[ Attachment content not displayed ]
(Attachment genImage.jpg is missing)
Derek,
I don't see any real smiles in that photo. I think the anger is real enough, misdirected though it is. And nobody murders children in the same spirit as one would go to a tailgate party. That's absurd.
But I fully support the Danish newspaper publishing that cartoon. I'd like to see it republished widely in this country. The message should be, "Lighten up about religion. God has a sense of humor. Do you?" Then make published pictures of Mohammed so commonplace that they would lose their capacity to generate outrage.
I'd like to see a cartoon or better yet a staged photo depicting a curtained shower stall. Inside, stands a human figure -- you can't see anything of his body, but you can see the top of the bag that covers his head, with eyeholes cut in it. Around the shower stall, a bunch of children are sitting and standing, some in Islamic dress, pleading, "Come out, Mohammed! How can you teach us about peace when we can't see you?" and the guy inside the shower stall says, "I'm embarrassed to show my face, Jesus is so much better looking than I am."
Going back to a thread of a week or two ago, you said that you'd come to realize that you were an American first, and a libertarian second. I'd be curious to delve further into your reasons for feeling this way, if you don't mind. Here are a few questions along these lines which I'd love to hear your thoughts on. What is it about America that appeals to you? Would you say that America is the freest country in the world, or the country most likely to produce a libertarian society? Do you think it would be better if more American libertarians identified as Americans first and libertarians second? Do you think everybody in the world ought to be more loyal to America than to libertarianism, or should people living outside the United States who are not U.S. citizens identify first with libertarianism and second, or not at all, with America? Should people living in China be more loyal to China, or to libertarianism? Do you see it as generally desirable for people to feel a loyalty to "their nation" over other loyalties, such as to the city or locale where they live, their favorite sports team, their family, friends, religion, etc.? Or should only nationalist feelings only be encouraged among Americans or among residents of certain nations, and discouraged among residents of others? Either way, why would you say so, and how do you think the realization of your preference would help produce a better world?
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
See the attached reuters picture with the caption: "Indian Muslim students shout slogans during a protest in New Delhi, February 6, 2006. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi"
Does anyone see what I see? This is like a big party to these "protestors". Over half of them are smiling for the camera.
I think Neal Boortz had it right last week with the following thoughts:
----------------
Come on, is this really about cartoons? They're rampaging and burning flags. They're looking for Europeans to kidnap. They're threatening innkeepers and generally raising holy Muslim hell not because of any outrage over a cartoon. They're outraged because it is part of the Islamic jihadist culture to be outraged. You don't really need a reason. You just need an excuse. Wandering around, destroying property, murdering children, firing guns into the air and feigning outrage over the slightest perceived insult is to a jihadist what tailgating is to a Steeler's fan.
-----------------I'm always astonished at how the left and the blame-America-first crowd in this country gives a free pass to those who would do America and Americans harm. Their silence on this Danish cartoon issue is deafening. This is the same crowd, that in response to overseas American deaths says "well, then American's shouldn't be travelling there then"
--
View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.comSPONSORED LINKS
<image.tiff>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>
Dear Starchild and Derek and Harlan and Everyone Else;
The following is not personally directed at you but is a commentary.
In the Muslim religion no pictures or images of the prophet Mohammed are allowed under any circumstances and in THEIR RELIGION the depictions are an extreme sacriledge.
If you are going to come down on them for what they are doing please at least make an attempt to understand why they are reacting as they do based on THEIR CULTURE AND THEIR RELIGION.
Thank You.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Derek,
I don't see any real smiles in that photo. I think the anger is real
enough, misdirected though it is. And nobody murders children in the
same spirit as one would go to a tailgate party. That's absurd.
But I fully support the Danish newspaper publishing that cartoon. I'd
like to see it republished widely in this country. The message should
be, "Lighten up about religion. God has a sense of humor. Do you?" Then
make published pictures of Mohammed so commonplace that they would lose
their capacity to generate outrage.
I'd like to see a cartoon or better yet a staged photo depicting a
curtained shower stall. Inside, stands a human figure -- you can't see
anything of his body, but you can see the top of the bag that covers
his head, with eyeholes cut in it. Around the shower stall, a bunch of
children are sitting and standing, some in Islamic dress, pleading,
"Come out, Mohammed! How can you teach us about peace when we can't see
you?" and the guy inside the shower stall says, "I'm embarrassed to
show my face, Jesus is so much better looking than I am."
Going back to a thread of a week or two ago, you said that you'd come
to realize that you were an American first, and a libertarian second.
I'd be curious to delve further into your reasons for feeling this way,
if you don't mind. Here are a few questions along these lines which I'd
love to hear your thoughts on. What is it about America that appeals to
you? Would you say that America is the freest country in the world, or
the country most likely to produce a libertarian society? Do you think
it would be better if more American libertarians identified as
Americans first and libertarians second? Do you think everybody in the
world ought to be more loyal to America than to libertarianism, or
should people living outside the United States who are not U.S.
citizens identify first with libertarianism and second, or not at all,
with America? Should people living in China be more loyal to China, or
to libertarianism? Do you see it as generally desirable for people to
feel a loyalty to "their nation" over other loyalties, such as to the
city or locale where they live, their favorite sports team, their
family, friends, religion, etc.? Or should only nationalist feelings
only be encouraged among Americans or among residents of certain
nations, and discouraged among residents of others? Either way, why
would you say so, and how do you think the realization of your
preference would help produce a better world?
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
I'd like to see a cartoon or better yet a staged photo depicting acurtained shower stall. Inside, stands a human figure -- you can't see
anything of his body, but you can see the top of the bag that covers
his head, with eyeholes cut in it. Around the shower stall, a bunch of
children are sitting and standing, some in Islamic dress, pleading,
"Come out, Mohammed! How can you teach us about peace when we can't see
you?" and the guy inside the shower stall says, "I'm embarrassed to
show my face, Jesus is so much better looking than I am."--->Starchild the Blasphemer!
8) According to Jesus, a recognized prophet in the Islamic religion, he who blasphemes against the father or the son shall be forgiven; it's only blasphemy against the holy spirit which is not forgiven (Gospel of Thomas). Not that I'm a Christian either, but I am in favor of spiritual enlightenment and appreciate the contributions of religious leaders toward that end, to the extent that their contributions have been positive. Exactly what constitutes blasphemy against the holy spirit is a very interesting question, I think, but that's another topic.
Going back to a thread of a week or two ago, you said that you'd cometo realize that you were an American first, and a libertarian second.
I'd be curious to delve further into your reasons for feeling this way,
if you don't mind.-----> No, I don't mind. Go ahead. I'll try to answer as honestly as I can, without using cliches or nationalistic slogans.
Thanks for that sensitivity. 8)
Here are a few questions along these lines which I'd
love to hear your thoughts on. What is it about America that appeals to
you?----> Probably a large part of it has to do with being born here, obviously. I never said it was perfectly rational, just how I believe I'm wired. I'm sure there are other reasons.
Understood. That's why I think the matter especially interesting and worth further examination. Why do you associate the word "here" with America, and not with, say, the city you were born in, or the state, or the region, or the continent? Isn't it letting oneself be directed by the herd, so to speak, to automatically use the nation as one's frame of reference?
Would you say that America is the freest country in the world, or
the country most likely to produce a libertarian society?----> Yes, far from free, but almost surely the freest country in the world. Probably the most likely to produce a Libertarian society, but I still put this probability as remote. (I don't include the anarchistic Somalia as a "Libertarian society" and certainly not one in which I'd ever want to live)
On what information do you base the assumption that the United States is almost surely the freest country in the world? If you were to assume that it were not the freest country in the world, do you think it would cause you to identify as a libertarian more than as an American? If the United States became progressively less free, do you think there would be a point at which you would identify more as a libertarian?
Do you think it would be better if more American libertarians identified as Americans first and libertarians second?
----> I do think there is a lack of patriotism in what I see as the more extreme anarchist or the "anti-war" (aka peace-at-any-cost) crowd. I have observed a kneejerk response to blaming America among this strain of libertarian that I think is not productive toward advancing freedom.
I would agree with that. Although strictly speaking I believe that I myself am extremely unpatriotic, given that I am extremely anti-nationalist, and have no allegiance whatsoever to the United States, per se. At the same time, I am also much less anti-American than many people I know who live under USgov's jurisdiction.
However you didn't exactly answer the question that I asked, and I am still curious to hear your answer to that particular question.
Do you think everybody in the world ought to be more loyal to America than to libertarianism,
----> No, that's silly.
I don't understand why you would think it silly for them to feel that way, since you feel that way yourself.
or should people living outside the United States who are not U.S. citizens identify first with libertarianism and second, or not at all, with America?
---->I expect people living outside the US to want the best for their countries, tribes, or whatever else it is with which they identify themselves. Just as I believe Libertarianism is what's best for America, if those non-US citizens are Libertarians, they should naturally want those countries to pursue Libertarian policies.
Do you think it's best if they want what's best for their own country, tribe, etc., rather than wanting what's best for the world as a whole, or do you think it's best if they identify less with a particular jurisdiction and more with the cause of liberty?
Should people living in China be more loyal to China, or to libertarianism?
---> It depends what one means by loyalty. The pendulum in China has swung so far toward authoritarianism that it's hard for me to see how one can be loyal to the Chinese government and still be a libertarian. However, this doesn't mean that a Chinese libertarian cannot still want what's best for China, which in their opinion would be more libertarian policies enacted.
Yes, good points. I guess I should ask, when you say you identify more as an American than as a libertarian, does that mean you feel some loyalty to USgov? How would you describe the nature of that loyalty?
Do you see it as generally desirable for people to feel a loyalty to "their nation" over other loyalties, such as to the city or locale where they live, their favorite sports team, their family, friends, religion, etc.?
---> I don't know. There are huge benefits of scale in defense against foreign belligerents, and the modern nation-state seems to have derived largely for this reason.
Does it matter whether a belligerent is "foreign" or not?
Or should only nationalist feelings only be encouraged among Americans or among residents of certain nations, and discouraged among residents of others? Either way, why would you say so, and how do you think the realization of your preference would help produce a better world?
---> Well, history has shown us it's probably to the benefit of the rest of Europe that German nationalistic sentiments don't run too strong. But history has also shown us that American national pride and willingness to fight tyranny in the world has been a large net benefit not only for America but for humanity.
I would certainly agree with your statement about German nationalistic sentiments. But you then seem to equate American national pride with a willingness to fight tyranny in the world. Could you explain how you believe these two things are connected? I see them as totally separate. After all, I am very willing to support the fight against tyranny in the world, but deliberately eschew national pride.
If it's the willingness to fight tyranny that's important, and not American national pride per se, then isn't it the former and not the latter that we ought to be explicitly promoting, rather than promoting the latter in the belief that it will help the cause of the former?
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Oh, don't worry, I knew you were joking. But it's still an interesting question, imho. I like what Mike Acree had to say about the Diety having a sense of humor.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Starchild:
I said you were a blasphemer as a joke. I too think the cartoon you describe would be humorous.
-Derek
> I'd like to see a cartoon or better yet a staged photo depicting a
> curtained shower stall. Inside, stands a human figure -- you can't see
> anything of his body, but you can see the top of the bag that covers
> his head, with eyeholes cut in it. Around the shower stall, a bunch of
> children are sitting and standing, some in Islamic dress, pleading,
> "Come out, Mohammed! How can you teach us about peace when we can't see
> you?" and the guy inside the shower stall says, "I'm embarrassed to
> show my face, Jesus is so much better looking than I am."
>
> --->Starchild the Blasphemer!8\) According to Jesus, a recognized prophet in the Islamic religion,he who blasphemes against the father or the son shall be forgiven; it's
only blasphemy against the holy spirit which is not forgiven (Gospel of
Thomas). Not that I'm a Christian either, but I am in favor of
spiritual enlightenment and appreciate the contributions of religious
leaders toward that end, to the extent that their contributions have
been positive. Exactly what constitutes blasphemy against the holy
spirit is a very interesting question, I think, but that's another
topic.> Going back to a thread of a week or two ago, you said that
> you'd come
> to realize that you were an American first, and a libertarian second.
> I'd be curious to delve further into your reasons for feeling this way,
> if you don't mind.
>
> -----> No, I don't mind. Go ahead. I'll try to answer as honestly as
> I can, without using cliches or nationalistic slogans.Thanks for that sensitivity\. 8\)> Here are a few questions along these lines which I'd
> love to hear your thoughts on. What is it about America that appeals to
> you?
>
> ----> Probably a large part of it has to do with being born here,
> obviously. I never said it was perfectly rational, just how Ibelieve
> I'm wired. I'm sure there are other reasons.Understood\. That's why I think the matter especially interesting andworth further examination. Why do you associate the word "here" with
America, and not with, say, the city you were born in, or the state, or
the region, or the continent? Isn't it letting oneself be directed by
the herd, so to speak, to automatically use the nation as one's frame
of reference?> Would you say that America is the freest country in the world, or
> the country most likely to produce a libertarian society?
>
> ----> Yes, far from free, but almost surely the freest country in the
> world. Probably the most likely to produce a Libertarian society, but
> I still put this probability as remote. (I don't include the
> anarchistic Somalia as a "Libertarian society" and certainly not one
> in which I'd ever want to live)On what information do you base the assumption that the United Statesis almost surely the freest country in the world? If you were to assume
that it were not the freest country in the world, do you think it would
cause you to identify as a libertarian more than as an American? If the
United States became progressively less free, do you think there would
be a point at which you would identify more as a libertarian?> Do you think it would be better if more American libertarians
> identified as Americans first and libertarians second?
>
> ----> I do think there is a lack of patriotism in what I see as the
> more extreme anarchist orthe "anti-war"(aka peace-at-any-cost)
> crowd. Ihave observed a kneejerk response to blaming America among
> this strain of libertarian that Ithink is not productive toward
> advancing freedom.I would agree with that\. Although strictly speaking I believe that Imyself am extremely unpatriotic, given that I am extremely
anti-nationalist, and have no allegiance whatsoever to the United
States, per se. At the same time, I am also much less anti-American
than many people I know who live under USgov's jurisdiction.However you didn't exactly answer the question that I asked, and I amstill curious to hear your answer to that particular question.
> Do you think everybody in the world ought to be more loyal to America
> than to libertarianism,
>
> ----> No, that's silly.I don't understand why you would think it silly for them to feel thatway, since you feel that way yourself.
> or should people living outside the United States who are not U.S.
> citizens identify first with libertarianism and second, or not at all,
> with America?
>
> ---->I expect people living outside the US to want the best for their
> countries, tribes, or whatever else it is with which they identify
> themselves.JustasI believe Libertarianism is what's best for
> America, if those non-US citizens are Libertarians, they should
> naturally want those countries to pursue Libertarian policies.Do you think it's best if they want what's best for their own country,tribe, etc., rather than wanting what's best for the world as a whole,
or do you think it's best if they identify less with a particular
jurisdiction and more with the cause of liberty?> Should people living in China be more loyal to China, or to
> libertarianism?
>
> ---> It depends what one means by loyalty. The pendulum in China has
> swung so far toward authoritarianism that it's hard for me to see how
> one can be loyal to the Chinese government and still be a
> libertarian. However, this doesn't mean that a Chinese libertarian
> cannot still want what's best for China, which in their opinion would
> be more libertarian policies enacted.Yes, good points\. I guess I should ask, when you say you identify moreas an American than as a libertarian, does that mean you feel some
loyalty to USgov? How would you describe the nature of that loyalty?> Do you see it as generally desirable for people to feel a loyalty to
> "their nation" over other loyalties, such as to the city or locale
> where they live, their favorite sports team, their family, friends,
> religion, etc.?
>
> ---> I don't know. There are huge benefits of scale in defense
> against foreign belligerents, and the modern nation-state seems to
> have derived largely for this reason.Does it matter whether a belligerent is "foreign" or not?> Or should only nationalist feelings only be encouraged among Americans
> or among residents of certain nations, and discouraged among residents
> of others? Either way, why would you say so,and how do you think the
> realization of your preference would help produce a better world?
>
> ---> Well, history has shown us it's probably to the benefit of the
> rest of Europe that German nationalistic sentiments don't run too
> strong. But history has also shown us that American national pride
> and willingness to fight tyranny in the world has been a large net
> benefit not only for America but for humanity.I would certainly agree with your statement about German nationalisticsentiments. But you then seem to equate American national pride with a
willingness to fight tyranny in the world. Could you explain how you
believe these two things are connected? I see them as totally separate.
After all, I am very willing to support the fight against tyranny in
the world, but deliberately eschew national pride.If it's the willingness to fight tyranny that's important, and notAmerican national pride per se, then isn't it the former and not the
latter that we ought to be explicitly promoting, rather than promoting
the latter in the belief that it will help the cause of the former?Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>--
View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.comSPONSORED LINKS
<image.tiff>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>
Dearest Everyone;
I'm certain God does have a sense of humor ( wherever She happens to be) - how else do you explain letting us Earthlings running around being able to say in various languages " Gott Mitt Uns".
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Oh, don't worry, I knew you were joking. But it's still an interesting
question, imho. I like what Mike Acree had to say about the Diety
having a sense of humor.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Understood\. That's why I think the matter especially interesting andworth further examination. Why do you associate the word "here" with
America, and not with, say, the city you were born in, or the state, or
the region, or the continent?----> Habit and conforming to general convention, "I'm an American" means something, whereas, "I'm from Stoughton, Massachusetts means very little"
Really? I'd say just the opposite. When you've asked someone where they're from, if they just said "I'm an American" that would mean very little, while "I'm from Stoughton, Massachusetts" would tell you quite a bit more, no?
Isn't it letting oneself be directed by the herd, so to speak, to automatically use the nation as one's frame of reference?
----> Perhaps.
On what information do you base the assumption that the United States is almost surely the freest country in the world?
--->A mountain of evidence here. Let's start with the rate of immigration into this country as opposed to those trying to leave it. True, we're the richest country (let's ignore norway and Luxembourg which are special cases), but if it were only about wealth, then should we not be observing large numbers of wealthy people leaving the US and moving to places with more personal freedoms? Also, the freedom of speech, press, and assembly that we enjoy in this country is enormous. Not as much as I would like to see, but by any objective measure compared to other countries, it is still huge. I also believe the rule of law to be stronger in this country that any other (there may be some minor exceptions). Our military is controlled by civilians. There has never been a military coup, and power has always changed hands peacefully with each election. In total, I think it's a strong case for the US being the freeest country in the world. But still a long long way to go.
There *are* a lot of American expatriates. Many more immigrants, I'm sure, but the expatriation factor is not insignificant. I do agree that America is among the freest countries in the world.
However according to the two free market oriented indexes of economic freedom that I'm aware of (the Heritage and Fraser Institutes), the United States is the 9th (tied with Australia) and 3rd (tied with Switzerland and New Zealand) freest country respectively.
I don't know of any international civil liberties indexes, but I'm pretty sure that the U.S. would rank even lower on such an index. After all, the U.S. has a huge number of people in prison, I believe more total and per capita than any other country, and probably at least half of them shouldn't be there. That has to count for a lot.
Despite these problems, the U.S. as a jurisdiction does still have a lot going for it. I think the prospects of it producing a libertarian society may well be higher than the average of its economic and civil liberties standings might indicate, mainly due to the facts that most of the world's conscious libertarians are in the United States, that the policies of USgov are significantly less libertarian than the views of the people under its jurisdiction, and that the history of the area known as the United States has been strongly libertarian in many respects.
But right now if I had to guess which country will produce a libertarian government first, I'd say Costa Rica or New Zealand seem more likely. Maybe even others like Canada or Singapore.
If you were to assume that it were not the freest country in the world, do you think it would cause you to identify as a libertarian more than as an American?
---->not necessarily.
If the United States became progressively less free, do you think there would be a point at which you would identify more as a libertarian?
----> I can conceive of such a point, yes. If some of the basic freedoms, such as the right to own private property, the rule of law, and freedom of speech, press, assembly, were seriously eroded by a tyrannical government, then I would take up arms to fight for freedom against the tyranny. We're a long long long long way from that.
Taking up arms, rather than leaving for a freer jurisdiction, would appear to be counter-productive to your personal and economic freedom, but I can certainly admire your courage and commitment to principle. You wouldn't ever leave the U.S. if things got too bad, and the fight for freedom there looked too hopeless?
However you didn't exactly answer the question that I asked, and I amstill curious to hear your answer to that particular question. (Do you think it would be better if more American libertarians identified as Americans first and libertarians second?)
---> I don't know what difference it would make.
Hmm. I think it could make a great deal of difference. According to Gallup Polls, about 20% of Americans are basically libertarian in their views. Obviously they're using a loose definition of "libertarian," and the vast majority of those people do not self-identify as libertarian, let alone agree in general with the LP platform, but clearly the number who do self-identify as libertarians is much, much higher than the number of registered Libertarians. I suspect, though I don't know, that people who identified politically as libertarians first, and Americans second, would be much more likely to join the Libertarian Party based on that primary self-identification, than people who identify as Americans first and libertarians second.
> Do you think everybody in the world ought to be more loyal to America
> than to libertarianism,
>
> ----> No, that's silly.I don't understand why you would think it silly for them to feel thatway, since you feel that way yourself.
-----> because I'm an american and "everybody in the world" is not necessarily and american themselves, so it would be silly to expect them to be loyal to my country.
Well, you think America is the freest country in the world, so your loyalty to America is much more understandable than would be the loyalty of a Chinese libertarian to China. I would assume that you think (as I do) that everyone in the world ought to value freedom highly. I think it's safe to say that at least half the people in the world live in a country that's below average in freedom, so if they value freedom highly, and see America as the freest country in the world, it would make sense for them to identify with America more than with than the country where they live, wouldn't it?
Do you think it's best if they want what's best for their own country,tribe, etc., rather than wanting what's best for the world as a whole,
or do you think it's best if they identify less with a particular
jurisdiction and more with the cause of liberty?----> Yes, but this is not the way the world works.
Indeed it's not how things are now, but doesn't that go without saying? Obviously it's *possible* for people to identify more with the cause of liberty than with any particular jurisdiction. I haven't taken a survey, but I suspect that many Libertarians would identify politically as libertarians before identifying as Americans. Possibly not the majority, I don't know. It would be interesting to find out. But in any case, your comment about the way the world works seems like an odd observation to make in this context. For instance if you were telling someone that it would be better if parents spent more quality time with their children, and they said "Yes, but this is not the way the world works," what would you think?
Yes, good points. I guess I should ask, when you say you identify more as an American than as a libertarian, does that mean you feel some
loyalty to USgov? How would you describe the nature of that loyalty?---> I love my country, but happen to very much despise what has become of the government. But we're still better off with a powerful military, as long as it is controlled by civilian leaders.
I understand that you think it's in the interest of people under the jurisdiction of USgov for its military to be powerful, but I'm still unclear on what the parameters of your loyalty to USgov are.
> Do you see it as generally desirable for people to feel a loyalty to
> "their nation" over other loyalties, such as to the city or locale
> where they live, their favorite sports team, their family, friends,
> religion, etc.?
>
> ---> I don't know. There are huge benefits of scale in defense
> against foreign belligerents, and the modern nation-state seems to
> have derived largely for this reason.Does it matter whether a belligerent is "foreign" or not?----> No.
Would you describe USgov as your belligerent? Why or why not?
I would certainly agree with your statement about German nationalisticsentiments. But you then seem to equate American national pride with a
willingness to fight tyranny in the world. Could you explain how you
believe these two things are connected? I see them as totally separate.
After all, I am very willing to support the fight against tyranny in
the world, but deliberately eschew national pride.---> Because it is inefficient to contract military protection services at the localized level when facing an extremely well organized external threat. Note this also explains why anarchistic societies would last about 10 minutes.
I see your point. But whether or not that reality demonstrates a need for military protection at the national level, or some other level, depends on the size of the jurisdiction, doesn't it? Some countries are smaller than the Bay Area, while a few are larger than the United States. Are you suggesting that jurisdictions the size of the United States are more advantageous than jurisdictions the size of, say, California, either in terms of population or in terms of geographic area?
If it's the willingness to fight tyranny that's important, and notAmerican national pride per se, then isn't it the former and not the
latter that we ought to be explicitly promoting, rather than promoting
the latter in the belief that it will help the cause of the former?----> See above.
In other words, national pride leads to having a strong military, which leads to more ability to fight tyranny? That makes sense. But if people were committed to global freedom, and hence to fighting tyranny, wouldn't that also cause people to support a strong USgov military, to the extent that the USgov military were engaged in fighting tyranny?
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Ron,
I understand why some Muslims are angry at the cartoons based on their religion. I don't think it's a matter of culture, except perhaps inasmuch as those taking offense may tend to come from places lacking in traditions of free speech -- Muslims don't share a common culture, and in any case depictions in general are allowed in various countries where people of that religious persuasion live -- it's my understanding that Islam only frowns on depictions of Mohammed.
While I understand their anger, I don't condone it. I think the problem lies with people *taking* offense at a cartoon, not with the artist or the person who publishes or distributes it. I agree with Mike Acree that people should have more of a sense of humor about religion. I'm able to see the humor in things like bumperstickers that say things like "I Love Spotted Owls -- Fried," even though that's making light of a matter of life and death and humans killing and eating other animals is against my religion to the extent that I have one.
Also I hope you noticed that my suggested cartoon wouldn't actually depict Mohammed. I hope it doesn't offend anyone, because I don't think anyone *should* be offended by such a cartoon, and I feel the same way about the cartoons on Harland's website. I've downloaded those and plan to forward the better ones around via email.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Dear Starchild and Derek and Harlan and Everyone Else;
The following is not personally directed at you but is a commentary.
In the Muslim religion no pictures or images of the prophet Mohammed are allowed under any circumstances and in THEIR RELIGION the depictions are an extreme sacriledge.
If you are going to come down on them for what they are doing please at least make an attempt to understand why they are reacting as they do based on THEIR CULTURE AND THEIR RELIGION.
Thank You.
Ron Getty
SF LibertarianStarchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Derek,
I don't see any real smiles in that photo. I think the anger is real
enough, misdirected though it is. And nobody murders children in the
same spirit as one would go to a tailgate party. That's absurd.But I fully support the Danish newspaper publishing that cartoon. I'd
like to see it republished widely in this country. The message should
be, "Lighten up about religion. God has a sense of humor. Do you?" Then
make published pictures of Mohammed so commonplace that they would lose
their capacity to generate outrage.I'd like to see a cartoon or better yet a staged photo depicting a
curtained shower stall. Inside, stands a human figure -- you can't see
anything of his body, but you can see the top of the bag that covers
his head, with eyeholes cut in it. Around the shower stall, a bunch of
children are sitting and standing, some in Islamic dress, pleading,
"Come out, Mohammed! How can you teach us about peace when we can't see
you?" and the guy inside the shower stall says, "I'm embarrassed to
show my face, Jesus is so much better looking than I am."Going back to a thread of a week or two ago, you said that you'd come
to realize that you were an American first, and a libertarian second.
I'd be curious to delve further into your reasons for feeling this way,
if you don't mind. Here are a few questions along these lines which I'd
love to hear your thoughts on. What is it about America that appeals to
you? Would you say that America is the freest country in the world, or
the country most likely to produce a libertarian society? Do you think
it would be better if more American libertarians identified as
Americans first and libertarians second? Do you think everybody in the
world ought to be more loyal to America than to libertarianism, or
should people living outside the United States who are not U.S.
citizens identify first with libertarianism and second, or not at all,
with America? Should people living in China be more loyal to China, or
to libertarianism? Do you see it as generally desirable for people to
feel a loyalty to "their nation" over other loyalties, such as to the
city or locale where they live, their favorite sports team, their
family, friends, religion, etc.? Or should only nationalist feelings
only be encouraged among Americans or among residents of certain
nations, and discouraged among residents of others? Either way, why
would you say so, and how do you think the realization of your
preference would help produce a better world?Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>> See the attached reuters picture with the caption: "Indian Muslim
> students shout slogans during a protest in New Delhi, February 6,
> 2006. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi"
>
> Does anyone see what I see? This is like a big party to these
> "protestors". Over half of them are smiling for the camera.
>
> I think Neal Boortz had it right last week with the following thoughts:
>
> ----------------
> Come on, is this really about cartoons? They're rampaging and burning
> flags. They're looking for Europeans to kidnap. They're threatening
> innkeepers and generally raising holy Muslim hell not because of any
> outrage over a cartoon. They're outraged because it is part of the
> Islamic jihadist culture to be outraged. You don't really need a
> reason. You just need an excuse. Wandering around, destroying
> property, murdering children, firing guns into the air and feigning
> outrage over the slightest perceived insult is to a jihadist what
> tailgating is to a Steeler's fan.
> -----------------
>
> I'm always astonished at how the left and the blame-America-first
> crowd in this country gives a free pass to those who would do America
> and Americans harm. Their silence on this Danish cartoon issue is
> deafening. This is the same crowd, that in response to overseas
> American deaths says "well, then American's shouldn't be travelling
> there then">
> --
> View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.com
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>>
SPONSORED LINKS
<image.tiff>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>
Starchild, with this suggested cartoon, you're asking for a Fatwa.
In that case, will you accept the protection of USGov?
Dear Starchild and Everyone Else;
Okay sense of humor about religion.
Is God (He/She) therefore the very first Existential from the begining of all time Transgender/Bisexual??? Given all things that God is supposed to be??? All Being - All Knowing - Omniscient etc etc etc.
Does God have arguments with Himself/Herself as to whose turn it is to take out the garbage???
If God in a moment of distraughtness says - God! Does He answer Himself? Yes - God - you rang?
Does He go around talking to Himself/Herself saying to Himself - Yes Dear! No Dear!
If Himself wants to get it on - does Herself come down with a headache? And does Herself let Himself cure it with a snap of the fingers? Great way to make galaxies but cure a headache?
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Ron,
I understand why some Muslims are angry at the cartoons based on their
religion. I don't think it's a matter of culture, except perhaps
inasmuch as those taking offense may tend to come from places lacking
in traditions of free speech -- Muslims don't share a common culture,
and in any case depictions in general are allowed in various countries
where people of that religious persuasion live -- it's my understanding
that Islam only frowns on depictions of Mohammed.
While I understand their anger, I don't condone it. I think the
problem lies with people *taking* offense at a cartoon, not with the
artist or the person who publishes or distributes it. I agree with Mike
Acree that people should have more of a sense of humor about religion.
I'm able to see the humor in things like bumperstickers that say things
like "I Love Spotted Owls -- Fried," even though that's making light of
a matter of life and death and humans killing and eating other animals
is against my religion to the extent that I have one.
Also I hope you noticed that my suggested cartoon wouldn't actually
depict Mohammed. I hope it doesn't offend anyone, because I don't think
anyone *should* be offended by such a cartoon, and I feel the same way
about the cartoons on Harland's website. I've downloaded those and plan
to forward the better ones around via email.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
There is some small risk of that. Hopefully enough people will draw and circulate cartoons about Mohammed and such that my merely suggesting one which doesn't even depict the founder of Islam won't draw a disproportionate amount of wrath. Like you say regarding defense, there's a certain amount of safety in numbers.
Regarding your question, any organization that's willing to stand between me and harm is more than welcome to do so. If they've already robbed me with the implicit promise of providing protection in return, I'd say delivering on that promise is the least they can do.
<<< starchild >>>
Starchild, with this suggested cartoon, you're asking for a Fatwa.
In that case, will you accept the protection of USGov?
> Ron,
>
> I understand why some Muslims are angry at the cartoons based on their
> religion. I don't think it's a matter of culture, except perhaps
> inasmuch as those taking offense may tend to come from places lacking
> in traditions of free speech -- Muslims don't share a common culture,
> and in any case depictions in general are allowed in various countries
> where people of that religious persuasion live -- it's my understanding
> that Islam only frowns on depictions of Mohammed.
>
> While I understand their anger, I don't condone it. I think the
> problem lies with people *taking* offense at a cartoon, not with the
> artist or the person who publishes or distributes it. I agree with Mike
> Acree that people should have more of a sense of humor about religion.
> I'm able to see the humor in things like bumperstickers that say things
> like "I Love Spotted Owls -- Fried," even though that's making light of
> a matter of life and death and humans killing and eating other animals
> is against my religion to the extent that I have one.
>
> Also I hope you noticed that my suggested cartoon wouldn't actually
> depict Mohammed. I hope it doesn't offend anyone, because I don't think
> anyone *should* be offended by such a cartoon, and I feel the same way
> about the cartoons on Harland's website. I've downloaded those and plan
> to forward the better ones around via email.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
>
> > Dear Starchild and Derek and Harlan and Everyone Else;
> >
> > The following is not personally directed at you but is a commentary.
> >
> > In the Muslim religion no pictures or images of the prophet Mohammed
> > are allowed under any circumstances and in THEIR RELIGION the
> > depictions are an extreme sacriledge.
> >
> > If you are going to come down on them for what they are doing please
> > at least make an attempt to understand why they are reacting as they
> > do based on THEIR CULTURE AND THEIR RELIGION.
> >
> > Thank You.
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> > Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
> >
> > Derek,
> >
> > I don't see any real smiles in that photo. I think the anger is real
> > enough, misdirected though it is. And nobody murders children in the
> > same spirit as one would go to a tailgate party. That's absurd.
> >
> > But I fully support the Danish newspaper publishing that cartoon. I'd
> > like to see it republished widely in this country. The message should
> > be, "Lighten up about religion. God has a sense of humor. Do you?" Then
> > make published pictures of Mohammed so commonplace that they would lose
> > their capacity to generate outrage.
> >
> > I'd like to see a cartoon or better yet a staged photo depicting a
> > curtained shower stall. Inside, stands a human figure -- you can't see
> > anything of his body, but you can see the top of the bag that covers
> > his head, with eyeholes cut in it. Around the shower stall, a bunch of
> > children are sitting and standing, some in Islamic dress, pleading,
> > "Come out, Mohammed! How can you teach us about peace when we can't see
> > you?" and the guy inside the shower stall says, "I'm embarrassed to
> > show my face, Jesus is so much better looking than I am."
> >
> > Going back to a thread of a week or two ago, you said that you'd come
> > to realize that you were an American first, and a libertarian second.
> > I'd be curious to delve further into your reasons for feeling this way,
> > if you don't mind. Here are a few questions along these lines which I'd
> > love to hear your thoughts on. What is it about America that appeals to
> > you? Would you say that America is the freest country in the world, or
> > the country most likely to produce a libertarian society? Do you think
> > it would be better if more American libertarians identified as
> > Americans first and libertarians second? Do you think everybody in the
> > world ought to be more loyal to America than to libertarianism, or
> > should people living outside the United States who are not U.S.
> > citizens identify first with libertarianism and second, or not at all,
> > with America? Should people living in China be more loyal to China, or
> > to libertarianism? Do you see it as generally desirable for people to
> > feel a loyalty to "their nation" over other loyalties, such as to the
> > city or locale where they live, their favorite sports team, their
> > family, friends, religion, etc.? Or should only nationalist feelings
> > only be encouraged among Americans or among residents of certain
> > nations, and discouraged among residents of others? Either way, why
> > would you say so, and how do you think the realization of your
> > preference would help produce a better world?
> >
> > Yours in liberty,
> > <<< starchild >>>
> >
> > > See the attached reuters picture with the caption: "Indian Muslim
> > > students shout slogans during a protest in New Delhi, February 6,
> > > 2006. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi"
> > >
> > > Does anyone see what I see? This is like a big party to these
> > > "protestors". Over half of them are smiling for the camera.
> > >
> > > I think Neal Boortz had it right last week with the following
> > thoughts:
> > >
> > > ----------------
> > > Come on, is this really about cartoons? They're rampaging and
> > burning
> > > flags. They're looking for Europeans to kidnap. They're
> > threatening
> > > innkeepers and generally raising holy Muslim hell not because of any
> > > outrage over a cartoon. They're outraged because it is part of the
> > > Islamic jihadist culture to be outraged. You don't really need a
> > > reason. You just need an excuse. Wandering around, destroying
> > > property, murdering children, firing guns into the air and feigning
> > > outrage over the slightest perceived insult is to a jihadist what
> > > tailgating is to a Steeler's fan.
> > > -----------------
> > >
> > > I'm always astonished at how the left and the blame-America-first
> > > crowd in this country gives a free pass to those who would do America
> > > and Americans harm. Their silence on this Danish cartoon issue is
> > > deafening. This is the same crowd, that in response to overseas
> > > American deaths says "well, then American's shouldn't be travelling
> > > there then"
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > SPONSORED LINKS
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> > >
> > > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service.
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> <image.tiff>
> >
> <image.tiff>
> >
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> >
> > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> >
> <image.tiff>
> >
>--
View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.comSPONSORED LINKS
<image.tiff>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>
Ron,
Take out the garbage? What kind of garbage would a diety generate, and where would he or she put it? Hell? Maybe that's the devil's problem, he's just tired of god sending him the trash. What if he started taking good people to hell and sending bad people to heaven? 8)
<<< starchild >>>
Dear Starchild and Everyone Else;
Okay sense of humor about religion.
Is God (He/She) therefore the very first Existential from the begining of all time Transgender/Bisexual??? Given all things that God is supposed to be??? All Being - All Knowing - Omniscient etc etc etc.
Does God have arguments with Himself/Herself as to whose turn it is to take out the garbage???
If God in a moment of distraughtness says - God! Does He answer Himself? Yes - God - you rang?
Does He go around talking to Himself/Herself saying to Himself - Yes Dear! No Dear!
If Himself wants to get it on - does Herself come down with a headache? And does Herself let Himself cure it with a snap of the fingers? Great way to make galaxies but cure a headache?
Ron Getty
SF LibertarianStarchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Ron,
I understand why some Muslims are angry at the cartoons based on their
religion. I don't think it's a matter of culture, except perhaps
inasmuch as those taking offense may tend to come from places lacking
in traditions of free speech -- Muslims don't share a common culture,
and in any case depictions in general are allowed in various countries
where people of that religious persuasion live -- it's my understanding
that Islam only frowns on depictions of Mohammed.While I understand their anger, I don't condone it. I think the
problem lies with people *taking* offense at a cartoon, not with the
artist or the person who publishes or distributes it. I agree with Mike
Acree that people should have more of a sense of humor about religion.
I'm able to see the humor in things like bumperstickers that say things
like "I Love Spotted Owls -- Fried," even though that's making light of
a matter of life and death and humans killing and eating other animals
is against my religion to the extent that I have one.Also I hope you noticed that my suggested cartoon wouldn't actually
depict Mohammed. I hope it doesn't offend anyone, because I don't think
anyone *should* be offended by such a cartoon, and I feel the same way
about the cartoons on Harland's website. I've downloaded those and plan
to forward the better ones around via email.Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>> Dear Starchild and Derek and Harlan and Everyone Else;
>
> The following is not personally directed at you but is a commentary.
>
> In the Muslim religion no pictures or images of the prophet Mohammed
> are allowed under any circumstances and in THEIR RELIGION the
> depictions are an extreme sacriledge.
>
> If you are going to come down on them for what they are doing please
> at least make an attempt to understand why they are reacting as they
> do based on THEIR CULTURE AND THEIR RELIGION.
>
> Thank You.
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> Starchild wrote:
>
> Derek,
>
> I don't see any real smiles in that photo. I think the anger is real
> enough, misdirected though it is. And nobody murders children in the
> same spirit as one would go to a tailgate party. That's absurd.
>
> But I fully support the Danish newspaper publishing that cartoon. I'd
> like to see it republished widely in this country. The message should
> be, "Lighten up about religion. God has a sense of humor. Do you?" Then
> make published pictures of Mohammed so commonplace that they would lose
> their capacity to generate outrage.
>
> I'd like to see a cartoon or better yet a staged photo depicting a
> curtained shower stall. Inside, stands a human figure -- you can't see
> anything of his body, but you can see the top of the bag that covers
> his head, with eyeholes cut in it. Around the shower stall, a bunch of
> children are sitting and standing, some in Islamic dress, pleading,
> "Come out, Mohammed! How can you teach us about peace when we can't see
> you?" and the guy inside the shower stall says, "I'm embarrassed to
> show my face, Jesus is so much better looking than I am."
>
> Going back to a thread of a week or two ago, you said that you'd come
> to realize that you were an American first, and a libertarian second.
> I'd be curious to delve further into your reasons for feeling this way,
> if you don't mind. Here are a few questions along these lines which I'd
> love to hear your thoughts on. What is it about America that appeals to
> you? Would you say that America is the freest country in the world, or
> the country most likely to produce a libertarian society? Do you think
> it would be better if more American libertarians identified as
> Americans first and libertarians second? Do you think everybody in the
> world ought to be more loyal to America than to libertarianism, or
> should people living outside the United States who are not U.S.
> citizens identify first with libertarianism and second, or not at all,
> with America? Should people living in China be more loyal to China, or
> to libertarianism? Do you see it as generally desirable for people to
> feel a loyalty to "their nation" over other loyalties, such as to the
> city or locale where they live, their favorite sports team, their
> family, friends, religion, etc.? Or should only nationalist feelings
> only be encouraged among Americans or among residents of certain
> nations, and discouraged among residents of others? Either way, why
> would you say so, and how do you think the realization of your
> preference would help produce a better world?
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
>
> > See the attached reuters picture with the caption: "Indian Muslim
> > students shout slogans during a protest in New Delhi, February 6,
> > 2006. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi"
> >
> > Does anyone see what I see? This is like a big party to these
> > "protestors". Over half of them are smiling for the camera.
> >
> > I think Neal Boortz had it right last week with the following
> thoughts:
> >
> > ----------------
> > Come on, is this really about cartoons? They're rampaging and
> burning
> > flags. They're looking for Europeans to kidnap. They're
> threatening
> > innkeepers and generally raising holy Muslim hell not because of any
> > outrage over a cartoon. They're outraged because it is part of the
> > Islamic jihadist culture to be outraged. You don't really need a
> > reason. You just need an excuse. Wandering around, destroying
> > property, murdering children, firing guns into the air and feigning
> > outrage over the slightest perceived insult is to a jihadist what
> > tailgating is to a Steeler's fan.
> > -----------------
> >
> > I'm always astonished at how the left and the blame-America-first
> > crowd in this country gives a free pass to those who would do America
> > and Americans harm. Their silence on this Danish cartoon issue is
> > deafening. This is the same crowd, that in response to overseas
> > American deaths says "well, then American's shouldn't be travelling
> > there then"
>
> >
> > --
> > View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
>
> >
>
> >
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> >
> > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
>
> >
>
> SPONSORED LINKS>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>>
SPONSORED LINKS
<image.tiff>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>
Dear Starchild;
What kind of gahbagh as Jonathan Winters would say? Left over suns
and stars and wormholes - you know Creationist kinda stuff and most
likely They would stuff it away in a Black Hole never to be seen
again. You do know Black Holes make great Galactic vacuum cleaners??
Good people to Hell and Bad people to Heaven would be zomting out of
the Twilight Zone - and very Rod Steigerish.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Ron,
Take out the garbage? What kind of garbage would a diety
generate, and
where would he or she put it? Hell? Maybe that's the devil's
problem,
he's just tired of god sending him the trash. What if he started
taking
good people to hell and sending bad people to heaven? 8)
<<< starchild >>>
> Dear Starchild and Everyone Else;
>
> Okay sense of humor about religion.
>
> Is God (He/She) therefore the very first Existential from the
begining
> of all time Transgender/Bisexual??? Given all things that God is
> supposed to be??? All Being - All Knowing - Omniscient etc etc
etc.
>
> Does God have arguments with Himself/Herself as to whose turn
it is to
> take out the garbage???
>
> If God in a moment of distraughtness says - God! Does He answer
> Himself? Yes - God - you rang?
>
> Does He go around talking to Himself/Herself saying to Himself -
Yes
> Dear! No Dear!
>
> If Himself wants to get it on - does Herself come down with a
> headache? And does Herself let Himself cure it with a snap of
the
> fingers? Great way to make galaxies but cure a headache?
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> I understand why some Muslims are angry at the cartoons based on
their
> religion. I don't think it's a matter of culture, except perhaps
> inasmuch as those taking offense may tend to come from places
lacking
> in traditions of free speech -- Muslims don't share a common
culture,
> and in any case depictions in general are allowed in various
countries
> where people of that religious persuasion live -- it's my
understanding
> that Islam only frowns on depictions of Mohammed.
>
> While I understand their anger, I don't condone it. I think the
> problem lies with people *taking* offense at a cartoon, not with
the
> artist or the person who publishes or distributes it. I agree
with Mike
> Acree that people should have more of a sense of humor about
religion.
> I'm able to see the humor in things like bumperstickers that say
things
> like "I Love Spotted Owls -- Fried," even though that's making
light of
> a matter of life and death and humans killing and eating other
animals
> is against my religion to the extent that I have one.
>
> Also I hope you noticed that my suggested cartoon wouldn't
actually
> depict Mohammed. I hope it doesn't offend anyone, because I
don't think
> anyone *should* be offended by such a cartoon, and I feel the
same way
> about the cartoons on Harland's website. I've downloaded those
and plan
> to forward the better ones around via email.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear Starchild and Derek and Harlan and Everyone Else;
> >
> > The following is not personally directed at you but is a
commentary.
> >
> > In the Muslim religion no pictures or images of
the prophet Mohammed
> > are allowed under any circumstances and in THEIR RELIGION the
> > depictions are an extreme sacriledge.
> >
> > If you are going to come down on them for what they are doing
please
> > at least make an attempt to understand why they are reacting
as they
> > do based on THEIR CULTURE AND THEIR RELIGION.
> >
> > Thank You.
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> > Starchild wrote:
> >
> > Derek,
> >
> > I don't see any real smiles in that photo. I think the anger
is real
> > enough, misdirected though it is. And nobody murders children
in the
> > same spirit as one would go to a tailgate party. That's absurd.
> >
> > But I fully support the Danish newspaper publishing that
cartoon. I'd
> > like to see it republished widely in this country. The message
should
> > be, "Lighten up about religion. God has a sense of humor. Do
you?"
> Then
> > make published pictures of Mohammed so commonplace that they
would
> lose
> > their capacity to generate outrage.
> >
> > I'd like to see a cartoon or better yet a staged photo
depicting a
> > curtained shower stall. Inside, stands a human figure -- you
can't
> see
> > anything of his body, but you can see the top of the bag that
covers
> > his head, with eyeholes cut in it. Around the shower stall, a
bunch
> of
> > children are sitting and standing, some in Islamic dress,
pleading,
> > "Come out, Mohammed! How can you teach us about peace when we
can't
> see
> > you?" and the guy inside the shower stall says, "I'm
embarrassed to
> > show my face, Jesus is so much better looking than I am."
> >
> > Going back to a thread of a week or two ago, you said that
you'd come
> > to realize that you were an American first, and a libertarian
second.
> > I'd be curious to delve further into your reasons for feeling
this
> way,
> > if you don't mind. Here are a few questions along these lines
which
> I'd
> > love to hear your thoughts on. What is it about America that
appeals
> to
> > you? Would you say that America is the freest country in the
world,
> or
> > the country most likely to produce a libertarian society? Do
you
> think
> > it would be better if more American libertarians identified as
> > Americans first and libertarians second? Do you think
everybody in
> the
> > world ought to be more loyal to America than to
libertarianism, or
> > should people living outside the United States who are not U.S.
> > citizens identify first with libertarianism and second, or not
at
> all,
> > with America? Should people living in China be more loyal to
China,
> or
> > to libertarianism? Do you see it as generally desirable for
people to
> > feel a loyalty to "their nation" over other loyalties, such as
to the
> > city or locale where they live, their favorite sports team,
their
> > family, friends, religion, etc.? Or should only nationalist
feelings
> > only be encouraged among Americans or among residents of
certain
> > nations, and discouraged among residents of others? Either
way, why
> > would you say so, and how do you think the realization of your
> > preference would help produce a better world?
> >
> > Yours in liberty,
> > <<< starchild >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > > See the attached reuters picture with the caption: "Indian
Muslim
> > > students shout slogans during a protest in New Delhi,
February 6,
> > > 2006. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi"
> > >
> > > Does anyone see what I see? This is like a big party to
these
> > > "protestors". Over half of them are smiling for the camera.
> > >
> > > I think Neal Boortz had it right last week with the following
> > thoughts:
> > >
> > > ----------------
> > > Come on, is this really about cartoons? They're rampaging
and
> > burning
> > > flags. They're looking for Europeans to kidnap. They're
> > threatening
> > > innkeepers and generally raising holy Muslim hell not
because of
> any
> > > outrage over a cartoon. They're outraged because it is part
of the
> > > Islamic jihadist culture to be outraged. You don't really
need a
> > > reason. You just need an excuse. Wandering around,
destroying
> > > property, murdering children, firing guns into the air and
feigning
> > > outrage over the slightest perceived insult is to a jihadist
what
> > > tailgating is to a Steeler's fan.
> > > -----------------
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm always astonished at how the left and the blame-America-
first
> > > crowd in this country gives a free pass to those who would
do
> America
> > > and Americans harm. Their silence on this Danish cartoon
issue is
> > > deafening. This is the same crowd, that in response to
overseas
> > > American deaths says "well, then American's shouldn't be
travelling
> > > there then"
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > SPONSORED LINKS
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> > >
> > > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> > Service.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
>
> >
> >
>
> >
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> >
> > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
<image.tiff>
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Really? I'd say just the opposite\. When you've asked someone wherethey're from, if they just said "I'm an American" that would mean verylittle, while "I'm from Stoughton, Massachusetts" would tell you quite a bit more, no?---DJ--> in a localized sense, yes. But in the world, one would probably get a blank stare. Just like if you met an Irishman, would it matter to you if he said he was from Cork or Sligo or Galway? Or would you think "there's someone from Ireland". Ok, I know you are probably going to say "no, i think of him as an individual first" This may be true in an intellectual sense, but in reality, I think your first thought is probably around the country he is from. i know it is for me.
When I'm traveling outside the areas known as the United States and Canada, that's true. But I spend most of my time within those areas, as I presume you do, and within those areas I think that an answer to the question "where are you from?" along the lines of "Stoughton, Massachusetts" would be much more informative than simply saying "the United States."
There \*are\* a lot of American expatriates\. Many more immigrants, I'msure, but the expatriation factor is not insignificant. I do agree that
America is among the freest countries in the world.-----DJ----> While we're on the subject, and it's tax season, here's another unjust law for you: Americans that earn over a certain amount, or have a certain amount of wealth cannot give up their citizenship for the purposes of leaving the US and avoiding tax. The US is one of the very few (it may be the only one - I haven't checked since 2003 when I left the US to live in England for 14 months) industrial countries that taxes it's citizen's incomes wherever they may be in teh world.
Yeah, I've heard that too, at least for persons classified as U.S. citizens living overseas. I didn't know you couldn't even get rid of U.S. citizenship if you're wealthy. That amounts to a virtual Berlin Wall -- a government saying that if you're too valuable to us, we're not going to let you leave; even if you physically leave, we will continue to treat you as an economic slave.
However according to the two free market oriented indexes of economicfreedom that I'm aware of (the Heritage and Fraser Institutes), the
United States is the 9th (tied with Australia) and 3rd (tied with
Switzerland and New Zealand) freest country respectively.------DJ----->The Heritage study is flawed. The Fraser Institute study is far better. see here for a civil liberties ranking that seems reliable to me.
The Freedom House "Democracy Rankings" you link above are useful, but they only cover political/electoral rights, which excludes many areas of civil liberties, such as the right to privacy, sexual rights, the right to use substances, the right to die, freedom from seatbelt and helmet laws, etc. I suspect that the U.S. would fare somewhat worse on a ranking that took liberties like these into account.
The U.S., incidentally, is the 14th freest country by the Freedom House list, behind Finland (1), Denmark (2), New Zealand (3), Sweden (4), Switzerland (5), Norway (6), Netherlands (7), Australia (8), United Kingdom (9), Canada (10), Germany (11), Austria (11), and Belgium (13), and tied with Ireland (14). Costa Rica comes in at 24.
I don't know of any international civil liberties indexes, but I'mpretty sure that the U.S. would rank even lower on such an index. After
all, the U.S. has a huge number of people in prison, I believe more
total and per capita than any other country, and probably at least half
of them shouldn't be there. That has to count for a lot.----DJ---> yes. Far too many people are rotting in prison in this country for drug "crimes". we both agree on this.
Despite these problems, the U\.S\. as a jurisdiction does still have alot going for it. I think the prospects of it producing a libertarian
society may well be higher than the average of its economic and civil
liberties standings might indicate, mainly due to the facts that most
of the world's conscious libertarians are in the United States, that
the policies of USgov are significantly less libertarian than the views
of the people under its jurisdiction, and that the history of the area
known as the United States has been strongly libertarian in many
respects.But right now if I had to guess which country will produce alibertarian government first, I'd say Costa Rica or New Zealand seem
more likely. Maybe even others like Canada or Singapore.-----DJ----> What do you think would have happened to you in Singapore had you been arrested there? Singapore is not as free economically as people think - lots of forced savings. Scratch singapore off the list of any near term-potential libertarian societies. New Zealand or Costa Rica maybe, I would have to research more. Canada's strikes me as a gloomy socialist place where you wait a few months to see a doctor because of their socialized medicine. Chile was moving in the right direction for a long time, but I think that has been reversed lately.
Singapore comes in around the middle of the Freedom House pack at 79, which is not very promising on the face of it. But the reason that jurisdiction seems to me a top prospect for becoming libertarian is that rising standard of living tends to produce improvements in political freedom, and other "Asian Tigers" like South Korea (32) and Taiwan (37) have moved toward political freedom following periods of economic growth and now seem to be fairly firmly committed to democratic systems. As I understand it, Singapore has been more economically free for quite a while than either of those jurisdictions, and is not saddled with the respective problems of North Korea and China.
I give the European countries a lower chance of becoming libertarian than their rankings would indicate because Europe has significant problems with an expanding European Union bureaucracy, stagnant economies, social conflicts arising from immigration and tensions with the Muslim world, etc., that do not bode well for freedom there in the near term.
I give Canada a better chance of developing a libertarian society than the country's economic and social rankings would indicate partly because of its proximity to the United States -- I think significant negative developments in the U.S. would tend to drive many people to the jurisdiction of the Canadian government. It's already at a good position relative to the U.S. (ahead of the U.S. on political freedom according to the Freedom House Index (#9), and apparently just behind economically at #12 on Heritage and #7 on Fraser.
Taking up arms, rather than leaving for a freer jurisdiction, wouldappear to be counter-productive to your personal and economic freedom,
but I can certainly admire your courage and commitment to principle.
You wouldn't ever leave the U.S. if things got too bad, and the fight
for freedom there looked too hopeless?-----DJ----> No. I would try to seek out others of like mind and see what we could do to make life difficult for the oppressors, while trying to avoid innocents being killed. I repeat though, this scenario is light-years away.
What kinds of things would you take as signs that such a scenario was imminent?
Well, you think America is the freest country in the world, so yourloyalty to America is much more understandable than would be the
loyalty of a Chinese libertarian to China. I would assume that you
think (as I do) that everyone in the world ought to value freedom
highly. I think it's safe to say that at least half the people in the
world live in a country that's below average in freedom, so if they
value freedom highly, and see America as the freest country in the
world, it would make sense for them to identify with America more than
with than the country where they live, wouldn't it?-----DJ---> Yes, both of us had ancestors that left Europe for this reason. I am very glad my ancestors left Norway, Sweden and England to strive for a better, freer life in America. Anyone who seeks freedom and prosperity and wants to self-identify as an American should still be welcomed into ths country.
Should people have to live within the jurisdiction of USgov in order to be classified as Americans? Would you encourage a freedom-minded individual who wanted to continue living under the jurisdiction of another government to identify first with the national interests of that particular jurisdiction, or would you encourage him or her to identify first as a libertarian, and why?
> Do you think it's best if they want what's best for their own
> country,
> tribe, etc., rather than wanting what's best for the world as a whole,
> or do you think it's best if they identify less with a particular
> jurisdiction and more with the cause of liberty?
>
> ----> Yes, but this is not the way the world works.Indeed it's not how things are now, but doesn't that go withoutsaying? Obviously it's *possible* for people to identify more with the
cause of liberty than with any particular jurisdiction. I haven't taken
a survey, but I suspect that many Libertarians would identify
politically as libertarians before identifying as Americans. Possibly
not the majority, I don't know. It would be interesting to find out.
But in any case, your comment about the way the world works seems like
an odd observation to make in this context. For instance if you were
telling someone that it would be better if parents spent more quality
time with their children, and they said "Yes, but this is not the way
the world works," what would you think?---DJ---> I would think they were being honest about tradeoffs one must make to reach the local maximum along their own personal utility function. Yes, ceteris paribus it is better to spend more time with one's children, but that is not the way the world works.
In the example above, I was not assuming you were talking with a parent, but rather discussing with that person values held by others, as you and I were discussing the values of people outside the jurisdiction of USgov. I'm not sure what "ceteris paribus" means, although it's roughly clear from the context.
You seem to be saying on one hand, yes it's better if people identify with the cause of liberty rather than with a particular jurisdiction, but on the other hand that there are pragmatic reasons of personal utility for choosing nationalism instead. But if nationalism makes someone disposed to die fighting for his or her country, doesn't this negate the personal utility benefit?
I understand that you think it's in the interest of people under thejurisdiction of USgov for its military to be powerful, but I'm still
unclear on what the parameters of your loyalty to USgov are.----DJ--->I am loyal to my country, and loyal to USGov so long as certain basic principles enshrined in our Constitution are respected. Of course I think many many policies of USGov are flawed and misguided, which is why I seek to change them through the ballot box. Consider me the "loyal opposition"
Which basic Constitutional principles does USgov have to respect in order to retain your loyalty? I'm more interested, however, in the idea of loyalty to "your country," because a country is something much more abstract. What does it mean to be loyal to a country? Does it mean that you value the lives of people who identify with that country, or who live within a given jurisdiction, or are recognized by USgov as citizens, above those who do not? Are the interests of the country the same as the interests of the people living within the country? For instance it seems to me that it's in the interests of the United States, as an abstraction, to be as big and powerful as possible. But it's not necessarily in the interests of people living under that jurisdiction for the abstraction known as the United States to be as big and powerful as possible, is it?
Would you describe USgov as your belligerent? Why or why not?
----DJ---> I am not sure I understand what you mean by "your belligerent'
I mean do you regard it as an entity that is hostile to you and your interests, that is something to struggle against?
I see your point\. But whether or not that reality demonstrates a needfor military protection at the national level, or some other level,
depends on the size of the jurisdiction, doesn't it? Some countries are
smaller than the Bay Area, while a few are larger than the United
States. Are you suggesting that jurisdictions the size of the United
States are more advantageous than jurisdictions the size of, say,
California, either in terms of population or in terms of geographic
area?Lots of different factors here make this very complex. For instance, the US has two oceans protecting us which has served us very well. California would have only one ocean. There probably isn't a single ideal. For some aspects, it is probably better to be small, but for others better to be large. Being the size we (US) are and have been has served us well for over 200 years.
Well of course the jurisdiction known as the United States has been many different sizes over that period of time. But I guess I should ask, are you defending nationalism as a philosophy in general, or just saying that it's been good for people living under the jurisdiction of USgov? Or are you even saying that?
In other words, national pride leads to having a strong military,which leads to more ability to fight tyranny? That makes sense. But if
people were committed to global freedom, and hence to fighting tyranny,
wouldn't that also cause people to support a strong USgov military, to
the extent that the USgov military were engaged in fighting tyranny?---DJ--> yes, but this supports my view.
My point here was that people needn't be encouraged to adopt nationalist attitudes as a means of getting them to support a strong USgov military. If they are simply committed to fighting tyranny, then to the extent that the USgov military is fighting tyranny, they will support it as a matter of course.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Dear Starchild and Derek;
-----DJ----> While we're on the subject, and it's tax season, here's > another unjust law for you: Americans that earn over a certain > amount, or have a certain amount of wealth cannot give up their > citizenship for the purposes of leaving the US and avoiding tax. The > US is one of the very few (it may be the only one - I haven't checked > since 2003 when I left the US to live in England for 14 months) > industrial countries that taxes it's citizen's incomes wherever they > may be in teh world.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
It actually started with Bill Clinton. The Expatriats Tax as follows:
Expatriation after June 3, 2004
The American Jobs Creation Act (AJCA) of 2004 amends Section 877 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), which provides for an alternative tax regime for certain, expatriated individuals. Amended IRC 877 eliminates the tax avoidance criteria for imposition of the expatriation tax on certain types of income for 10 years following expatriation, and creates objective criteria to impose the tax on individuals with an average income tax liability of $124,000 for the 5 prior years or a net worth of $2,000,000 on the date of expatriation. In addition, it requires individuals to certify to the IRS that they have satisfied all federal tax requirements for the 5 years prior to expatriation and requires annual information reporting for each taxable year during which an individual is subject to the rules of IRC 877. Further, expatriated individuals will be subject to U.S. tax on their worldwide income for any of the 10 years following expatriation in which they are present in the U.S. for more
than 30 days, or 60 days in the case of individuals working in the U.S. for an unrelated employer. Finally, even if they do not meet the monetary thresholds for imposition of the IRC 877 expatriation tax, the new law provides that individuals will continue to be treated as U.S. citizens or long-term residents for U.S. tax purposes until they have notified the Secretary of the Department of State or of Homeland Security of expatriation or termination of residency. The implementation date of this provision is retroactive and applies to expatriations occurring after June 3, 2004. The expatriation is not effective until the notification and tax satisfaction certifications are filed with the IRS and the Department of State or of Homeland Security.
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Really? I'd say just the opposite. When you've asked someone
wherethey're from, if they just said "I'm an American" that would mean
verylittle, while "I'm from Stoughton, Massachusetts" would tell you
quite a bit more, no?---DJ--> in a localized sense, yes. But in the world, one would
probably get a blank stare. Just like if you met an Irishman, would
it matter to you if he said he was from Cork or Sligo or Galway? Or
would you think "there's someone from Ireland". Ok, I know you are
probably going to say "no, i think of him as an individual first"
This may be true in an intellectual sense, but in reality, I think
your first thought is probably around the country he is from. i know
it is for me.
When I'm traveling outside the areas known as the United States and
Canada, that's true. But I spend most of my time within those areas, as
I presume you do, and within those areas I think that an answer to the
question "where are you from?" along the lines of "Stoughton,
Massachusetts" would be much more informative than simply saying "the
United States."
There *are* a lot of American expatriates. Many more
immigrants, I'm
sure, but the expatriation factor is not insignificant. I do agree that
America is among the freest countries in the world.-----DJ----> While we're on the subject, and it's tax season, here's
another unjust law for you: Americans that earn over a certain
amount, or have a certain amount of wealth cannot give up their
citizenship for the purposes of leaving the US and avoiding tax. The
US is one of the very few (it may be the only one - I haven't checked
since 2003 when I left the US to live in England for 14 months)
industrial countries that taxes it's citizen's incomes wherever they
may be in teh world.
Yeah, I've heard that too, at least for persons classified as U.S.
citizens living overseas. I didn't know you couldn't even get rid of
U.S. citizenship if you're wealthy. That amounts to a virtual Berlin
Wall -- a government saying that if you're too valuable to us, we're
not going to let you leave; even if you physically leave, we will
continue to treat you as an economic slave.
However according to the two free market oriented indexes of
economic
freedom that I'm aware of (the Heritage and Fraser Institutes), the
United States is the 9th (tied with Australia) and 3rd (tied with
Switzerland and New Zealand) freest country respectively.------DJ----->The Heritage study is flawed. The Fraser Institute
study is far better. see here for a civil liberties ranking that
seems reliable to me.
The Freedom House "Democracy Rankings" you link above are useful, but
they only cover political/electoral rights, which excludes many areas
of civil liberties, such as the right to privacy, sexual rights, the
right to use substances, the right to die, freedom from seatbelt and
helmet laws, etc. I suspect that the U.S. would fare somewhat worse on
a ranking that took liberties like these into account.
The U.S., incidentally, is the 14th freest country by the Freedom
House list, behind Finland (1), Denmark (2), New Zealand (3), Sweden
(4), Switzerland (5), Norway (6), Netherlands (7), Australia (8),
United Kingdom (9), Canada (10), Germany (11), Austria (11), and
Belgium (13), and tied with Ireland (14). Costa Rica comes in at 24.
I don't know of any international civil liberties indexes, but
I'm
pretty sure that the U.S. would rank even lower on such an index. After
all, the U.S. has a huge number of people in prison, I believe more
total and per capita than any other country, and probably at least half
of them shouldn't be there. That has to count for a lot.----DJ---> yes. Far too many people are rotting in prison in this
country for drug "crimes". we both agree on this.Despite these problems, the U.S. as a jurisdiction does still
have a
lot going for it. I think the prospects of it producing a libertarian
society may well be higher than the average of its economic and civil
liberties standings might indicate, mainly due to the facts that most
of the world's conscious libertarians are in the United States, that
the policies of USgov are significantly less libertarian than the views
of the people under its jurisdiction, and that the history of the area
known as the United States has been strongly libertarian in many
respects.But right now if I had to guess which country will produce a
libertarian government first, I'd say Costa Rica or New Zealand seem
more likely. Maybe even others like Canada or Singapore.-----DJ----> What do you think would have happened to you in Singapore
had you been arrested there? Singapore is not as free economically as
people think - lots of forced savings. Scratch singapore off the list
of any near term-potential libertarian societies. New Zealand or
Costa Rica maybe, I would have to research more. Canada's strikes me
as a gloomy socialist place where you wait a few months to see a
doctor because of their socialized medicine. Chile was moving in the
right direction for a long time, but I think that has been reversed
lately.
Singapore comes in around the middle of the Freedom House pack at 79,
which is not very promising on the face of it. But the reason that
jurisdiction seems to me a top prospect for becoming libertarian is
that rising standard of living tends to produce improvements in
political freedom, and other "Asian Tigers" like South Korea (32) and
Taiwan (37) have moved toward political freedom following periods of
economic growth and now seem to be fairly firmly committed to
democratic systems. As I understand it, Singapore has been more
economically free for quite a while than either of those jurisdictions,
and is not saddled with the respective problems of North Korea and
China.
I give the European countries a lower chance of becoming libertarian
than their rankings would indicate because Europe has significant
problems with an expanding European Union bureaucracy, stagnant
economies, social conflicts arising from immigration and tensions with
the Muslim world, etc., that do not bode well for freedom there in the
near term.
I give Canada a better chance of developing a libertarian society than
the country's economic and social rankings would indicate partly
because of its proximity to the United States -- I think significant
negative developments in the U.S. would tend to drive many people to
the jurisdiction of the Canadian government. It's already at a good
position relative to the U.S. (ahead of the U.S. on political freedom
according to the Freedom House Index (#9), and apparently just behind
economically at #12 on Heritage and #7 on Fraser.
Taking up arms, rather than leaving for a freer jurisdiction,
would
appear to be counter-productive to your personal and economic freedom,
but I can certainly admire your courage and commitment to principle.
You wouldn't ever leave the U.S. if things got too bad, and the fight
for freedom there looked too hopeless?-----DJ----> No. I would try to seek out others of like mind and see
what we could do to make life difficult for the oppressors, while
trying to avoid innocents being killed. I repeat though, this
scenario is light-years away.
What kinds of things would you take as signs that such a scenario was
imminent?
Well, you think America is the freest country in the world, so
your
loyalty to America is much more understandable than would be the
loyalty of a Chinese libertarian to China. I would assume that you
think (as I do) that everyone in the world ought to value freedom
highly. I think it's safe to say that at least half the people in the
world live in a country that's below average in freedom, so if they
value freedom highly, and see America as the freest country in the
world, it would make sense for them to identify with America more than
with than the country where they live, wouldn't it?-----DJ---> Yes, both of us had ancestors that left Europe for this
reason. I am very glad my ancestors left Norway, Sweden and England
to strive for a better, freer life in America. Anyone who seeks
freedom and prosperity and wants to self-identify as an American
should still be welcomed into ths country.
Should people have to live within the jurisdiction of USgov in order
to be classified as Americans? Would you encourage a freedom-minded
individual who wanted to continue living under the jurisdiction of
another government to identify first with the national interests of
that particular jurisdiction, or would you encourage him or her to
identify first as a libertarian, and why?
> Do you think it's best if they want what's best for their own
> country,
> tribe, etc., rather than wanting what's best for the world as a
whole,
> or do you think it's best if they identify less with a particular
> jurisdiction and more with the cause of liberty?
>
> ----> Yes, but this is not the way the world works.Indeed it's not how things are now, but doesn't that go without
saying? Obviously it's *possible* for people to identify more with the
cause of liberty than with any particular jurisdiction. I haven't taken
a survey, but I suspect that many Libertarians would identify
politically as libertarians before identifying as Americans. Possibly
not the majority, I don't know. It would be interesting to find out.
But in any case, your comment about the way the world works seems like
an odd observation to make in this context. For instance if you were
telling someone that it would be better if parents spent more quality
time with their children, and they said "Yes, but this is not the way
the world works," what would you think?---DJ---> I would think they were being honest about tradeoffs one
must make to reach the local maximum along their own personal utility
function. Yes, ceteris paribus it is better to spend more time with
one's children, but that is not the way the world works.
In the example above, I was not assuming you were talking with a
parent, but rather discussing with that person values held by others,
as you and I were discussing the values of people outside the
jurisdiction of USgov. I'm not sure what "ceteris paribus" means,
although it's roughly clear from the context.
You seem to be saying on one hand, yes it's better if people identify
with the cause of liberty rather than with a particular jurisdiction,
but on the other hand that there are pragmatic reasons of personal
utility for choosing nationalism instead. But if nationalism makes
someone disposed to die fighting for his or her country, doesn't this
negate the personal utility benefit?
I understand that you think it's in the interest of people
under the
jurisdiction of USgov for its military to be powerful, but I'm still
unclear on what the parameters of your loyalty to USgov are.----DJ--->I am loyal to my country, and loyal to USGov so long as
certain basic principles enshrined in our Constitution are respected.
Of course I think many many policies of USGov are flawed and
misguided, which is why I seek to change them through the ballot box.
Consider me the "loyal opposition"
Which basic Constitutional principles does USgov have to respect in
order to retain your loyalty? I'm more interested, however, in the idea
of loyalty to "your country," because a country is something much more
abstract. What does it mean to be loyal to a country? Does it mean that
you value the lives of people who identify with that country, or who
live within a given jurisdiction, or are recognized by USgov as
citizens, above those who do not? Are the interests of the country the
same as the interests of the people living within the country? For
instance it seems to me that it's in the interests of the United
States, as an abstraction, to be as big and powerful as possible. But
it's not necessarily in the interests of people living under that
jurisdiction for the abstraction known as the United States to be as
big and powerful as possible, is it?
Would you describe USgov as your belligerent? Why or why not?
----DJ---> I am not sure I understand what you mean by "your
belligerent'
I mean do you regard it as an entity that is hostile to you and your
interests, that is something to struggle against?
I see your point. But whether or not that reality demonstrates
a need
for military protection at the national level, or some other level,
depends on the size of the jurisdiction, doesn't it? Some countries are
smaller than the Bay Area, while a few are larger than the United
States. Are you suggesting that jurisdictions the size of the United
States are more advantageous than jurisdictions the size of, say,
California, either in terms of population or in terms of geographic
area?Lots of different factors here make this very complex. For instance,
the US has two oceans protecting us which has served us very well.
California would have only one ocean. There probably isn't a single
ideal. For some aspects, it is probably better to be small, but for
others better to be large. Being the size we (US) are and have been
has served us well for over 200 years.
Well of course the jurisdiction known as the United States has been
many different sizes over that period of time. But I guess I should
ask, are you defending nationalism as a philosophy in general, or just
saying that it's been good for people living under the jurisdiction of
USgov? Or are you even saying that?
In other words, national pride leads to having a strong
military,
which leads to more ability to fight tyranny? That makes sense. But if
people were committed to global freedom, and hence to fighting tyranny,
wouldn't that also cause people to support a strong USgov military, to
the extent that the USgov military were engaged in fighting tyranny?---DJ--> yes, but this supports my view.
My point here was that people needn't be encouraged to adopt
nationalist attitudes as a means of getting them to support a strong
USgov military. If they are simply committed to fighting tyranny, then
to the extent that the USgov military is fighting tyranny, they will
support it as a matter of course.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
With all the fuss the Muslim world is making over these cartoons, I
wonder how many people remember the 1976 film "Mohammed, Messenger of
God"? Moustapha Akkad, a Syrian-born film producer and director who had
previously worked with Sam Peckinpah, felt that since Hollywood had
found great fortune in Judeo-Christian biblical epics, it was about time
that Mohammed and the foundation of Islam got the same treatment. I saw
the film about ten years ago, and it was a strange experience.
From the IMDB entry: "In accordance with Muslim beliefs, Mohammed could
not be depicted on screen nor could his voice be heard. This rule
extended to his seven wives, his daughters and his sons-in-law. This
left Mohammed's uncle as the central character (played by Anthony
Quinn). In the completed film, actors speak directly to the camera when
addressing the Prophet and then nod in response to un-heard dialogue."
The closest we ever come to seeing the Prophet himself is a brief
appearance by his wooden staff in one corner of the screen. And even
this shot drew the wrath of some fundamentalist clerics, even though
Akkad obtained the blessing of the University of Al-Azhar in Cairo and
the High Islamic Congress of the Shiat in Lebanon, who were available to
ensure the historical accuracy of the film.
While primarily remembered as producer of the Halloween horror franchise
from later on in his career, the irony of Moustapha Akkad's life is that
it was ended tragically by Islamic terrorist suicide bombers. Akkad
died on November 11, 2005 as a consequence of injuries suffered in the
terrorist bombing at the Grand Hyatt hotel in Amman, Jordan. His
daughter was also killed in the explosion.
In one of his last interviews only days before the terrorist attacks,
while in pre-production of his $80 million epic, _Saladin_, he remarked,
"Right now, Islam is portrayed as a terrorist religion. Because a few
terrorists are Muslims, the whole religion has that image. If there ever
was a religious war full of terror, it was the crusades. But you can't
blame Christianity because a few adventurers did this. That's my
message."
Terry Floyd