Thread: Capitalism, Mixed Economy, or Socialism?

What gives us the right to tell others what to do? Other people in other countries, do no want us interfering with their affairs. They get mad and start attacking us when we interfere, we are not wanted or welcomed. People want to live free, and we should respect their wishes. They are free to choose how they live, and if they want a king, or a dictator, then that is their choices.

If a foreign country wants us to defend them, they should join the US. Once they become an official state, then I would be more than happy to use our full military to protect them, and if they are suffering horribly, we can send them money as aid as well. Otherwise, there isn't a single reason we should do anything at all, besides trading and talking with them.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Because, as you implied, it would be the result of his not being interested in peace. We signed a ceasefire with the regime, and they refused to comply with it. Future ceasefires would be worthless if we didn't enforce that one. Also, the Hussein regime was a terrorist government. I will give you the details on that if you don't already know them. They had already used WMD's in a terrorist attack and were reported by many governments to have more and be working on more. We did not want to chance a terrorist organization getting WMD's from the Hussein regime and using them on the United States. It was a very legitimate concern.

First of all, there would be no need for "ceasefires." No conflict would begin in the first place to warrant one. If they don't want to play ball, then don't play ball. Don't bring in your 25 year old cousin to beat them up. The same goes for terrorist organizations. What do you think were the causes of that? If they attacked out of nowhere, maybe I would be on the side of going after them, but only after finding out WHERE they are, and not just invading some country and staying in it for years upon years.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

When countries are getting taken over, it is a threat to us. Also, our own country is not the only one we should care about. It all goes on in our world.

How is it a threat to us? How was Poland being taken over a threat to us, for example. Sure, we should care, but not enough to get us into a situation where we're screwed. If they attack us, then defend. If they're halfway across the world having their own little conflict, then leave it alone.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Maybe we are sick of them funding and training terrorists. I am not so sure we should overthrow the government of Iran. We should at least take out their nuke facilities, or encourage Israel to do it. If we did put a better government in place of the current theocracy where homosexuals and adulterers are executed, they would have much hope of a great future, like Iraq and Afganistan are going to have.

Like I said, if they attack us for no reason, then yes, defend. If they attack us for effectively shitting on their country, then that's a whole other matter.

This all goes back to the Non-Aggression Axiom. Maybe you've heard of it. They have not launched nukes at us or send troops over or invaded us. Why should we do the same to them? Treat others as you would like to be treated.

Also, using the whole "we can set up a good democracy there, so the Iranians will have a good life!" spiel is horrible. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. If slaughtering innocent civilians, bombing the shit out of the country, and searching for "insurgents" for 8+ years is your way of setting up a democracy or "better" government, then there is something quite wrong with you.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

In other words, we should ignore them even after they have taken over all other countries than ours if they did that. No way. That would be way too dangerous and way too apathetic. Oppression of our fellow humans is our business.

Again, no empire would become that large. Stop with the fantasizing.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They could have at least taken ovre a huge chunk of it. We made sure they didn't get too far. Without our intervention, they might have control of Europe, the Middle East, and Africa by now. Possibly South America. The Nazis were able to take over a great deal of Europe in just a few years. The only rebellion that stopped them was ours (Allied Powers).

I suppose the French resistance and German assassination attempts don't count, right?

Edit - Double post

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6495753.stm

So the Iraqi casualties alone were 655,000 in 2007, civilians of course. Plus an extra two years of escalated fighting, and the casualties in afghanistan. Id say about 1.3 mill. That's more people than would have ever been killed if we had never gone in there in the first place. Plus our "reason" for going to Iraq was totally rendered false.

and here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343

And that is just the one story that got reported. Not every death that happens in the middle of the desert or the remote terrain gets reported in an undeveloped country

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Blue Line, I told you. It is our business because it is our world and because the more a power expands, the harder it is to take down.

I suggest you read Bin Laden's "Letter to the American Nation" to understand more of the details of why Islamoterrorists hate us. You are not presenting the full picture.

French resistance did not stop the Nazis. Stop fantasizing.

You can't judge the future of Iraq and Afghanistan solely on what is happening in their transition phases. That is fallacious of you.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Blue Line, I told you. It is our business because it is our world and because the more a power expands, the harder it is to take down.

Nope, not even close. The more a power expands, the easier it becomes to take down. Spreading a huge army over a very large area becomes a logistic nightmare, and its nearly impossible to put down large revolts on opposite sides of your empire at the same time. The biggest problems empires ever had, was biting off more than they can chew, and trying to take that extra step that just causes them to crumble.

Besides your Nazi example is stupid. They wouldn't have had gone any further than they already did. They would of been bogged down fighting Russia for the rest of eternity. Or atleast until their country went bankrupt, and everyone revolted.

im not about to believe some website when a qualified report stated in 2007 that there were 655,000 casualties

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Blue Line, I told you. It is our business because it is our world and because the more a power expands, the harder it is to take down.

A classic example of how wrong your statement is Rome. They were stretched so thin that mere tribes were able to take them out. Don't forget about the slave rebellion that, although was stopped, caused a lot of trouble. Factor in bad negative economic policies and general incompetence of the government.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I suggest you read Bin Laden's "Letter to the American Nation" to understand more of the details of why Islamoterrorists hate us. You are not presenting the full picture.

I have read bin Laden's letter. It clearly states that the overall reason they are attacking us is because of our interventions. Granted, there are a lot of crazy religious and generally ridiculous demands in there, so I'll give you that.

However, bin Laden nicely sums up my argument:

1. What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with yourselves - and I doubt you will do so - to discover that you are a nation without principles or manners, and that the values and principles to you are something which you merely demand from others, not that which you yourself must adhere to.
2. We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines.
3. We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force us to send you back as cargo in coffins.
4. Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington.
5. We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual, theft and occupation, and not to continue your policy of supporting the Jews because this will result in more disasters for you.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

French resistance did not stop the Nazis. Stop fantasizing.

I didn't say the French Resistance stopped the Nazi's, so I am not fantasizing. However, you act like the only thing that could've possibly brought down the Nazi's was an organized coalition by various countries.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You can't judge the future of Iraq and Afghanistan solely on what is happening in their transition phases. That is fallacious of you.

Neither can you. You can't assume that they will be thriving democracies in x-years time.

We've been in Afghanistan for something like 9 years now, 7 in Iraq, and we're still having problems handing power over to the respective governments. Seems like a lost cause now.

Bin Laden is a horrible person, but the fact is, if we weren't interfering in everything over there, he couldn't care less about us.

Its not so much about leaving the area to appease him or any other group, but that we should never have been there in the first place. And if we leave, like we should anyway, they will lose all reason to fight us.

My friends, we are getting a bit off topic here. The purpose of this thread was to discuss the most efficient economic system for a nation or society as a whole. If you'd like to start another thread related to this topic, we most certainly can.

However, I will add my standing on this topic change:

Of course, any empire that spreads to thin can eventually deteriorate into pieces, but it takes much time and much oppression. If they are honestly manipulated and guided by a charismatic leader such as Adolf Hitler, then we can notice that an entire nation easily fell under the whim of his ideology regardless of the amount of racial extermination that took part.

The Soviet Union is a prime example of Rome because Rome didn't have consistent leadership. It was full of dictatorial assassinations and constant corruption within the senate itself. The Soviet Union was ruled by oppression, fear, and control. The Axis, however, was ruled by an illusion of a perfect society with absolute dedication and love to their leaders.

I wholeheartedly agree that if the Allied Invasion did not take place onto European or African soil, we would have seen the Germans accelerate into a phase of absolute dominion. There were countless factors at play that could have allowed the Axis to spread throughout the world. If Hitler had more time with the V2 rocket, or the manufacture of other types of technological devices, he would have fulfilled his eventual campaign. If you recall when Germany punctured into Russia, they had built a force so massive that was years in planning which they used strategically and conquered anywhere between 1/8 to almost 1/4 of Russian territory.

It was Hitler's goal to conquer the world, so our involvement in the war would have been inevitable.

I agree, that our foreign policy should not be involved with a lot of countries in the world, but when it comes to oppressors and aggressors who are clinically insane or are warped by illegitimate ideologies - many lives are at stake. When Iran was originally starting their nuclear program, their supreme leader was boasting of how Israel would be wiped off the face of the world. You may have a different opinion now, but what if a mushroom cloud appeared in Israel, following the deaths of thousands of other tourists including American and non-American? Not to mention, the following war that would ensue in the entire middle east would result in the deaths of even more thousands.

Our own government is illegitimate as it is, so yes I do not approve of many things that they do, but we must also bring into question of one thing: Should we stop the aggressor now or wait until thousands are killed before intervention?

Absolute, exactly. You said most of what I wanted to say. I will throw in some other quick points and let the dissenters have the last words if they want them.

Iraq and Afghanistan will take two or three generations to get right. We can't suddenly change the religious mental states of adults within their lifetimes. Our aim is at human development, not sudden revolutions of already existing minds. With democracy (the power of the people to have the ultimate authority over their government) comes eventual cultural advancment. With cultural advancement comes tamer forms of religious craziness.

Read the answer to Q2 of Bin Laden's "Letter to the American Nation" and see for yourself that Bin Laden's beef with us is our way of life on top of our Middle East intervention. He is a xenophobic schmuck in ways that go far beyond our "infidel" presence in the "holy land". His issues with us are widely representative of the Islamoterrorist mentality in general. Our MTV lifestyle influence on the rest of the world really makes Islamofascist blood boil. It is seen as a major threat to the power of Islam.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

One more thing. I don't 100% dismiss the idea that if we were militarily isolationist we would invite less or zero trouble from complete cuckoo burgers, considering our ability to defend ourselves. It just doesn't appear that way to me, based on the other things they bitch about in regard to us and demand from us.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

With democracy (the power of the people to have the ultimate authority over their government) comes eventual cultural advancment. With cultural advancement comes tamer forms of religious craziness.

With democracy comes the oppression of the masses. Mob rule, NAP violations, etc. You have no right to invade a country just to change their culture because you think they're insane fanatics, even if they really are.

After reading some of your arguments, I'll revise my original statement and say: Judging from what you're saying, I suggest you stop calling yourself libertarian. You're just another warmonger.

Other than that, I've lost interest in this argument. You may now get back to your regularly scheduled economics program.

Okay, one more post.

Thanks for dodging my specific points. We DO have a right to tell genocidal terrorist oppressors that they may not oppress their masses, just like we DO have a right to tell child abusers they can't abuse their children. Totalitarianism and genocide are NOT rights that totalitarians are entitled to. They have no business existing in this world. Also, calling me "just another" war monger is dishonest, and you know it. I am a "war monger" who is majorly libertarian on domestic issues. You are only libertarian for yourself and don't give a flying fuck about the freedom of others. You have made that quite obvious. If the Nazis had gotten far enough into Africa, the black race would be pretty much gone now, and the Nazis were about three steps from killing off every last European Jew. You don't even think those are issues.

Hercuflea, the Iraq Body Count site is backed by a great deal of "qualified" reporting. It is also a left wing site, in case you were suspecting it of being a conservative propaganda machine or something.

Also, calling me "just another" war monger is dishonest, and you know it. I am a "war monger" who is majorly libertarian on domestic issues. You are only libertarian for yourself and don't give a flying fuck about the freedom of others. You have made that quite obvious.

It is not dishonest. Libertarians are against all kinds of wars. War is the health of the state. If you truly believe in your arguments yet still call yourself a libertarian, then you are the one who is being dishonest.

I am a libertarian for myself, and for everyone else. I don't support violence or rights violations for any reason, so long as they didn't violate someone else's rights.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If the Nazis had gotten far enough into Africa, the black race would be pretty much gone now, and the Nazis were about three steps from killing off every last European Jew. You don't even think those are issues.

I do think about them. I think they are atrocities and I don't support them. However, I don't support intervention which would've lead to many more dead African civilians and dead German soldiers.

I have a chapter from a book for you to read. "Chapter 14: War and Foreign Policy, 'Isolationism' Left and Right" from the book, "For a New Liberty, The Libertarian Manifesto" by the great libertarian Murray Rothbard. I think it applies excellently to our current argument.

Link: http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#p263

Libertarianism is not all or nothing. There is a spectrum of it. You don't have to be libertarian on 100% of all issues to be libertarian. And again, I am not "just another" "warmonger". I explained that. You dodged. Hilter wanted to kill every black person and Jew in the world. If the Allied Powers had not intervened, he would have killed every black person in Africa and every Jew in Europe.

If you want to argue about what a libertarian is and whether anybody who believes war off one's own soil is necessary in some cases is "just another warmonger", start a thread on it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Libertarianism is not all or nothing. There is a spectrum of it. You don't have to be libertarian on 100% of all issues to be libertarian. And again, I am not "just another" "warmonger". I explained that. You dodged. Hilter wanted to kill every black person and Jew in the world. If the Allied Powers had not intervened, he would have killed every black person in Africa and every Jew in Europe.

If you want to argue about what a libertarian is and whether anybody who believes war off one's own soil is necessary in some cases is "just another warmonger", start a thread on it.

No need to start a new thread. Just read the chapter I suggested. Clearly you and I are of two different branches of libertarianism.

Edit - Scratch that. Clearly I am the libertarian and you are the classical liberal...Sort of.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

you are the classical liberal...Sort of.

I think you and Ninja should have a debate over whether or not I am a liberal.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think you and Ninja should have a debate over whether or not I am a liberal.

I said Classical Liberal. I know you're not a neo-liberal.

From wikipedia:

Central to the classical liberalism of the nineteenth century is a commitment to the liberty of individual citizens. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly were core commitments of classical liberalism, as was the underlying conception of the proper role of just government as the protection of the liberties of individual citizens. Also central to classical liberalism was a commitment to a system of free markets as the best way to organize economic life.

he is not a classical liberal. Classical liberals were anti war, and anti- "entangling alliances" like Thomas Jefferson. He is no Jeffersonian.

Edit: @ UM: the fact that it is a "left wing" site makes me doubt it even more.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Iraq and Afghanistan will take two or three generations to get right. We can't suddenly change the religious mental states of adults within their lifetimes. Our aim is at human development, not sudden revolutions of already existing minds. With democracy (the power of the people to have the ultimate authority over their government) comes eventual cultural advancment. With cultural advancement comes tamer forms of religious craziness.

Did you just say the goal is to destroy their culture and religion and brainwash their children into seeing the world as we do? I know you put a really nice spin on the way you said it, but that is basically what you said.

Originally Posted by Alric

Did you just say the goal is to destroy their culture and religion and brainwash their children into seeing the world as we do? I know you put a really nice spin on the way you said it, but that is basically what you said.

No, but that is one Hell of a spin you put on it. I was talking about the intellectual advancement and resulting social stability that come with the freedom all innocent people are entitled to. Did you just say that freedom and is resulting social progress qualify as "brainwashing"? I guess its not brainwashing when it happens in your own country, eh? You keep pushing for for increased freedom in the United States and talking about the social benefits that will come from it, yet you call the same thing "brainwashing" when it comes to non-Americans. Why the double standard?

I might of said it in a more extreme way, but read what you said. You basically said that the adults don't want something, so you want to control the area until they die and a new generation comes in, a generation that believes in what you do. You said you wanted them to have a 'tamer' version of their culture and religion. It really comes down to, you do not like their culture and your end goal is to change it to a more acceptable form. Which is wrong.

Its not a double standard when Americans want it, and they are clearly resisting it. Resisting it so much, that you made the claim that the adults will never come around to your point of view.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, but that is one Hell of a spin you put on it. I was talking about the intellectual advancement and resulting social stability that come with the freedom all innocent people are entitled to. Did you just say that freedom and is resulting social progress qualify as "brainwashing"? I guess its not brainwashing when it happens in your own country, eh? You keep pushing for for increased freedom in the United States and talking about the social benefits that will come from it, yet you call the same thing "brainwashing" when it comes to non-Americans. Why the double standard?

You're still forcing something on people that aren't interested in it.

There is a difference between giving people freedom by educational and intellectual means and barging into their country and giving it to them. Some won't be interested, and you have just violated their rights. Some will be even less interested if you set up a democracy and the mob rules, which violates even more rights.

Originally Posted by Alric

I might of said it in a more extreme way, but read what you said. You basically said that the adults don't want something, so you want to control the area until they die and a new generation comes in, a generation that believes in what you do. You said you wanted them to have a 'tamer' version of their culture and religion. It really comes down to, you do not like their culture and your end goal is to change it to a more acceptable form. Which is wrong.

Its not a double standard when Americans want it, and they are clearly resisting it. Resisting it so much, that you made the claim that the adults will never come around to your point of view.

I said nothing about coaching them into it or forming cultural advancement choirs and showing them crazy movies with their eye lids taped open. I said culturual advancement is the natural result of freedom.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

You're still forcing something on people that aren't interested in it.

There is a difference between giving people freedom by educational and intellectual means and barging into their country and giving it to them. Some won't be interested, and you have just violated their rights. Some will be even less interested if you set up a democracy and the mob rules, which violates even more rights.

We've got three threads on this going now, and I am repeating what I said in another thread... The majority has no business deciding that the minority is not entitled to freedom. Nobody has the right to oppress the innocent. Dictators don't have that right, oligarchies don't have it, and even a 99.999% majority doesn't have it. Oppression is not a moral right.

Okay, it's official. Let's talk about this in the other threads and let Absolute's thread be about the best type of economy, which ironically all four of us agree on.