The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact dividing up Poland between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.Otter: Flounder, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You f-cked up - you trusted us! . . .
Bluto: [thrusting six-pack into Flounder's hands] My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.
-- Animal House, 1978.
Folks,
I predicted this over a year and a half ago. It gives me no solace to see that I was right. After the Peters' article be sure and read Brian Faughnan's comments over at RedState.com.
Mike
III
Obama feeds allies to bear
By Ralph Peters
New York Post, September 18, 2009
STILL determined to "push the reset button with Rus sia," President Obama hit the delete key on our allies in Eastern Europe.
Obama's decision to abandon missile defense as we know it, cutting the throats of Poland and the Czech Republic, handed Moscow's hard-liners their biggest win since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Russian strongman Vladimir Putin insisted all along that we'd never be permitted to deploy an anti-ballistic missile system in the former Soviet empire. He was right.
And Obama got nothing in return. No Russian commitments on Iran's nuclear program. No sovereignty guarantees for Georgia. No restrictions on arms sales to Venezuela. Not even a bearhug.
Yesterday, when Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained the rationale for ending our plan to deploy a high-tech radar system and anti-missile interceptors to Eastern Europe, every military argument he advanced was absolutely correct. But, in strategic terms, the decision's a disaster.
The move to kill this program was a White House attempt to toss a bone to the extreme left, which has always hated missile defense. (Why defend ourselves, when we're the enemy?) For that, Obama betrayed the trust of allies who'd done all they could to please us.
The Poles spent enormous political capital to convince their citizens to risk this deployment. They've backed us consistently in NATO and the UN. They sent combat troops to support us in Iraq.
The Czechs also fought our political battles for us, supporting our foreign wars and siding with us in international forums -- angering West European powers.
Now add Poland and the Czech Republic to the list of allies, such as Israel and Honduras, that we've thrown to the wolves. Obama's foreign policy embodies a line from "Animal House": "You [screwed] up -- you trusted us!"
But the worst thing is how this decision's read in Moscow. Putin, Russia's new czar, sees this as a triumph of his will over Obama's weak, retreating US. And he's right.
Thus it came to pass that, 70 years to the day after the Red Army invaded Poland, Warsaw's residents heard the news of this US betrayal and the implicit message that, yes, Eastern Europe still belongs in Moscow's sphere of influence.
If you're a citizen of Ukraine, Georgia or even the NATO-member Baltic states, you must be shuddering. You thought NATO and the US were serious about your right to live in freedom?
Better dig that Latvian-Russian dictionary out of the attic.
The last thing we needed to do was to further encourage Putin to believe he's all-knowing and invincible. But that's just what we've done.
To be fair, the entire debacle has been a bipartisan mess.
I, for one, never believed this was the right system at the right place and time.
The technology was immature, and Iran's a regional, not an intercontinental, problem. But conservatives who believe that any hyperexpensive weapon system deserves automatic support shoved it down our throats and those of our allies. (It's not just the left that damages our defense.)
Once the Bush administration committed to the deployment, I grudgingly supported it: We couldn't hang the East Europeans out to dry after strong-arming them for commitments.
Now the Obama administration's made the mess immeasurably worse. It's a lose-lose situation for us -- and for our allies.
Moscow believes we just signed over a new lease on Eastern Europe. And we didn't even get a tin of caviar. Will the Obama-Putin Act go down in history as the post-modern Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
And here are Brian's comments.
Obama Loses Poland
Posted by Brian Faughnan
Thursday, September 17th at 12:15PM EDT
No commentary necessary:
Former Polish President and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Lech Walesa, has spoken out about media reports that the US has scrapped plans to install a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.
“Americans have always cared only about their interests, and all other [countries] have been used for their purposes. This is another example,” Mr Walesa told TVN24. “[Poles] need to review our view of America, we must first of all take care of our business,” he added.
“I could tell from what I saw, what kind of policies President Obama cultivates,” the former president added. “I simply don’t like this policy, not because this shield was required [in Poland], but [because of] the way we were treated,” he concluded.
Why can’t Lech Walesa get a little perspective? After all, Poland isn’t the first US ally to go under the Obamabus. As one friend of mine said:
Honduras, Colombia, Poland, Czech Republic - If you’re a small country menaced by a big tyrant, we’ll kick you right in the teeth.
I suspect Taiwan, South Korea, and Israel are taking note.
32 comments:
Good! These other countries can start paying for their own defense, instead of the US taxpayer. And the US has fewer entangling alliances to drag them into war over a local squabble it should ignore.
According to the DOE, the US only buys 30% of its crude oil from the Middle East. What would be the impact if we never received any oil from the Middle East, ever again? Remember, we have hundreds of years of coal reserves on the continent, which could be reworked into the liquid products oil currently provides. And I wouldn't be surprised if US oil consumption has already dropped by 10% versus three years ago, due to the economic problems.
I think that every US soldier could pack their toothbrush and board a plane to come home out of 700 US military bases worldwide, and the consequences would only be good for the US. People who disagree should start by explaining how they aren't supporting both the "nationalist" and "war socialism" aspects of National Socialism.
Obama has not scrapped missile defense for Europe. He is simply placing it on board US Navy ships.
OH for Christ sake here we go with the "entangling alliances" crap again. Listen I love the founding fathers and I am a big libertarian but there is a line. You dont wait for the fire to burn to your doorstep before you start fighting it (there is a local lesson there as well prags). You dont let other countries tell you who you can be friends with or who you can trade with Just as no man is an island no nation is an island either. The founders cautioned us to avoid treaties and mutual defense pacts such as the Europeans of time were covered with. Every time some German prince got a bur up his ass and wanted to take his neighbors estates England and France went to war. THATS WHAT WASHINGTON WAS TALKING ABOUT!!
Grenadier1
Personally, I don't buy the claim that the US is actually capable of defending Eastern Europe, much less that such is in the US national interest. It can barely defend itself at this point.
Additionally, even a working "missile sheild" in Eastern Europe is relatively pointless. Russia doesn't need to launch nukes at either the Czechs or the Poles; they're next door & Russia's ground forces are plenty big enough to overrun them.
I see it this way: Obama continues and escalates the war to "bring freedom" to Muslim countries oppressed from within (by supporting the slightly lesser evils like Karzai of Afghanistan), while defecating on CHRISTIAN countries whose emigrants founded and built the late, great United States.
If officially-atheist Russia and its Muuslim ally Iran DO move on Poland and the Baltics, would Obama go in with troops? And, on which side?
There is no "template" solution for dealing all countries that may oppose our interest (or very existence). Russia is not an Iran or North Korea. They, like us, have the ability to dominate some portion of the globe. The last 75 years has show that they require a counter-move for every escalation they undertake. It is unfortunate but to allow the current Russian leadership to perceive they an unchecked shot at rebuilding their previous empire the will do so with all haste. And nothing says we care like an expensive ABM system in an allied country on their border.
god forbid we just sell them the equipment in a normal market exchange and wipe our hands of their problems.
should gun stores or manufacturers now have to write up contracts with ted nugent so that he only kills deer with their rifles?
"The founders cautioned us to avoid treaties and mutual defense pacts such as the Europeans of time were covered with. Every time some German prince got a bur up his ass and wanted to take his neighbors estates England and France went to war. THATS WHAT WASHINGTON WAS TALKING ABOUT!!"
It was German princes then, and Russian and Middle Eastern princes now, in the same power structure of banks, King, nobles, church, and old families. Suppose Russia eats Poland. Why is the US in danger of military attack if it doesn't get involved? The domino theory didn't come true.
"You dont wait for the fire to burn to your doorstep before you start fighting it"
Somebody puts a fleet to sea with a whole load of landing craft painted "USA or Bust", yes, that deserves a response. But how does Russia starting a Vietnam in Poland threaten US? We are blessed with two wonderful moats on the East and West. As long as an army is not preparing to cross the moat, we don't have to get too stirred up defensively. Occupying Poland is not the same as putting nukes in Cuba.
Have you first 3 Anons failed to learn the lessons of history?
Do you think another Major theater war can't happen with one of histories most expansionist cultures?
Do you think handing the Talibans a victory, secure operating bases and more resources is a good idea?
I like the idea of sea mobile defenses. But what good are they if the target is deep in central Europe? They make many things of strategic value to us there. Things the Swiss had to smuggle past the Nazis to us in WW II.
If this is what you believe you are not whistling past the graveyard of history, so much as smoking dope in it!
Follow Grenadier1's example study more history so you don't have to repeat it.
I heard that inexchange for not deploying missiles in easteren europe russia prommissed not to nuke U.S.A. when isreal nukes iran
"Have you first 3 Anons failed to learn the lessons of history? Do you think another Major theater war can't happen with one of histories most expansionist cultures?"
700 bases worldwide aren't enough, we need 1400, 2800, 5600. Spending as much on military as the rest of the world put together is not enough. No amount of military will ever be enough.
That worldview was held by enough of the grassroots to allow the elites to invent a cold war with the USSR. Just another wasteful government program, to put us farther in debt while enriching their defense contract cronies. Unlike Iraq, the USSR was a viable enemy; but the missile gap was not real, and our economy was much stronger than theirs.
More recently, we had a successful military attack on the US continent in September of 2001, by people with Saudi ties, not Iraqi. In response, we went to war with Iraq, not Saudi Arabia. But after that success, why have there not been additional attacks? Not a bus blown up, not a shopping mall, not a letter bomb. We've had eight years of...peace. Why? How could this be, if any foreigner that America doesn't have her foot on the neck of is just itching to blow us up?
I know, it must have been those goofballs at the airport that make you take off your shoes. Their careful inspection of travelers has prevented the delivery of bombs by UPS.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/ParanoidDelusional.shtml
Anon #7
You think that a defense policy like the post revolutionary war era will work better? Only if you forget that dust up with the french. Or the war of 1812 study your history? We almost lost that one. What about that little incident in North Africa? Do you know about the local religious system there? They did not have access to planes then.
Spending as much on military as the rest of the world put together is not enough. Look at how much of that "military" spending is just a way to fund social programs while under funding actual needed defense. Lots of development programs like what became the internet. Was that a bad use of defense dollars Anon? How many bases worldwide? That would depend on the threat maybe we need none or many more.
Our economy is trade driven as much as anything else. And while I would love to see every American vessel armed to the teeth that still would not be enough to keep the trade lanes free or safe. Safe being a relative term.
Soviet equipment was crude often dangerous to the operators. But their was lots of it! This tactic works! It is how the U.S. did our part to beat the NAZI scum. Google Sherman tank Vs. Panther tank if you don't trust me. And it is not the only tank the nazi's built better than the Sherman.
We've had eight years of...peace. Why? Read your Clausewitz, H. John Poole, Rommel, Hồ Chí Minh, Võ Nguyên Giáp, and Sun Tzu and you will understand why. Think Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Ever try to project power when you can't train replacements? Imperial Japan Tried and lost.
Al-Qaeda will not be incompetent, unlucky, and disorganized forever. And with Barry Obama taking the pressure off? Well I am glad I don't live in New York.
If cj428 is right we got the deal of the century!
http://catb.org/~esr/writings/killer-myth.html
I believe I need far less military than exists now, but I don't know how to convince you this arrangement is safe. I reserve the right to make this strategic choice for myself. I would be comfortable living in a port town that posted the equivalent of a gun-free home sign reading: "this harbor has no carrier group...but it does have nuclear torpedos".
One of the areas of contention in a coming unpleasantness will be me retaining my money that you want to spend on a Socialized defense against sea pirates. I want the ship owners to pay for pirate defense out of their own pockets. Not only does this eliminate tax-theft land piracy, but the market discipline keeps the costs of defense under control.
Anon #8
If you think pirates are the only threat put down the bong.
I take the risk of assuming your responding to me.
So I repeat. Our economy is trade driven as much as anything else. And while I would love to see every AMERICAN VESSEL ARMED TO THE TEETH THAT WOULD STILL NOT BE ENOUGH TO KEEP THE TRADE LANES FREE OR SAFE. SAFE BEING A RELATIVE TERM.
Armed American civilian vessels would End 99% of the piracy problem.
But I have some bad news for you that is not the only thing Navies prevent. Just the threat in the headlines. Even if you exclude the unforeseen black swan or "Godzilla" event. Navies are still useful.
You still have the land problem. It did not go away. Their is always some low life who would rather steal than work. And they sometimes get together with other low lifes. Or worse yet get power.
We one had a government that believed we need far less military than exists now. Put a fellow Named Colin Powell in charge of having just enough military. (Read his book if you don't trust me.) Then 9/11 happened and we needed more military.
Then Katrina hit New Orleans and people and equipment we could have used was in the Middle East or no longer readily available. Scrapped or retired.
How much military is one question that greater minds than I have failed to answer. The Swiss plan seems best to me but if you dislike Socialized defense you probably won't like this plan at all.
Oh and nuclear torpedoes not as effective a deterrent as you think.
"If you think pirates are the only threat put down the bong."
Anyone who steals from traders or kidnaps travelers on the ocean is a pirate. It's piracy even if you call it "drug interdiction" or "immigration enforcement" or "import tariff on Chinese tires". Pirates with a gift for PR have made up many fanciful euphemisms for "your money or your life".
"Then 9/11 happened and we needed more military."
A sufficient quantity of jet fighters were in the air, but they didn't shoot down the second hijacked plane before it hit the second tower. Whatever kind of failure this was, it won't be solved by simply having more of the same. The 9/11 attack was exactly the kind of bogieman the entire political sphere claims to exist to thwart -- turns out it's just as slow, expensive, and uncompetitive as the post office. There is always more than one way of doing things. Every claim that 'only a Socialist monopoly can do it' is false.
"How much military is one question that greater minds than I have failed to answer."
We have differing opinions about how much military it takes to make each of us feel safe. Can you explain how it is you or anybody else gets to make this decision for me? Or any other decision?
Anon #9
You are an anarchist are you not? If so what kind?
You want to label every action you disapprove of as piracy. Well it isn't. You seem to think that is the only sea based problem. Once again it is only one problem. So let us go to the other high profile problem terrorism. No terrorism is not piracy! Piracy is a for profit operation think mafia. Mr. pirate wants to steal your boat Mr. terrorist wants to sink it and kill or maim you. He will skip a nice valuable hard target for a nice easy high profile low value soft target anytime.
Do you know why the "interceptors" failed on 9/11?
They were running back and forth. The pilots were improvising and steeling themselves to ram the passenger planes. Post cold war nothing bad can happen. We don't need to keep the planes on alert armed. oops! Had the passengers been armed different result. Thank the gungrabbers for all the dead.
But there are other ways to get a plane with Al-Qaeda's resources at the time rent or buy was an option, Still is. And now you can load it for the specific job.
Your right we do have differing opinions about how much military is needed. We also probably disagree on weather Government has legitimate powers. Please notice I said powers not rights. Only People have Rights.
But one thing you have wrong is the military making me feel safe. If you want safe then die only dead is safe.
The only thing I want from you is to wake up and smell the napalm. The threat will most likely burn you before it starts to threaten me. You are wrong if you think the threat cares about your neutrality. As we will all see when they start in on the Swiss. The slaver faction of Islam is only one threat. The others are open to debate.
"You are an anarchist are you not? If so what kind?"
I don't use that word, most people think it means a bomb-throwing nut. I use the word libertarian.
"Piracy is a for profit operation think mafia."
Yes, exactly, a protection racket, whose goal is to keep people domesticated and farm them for money. 'Nice grocery store you have here, shame if something happens to it. Now voluntarily pay your property taxes.' The most successful pirates have convinced their victims that they need them. Similarly, the most successful version of terrorism is things like antitrust and gun laws. At any time it can swoop down and destroy you. The purpose of the arbitrariness is to induce terror and get people to cower.
"Mr. terrorist [...] will skip a nice valuable hard target for a nice easy high profile low value soft target anytime."
Thus, go after the family hardware store size gun dealers, they can't afford to defend themselves. More fear-inducing result for less enforcement money.
"Do you know why the "interceptors" failed on 9/11? They were running back and forth. The pilots were improvising and steeling themselves to ram the passenger planes. Post cold war nothing bad can happen. We don't need to keep the planes on alert armed. oops!"
So they decided not to load missiles on more jets and get them up there too? Or the missiles weren't stored close enough to the jets to load them in time? The more you describe the details, the worse the failure is revealed to be. Taxpayers have had 30% of income extorted for the military for decades, and this is all the better it works? Fire it and liquidate the assets. I want to hire a private competitor that works, and gives me better value for my money.
"The only thing I want from you is to wake up and smell the napalm. The threat will most likely burn you before it starts to threaten me."
Well, then you will have an early warning. I agree to accept this risk. Why do you still insist I pay the war taxes?
"You are wrong if you think the threat cares about your neutrality."
That hypothesis predicts that low-defense-spending places with easy sexuality like Canada and the Mediterranean countries would be overrun with mad bomber terrorists, but they aren't. I don't think your threat analysis fits the observable facts.
"As we will all see when they start in on the Swiss."
That has the virtue of being an experimentally testable statement. The Swiss nationality has been around for 800 years, and the Muslim religion even longer. In all that time, the Muslims have never seriously gone after the Swiss. I score that hypothesis disproven.
As one of those debate-society libertarians that Mike gripes about, I am always happy to explain at length that it is wrong to enslave your fellow man, even if you call it "ratify a constitution by majority vote", or "the divine right of legislatures". I believe the rule below describes a morally proper goal, although one which can never be reached. I believe just war theory describes when and how much it is acceptable to fall short of this goal:
http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html
I delegate no power to others to make decisions for me. None. Zero. Nada. If you believe legitimate government rests on the consent of the governed, then I'm telling you no government has my consent. How then do you continue to justify "governing" me?
Sorry Anon, but this has become a very busy week for me I may not be able to spend as much time on this as I would like. A recent shipment of tools have arrived and I must assemble them before the cold makes precision work hard for me. I hate precision work with my hands in the cold my joints lock up making it difficult, and painful.
The bomb throwing murdering anarchist set were primarily socialist anarchists not really different from the socialists themselves.
Individualist Anarchism is very much the starting ground of Libertarianism. Usually good folks that don't murder their neighbors.
I only asked because I wanted to better understand exactly where you are speaking from.
I probably fall in with Mikes restorationist philosophy.
First the bad news.
"As we will all see when they start in on the Swiss."
That has the virtue of being an experimentally testable statement. The Swiss nationality has been around for 800 years, and the Muslim religion even longer. In all that time, the Muslims have never seriously gone after the Swiss. I score that hypothesis disproven.
The last Muslim expansionist move was stopped in eastern Europe in the 1400s by among others Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia, more commonly known as Vlad the Impaler.
In the west Charles Martel in the Battle of Tours (October 10, 732).
Unfortunately the current battle for the freedom of Europe has just started. Switzerland has already been on the receiving end.
Washington Post reports;
In Neutral Switzerland, A Rising Radicalism.
Islamic Extremists Newly Seen as Threat.
Read the report for yourself at.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901795.html
Just the tip of the crapburg I am very sad to say. Swiss law has some effective methods for dealing with 5th columnists left over from WW II. You will have to dig to find more of the reports the Swiss do not give the terrorists more press if they can avoid it. Part of why their plan works.
So it looks like that disproven hypothesis has crawled out of the grave.
"You are wrong if you think the threat cares about your neutrality."
That hypothesis predicts that low-defense-spending places with easy sexuality like Canada and the Mediterranean countries would be overrun with mad bomber terrorists, but they aren't. I don't think your threat analysis fits the observable facts.
Even having bent over and spread the cheeks for the Slaver faction of Islam, Canada still has a Jihadist problem. It has even made the state run media. How did you miss it?
Been to a Mediterranean country since the early 80s. Observable facts. The airports look like U.S. airports for the first weeks after 9/11. They have looked that way for years blast barriers and S.M.G. armed security. First the Marxist trash then their jihadist buddies.
You would be surprised by the security you can't see there.
Your hypothesis taken out back and properly beaten sir.
I have to go for now I will take on the rest of this post as I can, I beg your patience.
Stole a few minuets from the end of my "day" please be patient with me Anon.
"Do you know why the "interceptors" failed on 9/11? [...]
So they decided not to load missiles on more jets and get them up there too? Or the missiles weren't stored close enough to the jets to load them in time? The more you describe the details, the worse the failure is revealed to be. Taxpayers have had 30% of income extorted for the military for decades, and this is all the better it works? Fire it and liquidate the assets. I want to hire a private competitor that works, and gives me better value for my money.
It is not as easy as the T.V. version has lead you to believe. I can tell you have little experience with heavy weapons. I also suspect you have little experience with heavy equipment maintenance? Missiles, artillery shells, and bombs are usually stored partially disassembled. Often at the least the fuse is removed. For many reasons mostly safety and maintenance. Many combat aircraft have the guns removed to save fuel during transport and training. Welcome to the peacetime trap. If it was not assembled ready to go it may not be available in time. If it is ready to go it may go boom at the wrong time. Had the event taken more time the response would have improved. This is why surprise is a desired result in an attack. Your private company would be up against the same reality.
So your solution is mercenaries? You must have no problem with Blackwater/Xe then? Beyond what entity is paying them? How about the Hessians? I seem to remember the mercenary option having a major downside. Though it helped bring the concept of the freelancer to the language. Not an entirely positive history.
Taxpayers have had 30% of income extorted for the military for decades.
How did you arrive at 30%? As I have looked into it, the numbers don't quite line up. I am not criticizing, yet. I just need to understand the basis in order to agree or argue.
You are not calling all tax the war tax I assume?
I will try to get your big question next opportunity. Please bear with me I am trying to get you a timely response.
"Stole a few minuets from the end of my "day" please be patient with me Anon."
Thank you for continuing our conversation!
"It is not as easy as the T.V. version has lead you to believe. I can tell you have little experience with heavy weapons. I also suspect you have little experience with heavy equipment maintenance?"
I agree that the heavy equipment and bomb safety aspects you describe are reality -- but if all our soldiers came home there would be plenty of money to keep jets ready to scramble with weapons attached. I agree this is a harder and much more finicky arrangement. It's also much more functional. What did the jets expect to do against the hijacked airliners on 9/11? Land your airliner immediately or I will taunt you again?
"So your solution is mercenaries? You must have no problem with Blackwater/Xe then? Beyond what entity is paying them? How about the Hessians? I seem to remember the mercenary option having a major downside. Though it helped bring the concept of the freelancer to the language. Not an entirely positive history."
Those historical objections are half-true; they were in a bad legal-economic framework, where they produced bad results. Here is my solution: It is immoral to rule peaceful human beings in any way, and this includes imposing geographic monopolies on any topic. (The US Postal Service is a monopoly: if anyone but the USPS delivers letters, they are taken to jail. Microsoft does NOT have a monopoly with their Windows product: anyone is free to make and sell a desktop computer operating system and a word processor. Microsoft has market power, but they do not have a monopoly.) There is no monopoly on providers of armies, police, courts, ..., roads, telephones, banks, doctors, schools, etc. freaking etc. So, if the brown shirts recently turned into thugs, you are free to hire the striped shirts to fight them. You can hire them on contingency, like a lawyer, ultimately paid for out of restitution extracted from the criminals. You owe the brown shirts no more loyalty than a grocery store chain whose produce section has recently disappointed you. There are as many security companies as there are human beings, because each individual determines their personal foreign policy for themselves. Competition benefits the little guy and keeps the bigger players reasonably honest. There are way too many players for cartels to survive at any size scale. There's a lot more, but that's a start.
"Taxpayers have had 30% of income extorted for the military for decades."
Income tax is about 50% of income: 30% income tax, 7.5% for Social Security billed to employer, 7.5% for Social Security billed to employee, 5% for state tax = 50%. Of that federal tax, a little over half goes to the military as per the pie chart on the back of the tax return instruction booklet. 60% of 50% is 30% of income, roughly.
"I will try to get your big question next opportunity."
In the antebellum South, Americans didn't believe it was possible to grow agricultural products without slave labor. They were wrong. Today, many Americans don't believe it is possible to make roads or police or deter foreign dictators with nukes without half-slave labor. I claim they are still wrong, for all the same reasons.
"Please bear with me I am trying to get you a timely response."
Most certainly!
Anon thank you for your patience and understanding. And thanks for taking time to check this page.
First minuets when I meant minutes I need to rely on spell check less. I am just dyslexic enough to miss this I try to find it funny but, Oh well.
The big question, Libertarianism's strongest point and the little problem.
By what right?
I delegate no power to others to make decisions for me. None. Zero. Nada. If you believe legitimate government rests on the consent of the governed, then I'm telling you no government has my consent. How then do you continue to justify "governing" me?
If I was a Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Leninist, Stalinist, Fascist, Maoist, Liberal, Communitarian, Progressive, or whatever they call themselves this week. I would not be talking you would be the lesser that must be lead by the great Oligarchy which I would see myself as the natural inevitable leader.
I am not a whatever they call themselves this week which is why we are discoursing.
"If you believe legitimate government rests on the consent of the governed,".
Just for a second consider that maybe I don't and it doesn't. Not my position but one that should be considered before it is just discarded.
It is possible to live a life free of government on your own. Try it within any size community and see how quick you will form some kind of government.
By any chance have you read John Ross's Unintended Consequences? It has the best description I know of why regulated monopolies are not always a bad idea. But if no Government how do you regulate it? Imagine multiple companies digging up the street to supply you water? Now think what a mess you will have when it is also multiple gas, sewer, Roads, and electric etc. This should give you an idea why Governments are instituted among man for good or ill.
It is possible to live a life free of government on your own. But it requires Effort and Risk. Forget the plans to build a Island or moon colony. The technology that would allow you to set up on an unclaimed island or anchor in international waters has been developed in many cases by governments. But few people live this anarchist lifestyle. I note few of the ones that do are Anarchist or Libertarian.
You can live a life of less government in parts of the U.S. but your kind of freeloading. Choose carefully the risk is high in these counties. Mostly from your neighbors until you fit in. Or they get used to you and don't see you as a threat. On the up side Revenuers disappear there.
Let us take a look at the Libertarians efforts to live with less Gov. I wish these groups nothing but success.
First, the Free State Project in New Hampshire. They chose New Hampshire for many good reasons. Some reasons not thought through enough in my humble opinion. But some seem to have chosen New Hampshire so they could commute to The Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of Massachusetts city of Boston? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Second, the Free State Project in Wyoming. Started by Boston T. Party I forget his actual name and don't actually care. Created by and for libertarians who don't want to go east. But Wyoming is a lot of flat it is northern and can be cold.
Nothing big yet out of both groups but they are working on it. They both have had some small successes I have heard.
For those that haven't decided to join these groups they could become the Libertarian wing of the Republican or Democrat party. A tactic that well played could get more Libertarians elected.
You can opt out. The Clinton's didn't make it illegal to just leave even if they talked about it.
But you take risks on your own.
Anon. Here we are on defense again.
"but if all our soldiers came home there would be plenty of money to keep jets ready to scramble with weapons attached."
Leaving the slaver faction of Islam with a victory, secure operating bases and more resources. I see a massive problem here.
"What did the jets expect to do against the hijacked airliners on 9/11? Land your airliner immediately or I will taunt you again?"
Happy D said... "The pilots were improvising and steeling themselves to ram the passenger planes."
If they had missiles they may have shot them down once the threat was understood. But the first problem was locating a fast moving plane under confused circumstances. Had the planes been loaded up like during the cold war. Maybe a different result maybe not. Remember what I said about surprise?
If you can't see why it may be necessary to kill a few innocents to save many. Well you should avoid work as a Peace officer, Fireman, Paramedic, or Doctor to name a few jobs.
I do not like quoting myself by the way.
"Those historical objections are half-true; they were in a bad legal-economic framework, where they produced bad results.
Your going to sue mercenaries in to good behavior?
I hate to do this but I quote the Austrian Homosexual with the bad "cookie duster" moustache. "There you stand with your law books here I stand with my bayonets."
"In the antebellum South, Americans didn't believe it was possible to grow agricultural products without slave labor. They were wrong. Today, many Americans don't believe it is possible to make roads or police or deter foreign dictators with nukes without half-slave labor. I claim they are still wrong, for all the same reasons."
But you assume you can do it with no Government?
Perhaps but their are some projects that only governments seem to undertake. High risk research think D.A.R.P.A. certain types of dam projects to name the most notable.
I know it is an article of faith among L. Neil Smith types that if the government had not interfered with the free market the world would be more technologically advanced. In some cases this may be true. But most people I know with good history education have their doubts. Those with education in technology and history have serious doubts.
By no means do I trust the gov I want it smaller. But I do not see a world where it is not a necessity.
As I mentioned before you can opt out.
On defense two.
"The only thing I want from you is to wake up and smell the napalm. The threat will most likely burn you before it starts to threaten me."
Well, then you will have an early warning. I agree to accept this risk. Why do you still insist I pay the war taxes?
Because I know to many Libertarians from the Anarchist bent and they rarely carry their weight. Let us take a look at some examples of Libertarianism and where they stand. In the fight for less government.
Boston T. Party type, in the fight.
Claire Wolfe type, in the fight.
Vin Suprynowicz type, lots of talk some action in the fight.
Tyranny Response Team Anarchist type, In the fight big time.
L. Neil Smith Another anarchist type, lots and lots of talk in the fight, but in the fight before it gets to his front door and his butt is on the line? We have mutual acquaintances and they have their doubts. But if you have caught his stuff here you will see he is helping so I count him in the fight.
But in my experience the debate-society type, libertarians are the majority. Not in the fight.
I do think this is changing.
Now it is important that I tell you that when I advise someone on confronting Government supremacists I am telling of things I learned the hard way. You can Decide if I am in the fight. I think I Don't do enough.
Also economy of scale is important when you want to keep the per unit cost down especially with high tech weapons. This is why The Kenyan in Chief's decision to cancel part of the raptors may cost us more than just defense. Saving less than he said.
On that 30 percent. "a little over half goes to the military as per the pie chart on the back of the tax return instruction booklet. 60% of 50% is 30% of income, roughly."
They are lying to you I know you are not surprised. A lot of social program spending does not make the pie chart they hide it.
I hope I have not offended anyone it was not my intention.
""If you believe legitimate government rests on the consent of the governed,"
Just for a second consider that maybe I don't and it doesn't."
Then you would be a Republican, Democrat, Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Leninist, Stalinist, Fascist, Maoist, Liberal, Communitarian, Progressive, or whatever they call themselves this week. And you probably would be talking to me, you would probably try to drown me in main stream media telling me the political world is something other than just naked power in the ruler's interest. Hitler didn't just send the brownshirts out to beat people up, he made lots of persuasive speeches to try to get people to buy into his trap.
"Not my position"
Ok. Then how do you justify ruling me?
"Let us take a look at the Libertarians efforts to live with less Gov."
That's a red herring. Pointing out that other criminals may victimize me doesn't explain or justify why you believe you get to rule me. Why do you believe that anybody ruling me is a proper and moral arrangement?
"Imagine multiple companies digging up the street to supply you water? Now think what a mess you will have when it is also multiple gas, sewer, Roads, and electric etc."
Instead, imagine a shopping mall, a condominium, or a university. Or the pipes and wires neatly mounted on the walls of a vault/steam tunnel beside the roadway, with lengths of sidewalk serving as a lid. Walk in the tunnels for small maintenance, lift off sidewalk lids with a crane for big maintenance. Reasonable companies can share this space.
"You can opt out. The Clinton's didn't make it illegal to just leave even if they talked about it."
Ok, I opt out. In your viewpoint there is now a little bubble of freedom around my body and my house, and you are not allowed to touch me or tax me or make any rules about how I live my life whatsoever, as long as I don't pick your pocket or break your leg. Is that what you meant? Or did you mean that if I defect from the American Soviet Union, the spies wouldn't kidnap me as a fugitive slave?
"But the first problem was locating a fast moving plane under confused circumstances."
The planes were being watched by air traffic control. They didn't go to the right places, that was the first indication of trouble. Maybe they even got their transponders switched to the "hijacked" code.
"Your going to sue mercenaries in to good behavior?"
Yes. The lawsuit process is backed by force, the same as self-defense against other kinds of criminals. However, there is no monopoly on lawsuit companies, and in most cases most parties settle without going to war. See 'law merchant'.
"Perhaps but their are some projects that only governments seem to undertake. "
Yes, genocides and their structural precursors.
"I know it is an article of faith among L. Neil Smith types that if the government had not interfered with the free market the world would be more technologically advanced."
Imagine if the Egyptians had not had their money taxed and wasted on pyramids. Some would be spent on beer, but not all -- how much would have this saved capital grown after being invested in productive enterprise for 4,500 years?
"Because I know to many Libertarians from the Anarchist bent and they rarely carry their weight."
'Carry their weight' as determined by who? You mean they don't pay enough taxes according to you? Who made you ruler of them?
"L. Neil Smith Another anarchist type"
Republican. Mostly what he does is urge people to vote.
Anon do you have any experience with real world technology? I mean beyond turning the key on your car typing at the keyboard or flipping the switch and taking it to the professionals for repair.
Your statement...
The planes were being watched by air traffic control. They didn't go to the right places, that was the first indication of trouble. Maybe they even got their transponders switched to the "hijacked" code.
Air traffic control radar is not exactly like military radar. It depends on the airplanes transponder signal to work. Want to guess what the terrorists messed with? Flying low, fast, and erratically works even better to avoid detection on these systems. Like a military aircraft do. Want to guess how the terrorists flew? Also these systems are often older because you don't replace this kind of system until a need is anticipated and the replacement is in place and tested if you don't have to.
You could have learned this watching the Discovery channel. To name one possible source.
The 1999 movie Pushing Tin would be a good place to start if you would like to get a taste of the high stress world of air traffic control.
In the real world it is more tense under a normal days work. If you can take a tour of a major airports control tower during a rush. It is quite an eye opener.
What do you think these folks are going to do beyond what they did? They called N.O.R.A.D. among others who were conducting a training exercise at the time adding to the confusion. Bad luck hits anyone.
The only attempt previous to 9/11 to use an airliner as a weapon that I am aware of was foiled by the Secret Service on the ground. Besides being a notable event it is not widely known. It hadn't happened before remember what I said about surprise?
Another statement...
Instead, imagine a shopping mall, a condominium, or a university. Or the pipes and wires neatly mounted on the walls of a vault/steam tunnel beside the roadway, with lengths of sidewalk serving as a lid. Walk in the tunnels for small maintenance, lift off sidewalk lids with a crane for big maintenance. Reasonable companies can share this space.
I have been involved with the planning construction and redrawing the plans to the as built specs. on these kind of structures. With one owner one construction company that had all the building trades under their roof it was not that simple. The government mandates/building codes were the problem that haunted us the least. They were handled mostly in planning. With an older building?
Go to an older university some time and ask the facilities maintenance people what they are up against. Particularly where old and new technology have to work together or just share space. Some major cities still have wooden pipe even after years trying to replace it. This plan might work very well if you are starting new. But I have real world doubts.
What about when the company is not reasonable? And take my word for it some won't be. They will have good reasons not to be. You will even agree with some of them.
Statement...
Imagine if the Egyptians had not had their money taxed and wasted on pyramids. Some would be spent on beer, but not all -- how much would have this saved capital grown after being invested in productive enterprise for 4,500 years?
Then the periods after the collapses of civilizations would be the periods of greatest advancement.
The opposite is the case. With totalitarian government/culture coming in second in the lack of advancement challenge.
You seem to think that outside of government every body gets along and it all just works.
Governments are instituted to allow people to live together peaceably despite conflicting desires as often as many other reasons. Look to the mining communities of the old west for an example of this. California mining laws being a notable example.
Ok, You opt out.
1.So you no longer pay income or "war" taxes? You don't vote in the elections? You don't use public services?
If you answered in the affirmative, congratulations.
2.Or do you not pay your taxes? Vote in the elections? Use public services?
If you answered group two in the affirmative. Then your just a garden variety freeloader.
3.Or do you cheat on your taxes? Try to pay your own way? Avoid interaction with government? At least then we could call you a resister.
Opting out is a matter of action not a thought process.
Why is it that Libertarians of your stripe think it is just fine to act like the welfare parasites, the rest of us picking up the bill? Kind of like pilotfish and remoras hang around Sharks.
Explain please, this is what I said.
"Let us take a look at the Libertarians efforts to live with less Gov. I wish these groups nothing but success.
First, the Free State Project in New Hampshire. They chose New Hampshire for many good reasons. Some reasons not thought through enough in my humble opinion. But some seem to have chosen New Hampshire so they could commute to The Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of Massachusetts city of Boston? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Second, the Free State Project in Wyoming. Started by Boston T. Party I forget his actual name and don't actually care. Created by and for libertarians who don't want to go east. But Wyoming is a lot of flat it is northern and can be cold.
Nothing big yet out of both groups but they are working on it. They both have had some small successes I have heard.
For those that haven't decided to join these groups they could become the Libertarian wing of the Republican or Democrat party. A tactic that well played could get more Libertarians elected."
This is what you interpreted...
""Let us take a look at the Libertarians efforts to live with less Gov."
That's a red herring. Pointing out that other criminals may victimize me doesn't explain or justify why you believe you get to rule me. Why do you believe that anybody ruling me is a proper and moral arrangement?"
No crime was committed by any group in my examination of Libertarian efforts.
"Your going to sue mercenaries in to good behavior?"
Yes. The lawsuit process is backed by force, the same as self-defense against other kinds of criminals. However, there is no monopoly on lawsuit companies, and in most cases most parties settle without going to war. See 'law merchant'.
Your going to replace a government (democratic Republic) with a government (Lex mercatoria 'law merchant') to control a mercenary organization?
Some socialists have less faith in government than you.
L. Neil Smith is an Anarchist of the individualist bent. I say this as someone who only likes some of his work. Most of his stuff is like several ideas poorly stitched together. With theory presented as empirically proven fact.
As an individual I avoid dealing with him we have mutual acquaintances.
Sorry you can't pawn him off on the Republicans he is an Anarchist has been for a long time.
"do you have any experience with real world technology?"
Yes. I'm not going to post a resume, but I think you would be surprised.
"Some major cities still have wooden pipe even after years trying to replace it. This plan might work very well if you are starting new. But I have real world doubts."
Is that your moral rationale? You think it unwise, and that gives you moral authority to prevent others from trying it? This has no basis in consent, it's merely power. It is the relationship of a parent to a small child.
"Why is it that Libertarians of your stripe think it is just fine to act like the welfare parasites, the rest of us picking up the bill?"
Heads I am a felon, tails I am a homeless person, stand on edge I am a terrorist? This sounds like the "choices" the Nazis gave the Jews early on when they were banning them from some kinds of work. The concept that is missing from your analysis is duress: the choices I have available now have been reduced by improper coercions in the past. Since you believe you have a positive right to rule me, some of the coercions may have been supplied by you! First you push me down a well at gunpoint, then you say I must starve if I can't pay you a million dollars for a sandwich. This is transparent nonsense on stilts.
I want you to cease your war, your taxes, your voting, and your services. I will pay for my own firefighting and package delivery, thanks. I can process my own sewage and my own garbage. I can stamp gold into coins. I can erect a cell phone tower. And I can hire inexpensive "illegal" Mexicans to do all these things for me. Or I could, except you are dead-set at putting me in jail if I try.
"Then the periods after the collapses of civilizations would be the periods of greatest advancement."
They are. The collapse portion of the cycle is: apathy, dependence, bondage, spiritual faith, great courage. The achievement portion of the cycle is: liberty, abundance, complacency, apathy. Liberty does not mean government, it does not mean kings and parliaments and popes. It means liberty: freedom from kings and parliaments and popes.
I would hope so, the bar I set for knowledge of real world technology was not high. However you have avoided giving me any indication of what you do know. So I will take a guess. your obviously superior skills would lead one to think in terms of data entry or programming. I had thought in terms of electronic engineering or electrician. But your lack of understanding of airborne electronics, electronic communication, and construction points elsewhere. I guess you are a academic or a student.
If I may make a suggestion Tom Clancy and Harold Coyle both do novels that get the military tech mostly right and are still entertaining. Invest a little time and you could better understand the technical issues and have a fun read. I would suggest Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising first. Though out of date now it covered many methods that became proven in the first gulf war.
I used to recommend Dale Brown but his latest stuff is more like science fiction.
The wooden pipe comment was technical nitpicking. Not a moral argument! People of your philosophy often think that if it is theoretically possible it is technologically possible so it is practically possible and is economic.
So let us examine your vault/steam tunnel concept. I will assume 3 service providers per service for competition sake. So 3electric, 3gas/fuel, 3water, 3sewage 3cable/fiber-optic data 3phone, I shouldn't combine these last 2 but I will give you them. Some of these lines should not be in close proximity to each other. But we will ignore that for sake of argument. Now this must be placed between 2 earth retaining walls with a removable roof.
According to a cost engineer Analyst friend the cost will be in the million dollar per linear foot of distance range. Depending on the soil conditions. Assume two of each provider and the cost does not change much high hundred thousands. The cost is mostly in the tunnel/trench. This method of construction would have some advantages in built up areas like New York City. The kind of place you find this kind of tunnel already. And the complications I warned you about.
My moral rationale is that you exist on a dream. That some how you are not consuming anything. While still producing out of nothing. That you do not affect your neighbor. That the impact of your actions does not give your neighbor some limited reasonable claim on you. Your unconstrained revolution world belief that all human evils that we see, selfishness, greed, vice, etc., stem from human institutions. But somehow not the humans that made and run these institutions. We are corrupting the world around us, limiting our growth, by putting constraints on mankind. In a truly free society, free of all these things, man would help his fellow and all would be at peace. Progress would know no limits. A theory at best that is unsupported. At worst led to the greatest crimes in world history.
You demand the full benefits of participation in this society and country but want no part of the bill. You refuse to try to prove your theories unless someone else foots the bill and takes the risk. You demand me to answer by what right I rule you while you refuse to try to live by your own standards. I do not wish to rule you. Though you seem comfortable dictating how and what I should beleive. You demand I take the risk for your beliefs. In spite of a history that seems to indicate the failure of your beliefs. I point out that periods of no government in history do not follow the model you champion. You ignore the point. I point out that governments are formed for a variety of reasons. You ignore the issue. I point out some of the admittedly very few virtues of government. And you assert that government is the cause of war and mass murder. As if these acts never happened before government disregarding the archeological and historical record. I seem to remember pointing ways you could try to live your ideals. But I will not lie to you about the challenges. So you accuse me of stopping you by force. "Preventing you from trying" is how you put it.
You refuse to examine your beliefs in context of history or real world factors. You expect me to bow to your moral argument with no examination.
I will deal with your next pseudo-point in my last post here.
Why no massa I will not be doing that.
So you are going to erect a cell tower with crimmigrant labor? Your choice of a technology that relies on government regulation and binding private cooperation to work is humorous. What happens when your neighbor sets up a shortwave radio on the same frequency that jams your tower when he uses it? I suppose you will take responsibility for the damage caused by your crimmigrant workforce to your neighbors property? You encouraged their presence. And when your manufacturing and waste disposal plan damages the health and property of your neighbors?
So when your long suffering neighbors band together (form a government if you will) to stop your damaging of them you will scream "by what right do you rule me". Luck with that.
No the collapse is the absence of the previous order. The lack of government you assert was holding you back.
What happens next is the organization of the new societal order usually better than what collapsed. Let us call this what it is Government. Now is the part you hate. This new government finds some new method or technology Iron after the bronze age for example. Now it spreads out for better or worse.
That cycle you were recounting happens even when the Government does not go away. The cycles of the Chinese empire being the most notable example because of the long running continuity of government. While that cycle repeats several times.
Liberty does not mean government nor does it mean lack of government. Feel free to look the word up.
Are you sure you are a Libertarian not a Liberal, Progressive whatever...
So I don't agree with you so I am a Nazi extortionist. I tell you what the challenges to your plans are so I am acting like a nazi thug. You may want to read up on what the Nazi's motivations were.
Since you have adopted their favorite intellectual argument let me tell you how this works from the viewpoint of someone often on the receiving end.
Since I will not blindly accept their view they go to what I refer to as Liberal intellectual argument #1.
Step 1. You are a Nazi shut up.
If the libs were making any inroads they have just given them up. I continue to nibble at the edges of the libs argument.
Step 2. You are uneducated or stupid shut up.
By now I have usually begin to score major hits on the libs argument and won't go away.
Step 3. You are Fat, Bald, Ugly, or Whatever. The libs are the experts at finding what ever is your biggest personal demon. So don't be surprised and don't lose your temper. Oh and shut up.
I still will not just go away. At this point I have begun to make them look really stupid.
Step 4. Threaten violence and shut up.
At this point you may want to leave. If you stay and continue you best have a friend with a camera filming from a distance and be making a audio recording. Friends who will come to your rescue is also a good idea. Notice where the police or potential help is. Have an evacuation plan.
Step 5. Actual violence to shut you up. You should have left you are on your own. Hopefully your friends or others come to your rescue.
If you think the Russians are not laughing. That facing the threats to the nation on our home soil is a better plan than facing our enemies and potential enemies closer to their home is the best plan. That we have no interest in the freedom and security of other peoples and nations. That you can achieve a heaven on earth. That the unconstrained revolution is the right model. I will not force you to change your mind.
But do not expect me not to point out the flaws in your ideas or question you. It is what I do. But what if you are wrong? "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Voltaire. You will just have to put up with the fact that I want to get to the good but don't believe in this perfection you say is over the horizon. The Libs will stop you from even trying. You can ignore reality but you can not ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
A friend stuck her head over my shoulder and noticed that you are only skimming my responses. Given what she does I can not ignore her observation.
I thought I would have more time by now but I have less. I think this post is old enough we should move on. And I do not react well to your new tactic at all. I will not post here again feel free to declare victory if you like. Talk to you in future posts take care Anon.
Happy D
Post a Comment