I hear what you're saying on the sex offender front. The national sex offender data base is a great example of a good idea that the government drove off the cliff.
The fact that convicted predatory sex offenders could jump from state to state to avoid being flagged on background checks was an idiotic state of affairs.
On the other hand we now have a situation where trivial and completely non predatory offenses basically ruin someones life. I had friend who was doing her post graduate work in education, and showed her breasts in public (on private property) at a drunken college party, and she wound up on the data base for public lewdness or some such nonsense. The last time we talked she still wasn't able to sort it out even after a couple of years of legal work. I'm sure there are a lot more examples.
Hokay, remember the gist of what I was going to say.
I'd be a little slower to blame the government. There are a lot of angry parents-cum-lobbyists that have made the list what it is for both good and bad reasons alike. With a list that bloated, everyone is going to attempt to run for the border- predatory folk and relatively innocent people who had sex in the wrong house alike.
I feel for your friend, and really hope she is able to get her situation straightened out one day. I have a few friends who are into the fetish scene that work in public education and have to step VERY lightly, and my best man, who is one of the best math (ick!) teachers I know, slings H at conventions for his own company. It gets weird when students show up at his booth, but it's fun when he can say, "Dammit, come back after graduation!" and they actually DO.
Well it's a government list controlled and administered by the government, so for me the government is at fault for its abuse and the consequences of that abuse. Of course I think my anti government beliefs are pretty well established by this point.
You probably don't want to get me going about the utter stupidity of sodomy and common law marriage statutes.
I'm all in favor of vigorous DUI enforcement on the roads, but sticking it to a guy who got hammered and then tried to sleep it off or walk home is completely counter productive to public safety. People start to think they are less likely to get in trouble if they just drive home quickly.Punishing responsible behavior is a great way to make sure everyone becomes a criminal.
This is a huge problem in the Colorado Springs area with 5 substantial military bases here.
There is actually a non profit ministry here that will take your drunk a$$ and your vehicle back home for free if they are well staffed enough on a given night.
I'm all in favor of vigorous DUI enforcement on the roads, but sticking it to a guy who got hammered and then tried to sleep it off or walk home is completely counter productive to public safety. People start to think they are less likely to get in trouble if they just drive home quickly.Punishing responsible behavior is a great way to make sure everyone becomes a criminal.This is a huge problem in the Colorado Springs area with 5 substantial military bases here.
There is actually a non profit ministry here that will take your drunk a$$ and your vehicle back home for free if they are well staffed enough on a given night.
Non profit, eh? I think I see a money making opportunity here...
If you truly believe defeat is inevitable when armed and loosely organized people resist nations with armies (and navies and air forces) you are ignoring the history of asymmetrical warfare. The USSR lost in Afghanistan. The Mujaheddin didn't posses a navy or air force. The US lost in Viet Nam primarily to light infantry and insurgents. The Taliban is doing quite well in Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan with out an army, navy or air force in spite of the massive resources of the most powerful military in the world spending hundreds of billions of dollars to eradicate them.
I agree with you ... sort of.
Generally I think a great deal depends on the type of society your trying to conquer as well as the type of society that is doing the conquering.
Russia was able to conquer a fair number of states bordering on Afghanistan. Places that had only loosely been brought into the Russian sphere where forced into communism during the later stages of the Russian Revolution. In this case the Russians were determined and brutal. That is one means of pulling of a conquest even over a people highly prone to resistance.
The Germans in World War II never had much trouble with Denmark or Belgium but faced very strong resistance in places like Russia and Yugoslavia. Some peoples where more or less willing to accept the fact that they had been conquered, others not so much.
One of the main things we notice with insurgencies is that they tend to actually have a time limit. While local circumstances play a large role its generally been noticed that if an insurgency lasts less then 15 years then generally its the insurgents that won while if the insurgency lasts more then 15 years then generally its the government that won in the end.
If you truly believe defeat is inevitable when armed and loosely organized people resist nations with armies (and navies and air forces) you are ignoring the history of asymmetrical warfare. The USSR lost in Afghanistan. The Mujaheddin didn't posses a navy or air force. The US lost in Viet Nam primarily to light infantry and insurgents. The Taliban is doing quite well in Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan with out an army, navy or air force in spite of the massive resources of the most powerful military in the world spending hundreds of billions of dollars to eradicate them.I agree with you ... sort of.
Generally I think a great deal depends on the type of society your trying to conquer as well as the type of society that is doing the conquering.
Russia was able to conquer a fair number of states bordering on Afghanistan. Places that had only loosely been brought into the Russian sphere where forced into communism during the later stages of the Russian Revolution. In this case the Russians were determined and brutal. That is one means of pulling of a conquest even over a people highly prone to resistance.
The Germans in World War II never had much trouble with Denmark or Belgium but faced very strong resistance in places like Russia and Yugoslavia. Some peoples where more or less willing to accept the fact that they had been conquered, others not so much.
One of the main things we notice with insurgencies is that they tend to actually have a time limit. While local circumstances play a large role its generally been noticed that if an insurgency lasts less then 15 years then generally its the insurgents that won while if the insurgency lasts more then 15 years then generally its the government that won in the end.
With respect resistance is far cheaper than tyranny. One armed man defending his home and family is worth ten conscripts.
I would bet my life on liberty.
Non profit, eh? I think I see a money making opportunity here...I'm pretty sure it's been invented somewhere.
Saw this while bumping around the web:
"The difference between a thief and congress is that a thief will take your money and go away, congress will take your money and then bore you with the reasons why they took your money."
;)
So what conservatives believe in includes glibly dismissing the legislature?
I should add a little smiley to that. It lets me be passive-aggressive with a free pass.
The legislature at its best is a necessary evil. I wouldn't say we dismiss it glibly but violently and carefully. My position (as stated up thread) may not reflect contemporary conservatives .
The legislature at its best is a necessary evil. I wouldn't say we dismiss it glibly but violently and carefully.This is an interesting viewpoint; would you be interested in elaborating?
(And I assume most people are speaking for themselves; I mostly just make fun of people who arrogate more onto themselves, especially undeservingly.)
As a minarchist I see the state as force/violence. See up thread. I don't mean to be evasive, I will try to address specific questions specifically.
Q: What do conservatives believe in?
A: Whatever Fox News tells them.
Could your argument be more vacant or infantile?
EDIT: less ad hominem
I) We believe that America is the greatest country in the World, because of the efforts of its people.
V) We believe that the greatest asset America has is freedom and it should be exported at every opportunity.
Change the word "America" to "Germany", and see how much it changes these statements.
A German who believes or says such statements (with "Germany" replacing the word "America"), will be automatically accused of being a Nazi.
Evidently we define freedom differently.
If you truly believe defeat is inevitable when armed and loosely organized people resist nations with armies (and navies and air forces) you are ignoring the history of asymmetrical warfare. The USSR lost in Afghanistan. The Mujaheddin didn't posses a navy or air force. The US lost in Viet Nam primarily to light infantry and insurgents. The Taliban is doing quite well in Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan with out an army, navy or air force in spite of the massive resources of the most powerful military in the world spending hundreds of billions of dollars to eradicate them.I agree with you ... sort of.
Generally I think a great deal depends on the type of society your trying to conquer as well as the type of society that is doing the conquering.
Russia was able to conquer a fair number of states bordering on Afghanistan. Places that had only loosely been brought into the Russian sphere where forced into communism during the later stages of the Russian Revolution. In this case the Russians were determined and brutal. That is one means of pulling of a conquest even over a people highly prone to resistance.
The Germans in World War II never had much trouble with Denmark or Belgium but faced very strong resistance in places like Russia and Yugoslavia. Some peoples where more or less willing to accept the fact that they had been conquered, others not so much.
One of the main things we notice with insurgencies is that they tend to actually have a time limit. While local circumstances play a large role its generally been noticed that if an insurgency lasts less then 15 years then generally its the insurgents that won while if the insurgency lasts more then 15 years then generally its the government that won in the end.
With respect resistance is far cheaper than tyranny. One armed man defending his home and family is worth ten conscripts.
I would bet my life on liberty.
I'm really not trying to be flippant or jingoistic. Can you really see Texas, Oregon, or Colorado militiamen surrendering to a foreign invader or tyrannical state?
Could your argument be more vacant or infantile?Q: What do conservatives believe in?
A: Whatever Fox News tells them.
Sure it could. Some examples:
A: Your mother.
A: wefginjbefqonbdfqonbdwno[qbef
A: I like bread.
My question was somewhat rhetorical, but you make a valid point.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
Evidently we define freedom differently.
Well, that's a point I brought up some pages ago -- Americans who are most vocal about this being the "freest" country are also the least likely to have any definition for "freedom" at all, except for, "You know, like America!"
Evidently we define freedom differently.Well, that's a point I brought up some pages ago -- Americans who are most vocal about this being the "freest" country are also the least likely to have any definition for "freedom" at all, except for, "You know, like America!"
Defining our terms seems to be more of a challenge today than, say, 20 years ago. Back in the 80's when I told folks that I was a Republican and a conservative and a constitutionalist it didn't require much if any explanation. My views have become more libertarian over the past 25 years, but they haven't changed very much. I honestly think the Republican party has simply become far more statist and imperial. I think the neocons have done immense damage to the term conservative.
I find the twisting of the definitions to be quite Orwellian, but I think a lot of sloppy definition of terms is just due to intellectual laziness.
I would define freedom as a lack of interference by state, of course this seems to drive progressives nuts.
|
Evidently we define freedom differently.Well, that's a point I brought up some pages ago -- Americans who are most vocal about this being the "freest" country are also the least likely to have any definition for "freedom" at all, except for, "You know, like America!"Defining our terms seems to be more of a challenge today than, say, 20 years ago. Back in the 80's when I told folks that I was a Republican and a conservative and a constitutionalist it didn't require much if any explanation. My views have become more libertarian over the past 25 years, but they haven't changed very much. I honestly think the Republican party has simply become far more statist and imperial. I think the neocons have done immense damage to the term conservative.
I find the twisting of the definitions to be quite Orwellian, but I think a lot of sloppy definition of terms is just due to intellectual laziness.
I would define freedom as a lack of interference by state, of course this seems to drive progressives nuts.
So Somalia, for you, is one of the freest nations on Earth? Or Afghanistan?
My views have become more libertarian over the past 25 years, but they haven't changed very much. I honestly think the Republican party has simply become far more statist and imperial.
I was an avid registered republican in the '80's and early '90's. Didn't vote when Slick Willy was running for re-election; I didn't care for Dole for some reason, and didn't think Perot had a snowball's chance in hell. In the last decade or so I've realized the Republican party is now the party of authoritarian Big Government and theocratic "Christian Values" to be imposed on all, so I registered Democrat in protest. Like you, my views haven't changed an awful lot, but I feel as if the political landscape has.
Bitter, you strike me as a particularly well read and intelligent chap- which is why I don't buy that you don't know what the solutions are. You've got to have something- even a malformed theory is better than nothing at this point. The system IS a failure currently. Give me something to replace it with, even if it's just downsizing the prison population. Note that I think this is a GREAT idea, and that it works very well with my idea posted earlier in terms of getting the rehabilitation system OUT of the prison system. Also, give me a few examples of what you think are victimless crimes.
Also, Kirth- your thoughts on what should happen if mistakes are made in terms of your #1 posted above? Or did you already answer that?
That's kind of you to say, so I'll give it a shot.
My number one priority would be to eliminate victimless crimes. I consider all adult vice crimes (gambling, drug use/possession/trafficking, prostitution, porn, sodomy, polygamy, etc) to be victimless, and I would include anything adults do with their own bodies and property that doesn't harm others such as suicide, unlawful medical treatment, some zoning violation, needle exchange, and most fire arms laws. In short any action that doesn't initiate violence against others or their property.
We waste a truly staggering amount of resources basically regulating victimless behaviors. However the criminal justice system is structured it must be more focused on first violent then property crimes.
Secondly we need to reevaluate how we handle violent and non violent offenders. Obviously some violent offenders must never be free ever again, and many non violent offenders (theft and fraud) could have much shorter sentences and eventually make full restitution. A big part of the current problem is housing some non violent pot head with rapists and serial murderers where he is brutalized and gets HIV to use an extreme example. What does a guy like this have to loose? The government has basically given this...
One problem with the 'don't believe in initiating violence argument' is that you are defining initiation of violence narrowly. For example, you feel that no violence is done by repealing most firearms laws. You are
ignoring the government's duty to protect the people. Violence is being done to the people if weapon supply, ownership, and use are unregulated. Repealing most firearms laws represents initiation of force against me, because I am being forced to tolerate serious threats to my well-being and personal safety. To claim otherwise, perhaps citing the fact that no material harm has ever been done to me, is disingenuous. Even if no one appears to be harming me, I am a victim of violence if people are walking around freely with machine guns.You are focusing on the positive freedom, the rights to, which you enjoy in owning and using weapons, but ignoring the equally important negative rights, the rights from, of others, specifically the right to live free of the threat posed by weapons.
So Somalia, for you, is one of the freest nations on Earth? Or Afghanistan?Evidently we define freedom differently.Well, that's a point I brought up some pages ago -- Americans who are most vocal about this being the "freest" country are also the least likely to have any definition for "freedom" at all, except for, "You know, like America!"Defining our terms seems to be more of a challenge today than, say, 20 years ago. Back in the 80's when I told folks that I was a Republican and a conservative and a constitutionalist it didn't require much if any explanation. My views have become more libertarian over the past 25 years, but they haven't changed very much. I honestly think the Republican party has simply become far more statist and imperial. I think the neocons have done immense damage to the term conservative.
I find the twisting of the definitions to be quite Orwellian, but I think a lot of sloppy definition of terms is just due to intellectual laziness.
I would define freedom as a lack of interference by state, of course this seems to drive progressives nuts.
In Somalia I would argue that warlords are the de facto state and they interfere in peoples lives.
The situation in Afghanistan is quite similar outside of the immediate reach of the Karzi government and NATO forces.
|
|
So Somalia, for you, is one of the freest nations on Earth? Or Afghanistan?Evidently we define freedom differently.Well, that's a point I brought up some pages ago -- Americans who are most vocal about this being the "freest" country are also the least likely to have any definition for "freedom" at all, except for, "You know, like America!"Defining our terms seems to be more of a challenge today than, say, 20 years ago. Back in the 80's when I told folks that I was a Republican and a conservative and a constitutionalist it didn't require much if any explanation. My views have become more libertarian over the past 25 years, but they haven't changed very much. I honestly think the Republican party has simply become far more statist and imperial. I think the neocons have done immense damage to the term conservative.
I find the twisting of the definitions to be quite Orwellian, but I think a lot of sloppy definition of terms is just due to intellectual laziness.
I would define freedom as a lack of interference by state, of course this seems to drive progressives nuts.
In Somalia I would argue that warlords are the de facto state and they interfere in peoples lives.
The situation in Afghanistan is quite similar outside of the immediate reach of the Karzi government and NATO forces.
Yes, that was the point I was making. Freedom from the state (your initial definition) means freedom for the strong to brutalise and oppress the weak. As that apparently isn't what you mean by freedom, what do you mean?
One problem with the 'don't believe in initiating violence argument' is that you are defining initiation of violence narrowly. For example, you feel that no violence is done by repealing most firearms laws. You are
ignoring the government's duty to protect the people. Violence is being done to the people if weapon supply, ownership, and use are unregulated. Repealing most firearms laws represents initiation of force against me, because I am being forced to tolerate serious threats to my well-being and personal safety. To claim otherwise, perhaps citing the fact that no material harm has ever been done to me, is disingenuous. Even if no one appears to be harming me, I am a victim of violence if people are walking around freely with machine guns.You are focusing on the positive freedom, the rights to, which you enjoy in owning and using weapons, but ignoring the equally important negative rights, the rights from, of others, specifically the right to live free of the threat posed by weapons.
I completely reject your logic. The unregulated existence of something that you don't like and want the state to protect you from in no way constitutes the initiation of violence against you.
I see no rational basis for the negative rights argument.
Do you have a right to be protected from someone else's free speech or religion that does not directly harm you? I don't think so.
Yes, that was the point I was making. Freedom from the state (your initial definition) means freedom for the strong to brutalise and oppress the weak. As that apparently isn't what you mean by freedom, what do you mean?So Somalia, for you, is one of the freest nations on Earth? Or Afghanistan?Evidently we define freedom differently.Well, that's a point I brought up some pages ago -- Americans who are most vocal about this being the "freest" country are also the least likely to have any definition for "freedom" at all, except for, "You know, like America!"Defining our terms seems to be more of a challenge today than, say, 20 years ago. Back in the 80's when I told folks that I was a Republican and a conservative and a constitutionalist it didn't require much if any explanation. My views have become more libertarian over the past 25 years, but they haven't changed very much. I honestly think the Republican party has simply become far more statist and imperial. I think the neocons have done immense damage to the term conservative.
I find the twisting of the definitions to be quite Orwellian, but I think a lot of sloppy definition of terms is just due to intellectual laziness.
I would define freedom as a lack of interference by state, of course this seems to drive progressives nuts.
In Somalia I would argue that warlords are the de facto state and they interfere in peoples lives.
The situation in Afghanistan is quite similar outside of the immediate reach of the Karzi government and NATO forces.
The main distinction between a minarchist and an anarchist would be the belief that the state has a legitimate role in defending the rights of people against the initiation of violence.
I would define freedom as the option to do whatever you want that doesn't initiate violence against others and their property. I find that the state tends to be the strong actor brutalizing people much more than the predatory criminal or warlord. They are all treats to freedom, but I tend to see the state as the greater threat.
I'm not sure that I accept the inevitability of the strong brutalizing the weak in the absence of the the state. Anarcho capitalists would certainly reject that assumption.
I would define freedom as a lack of interference by state.By this definition of "freedom", America certainly does not have the most "freedom" when it comes to banking.
Places like Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, etc ... have considerably more banking "freedom" than America.
I would agree.
"Operation G-String" I kid you not!
Strippers and the Cuban embargo
Most of the warrantless financial searches the feds have ordered under the PATRIOT Act have had no connection to terrorism. Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation observed,
There is no probable cause here. There is no judicial oversight. Yet the government can immediately query financial institutions across the nation to find out where you have an account or who you’ve done business with. It’s not just if you have an account there, but any record of a financial transaction.
The feds used PATRIOT Act financial sweep-search powers in 2003 in “Operation G-String,” an investigation of bribes involving Las Vegas strip clubs. Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) complained, “It was never my intent to have the PATRIOT Act used as a kitchen sink for all of the law-enforcement-tool goodies that the FBI has been trying to get for the last decades…. It is PATRIOT Act creep.” Berkley was especially indignant that the powers had been used in a tawdry public corruption case: “Never … did the FBI say we needed additional tools to keep this nation safe from strip-club operators.”
Though the PATRIOT Act vastly increased the feds’ financial surveillance powers, they are not concentrating their artillery on the gravest threats to American security. The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control has a lead role in tracking down supposedly dangerous money. Unfortunately, this office has ten times more agents assigned to track violators of the U.S. embargo on Cuba than it has tracking Osama Bin Laden’s money. Between 1994 and 2003, it collected almost a thousand times as much in fines for violations of the Cuban embargo as it has for terrorism financing violations ($8+ million versus $9,425).
Rep. William Delahunt (D-Mass.) complained, “We’re chasing old ladies on bicycle trips in Cuba when we should be concentrating on using a significant tool against shadowy terrorist organizations.” Treasury spokeswoman Molly Millerwise responded, “There is no question where the administration stands on Cuba policy. We are equally dedicated to fighting the financial terrorism network.” But to be equally dedicated to spiking Cuban bicycle tours and to thwarting an organization that knocks down American skyscrapers seems a bit demented. Millerwise stressed, “We do focus on Cuba. They are our nearest neighbor.” That raises questions of whether maps used by the Bush administration expunged both Mexico and Canada. However, neither Mexicans nor Canadians will be large voting blocs in elections in Florida.
I'm not sure that I accept the inevitability of the strong brutalizing the weak in the absence of the the state. Anarcho capitalists would certainly reject that assumption.How does the mafia and other organized "crime" type groups disappear from such a system? That is, short of redefining organized "crime" activities from being formerly illegal to being legal.
I think they would probably point out that most organized crime profit comes from vice operations, so I'm not sure what they would say beyond legalizing adult vices. Legalizing is not a good choice of words for the stateless model, but I'm not sure how else to phrase it.
Yes, that was the point I was making. Freedom from the state (your initial definition) means freedom for the strong to brutalise and oppress the weak. As that apparently isn't what you mean by freedom, what do you mean?So Somalia, for you, is one of the freest nations on Earth? Or Afghanistan?Evidently we define freedom differently.Well, that's a point I brought up some pages ago -- Americans who are most vocal about this being the "freest" country are also the least likely to have any definition for "freedom" at all, except for, "You know, like America!"Defining our terms seems to be more of a challenge today than, say, 20 years ago. Back in the 80's when I told folks that I was a Republican and a conservative and a constitutionalist it didn't require much if any explanation. My views have become more libertarian over the past 25 years, but they haven't changed very much. I honestly think the Republican party has simply become far more statist and imperial. I think the neocons have done immense damage to the term conservative.
I find the twisting of the definitions to be quite Orwellian, but I think a lot of sloppy definition of terms is just due to intellectual laziness.
I would define freedom as a lack of interference by state, of course this seems to drive progressives nuts.
In Somalia I would argue that warlords are the de facto state and they interfere in peoples lives.
The situation in Afghanistan is quite similar outside of the immediate reach of the Karzi government and NATO forces.
from the FAQ:
13. Is anarcho-capitalism the same thing as libertarianism?
No, but it's close. Just as anarcho-capitalism is a subtype of anarchism, it is also a subtype of libertarianism. Libertarianism is the belief that liberty is the primary political virtue, conjoined with the belief in capitalism. But libertarians don't necessarily deny the legitimacy of the State as an institution - most believe that a minimal State is necessary to provide defense services. This minimal State, sometimes called "the nightwatchman State," is a government that provides only three things: police, courts, and defense against foreign invasion. This means that no government redistribution of wealth or regulation of the market is allowed. Anarcho-capitalists, therefore, hold the same values as minarchist libertarians, but take it to the logical conclusion: even a minimal State is too authoritarian. If government monopoly is bad for all other services, how can it suddenly be okay for the provision of defense? In short, an anarcho-capitalist is a radical libertarian. He rejects minarchism for anarchism.
(I would add the caveat that mandating a certain level of transparency in the markets is permissible)
I think they would probably point out that most organized crime profit comes from vice operationsThere are organized crime activities which do not always fall directly into the "vice" category, such as:
- infiltrating unions or other groups with lots of money
- running guns
- laundering money
- loan sharking
- "muscle" for hire shakedowns
- protection rackets
- smuggling
- kidnappingJust legalizing adult vices, certainly would not eliminate these activities.
Most of these activities are closely associated with vice crimes. For example, look how prohibition of alcohol enriched organized crime. I would also cite the war on drugs and prostitution laws. I believe the war on drugs has caused more problems than the drugs themselves. I believe our current prostitution laws facilitate the brutal exploitation of sex workers. If prostitution were legal then sex workers could organize and bargain outside of the black market created by criminalizing consensual adult choices. Likewise there is no need to smuggle guns if the are unregulated.
Eliminating victimless crime is not a panacea, but I think it would have a huge positive impact.
A minarchist concedes a legitimate role for government in prosecuting extortion etc.
An anarcho-capitalist sees people forming voluntary associations for mutual defense and arbitration.
It's not vacant or infantile if it's true. Tell me that Fox News doesn't have a good majority of conservatives in their pocket.
I presume quite a few conservatives watch Fox. I presume some liberals watch MSNBC and CNN.
It does not follow that conservatives or liberals have their beliefs formed by cable news. It's simply non-sequitor, and it belittles everyone involved.
While the echo chamber effect is a legitimate concern, I would caution you not to make an error in reasoning about causality. There were plenty of conservatives in this country long before Rush or Fox, and there were quite a few liberals before MSNBC. Implying that none of these people can think for themselves seems to me an intellectually vacant argument. I infer that's what you mean by "in their pocket".
I think it's childish to simply dismiss some ones argument by basically calling them names. That's one of the reasons I edited my reply to you. I initially asked if you could be more vacant etc which would made me look fairly silly for criticizing and ad hominem with an ad hominem, and it was needlessly snarky.
Remember when Cable News actually just showed the news??
There's never been any consensus on what qualifies as news and how it should be reported, on TV or otherwise. That's as true when the camera ran and let McCarthy dig himself a grave as it was when the movement that spawned him got a free pass for doing it because the cameras weren't on then.
Those judgments are biases and they are inevitable. Some of them are so obvious a dim child could spot the things (spectacle, novelty, the vapidity of a he said/she said cycle) and others are carefully hidden because they are shared universally across the five or so corporations that control virtually all American mass media.
|
Remember when Cable News actually just showed the news??There's never been any consensus on what qualifies as news and how it should be reported, on TV or otherwise. That's as true when the camera ran and let McCarthy dig himself a grave as it was when the movement that spawned him got a free pass for doing it because the cameras weren't on then.
Those judgments are biases and they are inevitable. Some of them are so obvious a dim child could spot the things (spectacle, novelty, the vapidity of a he said/she said cycle) and others are carefully hidden because they are shared universally across the five or so corporations that control virtually all American mass media.
very true, unfortunately there was a time when the cable news shows did at least try to make the effort to just show the news and not give opinions.
With respect resistance is far cheaper than tyranny. One armed man defending his home and family is worth ten conscripts.I would bet my life on liberty.
History would indicate that you'd be wrong in this bet. Combat hardened veterans almost always win the actual battle. The Europeans built world spanning empires on that fact, America conquered a continent and there are innumerable other examples from the Ancient Greeks and Romans to the modern era. The combat value of highly motivated amateurs is near nil.
That said under the correct circumstances one can take a motivated civilians and use them effectively, usually by finding ways to train them but there are certainly situations where just using them as expendable cannon fodder will allow one to leverage some kind of advantage from the situation (Black Hawk Down would be an example of this - while losses where huge, the warlords fighting the US were able to achieve their objectives politically after the expenditure of a great deal of blood of their badly trained but motivated followers).
Historically such troops have worked well in fortified positions as well but I'm not sure that applies in the modern era. Harassment attacks might pay off higher.
Remember when Cable News actually just showed the news??
No. When was that?
An anarcho-capitalist sees people forming voluntary associations for mutual defense and arbitration.
Which is were this really falls down for me.
You need to form large groups of ones own if one is to have any form of self defense. One is nearly certain to need such self defense unless very isolated. But if you just bring this down to the local level you get to do an up close study on how annoying and enraging other human beings can be. It all eventually returns to politics but at the tiny local level its politics fueled by gossip and slander.
When it comes to something like self defense in this circumstance its not like participating is optional. You need to be part of such groups to defend yourself and your family but much of the time the end result is a tiny tyranny. There are counter examples but they would seem to be dwarfed by the number of cases of what amounts to some form of warlordism or Feudalism (and here I'm pretty much presuming that they are the same thing - so early Feudalism) throughout history.
From my perspective, whether the root cause is original sin or evolutionary adaption, its simply not human nature to take this kind of freedom and use it to create real liberty. Instead we create novel forms of tyranny. See for example Communism as an idealism that crashed headlong into this principle no matter the real egalitarian ideological values of many, maybe most, of its early adherents.
Stick us in a group and most of us start trying to figure out what the hierarchy is and and how one goes about climbing it.
With respect resistance is far cheaper than tyranny. One armed man defending his home and family is worth ten conscripts.I would bet my life on liberty.
History would indicate that you'd be wrong in this bet. Combat hardened veterans almost always win the actual battle. The Europeans built world spanning empires on that fact, America conquered a continent and there are innumerable other examples from the Ancient Greeks and Romans to the modern era. The combat value of highly motivated amateurs is near nil.
That said under the correct circumstances one can take a motivated civilians and use them effectively, usually by finding ways to train them but there are certainly situations where just using them as expendable cannon fodder will allow one to leverage some kind of advantage from the situation (Black Hawk Down would be an example of this - while losses where huge, the warlords fighting the US were able to achieve their objectives politically after the expenditure of a great deal of blood of their badly trained but motivated followers).
Historically such troops have worked well in fortified positions as well but I'm not sure that applies in the modern era. Harassment attacks might pay off higher.
I don't think relatively recent history demonstrates that victory is the inevitable outcome for the numerically and technically superior force. Again I would cite the Soviet Defeat in Afghanistan, the US defeat in Viet Nam and Somalia and the continued survival of Al Queda.
Militias played an important role in the American Revolution, although I don't think it was decisive.
I would also point out that highly motivated amateur and combat hardened veteran are by no means mutually exclusive.
I simply can't accept the notion that the resistance of tens of millions of armed Americans is not relevant. Is that the argument that you are making?
|
The examples that have been brought up are cases where one side was fighting a limited war, while the other side was fighting a total war. Neither the Soviet Union nor the Americans would accept serious losses, given the limited nature of their involvement, while the people they were fighting would fight to the very death.
Now, if either the Soviets or the Americans instituted a Total War situation in Afghanistan or Vietnam, the outcome would have been very different. Of course, Total War is a very different style of warfare, and had either nation fought in something approaching a smart way, they'd have had a much better chance. The British defeated two insurgencies, one in Kenya and one in Malaysia. Essentially, victory for the technically superior force is inevitable if they go into a Total War footing, or if they fight smart. If they try and fight a conventional war against enemies who seek political objectives, however, then they'll lose, and this is why.
Modern war isn't about land gained or objectives seized. It's about bringing the people round to your side. The people are the objective who must be fought over. You've got to get them to see that your presence is a net benefit to them, and this requires a change in tactics. The superior American forces decimated the Vietcong and North Vietnamese Forces anytime they met, but they could never win as the political side of it wasn't there. It certainly didn't help that the South Vietnamese governments were utterly atrocious, and that both the Soviets in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam approached the war as a conventional one, in which they could just bomb the opfor into submission.
It does not follow that conservatives or liberals have their beliefs formed by cable news. It's simply non-sequitor, and it belittles everyone involved.While the echo chamber effect is a legitimate concern, I would caution you not to make an error in reasoning about causality. There were plenty of conservatives in this country long before Rush or Fox, and there were quite a few liberals before MSNBC. Implying that none of these people can think for themselves seems to me an intellectually vacant argument. I infer that's what you mean by "in their pocket".
I think it's childish to simply dismiss some ones argument by basically calling them names. That's one of the reasons I edited my reply to you. I initially asked if you could be more vacant etc which would made me look fairly silly for criticizing and ad hominem with an ad hominem, and it was needlessly snarky.
Apolitically, I can think of quite few communications professors (conservatives as well) who might disagree with this assertion. I'm speaking as an independent.
People aren't very discerning, and they will believe the sum of information they have been exposed to is always enough to make a rational decision, when it almost never is.
I'm not picking a fight with you on a matter of politics, I just hope that maybe you'll revisit the idea that both "sides" in this country are pretty heavily parroting what they've heard instead of thinking rationally. The mass media (neither liberal nor conservative, just selfish and broken) are hurting this country.
very true, unfortunately there was a time when the cable news shows did at least try to make the effort to just show the news and not give opinions.Remember when Cable News actually just showed the news??There's never been any consensus on what qualifies as news and how it should be reported, on TV or otherwise. That's as true when the camera ran and let McCarthy dig himself a grave as it was when the movement that spawned him got a free pass for doing it because the cameras weren't on then.
Those judgments are biases and they are inevitable. Some of them are so obvious a dim child could spot the things (spectacle, novelty, the vapidity of a he said/she said cycle) and others are carefully hidden because they are shared universally across the five or so corporations that control virtually all American mass media.
Most people complaining about cable news networks, are looking at "editiorial" shows and thinking that is the news segements. It is like opening a newspaper to the editiorial section and reading only that and then complaining that the newspaper is biased. There are times when these networks have true news programs on, that don't involve, Hatity, Doberman, or Fleck. Most of those just are not on during the prime time slots.
The examples that have been brought up are cases where one side was fighting a limited war, while the other side was fighting a total war. Neither the Soviet Union nor the Americans would accept serious losses, given the limited nature of their involvement, while the people they were fighting would fight to the very death.
Now, if either the Soviets or the Americans instituted a Total War situation in Afghanistan or Vietnam, the outcome would have been very different. Of course, Total War is a very different style of warfare, and had either nation fought in something approaching a smart way, they'd have had a much better chance. The British defeated two insurgencies, one in Kenya and one in Malaysia. Essentially, victory for the technically superior force is inevitable if they go into a Total War footing, or if they fight smart. If they try and fight a conventional war against enemies who seek political objectives, however, then they'll lose, and this is why.
Modern war isn't about land gained or objectives seized. It's about bringing the people round to your side. The people are the objective who must be fought over. You've got to get them to see that your presence is a net benefit to them, and this requires a change in tactics. The superior American forces decimated the Vietcong and North Vietnamese Forces anytime they met, but they could never win as the political side of it wasn't there. It certainly didn't help that the South Vietnamese governments were utterly atrocious, and that both the Soviets in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam approached the war as a conventional one, in which they could just bomb the opfor into submission.
The observation of Afghanistan and Viet Nam being limited versus total war is one I would tend to agree with, but the fact remains that both global super powers failed to achieve their strategic objectives in the face of little more than light infantry and insurgents.
I maintain that resistance is not futile.
Given the observations of your last paragraph which seem to agree with the generational war model and 4th generation warfare (4GW) how confident are you that total war would have won those wars?
What point in modern warfare is the tipping point where the increased brutality of total war reduces resistance rather than bolstering it? Can the most powerful military in the world still bring that much force to bare?
|
|
Total War (as in, the bringing to bare the full force and resources of a state against an enemy) would have resulted in victory in Afghanistan or Vietnam very quickly. The number of troops and resources either superpower could have deployed in a Total War situation would have been far too much for the insurgents to deal with. Debellatio would probably ensue, and the amount of resistance would decrease once it became clear that the occupying forces were essentially limitless.
The increased brutality of total war reduces resistance around the time when Nuclear Weapons would be deployed, too. Knowing that resistance equals annihilation worked well against the Japanese in World War 2, and they were certainly just as fanatical in their beliefs as the current band of insurgents are.
Thankfully that sort of level of warfare isn't politically tenable in the west anymore. Which means you've got to be smart instead, and to use the horrible cliche, win 'Hearts and Minds'. The Malayan Insurgency and the British response to that offer some guidance on how best to do such a thing, as does the recent Surge, political and policing measures in Iraq.
We believe in cheese for all.
Total War (as in, the bringing to bare the full force and resources of a state against an enemy) would have resulted in victory in Afghanistan or Vietnam very quickly. The number of troops and resources either superpower could have deployed in a Total War situation would have been far too much for the insurgents to deal with. Debellatio would probably ensue, and the amount of resistance would decrease once it became clear that the occupying forces were essentially limitless.
The increased brutality of total war reduces resistance around the time when Nuclear Weapons would be deployed, too. Knowing that resistance equals annihilation worked well against the Japanese in World War 2, and they were certainly just as fanatical in their beliefs as the current band of insurgents are.
Thankfully that sort of level of warfare isn't politically tenable in the west anymore. Which means you've got to be smart instead, and to use the horrible cliche, win 'Hearts and Minds'. The Malayan Insurgency and the British response to that offer some guidance on how best to do such a thing, as does the recent Surge, political and policing measures in Iraq.
Barring the use of NBC weapons for the sake of argument, is it your position that armed resistance against a technologically and militarily superior force is inevitably doomed?
Not surprisingly I believe that armed insurgencies continue to be viable. I also believe an armed populous has value as a deterrent against invasion and tyranny. Do you believe an armed populous has zero or little value in this regard?