[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Yes... I should have used more of a hypothetical example. Neither of the 9/11 attacks were on purely military targets. But it was not my point to say otherwise.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Flight 77 was filled with civilians.
Derek,
I don't believe that's an accurate analogy\. The difference is that*if* it were true that the American people and the U.S. government were
essentially one unit, then American civilians *would* become a
legitimate military target. Which is *not* to say that Al Qaeda's goals
are legitimate, but merely that attacking civilians such as in the WTC
would be no different than attacking the Pentagon.However if it were true that the rapist found what the victim waswearing to be sexually stimulating, that would *not* make his crime any
more justifiable than if he was not excited by her attire, even if the
victim knew her choice of clothes might be sexually titillating.Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>> the rapist's testimony during trialproves beyond a doubt that he had
> found in her wearing a miniskirt and high heels a motivation to rape
> thevictim.
>
> Talk like this makes you both sound like apologists for OBL
>
> > Allen,
> >
> >The quote from Osama bin Laden proves beyond a doubt that he
> has found
> > in American nationalism a convenient rationale for his actions, to
> wit:
> > The U.S . people and the U.S. government are by their own admission
> > closely linked, therefore it is legitimate for Al Qaeda to go after
> > civilian targets in the United States directly.
> >
> >The more people in the U.S. refer to the U.S. government as
> "our"
> > government, and speak of the entire country, including the
> government,
> > as "us," and "we," the more logical and supportable bin Laden's view
> > becomes.
> >
> >I certainly can't argue with the fact that most people
> believe that
> > individuals in a democracy are somewhat responsible for what a
> > democratically elected government there does, and that governments
> are
> > necessary to sustain rights. I believe the latter to some degree
> > myself. But are we debating where popular opinion stands, or the
> > likelihood of changing it? I thought we were debating what was
> correct.
> > I still say that you cannot simultaneously have national and
> individual
> > sovereignty, regardless of what most people believe.
> >
> > Yours in liberty,
> ><<< starchild >>>
> >
> > > Starchild, your note is a nice exposition of a choice that could be
> > > made in a world much simpler than the one we actually live in.
> > >
> > > Here's some background of a more complex one.
> > >
> > > From the Declaration of Independence:
> > >
> > > "That to secure these [certain inalienable] rights, governments are
> > > instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent
> of
> > > the governed."
> > >
> > > From the Preamble to the US Constitution:
> > >
> > > "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
> perfect
> > > Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for
> > > the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and _secure the
> > > Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity_, do ordain and
> > > establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
> > >
> > > And, oddly enough, from Osama Bin Laden's communique of October 6,
> > > 2002, "To the American People" (thanks to Derek Jensen for turning
> > > me on to this):
> > >
> > > "This argument [that aggression against American civilians is not
> > > justified] contradicts your continuous repetition that America is
> > > the land of freedom, and freedom's leaders in this world. If this
> > > is so, the American people are the ones who choose their government
> > > through their own free will; a choice which stems from their
> > > agreement to its policies."
> > >
> > > In short, most people believe that governments are necessary to at
> > > least sustain rights, and that in a democracy the people are
> > > responsible for what their governments do. Not many, at least in
> > > the US, see them as being opposing forces, and not all the
> > > theorizing in the world will overcome that.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Allen
> > >
> > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'll say again that it seems to me that one can have
> > > national
> > > > sovereignty or individual sovereignty, but not both. Even if one
> > > > asserts that nations, as well as individuals, possess "rights,"
> it
> > > > cannot be that both sets of rights are simultaneously inviolable.
> > > Where
> > > > they come into conflict, either the "right" of a country ( i.e. a
> > > > government) to develop what it wants within its own borders will
> > > > prevail, or the right of the individual to life, liberty, and the
> > > > pursuit of happiness will prevail. I know which one I vote for.
> > > >
> > > > Yours in liberty,
> > >
> > < 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>
> > >
> >
>
<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>
>
<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,
I am not debating what is "correct". I have insufficient
omniscience to tell anyone what that is.
I am debating what the situation is that exists, and what we can do
to move it incrementally in a more libertarian direction.
Nationalism appears to be a defining characteristic of humanity.
Complaining about it and trying to argue it away is not a useful
expenditure of time.
It can be a detriment, or an asset, depending on the situation.
Sure, it becomes an excuse for war - if we let it. It is also a
marvelous built-in bulwark against the establishment of the horrors
of a world government.
Regards,
Allen
Allen,
The quote from Osama bin Laden proves beyond a doubt that he
has found
in American nationalism a convenient rationale for his actions, to
wit:
The U.S. people and the U.S. government are by their own admission
closely linked, therefore it is legitimate for Al Qaeda to go
after
civilian targets in the United States directly.
The more people in the U.S. refer to the U.S. government
as "our"
government, and speak of the entire country, including the
government,
as "us," and "we," the more logical and supportable bin Laden's
view
becomes.
I certainly can't argue with the fact that most people
believe that
individuals in a democracy are somewhat responsible for what a
democratically elected government there does, and that governments
are
necessary to sustain rights. I believe the latter to some degree
myself. But are we debating where popular opinion stands, or the
likelihood of changing it? I thought we were debating what was
correct.
I still say that you cannot simultaneously have national and
individual
sovereignty, regardless of what most people believe.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>> Starchild, your note is a nice exposition of a choice that could
be
> made in a world much simpler than the one we actually live in.
>
> Here's some background of a more complex one.
>
> From the Declaration of Independence:
>
> "That to secure these [certain inalienable] rights, governments
are
> instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of
> the governed."
>
> From the Preamble to the US Constitution:
>
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect
> Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide
for
> the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and _secure the
> Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity_, do ordain
and
> establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
>
> And, oddly enough, from Osama Bin Laden's communique of October
6,
> 2002, "To the American People" (thanks to Derek Jensen for
turning
> me on to this):
>
> "This argument [that aggression against American civilians is not
> justified] contradicts your continuous repetition that America is
> the land of freedom, and freedom's leaders in this world. If
this
> is so, the American people are the ones who choose their
government
> through their own free will; a choice which stems from their
> agreement to its policies."
>
> In short, most people believe that governments are necessary to
at
> least sustain rights, and that in a democracy the people are
> responsible for what their governments do. Not many, at least in
> the US, see them as being opposing forces, and not all the
> theorizing in the world will overcome that.
>
> Regards,
> Allen
>
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@...m, Starchild <sfdreamer@>
wrote:
> >
> > I'll say again that it seems to me that one can have
> national
> > sovereignty or individual sovereignty, but not both. Even if
one
> > asserts that nations, as well as individuals,
possess "rights," it
> > cannot be that both sets of rights are simultaneously
inviolable.
> Where
> > they come into conflict, either the "right" of a country (i.e.
a
> > government) to develop what it wants within its own borders
will
> > prevail, or the right of the individual to life, liberty, and
the
> > pursuit of happiness will prevail. I know which one I vote for.
> >
> > Yours in liberty,
>
>
>
>
>
>
<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 ]
Starchild,
Not so. My view supposes that nations are closely linked to
cultures, the "XXian way of life"; that generally people within the
borders of those nations support/"believe in" the XXian way of life;
and therefore when an outsider attacks the nation, that is veiwed as
an attack upon the culture and therefore an attack upon the
individuals.
The reaction to 9/11 is an excellent demonstration of this.
One of the problems that libertarianism suffers from is that its end
goal is a culture significantly different from the current "American
way of life". Libertarians who make the mistake (as many of our
candidates do) of describing and strenuously advocating that end
goal as the purpose of their campaign scare and alienate voters,
because they come across as either enemies or screwballs.
Nationalism exists. It does not require my support in order to do
so, and no matter what libertarianism "requires"(!!), it is a waste
of time and very bad politics to attempt to argue it away.
Regards,
Allen
Allen,
Your view is predicated on a belief that nations are closely
linked to
individuals, perhaps that a nation is a kind of extension of an
individual, so that an attack on a nation is an attack on each
person
residing in that nation (or at least on each person considered a
citizen or national by its government). This is what I was
referring to
as nation-building. You are building (reinforcing) a much more
robust
role for nations in the world than libertarianism requires.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>>
> Starchild,
>
> This is rather a stretch, don't you think?
>
> There's a huge difference between leaving the other fellow's
nation
> alone, unless it attacks me in some way, and charging in to
rebuild
> it because I have decided I don't like him, and am sure my "way
of
> life" is better than his.
>
> Allen Rice
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@>
wrote:
> >
> > Allen,
> >
> > You make a strong argument for your point of view. It is
> nevertheless
> > an argument from nationalism as surely as Derek's is, and such
> > arguments can I think be fairly described as another form
> of "nation
> > building."
> >
> > Yours in liberty,
> > <<< starchild >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Derek,
> > >
> > > Indeed it is. I feel, equally, a repugnance against
invading,
> > > conquering and killing, just to obtain some short lived
peace of
> > > mind.
> > >
> > > "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion
still."
> > > Add to that, if I have invaded HIS country and killed HIS
> > > countrymen, denying him the defensive perks that I consider
my
> > > right, then he is entirely justified in being royally pissed
off,
> > > and correct in viewing me as a damned hypocrite. He will
> henceforth
> > > consider me an enemy, and I will not be able honestly to
claim
> > > otherwise.
> > >
> > > Add to that the demonstrated incompetence of our leadership
to
> > > perform the task, the natural loss of liberties when the
> leadership
> > > can use a state of war as an excuse for curtailing them, and
the
> > > expense and damage to the economy involved in the statist
act par
> > > excellence, "nationbuilding."
> > >
> > > I am reminded more and more of the (perhaps apocryphal) quote
> from
> > > the Vietnam War" "We had to destroy the village in order to
save
> > > it".
> > >
> > > Allen Rice
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
<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.
Derek,
How people _sound_ is a function not only of what they say, but also
of the objectivity of the listener.
For example, I hope that, if I say that the Treaty of Versaille was
cruel and malicious, and that he was as justified as any other
German in resenting it, that you will not suppose that I am an
apologist for everything that Hitler ever did.
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:
Talk like this makes you both *sound* like apologists for OBL
> Allen,
>
> The quote from Osama bin Laden proves beyond a doubt that
he has
found
> in American nationalism a convenient rationale for his actions,
to wit:
> The U.S. people and the U.S. government are by their own
admission
> closely linked, therefore it is legitimate for Al Qaeda to go
after
> civilian targets in the United States directly.
>
> The more people in the U.S. refer to the U.S. government
as "our"
> government, and speak of the entire country, including the
government,
> as "us," and "we," the more logical and supportable bin Laden's
view
> becomes.
>
> I certainly can't argue with the fact that most people
believe that
> individuals in a democracy are somewhat responsible for what a
> democratically elected government there does, and that
governments are
> necessary to sustain rights. I believe the latter to some degree
> myself. But are we debating where popular opinion stands, or the
> likelihood of changing it? I thought we were debating what was
correct.
> I still say that you cannot simultaneously have national and
individual
> sovereignty, regardless of what most people believe.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
>
>
>
> > Starchild, your note is a nice exposition of a choice that
could be
> > made in a world much simpler than the one we actually live in.
> >
> > Here's some background of a more complex one.
> >
> > From the Declaration of Independence:
> >
> > "That to secure these [certain inalienable] rights,
governments are
> > instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of
> > the governed."
> >
> > From the Preamble to the US Constitution:
> >
> > "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect
> > Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide
for
> > the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and _secure
the
> > Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity_, do
ordain and
> > establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
> >
> > And, oddly enough, from Osama Bin Laden's communique of
October 6,
> > 2002, "To the American People" (thanks to Derek Jensen for
turning
> > me on to this):
> >
> > "This argument [that aggression against American civilians is
not
> > justified] contradicts your continuous repetition that America
is
> > the land of freedom, and freedom's leaders in this world. If
this
> > is so, the American people are the ones who choose their
government
> > through their own free will; a choice which stems from their
> > agreement to its policies."
> >
> > In short, most people believe that governments are necessary
to at
> > least sustain rights, and that in a democracy the people are
> > responsible for what their governments do. Not many, at least
in
> > the US, see them as being opposing forces, and not all the
> > theorizing in the world will overcome that.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Allen
> >
> >
> > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll say again that it seems to me that one can have
> > national
> > > sovereignty or individual sovereignty, but not both. Even if
one
> > > asserts that nations, as well as individuals,
possess "rights," it
> > > cannot be that both sets of rights are simultaneously
inviolable.
> > Where
> > > they come into conflict, either the "right" of a country
(i.e. a
> > > government) to develop what it wants within its own borders
will
> > > prevail, or the right of the individual to life, liberty,
and the
> > > pursuit of happiness will prevail. I know which one I vote
for.
> > >
> > > Yours in liberty,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> <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
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Well then, I'm glad I did not say that. 
If anyone cares to return to my original post, they'll see that the
context there was one of suggesting that nationalism had a real
existence and value, and that it could be either a negative or a
positive political factor.
For the record, I am not an admirer of Bin Laden. If the US
government ever gets past the point of using him as an excuse for
all its dabbling in other countries' politics, and actually
extricates the SOB from his hideout in Pakistan, I suggest he be
drawn and quartered on the site of the old WTC, an old-fashioned
punishment for an old-fashioned man. We could let Derek drive the
horses.
Allen Rice
PS "Rationale" does not mean "reason". It means something closer
to "a weak excuse".
AR
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:
No, but if you said "Hitler has found in English arrogance a
rationale for
firebombing London" I would question whose side you were on.
>
>
> Derek,
>
> How people _sound_ is a function not only of what they say, but
also
> of the objectivity of the listener.
>
> For example, I hope that, if I say that the Treaty of Versaille
was
> cruel and malicious, and that he was as justified as any other
> German in resenting it, that you will not suppose that I am an
> apologist for everything that Hitler ever did.
>
> Allen Rice
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Talk like this makes you both *sound* like apologists for OBL
> >
> > > Allen,
> > >
> > > The quote from Osama bin Laden proves beyond a doubt
that
> he has
> > found
> > > in American nationalism a convenient rationale for his
actions,
> to wit:
> > > The U.S. people and the U.S. government are by their own
> admission
> > > closely linked, therefore it is legitimate for Al Qaeda to go
> after
> > > civilian targets in the United States directly.
> > >
> > > The more people in the U.S. refer to the U.S.
government
> as "our"
> > > government, and speak of the entire country, including the
> government,
> > > as "us," and "we," the more logical and supportable bin
Laden's
> view
> > > becomes.
> > >
> > > I certainly can't argue with the fact that most people
> believe that
> > > individuals in a democracy are somewhat responsible for what
a
> > > democratically elected government there does, and that
> governments are
> > > necessary to sustain rights. I believe the latter to some
degree
> > > myself. But are we debating where popular opinion stands, or
the
> > > likelihood of changing it? I thought we were debating what
was
> correct.
> > > I still say that you cannot simultaneously have national and
> individual
> > > sovereignty, regardless of what most people believe.
> > >
> > > Yours in liberty,
> > > <<< starchild >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Starchild, your note is a nice exposition of a choice that
> could be
> > > > made in a world much simpler than the one we actually live
in.
> > > >
> > > > Here's some background of a more complex one.
> > > >
> > > > From the Declaration of Independence:
> > > >
> > > > "That to secure these [certain inalienable] rights,
> governments are
> > > > instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
> consent of
> > > > the governed."
> > > >
> > > > From the Preamble to the US Constitution:
> > > >
> > > > "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a
more
> perfect
> > > > Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide
> for
> > > > the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and
_secure
> the
> > > > Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity_, do
> ordain and
> > > > establish this Constitution for the United States of
America."
> > > >
> > > > And, oddly enough, from Osama Bin Laden's communique of
> October 6,
> > > > 2002, "To the American People" (thanks to Derek Jensen for
> turning
> > > > me on to this):
> > > >
> > > > "This argument [that aggression against American civilians
is
> not
> > > > justified] contradicts your continuous repetition that
America
> is
> > > > the land of freedom, and freedom's leaders in this world.
If
> this
> > > > is so, the American people are the ones who choose their
> government
> > > > through their own free will; a choice which stems from
their
> > > > agreement to its policies."
> > > >
> > > > In short, most people believe that governments are
necessary
> to at
> > > > least sustain rights, and that in a democracy the people
are
> > > > responsible for what their governments do. Not many, at
least
> in
> > > > the US, see them as being opposing forces, and not all the
> > > > theorizing in the world will overcome that.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Allen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll say again that it seems to me that one can have
> > > > national
> > > > > sovereignty or individual sovereignty, but not both.
Even if
> one
> > > > > asserts that nations, as well as individuals,
> possess "rights," it
> > > > > cannot be that both sets of rights are simultaneously
> inviolable.
> > > > Where
> > > > > they come into conflict, either the "right" of a country
> (i.e. a
> > > > > government) to develop what it wants within its own
borders
> will
> > > > > prevail, or the right of the individual to life, liberty,
> and the
> > > > > pursuit of happiness will prevail. I know which one I
vote
> for.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yours in liberty,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > <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
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Allen,
So are you suggesting I really do come from the stars? 8) I mean, if nationalism is a "defining characteristic of humanity" and I haven't got it... But really, not everyone is a nationalist, and the nation-state has not always been with us. I think it would be a mistake to regard it as something inevitable or beyond change. It is an attitude fundamentally at odds with individualism.
I would say that nation-states are more like building blocks toward world government than bulwarks against it. What organization is most likely to incubate such a government? The United Nations. What is the UN? It's a collection of national governments. It's not like the *people* of the world, or other groups (outside of a few minor NGOs) are clamoring for world government.
Obviously none of us know exactly what is correct -- any more than any of us know exactly what the situation is that exists. We are all guessing. But we are not just debating what's going on, we are attempting to prescribe what we believe are correct solutions. For you, that includes withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, for example. Right?
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Starchild,
I am not debating what is "correct". I have insufficient
omniscience to tell anyone what that is.I am debating what the situation is that exists, and what we can do
to move it incrementally in a more libertarian direction.Nationalism appears to be a defining characteristic of humanity.
Complaining about it and trying to argue it away is not a useful
expenditure of time.It can be a detriment, or an asset, depending on the situation.
Sure, it becomes an excuse for war - if we let it. It is also a
marvelous built-in bulwark against the establishment of the horrors
of a world government.Regards,
Allen>
> Allen,
>
> The quote from Osama bin Laden proves beyond a doubt that he
has found
> in American nationalism a convenient rationale for his actions, to
wit:
> The U.S. people and the U.S. government are by their own admission
> closely linked, therefore it is legitimate for Al Qaeda to go
after
> civilian targets in the United States directly.
>
> The more people in the U.S. refer to the U.S. government
as "our"
> government, and speak of the entire country, including the
government,
> as "us," and "we," the more logical and supportable bin Laden's
view
> becomes.
>
> I certainly can't argue with the fact that most people
believe that
> individuals in a democracy are somewhat responsible for what a
> democratically elected government there does, and that governments
are
> necessary to sustain rights. I believe the latter to some degree
> myself. But are we debating where popular opinion stands, or the
> likelihood of changing it? I thought we were debating what was
correct.
> I still say that you cannot simultaneously have national and
individual
> sovereignty, regardless of what most people believe.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
>
> > Starchild, your note is a nice exposition of a choice that could
be
> > made in a world much simpler than the one we actually live in.
> >
> > Here's some background of a more complex one.
> >
> > From the Declaration of Independence:
> >
> > "That to secure these [certain inalienable] rights, governments
are
> > instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of
> > the governed."
> >
> > From the Preamble to the US Constitution:
> >
> > "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect
> > Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide
for
> > the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and _secure the
> > Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity_, do ordain
and
> > establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
> >
> > And, oddly enough, from Osama Bin Laden's communique of October
6,
> > 2002, "To the American People" (thanks to Derek Jensen for
turning
> > me on to this):
> >
> > "This argument [that aggression against American civilians is not
> > justified] contradicts your continuous repetition that America is
> > the land of freedom, and freedom's leaders in this world. If
this
> > is so, the American people are the ones who choose their
government
> > through their own free will; a choice which stems from their
> > agreement to its policies."
> >
> > In short, most people believe that governments are necessary to
at
> > least sustain rights, and that in a democracy the people are
> > responsible for what their governments do. Not many, at least in
> > the US, see them as being opposing forces, and not all the
> > theorizing in the world will overcome that.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Allen
> >
> > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll say again that it seems to me that one can have
> > national
> > > sovereignty or individual sovereignty, but not both. Even if
one
> > > asserts that nations, as well as individuals,
possess "rights," it
> > > cannot be that both sets of rights are simultaneously
inviolable.
> > Where
> > > they come into conflict, either the "right" of a country (i.e.
a
> > > government) to develop what it wants within its own borders
will
> > > prevail, or the right of the individual to life, liberty, and
the
> > > pursuit of happiness will prevail. I know which one I vote for.
> > >
> > > Yours in liberty,
> >
> <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>
> >
>
<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>
Considering the history of Europe, it's probably not a bad thing on the whole that Europeans have less "ferocity" than in the past!
<<< starchild >>>
Allen: Sounds good to me. We have lost our ferocity as a people, though not as much as Europe has.
Well then, I'm glad I did not say that.
If anyone cares to return to my original post, they'll see that the
context there was one of suggesting that nationalism had a real
existence and value, and that it could be either a negative or a
positive political factor.For the record, I am not an admirer of Bin Laden. If the US
government ever gets past the point of using him as an excuse for
all its dabbling in other countries' politics, and actually
extricates the SOB from his hideout in Pakistan, I suggest he be
drawn and quartered on the site of the old WTC, an old-fashioned
punishment for an old-fashioned man. We could let Derek drive the
horses.Allen Rice
PS "Rationale" does not mean "reason". It means something closer
to "a weak excuse".
AR--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:
>
> No, but if you said "Hitler has found in English arrogance a
rationale for
> firebombing London" I would question whose side you were on.
>
> >
> > Derek,
> >
> > How people _sound_ is a function not only of what they say, but
also
> > of the objectivity of the listener.
> >
> > For example, I hope that, if I say that the Treaty of Versaille
was
> > cruel and malicious, and that he was as justified as any other
> > German in resenting it, that you will not suppose that I am an
> > apologist for everything that Hitler ever did.
> >
> > Allen Rice
> >
> > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Talk like this makes you both *sound* like apologists for OBL
> > >
> > > > Allen,
> > > >
> > > > The quote from Osama bin Laden proves beyond a doubt
that
> > he has
> > > found
> > > > in American nationalism a convenient rationale for his
actions,
> > to wit:
> > > > The U.S. people and the U.S. government are by their own
> > admission
> > > > closely linked, therefore it is legitimate for Al Qaeda to go
> > after
> > > > civilian targets in the United States directly.
> > > >
> > > > The more people in the U.S. refer to the U.S.
government
> > as "our"
> > > > government, and speak of the entire country, including the
> > government,
> > > > as "us," and "we," the more logical and supportable bin
Laden's
> > view
> > > > becomes.
> > > >
> > > > I certainly can't argue with the fact that most people
> > believe that
> > > > individuals in a democracy are somewhat responsible for what
a
> > > > democratically elected government there does, and that
> > governments are
> > > > necessary to sustain rights. I believe the latter to some
degree
> > > > myself. But are we debating where popular opinion stands, or
the
> > > > likelihood of changing it? I thought we were debating what
was
> > correct.
> > > > I still say that you cannot simultaneously have national and
> > individual
> > > > sovereignty, regardless of what most people believe.
> > > >
> > > > Yours in liberty,
> > > > <<< starchild >>>
> > > >
> > > > > Starchild, your note is a nice exposition of a choice that
> > could be
> > > > > made in a world much simpler than the one we actually live
in.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's some background of a more complex one.
> > > > >
> > > > > From the Declaration of Independence:
> > > > >
> > > > > "That to secure these [certain inalienable] rights,
> > governments are
> > > > > instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
> > consent of
> > > > > the governed."
> > > > >
> > > > > From the Preamble to the US Constitution:
> > > > >
> > > > > "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a
more
> > perfect
> > > > > Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide
> > for
> > > > > the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and
_secure
> > the
> > > > > Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity_, do
> > ordain and
> > > > > establish this Constitution for the United States of
America."
> > > > >
> > > > > And, oddly enough, from Osama Bin Laden's communique of
> > October 6,
> > > > > 2002, "To the American People" (thanks to Derek Jensen for
> > turning
> > > > > me on to this):
> > > > >
> > > > > "This argument [that aggression against American civilians
is
> > not
> > > > > justified] contradicts your continuous repetition that
America
> > is
> > > > > the land of freedom, and freedom's leaders in this world.
If
> > this
> > > > > is so, the American people are the ones who choose their
> > government
> > > > > through their own free will; a choice which stems from
their
> > > > > agreement to its policies."
> > > > >
> > > > > In short, most people believe that governments are
necessary
> > to at
> > > > > least sustain rights, and that in a democracy the people
are
> > > > > responsible for what their governments do. Not many, at
least
> > in
> > > > > the US, see them as being opposing forces, and not all the
> > > > > theorizing in the world will overcome that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Allen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll say again that it seems to me that one can have
> > > > > national
> > > > > > sovereignty or individual sovereignty, but not both.
Even if
> > one
> > > > > > asserts that nations, as well as individuals,
> > possess "rights," it
> > > > > > cannot be that both sets of rights are simultaneously
> > inviolable.
> > > > > Where
> > > > > > they come into conflict, either the "right" of a country
> > (i.e. a
> > > > > > government) to develop what it wants within its own
borders
> > will
> > > > > > prevail, or the right of the individual to life, liberty,
> > and the
> > > > > > pursuit of happiness will prevail. I know which one I
vote
> > for.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yours in liberty,
> > > > >
> > > > <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>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>Yahoo! Groups Links
<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 Allen;
Starchild wrote in part: For you, that includes withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, for example. Right?
For Bush the withdrawl of US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan would be an example of coitus interruptus - this is why he won't agree to immediate withdrawl.....
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Allen,
So are you suggesting I really do come from the stars? 8) I mean,
if nationalism is a "defining characteristic of humanity" and I haven't
got it... But really, not everyone is a nationalist, and the
nation-state has not always been with us. I think it would be a mistake
to regard it as something inevitable or beyond change. It is an
attitude fundamentally at odds with individualism.
I would say that nation-states are more like building blocks toward
world government than bulwarks against it. What organization is most
likely to incubate such a government? The United Nations. What is the
UN? It's a collection of national governments. It's not like the
*people* of the world, or other groups (outside of a few minor NGOs)
are clamoring for world government.
Obviously none of us know exactly what is correct -- any more than any
of us know exactly what the situation is that exists. We are all
guessing. But we are not just debating what's going on, we are
attempting to prescribe what we believe are correct solutions. For you,
that includes withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, for example. Right?
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
I'm no fan of feminism, but there's something missing in your diagnosis. Don't Italy and Russia also have birthrates below the replacement level? Have the men there also been emasculated by the feminist movement?
I am concerned about the European situation, don't get me wrong. But I don't think the options are limited to a peaceful, mellow, society in decline, or a masculine aggressive thriving society. Are you saying only aggressive people are motivated to become parents? Can't human beings reproduce at a reasonable rate without taking a militant approach to life?
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Starchild: It's why Europe is dying. Look at for instance, Sweden. I don't know if you've been there lately, but I have a few times over the past 3 years, and once in 1996. The men there have totally emasculated themselves to the feminist movement. Result? Birthrates below the replacement level.
Considering the history of Europe, it's probably not a bad thing onthe whole that Europeans have less "ferocity" than in the past!
<<< starchild >>>> Allen: Sounds good to me. We have lost our ferocity as a people,
> though not as much as Europe has.
>
> Well then, I'm glad I did not say that.
>
> If anyone cares to return to my original post, they'll see that the
> context there was one of suggesting that nationalism had a real
> existence and value, and that it could be either a negative or a
> positive political factor.
>
> For the record, I am not an admirer of Bin Laden.If the US
> government ever gets past the point of using him as an excuse for
> all its dabbling in other countries' politics, and actually
> extricates the SOB from his hideout in Pakistan, I suggest he be
> drawn and quartered on the site of the old WTC, an old-fashioned
> punishment for an old-fashioned man.We could let Derek drive the
> horses.
>
> Allen Rice
>
> PS "Rationale" does not mean "reason".It means something closer
> to "a weak excuse".
> AR
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > No, but if you said "Hitler has found in English arrogance a
> rationale for
> > firebombing London"I would question whose side you were on.
> >
> > >
> > > Derek,
> > >
> > > How people _sound_ is a function not only of what they say, but
> also
> > > of the objectivity of the listener.
> > >
> > > For example, I hope that, if I say that the Treaty of Versaille
> was
> > > cruel and malicious, and that he was as justified as any other
> > > German in resenting it, that you will not suppose that I am an
> > > apologist for everything that Hitler ever did.
> > >
> > > Allen Rice
> > >
> > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Talk like this makes you both *sound* like apologists for OBL
> > > >
> > > > > Allen,
> > > > >
> > > > >The quote from Osama bin Laden proves beyond a doubt
> that
> > > he has
> > > > found
> > > > > in American nationalism a convenient rationale for his
> actions,
> > > to wit:
> > > > > The U.S. people and the U.S. government are by their own
> > > admission
> > > > > closely linked, therefore it is legitimate for Al Qaeda to go
> > > after
> > > > > civilian targets in the United States directly.
> > > > >
> > > > >The more people in the U.S. refer to the U.S.
> government
> > > as "our"
> > > > > government, and speak of the entire country, including the
> > > government,
> > > > > as "us," and "we," the more logical and supportable bin
> Laden's
> > > view
> > > > > becomes.
> > > > >
> > > > >I certainly can't argue with the fact that most people
> > > believe that
> > > > > individuals in a democracy are somewhat responsible for what
> a
> > > > > democratically elected government there does, and that
> > > governments are
> > > > > necessary to sustain rights. I believe the latter to some
> degree
> > > > > myself. But are we debating where popular opinion stands, or
> the
> > > > > likelihood of changing it? I thought we were debating what
> was
> > > correct.
> > > > > I still say that you cannot simultaneously have national and
> > > individual
> > > > > sovereignty, regardless of what most people believe.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yours in liberty,
> > > > ><<< starchild >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > Starchild, your note is a nice exposition of a choice that
> > > could be
> > > > > > made in a world much simpler than the one we actually live
> in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here's some background of a more complex one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From the Declaration of Independence:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "That to secure these [certain inalienable] rights,
> > > governments are
> > > > > > instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
> > > consent of
> > > > > > the governed."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From the Preamble to the US Constitution:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a
> more
> > > perfect
> > > > > > Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
> provide
> > > for
> > > > > > the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and
> _secure
> > > the
> > > > > > Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity_, do
> > > ordain and
> > > > > > establish this Constitution for the United States of
> America."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And, oddly enough, from Osama Bin Laden's communique of
> > > October 6,
> > > > > > 2002, "To the American People" (thanks to Derek Jensen for
> > > turning
> > > > > > me on to this):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "This argument [that aggression against American civilians
> is
> > > not
> > > > > > justified] contradicts your continuous repetition that
> America
> > > is
> > > > > > the land of freedom, and freedom's leaders in this world.
> If
> > > this
> > > > > > is so, the American people are the ones who choose their
> > > government
> > > > > > through their own free will; a choice which stems from
> their
> > > > > > agreement to its policies."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In short, most people believe that governments are
> necessary
> > > to at
> > > > > > least sustain rights, and that in a democracy the people
> are
> > > > > > responsible for what their governments do. Not many, at
> least
> > > in
> > > > > > the US, see them as being opposing forces, and not all the
> > > > > > theorizing in the world will overcome that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Allen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com , Starchild <sfdreamer@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll say again that it seems to me that one can have
> > > > > > national
> > > > > > > sovereignty or individual sovereignty, but not both.
> Even if
> > > one
> > > > > > > asserts that nations, as well as individuals,
> > > possess "rights," it
> > > > > > > cannot be that both sets of rights are simultaneously
> > > inviolable.
> > > > > > Where
> > > > > > > they come into conflict, either the "right" of a country
> > > (i.e. a
> > > > > > > government) to develop what it wants within its own
> borders
> > > will
> > > > > > > prevail, or the right of the individual to life, liberty,
> > > and the
> > > > > > > pursuit of happiness will prevail. I know which one I
> vote
> > > for.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yours in liberty,
> > > > > >
> > > > > < 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>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
<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>
>
<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>
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Starchild,
No, I don't claim you came from the stars (except perhaps in the
Cosmos sense), though I would claim there is something of the
stargazer about you.
When I state a generalization, I am aware that there are exceptions
to it; their existence does not disprove the generalization.
Depending upon what you mean by "nation-state", I would contend that
it HAS always been with us. History is replete with civilizations
that behaved as if they were rightfully the center of the universe,
going all the way back to the Greeks.
One of the defenses against the US becoming subsumed in a world
government is the conflict that would arise between that
government's rules and those embedded in the Constituition. This
difficulty can be seen arising in microcosm in the defeat of the
European Union Constitution last year, because it took away what
voters considered to be too much national "culture" [France and
Denmark(?)].
As for withdrawal of troops from Iraq, yes and no. Yes, as soon as
possible - and never do the like again. No, not now. I am with
Colin Powell, when he said "If you break it, you own it." Having
broken Iraq, I believe the US has a duty to try to the last to fix
it. As to what "the last" is, I am not clear at this point. But I
do not think it has been reached yet.
Regards,
Allen
Allen,
So are you suggesting I really do come from the stars? 8)
I mean,
if nationalism is a "defining characteristic of humanity" and I
haven't
got it... But really, not everyone is a nationalist, and the
nation-state has not always been with us. I think it would be a
mistake
to regard it as something inevitable or beyond change. It is an
attitude fundamentally at odds with individualism.I would say that nation-states are more like building blocks
toward
world government than bulwarks against it. What organization is
most
likely to incubate such a government? The United Nations. What is
the
UN? It's a collection of national governments. It's not like the
*people* of the world, or other groups (outside of a few minor
NGOs)
are clamoring for world government.
Obviously none of us know exactly what is correct -- any
more than any
of us know exactly what the situation is that exists. We are all
guessing. But we are not just debating what's going on, we are
attempting to prescribe what we believe are correct solutions. For
you,
that includes withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, for example.
Right?
Here's some wisdom from a long time ago that may be relevant to this
discussion: