an actual threat to our national security posed by "jihadists". THAT is propaganda. It has no basis in reality. It is exactly as Juan perscribed: the government using fear of a hobgoblin to intimidate people into supporting its policies. In this case, the hobgoblin is "the jihadists", and the policy the propaganda is meant to get you to support is the "war on terror".

  Published: April 28, 2007 4:52 PM

• Björn Lundahl

  Even a limited government cannot be justified.

  The Ethics of Liberty, by Murray Rothbard:

  “Secondly, even if an existing State had been immaculately conceived, this would still not justify its present existence. A basic fallacy is endemic to all social-contract theories of the State, namely, that any contract based on a promise is binding and enforceable. If, then, everyone—in itself of course a heroic assumption—in a state of nature surrendered all or some of his rights to a State, the social-contract theorists consider this promise to be binding forevermore.

  A correct theory of contracts, however, termed by Williamson Evers the “title-transfer” theory, states that the only valid (and therefore binding) contract is one that surrenders what is, in fact, philosophically alienable, and that only specific titles to property are so alienable, so that their ownership can be ceded to someone else. While, on the contrary, other attributes of man—specifically, his self-ownership over his own will and body, and the rights to person and property which stem from that self-ownership—are “inalienable” and therefore cannot be surrendered in a binding contract. If no one, then, can surrender his own will, his body or his rights in an enforceable contract, a fortiori he cannot surrender the persons or the rights of his posterity. This is what the Founding Fathers meant by the concept of rights as being “inalienable,” or, as George Mason expressed it in his Virginia Declaration of Rights:

  [A]ll men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity.”

  
  “(4) that even if any State had been founded immaculately, the fallacies of social-contract theory would mean that no present State, even a minimal one, could be justified.”

  http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentynine.asp

  Björn Lundahl

  Published: April 28, 2007 4:55 PM

• RogerM

  Brainless: "This statement is irreconcilable with your previous statements on this thread. You cannot claim this while simultaneously making blanket characterizations of the religion. Either most muslims are peaceful people, or their religion inherently preaches violence. You can't have it both ways."

  Obviously, this topic is too large for you to get your brain grasp. If you had ever read the Koran or anything on Islam, you would know that the Koran promotes violence against non-muslims; those Koranic verses motivate the jihadis. However, most muslims choose to ignore them and live a peaceful live with members of other religions.

  I never claimed that jihadis were a personal threat to me, or that they have a chance of taking over the US. You made that up. I don't believe either one. But that's not important. What's important is what the jihadis believe and they have stated repeatedly for about a decade that they will continue to murder Americans wherever they have the opportunity because they believe they can destroy the US. Jihadis aren't a threat to the US; they're a threat to unlucky Americans who happen to cross paths with them.

  Published: April 29, 2007 6:45 PM

• Brainpolice

  "Obviously, this topic is too large for you to get your brain grasp. If you had ever read the Koran or anything on Islam, you would know that the Koran promotes violence against non-muslims; those Koranic verses motivate the jihadis. However, most muslims choose to ignore them and live a peaceful live with members of other religions."

  Once again, I consider this propaganda.

  Published: April 29, 2007 7:12 PM

• Brainpolice

  A further comment.

  "What's important is what the jihadis believe and they have stated repeatedly for about a decade that they will continue to murder Americans wherever they have the opportunity because they believe they can destroy the US."

  This is exactly the purpose of terrorism. The purpose of terrorism is not to destroy the US. It isn't so much to destroy things as much as it is to scare you into thinking that a threat exists. That's why it's terrorism. It's the use of fear as a means of intimidation. To react to this with fear is to give in to the terrorists.

  In either case, the answer to the question, "what do you do when they're at your doorstep" should be have an obvious answer to most people here: self-defense. Yea, if some thug comes on my property threatening me, I'll defend myself. What more of an answer can you possibly want? In either case, I thought it was made clear already that such a threat does not exist. So what is your concern all about?

  Since you seem to be fearful of these people so much, I have to ask what your proposed solution is? What exactly are you getting at? What exactly are you advocating? Without advocating something, it appears at face value just to be your opinion on a particular religion. Without being clear on this, of course I'm going to assume that you're argueing for the warfare state. The arguement you are making is precisely an arguement I have heard some so-called "christian conservatives" make to support the war on terrorism - "Islam = evil".

  The problem does not lie in any religion itself. It lies is questionable interpretation of religion (I.E. I can misinterpret the bible to imply horrific things too, it wouldn't mean that this is what most christians believe) and the use of it to further political ends. This is not something unique to the history of only Islam. Jihadists, in my view, are exploiting muslim religion for political ends, because terrorism is all about fear-mongering for political ends. It is a fallacy to argue against the religion itself on these grounds.

  Published: April 29, 2007 7:26 PM

• Brainpolice

  How do we protect ourselves from people who have bad ideas? Well, we can choose to disassociate with them, and we can choose to employ self-defense if they attempt to use any force on us. Better yet: we can change their hearts by introducing them to better ideas, then things are even better because there is reason to disassociate or defend yourself. But it does not follow that we can simply employ force on others simply because they have bad ideas.

  Published: April 29, 2007 7:30 PM

• Brainpolice

  edit: no reason

  Published: April 29, 2007 7:32 PM

• Björn Lundahl

  Now I want, for once, to tell what I truly feel:

  Actually, personally I cannot stand the Arabs. Generally their culture seems to be one of hatred. I think that their culture is disgusting. Their countries are run by maniacs, 100 percent idiots, they are a bunch of pure criminals and all of them should be, at least, locked in forever. The Arabs are anti liberty and anti civilization. I do not trust them at all. No, I cannot stand them. They hate the Americans and they hate the Western World and all what they can do is to hate, hate, hate and hate and that is why I hate them.

  Despite my feelings against them, their case against Israel might be good and true. This has nothing to do with what I feel about them. It is a question about justice. They do not, though, seem to care much about justice in their own countries.

  Christian Arabs seems to be quite good people.

  The war in Iraq is another matter which I do not support.

  I am sorry, but I had to say what I felt.

  Björn Lundahl
  

  Published: April 30, 2007 1:52 AM

• Brainpolice

  "They hate the Americans and they hate the Western World and all what they can do is to hate, hate, hate and hate and that is why I hate them."

  You are welcome to that view, but do you not see the obvious contradiction? You are complaining that others are hateful, and then acting just like them. I would also counter that your blanket accessment simply isn't true. From what I can tell, alot of the younger generation in, say, Iran, are in love with American culture. They gobble american pop culture right up, and their governments make silly attempts to ban this. They only get united nationalistically against "the west" when there is political involvement in their affairs, and elites who use this as propaganda.

  Who is "they" anyways? What is this "they"?

  "Their countries are run by maniacs"

  Aren't all countries run by maniacs? How is this unique to these people? How are "our maniacs" any better then theirs? How is christians hating arabs superior to arabs hating you? How is protectionism in the name of white-christian-nationalism superior to protectionism in the name of arab-muslim-nationalism? These cultural questions are entirely irrelevant to libertarianism and are defacto solved under such conditions.

  "Christian Arabs seems to be quite good people."

  Very strange world-view you got there. Arabs are all a bunch of hateful scum, unless they convert to your religion? Then of all sudden they are quite good people?

  "The Arabs are anti liberty and anti civilization."

  Calling for people to be forcably locked in their own countries, and restricting private property owners from inviting them onto their property or selling property to them, is anti liberty and anti civilization.

  Collective identities can have no uniform traits. This reminds me of "mozart was a red". Sheesh.

  Published: April 30, 2007 2:59 AM

• Brainpolice

  My conflict model barometer is at a 10/10. Affirmative.

  Published: April 30, 2007 3:04 AM

• Björn Lundahl

  Brainpolice

  “You are welcome to that view, but do you not see the obvious contradiction? You are complaining that others are hateful, and then acting just like them.”

  I knew when I wrote this that it might seem to be a contradiction, but it is not. If someone goes around hating people for no real reason it is not a contradiction to hate that person or intensely dislike that person for having such feelings against his fellow men. For example, self-defence is not either a “contradiction”. It might also seem to be, but it is not.

  “Who is "they" anyways? What is this "they"?”

  Those people that hate the U.S. and the Western World, or, alternatively, the fanatics.

  “Aren't all countries run by maniacs?”

  No, I do not consider all governments to be a bunch of maniacs. Some politicians are quite good people and some are not. They are, though, misled, deluded and believe in the wrong ideas. There is a difference between Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Stalin, Muammar al-Qaddafi and ordinary western politicians.

  “How is protectionism in the name of white-christian-nationalism superior to protectionism in the name of arab-muslim-nationalism?”

  I do not want any protectionism. I want a totally free world.

  “Very strange world-view you got there. Arabs are all a bunch of hateful scum, unless they convert to your religion?”

  No, Buddhists seem, for example, to be quite nice. Maybe they are even nicer than we are.

  “Calling for people to be forcably locked in their own countries, and restricting private property owners from inviting them onto their property or selling property to them, is anti liberty and anti civilization.”

  I was referring to that the people in their governments should be, at least, locked in forever.

  I want every man on earth to respect each other and that means also, that I dislike people who do not do that. I even hate those who are very disrespectful. I think that such feelings are sound and good.

  Björn Lundahl

  
  

  Published: April 30, 2007 6:27 AM

• Brainpolice

  "I knew when I wrote this that it might seem to be a contradiction, but it is not. If someone goes around hating people for no real reason it is not a contradiction to hate that person or intensely dislike that person for having such feelings against his fellow men"

  But it is a fallacy to hate a GROUP because certain individuals in that group hate you. nd that is the implied sentiment that causes pause for me. To be clear - there is no violation of rights involved in simply hating someone. But I'm not debating rights, I'm debating ideology or methodology - I'm contesting the way in which you are targeting a group ("the arabs") in a collective manner. Some of your statements taken at face value are indeed a characterization of a collective.

  "I want every man on earth to respect each other and that means also, that I dislike people who do not do that. I even hate those who are very disrespectful. I think that such feelings are sound and good."

  Such feelings are indeed sound and good - so long as they are not conflated to represent a collective. As soon as it becomes a blanket characterization of a collective, I consider it unsound and bad. The statement I was responding to appears to be a characterization of an entire identity group: arabs. You corrected me by making some kind of distinction between who you are refering to and who you are not - which is to imply that your statements with respect to "the arabs" cannot be taken at face value, if what you are refering to is something more confined than this.

  I do not contest your right to think these thoughts, write them or what have you. I contest the truth of such statements, in referance to an entire collective identity group, as "Generally their culture seems to be one of hatred", "I think that their culture is disgusting." I do not aknowledge statements such as "The Arabs are anti liberty and anti civilization" to be statements of fact. I personally consider it to be an innacurate statement and a personal prejudice.

  Sure, you can think these thoughts as you please. I'm not challenging your right to be prejudiced. Nor am I challenging your right to dissacociate.
  I'm challenging your prejudice because I think it simply is not true.

  Published: April 30, 2007 7:04 AM

• RogerM

  Brainless:"Since you seem to be fearful of these people so much, I have to ask what your proposed solution is?"

  I'm not afraid of these people. Why do you persist in trying to read my mind? Are you under the delusion that you're some kind of psychic?

  As for what to do, I think we're doing it right now in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. We're not attacking people with bad ideas; we're attacking people who use violence to spread those ideas.

  Published: April 30, 2007 9:22 AM

• Björn Lundahl

  Brainpolice

  I was especially referring to fanatical Arab people.

  But it is a fact that our cultures have a great influence on each of us individually and are also a result of our individual personal views. I do not entirely buy the concept that those fanatics are “culturally isolated people” with no relations to other people feelings and characteristics in society and I do suspect that the seeds of those ideas might exist, but to a lesser degree, among many other Arabs.

  It is not either a coincidence that respect of each other and economic prosperity goes hand in hand. The idea of the Western World or the symbol of the Western World is liberty.

  If we can say something good about a culture we could logically also say something bad about a culture.

  The Arnold Schwarzenegger movie “True Lies” from 1994 spotted hatred and destructive tendencies in the Arab world:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Lies

  We all know what happened in 2001.

  It is also true that the U.S. government has stimulated and promoted this hatred among Arab people.

  Here is an example of Japanese cultural characteristics during World War II:

  The Rape of Nanking:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoW2WYdOsvg

  Naturally, the Japanese culture has changed a lot since then.

  Björn Lundahl

  
  

  Published: April 30, 2007 9:23 AM

• RogerM

  Bjorn: "Actually, personally I cannot stand the Arabs."

  That's perfectly understandable. And it's not a contradiction as Brainless suggests. Where is the virtue in tolerating evil? Hating evil is a virtue.

  However, having lived among Iranians and Arabs and studied them a great deal, I have to defend the majority of Arabs against your view of them. The majority are muslim in name only. Very few "muslims" have read the Koran or attend a mosque. They know very little about their religion. They consider themselves muslim because their parents were. They're very much like the Jews in Israel, 80% of whom are atheists, but still consider themselves Jews.

  The jihadis and their sympathizers are a very small percentage, probably less than 10%. However, considering over a billion muslims in the world, the absolute number is quite large.

  Yes, most Arabs will tell a pollster that they hate the US, but that doesn't mean it's completely true. I lived in Iran in 1976, before the Shah fell, and every single day, from almost everyone I met I would hear "We Iranians love Americans but hate your government." I heard similar things from Arabs when I lived in Morocco.

  Arabs don't like our policy toward Israel, but they don't really know what it is. Since their defeat by Israelis in 1973, their state-owned media has fed them a steady stream of propaganda about how they had defeated the Israelis until the US stepped in and saved Israel. There is no truth in that. The US did not help Israel during the war, but did send them some worn out equipment afterwards. The US was far more pro-Arab at that time.

  The Arab state-owned media today keeps hatred of Israel and the US at a fever pitch by publishing disgusting stories filled with lies about both. During the Afghan campaign, Al Ahram, the largest and oldest Egyptian paper reported that the US dropped food supplies to starving Aghans in the middle of mine fields in order to murder civilians, or that the food we delivered was poisoned. In Iraq, Al Ahram accused US troops of using Iraqi children for target practice, of giving poisoned candy and toys with bombs inside to Iraqi children, and that troops used night vision goggles to see through women's clothing.

  In spite of all that, Arabs are clamboring to immigrate to the US.

  The average Arab cares mostly about earning a living to provide for his family; they're very family oriented. Keep in mind that the Arabs have been fighting jihadis for almost a century, and jihadis have killed far more Arabs than the US has killed, and have killed far more Arabs than they have killed Americans.

  Published: April 30, 2007 9:40 AM

• RogerM

  Bjorn:"They hate the Americans and they hate the Western World and all what they can do is to hate, hate, hate and hate and that is why I hate them."

  Americans have to endure a lot of hatred from Europeans, too. Look at the anti-Americanism in the latest French campaigns. Jihadis get a lot of their material from European anti-American hate. My daughter just finished a semester at a French University in Grenoble and had to endure a lot of hate speech about the US, but she still loves France and can't wait to go back. Americans love to visit Europe and accept the anti-American attitude as just another inconvenience, like high prices and surley waiters.

  Published: April 30, 2007 10:28 AM

• Björn Lundahl

  RogerM

  “I have to defend the majority of Arabs against your view of them.”

  I can accept the view that most Arabs are okay.

  In the beginning of the 70s I went to a few private schools in England. A lot of students from Iran studied in those days in England and the U.S. They came from rich families and the Shah ruled Iran. Even when I was only 14 years old I realized that some of them were quite fanatic and very nationalistic. The Shah was some kind of godlike figure and Iran or Persia was the centre of the universe.

  By the way, one of those schools was Greylands College, Bembridge, on the Isle of Wight. I was 16 years old when I attended Greylands College:

  http://greylandscollege.com/

  I recognize some of these faces (some of them were from Iran):

  http://greylandscollege.com/swains%20end%20residents.jpg

  I have written in their guestbook:

  http://greylandscollege.com/guest_book.htm

  In those days very few of them lived in Sweden. During the 80s, though, a lot of them fled the Ayatollah regime in Iran and immigrated to Sweden. Once again I came in contact with Iranians.

  As I work for a landlord and as I am in charge of renting out commercial facilities, write contracts and so on, I often come in contact with Iranians and they are really very good. I enjoy meeting them and they are not at all interested in politics. They are quite similar to us and I do not feel much difference in meeting those guys than meeting people from my own country. Usually they have small businesses and they rent pizzerias, garages, storages and shops. They work hard and they pay the rent. They are serious.

  Iranians are, of course, not Arabs but their cultures are similar.

  Of course many of them are okay.

  My view is something like this:

  In those countries there are larger breeding grounds of fanatism than in the Western World. That is my view. On the average people are nice but still those breeding grounds exist.

  Can you accept that?

  Björn Lundahl

  Published: April 30, 2007 1:51 PM

• Björn Lundahl

  RogerM

  “Americans have to endure a lot of hatred from Europeans, too.”

  “My daughter just finished a semester at a French University in Grenoble and had to endure a lot of hate speech about the US, but she still loves France and can't wait to go back.”

  Well, Air France does not run down your buildings, do they?

  Yes, I have heard about those froggies. They drink a lot of wine, eat French fries and drive around in silly cars like Renault, Citroen and Peugeot.

  And just watch this French guy when he visits England (it is my favourite):

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_UTg5stdgg

  
  Apart from making jokes, yes it is true that, especially the French seems to make a lot of fuss about you Americans. I do not consider it that deep.

  USA is in many eyes representing Capitalism and there is an anti capitalistic mentality. This is, of course, too bad.

  USA is also the most powerful nation on earth, which also makes some people mad. The strong and powerful are often hated.

  Still deep down there are strong bonds between Europe and the U.S.

  Björn Lundahl

  
  

  Published: April 30, 2007 3:09 PM

• RogerM

  Bjorn: "And just watch this French guy when he visits England (it is my favourite)"

  Thanks for the link! I love the Pink Panther series.

  Have you read, or read about "America Alone" by the Canadian writer Mark Stein? It's very interesting and unusual because Canadians not only dislike the US, but Americans as well.

  Published: April 30, 2007 4:36 PM

• alt1985

  BRAINPOLICE:

  "How do we protect ourselves from people who have bad ideas? Well, we can choose to disassociate with them, and we can choose to employ self-defense if they attempt to use any force on us. Better yet: we can change their hearts by introducing them to better ideas, then things are even better because there is reason to disassociate or defend yourself. But it does not follow that we can simply employ force on others simply because they have bad ideas."

  THANK YOU! You finally answered my question. You never told me we could choose to employ self-defense if they attempt any force on us! This was the hypothetical question I posed from my very first post. I would NOT use force on people just because they have bad ideas, which I think you were mistakenly thinking about me, but I would use force on people that DO use force against me *because of* their ideas. I do not support using force on people that *haven't* used force on us. I would like to state that I never said I was someone who supports war prior to being attacked simply because the people believe in a destructive philosophy. In fact, so long as they leave us alone, let them destroy themselves in a society without the freedoms we enjoy. However, if they start to encroach and take away our freedoms, DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND.

  Published: April 30, 2007 4:44 PM

• Brainpolice

  "As for what to do, I think we're doing it right now in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. We're not attacking people with bad ideas; we're attacking people who use violence to spread those ideas."

  Ah, so you DO support the warfare state. I was right: you're using anti-muslim propaganda as reasoning to justify your support for the warfare state. Thankyou for proving my earlier premise. I find it quite sad that you actually believe that the people being hurt by this are only people who use violence. In Iraq, the violence was initiated by the U.S. government. Theirs is a reaction to it. You have things backwards.

  What's going on right now is WARFARE STATISM, and it has a price tag just as large as the welfare state. It now costs around 1 trillion dollars in military spending alone yer year to sustain all this military complex. That's what Clinton's entire budget was not long ago! This has nothing to do with liberty and everything to do with your own hatred, and your willingness to support the mass destruction of person and property to appease your phony fears about people who wear funny hats.

  "Where is the virtue in tolerating evil?"

  That's not what you're doing by supporting the warfare state. You're promoting evil. I don't know how much more simple this can be: murder = evil. When it's committed by a state against people with funny hats, it still is evil. Where is the virtue in PROMOTING EVIL IN THE NAME OF FIGHTING IT? No, this is an oxymoron and a banal attempt to justify empirialism.

  "The idea of the Western World or the symbol of the Western World is liberty."

  This has truth to it. However, it is false to act like western culture has an exclusive monopoly on liberty. Give me a break. Look around yourself.

  " fact, so long as they leave us alone, let them destroy themselves in a society without the freedoms we enjoy. However, if they start to encroach and take away our freedoms, DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND."

  Unfortunately, to put forth our current foreign policy as defense is as disingenuous as a robber telling you that he benefits you by boosting the economy by spending your money.

  Published: April 30, 2007 6:11 PM

• Brainpolice

  No wonder people become anarcho-capitalists: the minarchists allow huge loopholes into their system that, in practise, must amount to support for a whole host of governmental coercions and expansions, even ones that the minarchist may purport to oppose. Apparently half the alleged "minarchist" movement is now filled by people who support the warfare state! Of course, the warfare state is not even compatable with a responsible minarchist view on foreign policy (which, at minimum, means a return to a non-interventionist policy, and at maximum, means privatizing defense).

  Let's make this clear: war-time central planning is socialism. Foreign intervention is statism. Right-wing statism is no better than left-wing statism. The right's policies, which includes this precious "war on terror", is just as expansive and socialist as the left's. Or have we missed the point of the article altogether? Ok. You've done it. You've converted me to anarcho-capitalism by opening my eyes to how hypocritical and inconsistant many minarchists are. Odd how it takes a minarchist to convert me.

  Published: April 30, 2007 6:37 PM

• alt1985

  Okay, I'm done and moving on. Thanks for the debate.

  Published: April 30, 2007 6:56 PM

• RogerM

  Brainless: "This has nothing to do with liberty and everything to do with your own hatred, and your willingness to support the mass destruction of person and property to appease your phony fears about people who wear funny hats."

  I'm afraid a men in funny hats, so I want to murder innocent women and children. I suppose you think that's an honest assessment of my motives. Allow me to apply a similar logic to you: You're such a coward that you would rather live under an Islamic theocracy than defend yourself. You don't care how many Americans die, as long as you stay alive and keep your stuff.

  Yes, I do support the war in Iraq. Always have, although I think Bush has been very incompetent in his handling of it.

  Published: April 30, 2007 7:19 PM

• RogerM

  Brainless: "You've converted me to anarcho-capitalism by opening my eyes to how hypocritical and inconsistant many minarchists are. Odd how it takes a minarchist to convert me."

  You're so dishonest. You're just like the socialists who call into conservative radio talk shows and claim to have been conservative until some event forced you to face the truth. I could tell from your first post you are an anarchist. Nobody converted you.

  Published: April 30, 2007 7:22 PM

• Brainpolice

  "I'm afraid a men in funny hats, so I want to murder innocent women and children. I suppose you think that's an honest assessment of my motives. Allow me to apply a similar logic to you: You're such a coward that you would rather live under an Islamic theocracy than defend yourself."

  This is a misrepresentation of my position. My position has been that there is nothing for me to defend myself against, because I have not been aggressed against by any muslims or terrorists, and neither have you. I never advocated pacifism. I advocated that you cannot punch people in the nose on the basis that they MIGHT (your you THINK they might) punch you in the nose in the future.

  That would make you the aggressor; to argue that this is "defense" is absurd. This is exactly what our foreign policy is like. That is exactly what the War in Iraq situation is like. Aggression. Yes, if you support the war in iraq, you are supporting an aggression, not defense. The entire war on terrorism is based on this nonsensical ethic of pre-emptive aggression.

  As for Muslim theocracy - what are you talking about? I thought we cleared this up already. None of us face a real threat of muslim theocracy being imposed on us. The amount of Muslims in this country constitutes a tiny minority. I would truly rather have a free society than a warfare state, and that's what this boils down to.

  As for the murder of innocent women and children, yes, that is part of the consequences of the warfare state. You just might be used to the more PC term, "collateral damage" (I.E. the murder of innocent people and the mass-destruction of their property). The warfare state is the ultimate destructor of property, so it is expressly against liberty.

  "You don't care how many Americans die, as long as you stay alive and keep your stuff."

  Not at all. I care for all the Americans who have to put up with all the expansions of government that come with the warfare state. This includes all of the victims of the rise in police powers (like being arrested pre-emptively without due process or rule of law), all the soliders killed, the higher taxes paid, the inflation, etc. But also, I'm not a hypocrit, I also value the life of individual human beings, not just "Americans" as some kind of collectivist construct. This means that my sympathies also lie with the people killed, maimed, tortured, who have their property destroyed in foreign lands by military aggression.

  If you cannot recognize the difference between defense and aggression, then how the hell can we have a consistant ethic of liberty?
  http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block24.html

  "Yes, I do support the war in Iraq. Always have, although I think Bush has been very incompetent in his handling of it."

  It is impossible to competently handle something that is incompetent in itself. It is impossible to create "order" in such situations, especially when the state is the source of the particular disorder. There is nothing the state can do to produce "stability" in Iraq, nor would the war be justified even if "stability" could be restored. The intervention of the war itself was the initial source of instability.

  This relates to the problem of interventionism. Ok, so the state created bad consequences with intervention A. So, you propose intervention B. But oh no's! Intervention B now created a problem, so we must propose intervention C now.
  This process (government intervening to "fix" the problems created by its previous intervention) accumulates over tiome and the problem is never solved. You are, however, left with a socialist state.

  "You're just like the socialists who call into conservative radio talk shows and claim to have been conservative until some event forced you to face the truth. I could tell from your first post you are an anarchist. Nobody converted you."

  Actually, I've been a radical minarchist teetering on anarcho-capitalism for a long time. The more that I started debating other minarchists, the more I started to realize how many loopholes they allowed for. "Libertarians" for the warfare state, "Libertarians" for tariff walls, "Libertarians" In either case, I've noticed that the way you treat the term anarchism is very incorrect. You seem to jumble all anarcho groups into one. Anarcho-capitalists have a VERY different philosophy then left-anarchists. Left-anarchists wish to abolish private property and all institutions period for that matter - abolishing government is only an afterthought. They also might tend to support violent ludditism.

  Published: April 30, 2007 7:54 PM

• Brainpolice

  As for conservative talk shows, interestingly that was addressed in this article. Most conservatives seem to get their ideology from cartoonish pundits in the media and politicians rather then reading the works of people such as Locke or Mises. Both the cold war and 9/11 functioned as boons for the right to become statist.

  The only "conservative" in the government that I can think of that is truly worthy of praise is Ron Paul - because he is a libertarian (with slight paleo-con leanings). True conservatives should be rallying around Ron Paul. From what I've seen, alot of them (in the media especially) blow him him off as a "leftist" and "isolationist". One guy on a talk show tried to compare him to Ted Kennedy!

  Hogwash, I say! Ron Paul is the last hope for the American right.

  Published: April 30, 2007 8:35 PM

• Björn Lundahl

  “Have you read, or read about "America Alone" by the Canadian writer Mark Stein? It's very interesting and unusual because Canadians not only dislike the US, but Americans as well.”

  No, but your point is that because of the fact that the U.S. is so much a greater country than Canada (in the number of inhabitants and total GNP), some Canadians dislike the U.S.?

  Yes, I believe that this is true. It is not real hatred.

  At Greylands College there was a Canadian guy. His name was Joe. He is in the photo, a white guy standing in front of three guys in the back. When I was 16 years old I thought that Americans and Canadians were almost the same. In my ears they sounded the same and when I saw photos on Canada, it looked like the U.S. So I said to Joe: “Oh, so you are an American? No, I am not, I am a Canadian. I answered something like, well that is the same. He got a little irritated and answered: That is not the same!!” Today, of course, I do recognize a difference between Canada and the U.S. Canada seems to be a mix between the U.S. and a European country. Joe said some negative things about the U.S. and I immediately felt that this was because of the importance of the U.S.

  I have always liked the U.S. (and also England). I feel connected to the Anglo American part of the world. I have always felt that this is the “good side” of the world. I am not talking about American governments but of the people and the national characteristics.

  Culturally, the idea of individual liberty is probably stronger in the U.S., Canada and also in Great Britain than in the rest of the Western World.

  Being a libertarian, those cultural differences between nations are probably less important and it feels therefore a little odd to focus on them. But at the same time cultural differences between nations do exist.

  Björn Lundahl
  

  Published: April 30, 2007 9:02 PM

• Brainpolice

  "Culturally, the idea of individual liberty is probably stronger in the U.S., Canada and also in Great Britain than in the rest of the Western World."

  I agree with this. I also agree with the view that, culturally, asians are the most collectivistic due to their high levels of homogeniety. However, I believe that when you show people liberty, in time they will become more individualistic. It is polylogistic, is it not, to think that such things are necessarily inherent to the collective and unaddressable?

  I also think that there is a certain danger in becoming culturally-one-sided. There is a certain point where cultural or national pride turns into ignorance. It's not as if there is no preceding history of the world and suddenly "western civilization" fell down on us from the sky as superior, and suddenly "non-western civilization" suddenly fell down on us from the sky as "inferior".

  "Being a libertarian, those cultural differences between nations are probably less important and it feels therefore a little odd to focus on them"

  Sure. But I concur with Walter Block that cultural questions are irrelevant to libertarianism itself. Cultural conditions are optimal so long as it is all within a voluntary context. So long as things are consistant with the non-aggression axoim, cultural questions are irrelevant. It's also important to keep in mind that such cultural differences are in many ways the result of eons of political conditioning.

  Keep the battle of ideas in mind. Why should we "give up" on the battle of ideas? Why should we conclude that noone in culture X is capable of adopting better ideas? Shouldn't the libertarian enthusiastically support educating such people to these better ideas? I find that much more compelling then concluding that culture X will never move towards liberty and therefore we must disengage interaction with them completely.

  Published: April 30, 2007 9:16 PM

• Björn Lundahl

  Brainpolice

  Brainpolice “It is polylogistic, is it not, to think that such things are necessarily inherent to the collective and unaddressable?”

  Björn Cultural differences are, of course, not inherent biological differences. They are therefore addressable.

  Björn "Being a libertarian, those cultural differences between nations are probably less important and it feels therefore a little odd to focus on them"

  Brainpolice “Sure. But I concur with Walter Block that cultural questions are irrelevant to libertarianism itself. Cultural conditions are optimal so long as it is all within a voluntary context. So long as things are consistant with the non-aggression axoim, cultural questions are irrelevant. It's also important to keep in mind that such cultural differences are in many ways the result of eons of political conditioning.”

  Björn What I meant was that as I am a libertarian and therefore regards us all as individuals it feels a little odd for me to focus on our cultural differences as this is a collective identity.

  By the way, that we are individuals are biological facts, collectives are not.

  Sure, cultural differences are irrelevant to libertarianism itself.

  Brainpolice “Keep the battle of ideas in mind. Why should we "give up" on the battle of ideas? Why should we conclude that noone in culture X is capable of adopting better ideas? Shouldn't the libertarian enthusiastically support educating such people to these better ideas? I find that much more compelling then concluding that culture X will never move towards liberty and therefore we must disengage interaction with them completely.”

  Björn Yes, a libertarian should enthusiastically support educating people of libertarian ideas. Anyone can change his mind as long as he keeps it open.

  As individual liberty promotes prosperity, western culture and civilization dominates the world.

  Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo etc, for example, looks in many ways more of what is supposed to be typically American than America itself.

  Björn Lundahl

  Published: May 1, 2007 2:52 AM

• Brainpolice

  Agreed.

  "What I meant was that as I am a libertarian and therefore regards us all as individuals it feels a little odd for me to focus on our cultural differences as this is a collective identity. By the way, that we are individuals are biological facts, collectives are not."

  Yes. You seem to be saying the same thing I am. Collectives should be thought of as no more than a figure of speech, not an existing thing. That's precisely what I was getting at: the problem of getting involved in questions of collective identity. I think getting libertarianism involved in cultural questions poses a risk of becoming polylogistic and generating collective-identity conflict. Whereas part of the point of the original article here is to avoid adopting a group conflict-model.

  Published: May 1, 2007 3:32 AM

• RogerM

  Bjorn:"No, but your point is that because of the fact that the U.S. is so much a greater country than Canada (in the number of inhabitants and total GNP), some Canadians dislike the U.S.?"

  Actually, I wasn't trying to make a point with Steyn's book. I don't really know why Canadians are so anti-American except that they tend to be much more socialistic than Americans, and they tend to have more interaction with people from the northeast who, by southwestern standards, are very rude people. (The French have a reputation for being rude, but I've visited France and don't think they can hold a candle to people in the NE US when it comes to rudeness.)

  I just was interested in your thoughts on Steyn's book, since you're European. I'm not convinced of his thesis, but it's intriguing, and I think there is some truth to it.

  Published: May 1, 2007 8:56 AM

• Juan

  Björn,

  I heard your anti-arab speech. Very nice.

  Let me ask you some questions...

  1) Are you aware of the atrocities commited in the so called western world during the 20th century ? For instance, two world wars and a left-wing revolution in Russia wich liquidated some 30 millions ? Do you know that the american and british governments were allies of the brutal murderer Stalin ?

  2) Now, what do you make of it ?

  and

  3) Why do you single out the 'arabs' as evil but don't pay attention to the massive crimes against innocent westerners commited by criminal westerners ? Is that fair or even rational ?

  This questions are addressed to mr. RogerM as well, but I'm sure he'll pretend they don't exist - and go on saying that 'libertarianism' equals the terror bombing of the middle east.

  Published: May 1, 2007 10:04 PM

• Björn Lundahl

  Juan

  You are of course right. Western governments including its supporters have done terrible crimes. That is one of the reasons why I am against governments or rather against involuntarily arranged governments.

  But if it is true what you said about Stalin, I have no complaints about that “murder”.

  My posts were mainly focused on the situation of the world today and the breeding grounds for further violence.

  Thanks for bringing this up.

  Björn Lundahl
  

  Published: May 2, 2007 1:36 AM

• Juan

  Björn,

  Let me clarify that I'm not suggesting enforced 'multiculturalism' is a good thing. Of course it is not. You are free to dislike whoever you wish. You're only asked not to trespass on their property...

  But the crucial point for me is that this characterization of 'arabs' as people guided by an evil ideology is very hypocritical.

  Consider western nationalism...it's the very same thing as a 'jihad'. As a matter of fact, western governments, operating on the principle of nationalism, have engaged in total wars of devastating consequences. And they did that only sixty years ago.
  What you perhaps have not realized yet, is that stressing the fact, as RogerM does, that some arabs are fanatics is a perfect device to hide and divert attention from the same fanatical attitudes in the western world.
  Try for instance smoking in a place were smoking has been banned by the state. If you insist on your right to self-ownership you'll be fined - if you don't pay, you'll be jailed by the police and killed if you resist. In my opinion such a fanatical and totalitarian actions on the part of the western states are identical to the way the the muslim world is run.
  Yes, it is true that the West is more free and civilized in some ways. And in some other ways is just as barbaric as if we were in the stone age.
  I don't understand your comment on Stalin. My point is that the West, wich is supposedly the home to capitalism, in reality was and is very friendly to the commies. That's another reason to be very cautios before praising 'our' culture and political systems...

  
  

  Published: May 2, 2007 11:52 AM

• Björn Lundahl

  Juan

  “Yes, it is true that the West is more free and civilized in some ways. And in some other ways is just as barbaric as if we were in the stone age.”

  I was referring to the more free and civilized ways and not to the barbaric ones.

  Their culture, I believe is generally more oppressive than the culture in west.

  I misunderstood your point regarding Stalin, but as I said western governments including its supporters have done terrible crimes.

  “That's another reason to be very cautios before praising 'our' culture and political systems...”

  It is the libertarian part of our culture I am praising. It may not be a large part, but it is still something.

  Björn Lundahl

  Published: May 2, 2007 1:44 PM

• Björn Lundahl

  The murderer is sentenced guilty before the nature of life

  
  You enter the kingdom of life and believe that you stand above its rules and its very foundation. What right gives you the right to abandon my rules? If you do not like this dimension you can pass away from it any time you want. No one is forcing you to stay.
  
  With the help of reason, consciousness and intelligence, you can observe that your fellow men strive to sustain their lives. They do what their nature calls them to do, namely to live. You are a threat against that! You are a threat against this dimension! This dimension would not exist if it couldn’t cope with what is threatening it. You wouldn’t have lived if murdering has been allowed, and despite of this fact, you place yourself above the very cause of your own life. How can you place yourself above the very cause of your existence!?

  No organism or life can exist if it is not accommodated to what life demands, and that is partly to eliminate the very things that can cause that life ceases. It is the self-preservation that is the very cause for me to throw out the murderer from my kingdom. You never learn! You are parasites of life! You are saying that you did not choose life because you didn’t create yourself, but no one has, for all men are participants of an eternal process and this fact does not declare your irresponsibility.

  The process in nature that created me, demands that I follow its rules or else the process would never had created me and would never had risen, for it would be doomed to die from the very beginning. It is created in such a way that it avoids death, which is the reason for me having self-preservation, for death I else would not have avoided. My nature is thus such that the murderer’s actions shall be rejected and punished until such destructive threats ceases to exist.

  My lawbook is the existence’s law, life’s law, our kingdom’s law, this dimension’s law or my nature’s law, because I am the nature, a part of cosmos and I must play by its rules for nothing else exists for me.

  With a good conscience I will now consider if you also shall be thrown out from my dimension and return to the unconsciousness. If I judge to not throw you out, I will do it with a bad conscience since I have the insight about this dimension’s utmost playing rules which I then will have denied.

  Björn Lundahl

  
  

  Published: May 4, 2007 1:22 AM

• Björn Lundahl

  The thief is sentenced guilty before the nature of life.

  
  Men visit my kingdom for a time and then later leave it. I observe this species that with its reason, consciousness and intelligence protects her values and purposes. They cultivates harvest where the wind blow the very least, they build greenhouses to protect the harvest against frigidity; they spray the harvest to protect it from insects. With its reason, consciousness and intelligence some men observe that the harvest can be stolen and out of this reason men defends their harvest with the might of weaponry, for the self-preservation and man’s purposes are then protected.

  You can steal due to the fact that man to some extent succeeded to keep down the theft and you can live because man has to some extent succeeded to suppress the theft. Human beings became human beings the day they started to create and you belong to this species. You enter the kingdom of life and believe that you stand above its rules and its very foundation. What right gives you the right to ignore my rules? Since childhood you have learnt that theft is wrong and despite of this, you steal. You are a parasite of life, motives and objectives because theft is a parasite of life, motives and objectives! The day man no longer succeeds in her effort to suppress theft, that day motives, objectives and life ceases to exist.

  The process in nature that created me, demands that I follow its rules or else the process would never had created me and would never had risen, for it would be doomed to die from the very beginning. It is created in such a way that it avoids death, which is the reason for me having self-preservation, for death I else would not have avoided My nature is thus such that the thief’s actions must be stopped and punished until they ceases to exist.

  My lawbook is the existence’s law, life’s law, our kingdom’s law, this dimension’s law or my nature’s law, because I am the nature, a part of cosmos and I must play by its rules for nothing else exists for me.

  In the name of true Justice, as it is built upon the insight about this dimension’s utmost playing rules, you will now be sentenced for the crime you have done and for the compensation to the victim and this to its fullest extent.

  Björn Lundahl

  
  

  Published: May 4, 2007 1:24 AM

• RogerM

  Bjorn:"The process in nature that created me, demands that I follow its rules or else the process would never had created me and would never had risen, for it would be doomed to die from the very beginning."

  Interesting posts on murder and theft. But did you really intend to give "the process" human characteristics? The process "demands" and "creates". That sounds very much like a personality. Can forces of nature demand and create? My understanding of atheism is that only physical forces, like gravity, exist. Mankind is a result of random chance, not intention.

  A parody of the Desiderata goes "the universe is laughing at you behind your back." The point of the parody was that people assume that life has meaning and purpose when the universe knows differently. In reality, the universe would have to be a person to laugh. It's not. It's rocks and forces of physics, in the atheist view. Mankind is an accident; the universe isn't proud that man appeared and it won't care if he disappears. No one is out there to care. Man cares only because he has deluded himself into thinking he is more than what he is.

  Bjorn: "You enter the kingdom of life and believe that you stand above its rules and its very foundation. What right gives you the right to abandon my rules?"

  Who is speaking here? I realize that you're writing poetically and never intended anyone to be speaking in reality. It's like the poets who give human characteristics to inanimate objects, like trees. But when discussing real life, we have to abandon the poetry and realize that, in the atheist view, no one exists inside the material universe, or outside it, to say those things.

  Published: May 4, 2007 9:28 AM

• Björn Lundahl

  RogerM

  It is, if you like, a poetic way to explain some natural phenomena through a human mind. It might increase understanding and deliver a few insights and it is another way to explain it. We have, for example, eyes to perceive our material universe and this fact of our nature or this organ exists to increase our odds to survive. In the same poetic way we could explain their existence through giving the process of natural selection or evolution life by talking to us and telling us that this organ we have received because of the fact that it gave us better chances to survive. But it is naturally, always we who understand such a fact and it is always we who are talking to ourselves.

  I am sorry but no one supposes that the sun or the rocks will cry when we are all dead or supposes that they are talking to us. It is not any part of their natures.

  Only man values things and only man pursue ends to realize those values or ends. This is our nature and it is as natural as the rest of nature.

  Björn Lundahl
  

  Published: May 8, 2007 2:21 AM

• Bluergy

  Hello!
  Your site is just amazing!
  Good luck!
  
  http://cheaphotels.ning.com/

  Published: April 14, 2008 3:42 AM

• Tesjyuon

  k
  http://phenterine.weebly.com ">k

  Published: May 3, 2008 5:02 AM

• orilyclible

  an oVs(i) board of deacons and other organiztaijons of thes cuhfch, and transacting (moderaotr opr clerk of session or olkf
  http://mail.ru
  mial.ru

  Published: December 5, 2008 6:13 PM