It seems as though I have not really paid much attention to domestic issues in quite some time. Perhaps its because the domestic front has been locked into near-total stasis, with little movement, much less progress, of any kind.
The political scene has resolved itself into the party of 80% hostility to a libertarian agenda (the Republicans), the party of 95% hostility to a libertarian agenda (the Democrats), an irrelevant fringe, and a legacy media complex to whom anything other than the cult of the the state is simply incomprehensible. Frankly, I do not see any significant changes in the relationship between the state and the citizenry in the offing, just a long expansion of the state sphere until something catastrophic/revolutionary occurs. What that might be and when it might happen, I have no idea.
On the domestic political front, I am left rooting for the slightly less bad option, which is not exactly energizing.
All the action and energy seems to be around foreign affairs, and specifically how we stop the Islamic world from oozing its toxic Wahhabist/fascist effluent into our societies. I find the current debate in the US on this issue to be less than enlightening. The Bush campaign has done a terrible job of explaining why they are doing what they are doing, and the Kerry camp is too busy straddling and flopping to make any contribution at all. Suffice it to say that I remain convinced we will not see the end of this without nuclear weapons being used.
“I remain convinced we will not see the end of this without nuclear weapons being used.”
It’s possible that the real terrorist activity is taking place under everybodies radar. Plans to smuggle several nukes (in pieces) into the US through regularly used drug smuggling methods and dispersed to several cities??
Islamic terrorists are well established in South America. The area where Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay share a border is a fundraising center for Islamic terrorism and don’t forget the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina. Who knows more about moving large amounts of contraband into the U.S. than South American drug smugglers? Maybe Mexican drug and illegal immigrant smugglers but I’m not sure if they fit into my scenario). I know it sounds far fetched but on Sept. 10th 2001 I would have said people flying planes into the WTC was a good climax for a book but pretty unlikely.
There, I’ve said it. I’ve been rolling that around in my head (there’s lots of roll room there) for awhile and now I’ve got it off my chest. I agree with you Robert, we won’t see the end of this until mushrooms have sprouted. That’s what makes Iran so damned important right now.
I agree with most of what you said. I agree that the next attack will be as big if not bigger than 9/11 and we need to prepare ourselves. I do agree that both the GOP and Dems are big spenders and forget limited gov.
Vigilance!
Fritz’s Thoughts
RC — Are you talking about a nuclear detonation in the US? If so, assuming some type of link is made to Iran or N. Korea (even a flimsy one), do you see a US nuclear retaliation? On what level? What if the nuke is from the former USSR?
Bush would be blamed for a nuke attack, and the blamers are probably right but for the wrong reasons.
Not enough guts to take on all nuclear powers at once, I would say in hindsight.
What are the chances that israel would get nuked first?
The us would wipe out any country backing a terrorist who did this.
A USSR nuke would correspond to a demand for full scale disarmament by them.
Living in the Netherlands, I can’t think of any significant political party doing better than the republicans. Perhaps the UK IP party, but I’m not familiar with their program beyond dropping the EU.
On the domestic, non-mushroom cloud side of things, I’m hoping the ownership society themes are this administration’s way to beat back the welfare state. I’ve been working on two longish pieces on the topic, but since the campaign has degenerated into a food fight haven’t had it in me to finish them.
If the Bush administration is really determined to privatize part of Social Security, this is the time to get serious. He has lots of ammunition, since Kerry proposes to turn it into a welfare program. He should also be able to use Germany, France, etc. as examples of what happens when liberal social welfare, economic stasis and demographic inevitability all come together.
TO: Ivan Kirigin
RE: Blaming Bush
“Bush would be blamed for a nuke attack, and the blamers are probably right but for the wrong reasons.” — Ivan Kirigin
Quite probably so.
“Not enough guts to take on all nuclear powers at once, I would say in hindsight.” — Ivan Kirigin
Beginning with you.
My observation would be for not dealing with the leaking borders in an effective manner. Too much concern over offending the hispanic vote in an election year.
It will probably take an incident like that described in a Clancy novel, e.g., Teeth of the Tiger, or worse, Executive Orders, before he could do anything. Nothing like a bloody massacre or use of a WMD that could easily be smuggled over the Mexican or Canadian border to get people’s attention.
But, in that scenario, could we REALLY ‘blame Bush’? We’d really have only ourselves to blame for not demanding Congress do all that Congressman Tancredo (R-CO) has been asking for the last four years.
Congress holds the purse-strings. It’s part of that balance of power/checks and balances thingie. And you can’t boost the size and capabilities of the Border Patrol without giving it more money.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. My personal opinion, developed in over 50 years, is that the libertarians are just genteel anarchists.
Anarchy is okay, as long as it doesn’t get out of control.
RC — Are you talking about a nuclear detonation in the US?
Yes. I don’t see the US doing a first strike with nukes. Oh, I suppose there’s a remote possibility of a first strike to retaliate for a bio attack.
If so, assuming some type of link is made to Iran or N. Korea (even a flimsy one), do you see a US nuclear retaliation?
Depends on who is President. Bush – maybe. Kerry – no way in hell. Oddly enough, I believe that President Hillary Clinton will not hesitate to retaliate, when her day comes.
And let me say that I believe that any nuclear attack should draw a nuclear response. The interesting question will be what level of evidence is needed to retaliate to a strike delivered via “deniable” terrorist cutouts.
On what level? What if the nuke is from the former USSR?
Depends on the country responsible, I suppose. At a minimum, a mid-sized nuke delivered to their seat of government, and possibly another delivered to whatever city passes as their center of commerce. The interesting question is whether we give warning to allow civilian evacuation.
The USSR gets a pass unless someone shows it was their policy to deliver the nuke to the rogue regime/terrorist group that used it on us.
Though I think the thread is speculation about the wildest unlikelihood (nuclear weapons being hard to do even for technically advanced countries, never mind loosely organised fanatics):
“….whether we give warning to allow civilian evacuation.”
How would that work, exactly? Such a warning would ensure any real enemy (assuming there was one, correctly identified) got out, leaving only civilians to be slaughtered. Who is going to be mad/evil enough to drop the bomb in those circumstances. Retaliatory nuclear strike makes no sense unless you believe in collective guilt of whole populations or you think the collateral death of hundreds of thousands is going to be made worthwhile by the likelihood of finishing some special target. In short retaliatory nuclear strike makes NO sense at all, except just maybe as part of a general war between organised states.
Though I think the thread is speculation about the wildest unlikelihood (nuclear weapons being hard to do even for technically advanced countries, never mind loosely organised fanatics)
I don’t think that the Islamonutters will build their own. I think that, given enough time and sufficient sources (unsecured Russian nukes, NORK nukes, Paki nukes, Iranian nukes are all either available now or will be soon), the nutters will get one, and then the only real argument will be whether to bomb Tel Aviv or DC first.
The thing is, our enemies have the will to nuke us (unlike, say, the French), and it makes strategic sense for them to nuke us (unlike, say, the Russians). All they lack is the thing itself, which is why I think that, unless we dry up their sources of supply with strategic victories/regime change in NORK and Iran sooner rather than later, it is only a matter of time.
Personally, I think the only kind of deterrence that could help us in this situation would be to tell the Pakis, the Iranians, and the Norks that, so long as they have nukes at all, they will be lit up, all of them, if we get hit. If they want off the target list, they need to give up all their nukes and give us full access to verify. That’ll never happen, so . . . .
In short retaliatory nuclear strike makes NO sense at all, except just maybe as part of a general war between organised states.
As you just pointed out, only a state can source a nuke. If we get nuked, there will be a state sponsor who should be held responsible. If we don’t retaliate, the incentives to nuke us again all point in one direction for our enemies.
Nuclear weapons are still pretty hard to make and use. Terrorists don’t go for high tech. Flying aicraft into buildings may be dramatic but it’s decidedly low tech.
A more likely scenario is an ineffective NBC weapon – e.g. putting some semtex in a barrel of anthrax culture. It’s unlikely to kill many people (putting the semtex in a barrel of nails would probably work better), but it will certainly grab the headlines “Anthrax bomb” sounds scary.
To actually weaponise nasty viruses / bacteria is really pretty hard. I can make chlorine gas on my kitchen hob (pass electricity though a saturated salt solution, in case you were wondering). But it’s not going to kill anyone. It needs to be purified, concentrated, compressed, the rest of it. Not so easy.
So, I don’t fear nuclear war any time soon. I do fear the crude use of NBC substances and the inevitable escalation of military response and loss of civil liberties. But I don’t fear it much.
Did you know that avian flu has just mutated so that it can now be trasmitted between humans (instead of having to go via birds)? An avian flu pandemic is a greater threat than anthrax, ricin, plutonium dust or any of that stuff. And it doesn’t require terrorists to unleash it. I’m far, far, more likely to die of avian flu than I am to die from any NBC weapon deployed by terrorists.
I’d like to know how much cash is being spent on finding a cure.
A retaliatory nuclear strike is absolutely essential, for the simple reason that no one can afford to take the chance that those who sent the first bomb might have another one available. The difficulty, as always, lies in identifying who has what and where. A pre-emptive strike would be even better, but that could be with conventional weapons.
J – I went to a briefing a few years ago on smallpox. It left me absolutely convinced that 6 – 10 “suicide infectors” could collapse the US healthcare system and likely the economy as well.
Contagious diseases (like smallpox and the flu) are much worse than infectious ones (like anthrax). No tech needed – just an active culture of smallpox and a handful of people willing to die of it after they had infected as many people as possible.
If we don’t retaliate, the incentives to nuke us again all point in one direction for our enemies.
Unfortunately I see this as win-win for the Islamo-nuts. I think they would pray to allah for US retaliation. Say the nukes come from a Pakistani sympathizer within the military. I think the Islamo-nuts would love to see the US nuke Islamabad and Karachi. It might help take down Musharrif. If not, it would at least make for some great victimization-of-the-Muslim-world fodder. I am not saying it would be the wrong thing to do morally. I just think the enemy would hope for a US retaliation. The harder the better. Except for cases of clear official state sponsorship (which I think is unlikely) I am not sure how retaliation is a disincentive for nuking us again.
Except for cases of clear official state sponsorship (which I think is unlikely) I am not sure how retaliation is a disincentive for nuking us again.
The nutters can’t be incentivized, only killed.
Their state supporters/sponsors, on the other hand, can very definitely be incentivized (pour encourager les autres, if you will). In your scenario, nuking Pakistan will likely (a) remove it from the list of state sources for nukes as well as (b) convince Iran and Nork that they don’t want to leak any nukes to the nutters, either.
Failing to nuke Pakistan after it sources nukes to the nutters, regardless of whether they put up billboards announcing it as state policy, leaves Iran, the Norks, and whoever else would like to see mushroom clouds over the US with absolutely no reason not to give a few to deniable cutouts.
No-one here has properly explained why a nuclear strike would be necessary, other than some kind of “an eye for an eye” concept. The people launching a nuclear strike against the US or Israel would clearly be showing that they’re barbarians who don’t care about loss of civilian life. In retaliating against any city (& who would nuke the countryside?) we would largely be killing innocent civilians, and would be unlikely to achieve much that couldn’t be done with conventional weaponry. What then would make us so much better than them? The fact that we only killed all those civilians in ‘retaliation’ against the power elite that rule their country?
I think that all of you who say “we would have to use them” have a point, but the main reason why the US govt. would ‘have’ to use them would be the US public’s (understandable) thirst for revenge. I don’t think that nuking anything (except maybe if the facility which produced the nukes was found & destroyed, but again why not just do it with powerful conventional bombs?) would achieve much strategically, but it might well keep the “strong” govt. in power thru’ the next election.
Robert, why couldn’t the retaliatory strike be conventional, if a preemptive one would be? If the goal was just preventing another attack, & not exacting revenge upon a civilian population, what exactly would make nukes compulsory?
I agree with BB’s comments re. the consequences of nuking anyone; monster PR for the islamists, probably of little use to the US unless the nuke was used against a hardened facility which couldn’t be penetrated by anything else.
I also agree with RC Dean re. the far greater threat from smallpox or similar contagious diseases. The best (from the terrorists’ point of view) would be something with a relatively long incubation period, so that it could become widespread without anyone realising.
However, RC Dean, I completely disagree with you over the wisdom of retaliatory nuke strikes; under the circumstances, no-one would have any objections to the US bombarding Pakistani research centres, government buildings & military bases with conventional ordonance, & it would achieve all the goals you state (stop any more from that source, discourage others), without killing thousands or millions more innocents than had already died under the first nuke. If you don’t think mushroom clouds over Islamabad would be a perfect recruitment poster for Al Qaida & their ilk, you’re deceiving yourself. On the other hand, a US playing ‘fair’, not contaminating other people’s soil with radiation, & strongly fighting against those who wounded it, would be much harder to portray as the great Satan, or weak for that matter, & the terrorists who launched the initial strike would clearly be the barbarian aggressors.
Think of all the movies where the villain treacherously gets out a knife in the middle of a fist fight, but the good guy knocks it out of his hand & beats him to the ground with his fists/feet… that’s the image you want to project, not producing a bigger knife of your own & cutting off the villain’s head to hold it aloft, no matter how satisfying that might feel at the time. (the point being that both approaches achieve your strategic goal anyway; the disabling of the enemy & a warning to anyone else who might pull knife on you, and both are within your capability)
Robert, regarding the domestic front, one other possibility that could have major implications would be the removal of the Federal Income Tax and the installation of a National Sales Tax. I would regard that as a potentially freedom expanding move. Any thoughts?
RCD: My link has been a bit erratic this afternoon. Please check the item I just mailed out internally. Perry suggested you might be a good person to pick up on it. It need urgent blog attention so our US readers know what horrors the congress is cooking up as we speak.
D.Amon, wearing his Samizdata Assignment Editor hat.
A_t, the reason we’d have to respond with nukes is simple; deterrence. We’ve already made it clear that a terrorist org couldn’t produce a nuke on it’s own, it needs a state to supply them with one. The threat of having your country melted is to deter those states from supplying that nuke. Unfortunately it’d seem that a lot of these states are slow on the uptake and I think it’s inevitable that one of these weapons will wind up in a terrorist group’s hands eventually.
There’s also the fact that if a US (or British) city were to be hit we’d be obligated to end the rogue state threat in a permanent manner. It’d be unconscionable as far as I’m concerned to not wipe those nations off of the face of the earth if we ever saw a nuke hit us. If or when New York or London are hit with a nuke I don’t really care about the innocent civilians in Iran, Pakistan, or North Korea. I just want those nations forever removed from the threat pool. Call it revenge, lashing out, whatever, I wouldn’t really care at that point. Sort out the issue now, and deal with the moral questions later.
“The threat of having your country melted is to deter those states from supplying that nuke.”
What rationally run state is going to supply nuclear weapons to freelancers in the first place? The only way state-built nuclear weapons are going to be mislaid is by internal chaos and corruption–the Peacemaker scenario. It is absurd to suggest things beyond anyone’s control can be deterred.
And as A_t points out, the opportunity proving their Satanic enemy an equal maniac and mass murderer is a bonus to the apocalyptic revolutionaries out there.
OK Hank, so that’s “revenge dressed up in rational clothes” for you, is it?
The people who would make the decision to give nukes to terrorists aren’t going to be the inhabitants of the nation’s capital or any other major cities; it’s going to be the government. Said government enjoy a) being alive and b) being in power. The US would be very capable of ensuring that they enjoyed neither of these privileges very soon after a nuke blew up in the US, without having to resort to inaccurate & inhuman nuclear toys.
This, to my mind, would a) stop that government from doing anything like that again because they’d be dead & definitely not in power, as well as b) sending out a clear message to anyone else in a position to make a decision on terrorists & nukes; make the wrong decision & you’ll be dead, as will most of your friends.
I don’t see how killing a whole bunch of extra people who aren’t in a position to make any decisions about nukes helps reinforce this message to those who need to hear it. The only reason I can think of for going all Hiroshima on their asses is if the majority of the people were right behind their government. Given that most of the regimes we’re discussing here are tyrannies, and not ones well loved by their citizens, I find that scenario remarkably unlikely.
Seems to me you’ve got the recipe right there for a blood feud to last thousands of years (& don’t tell me we’re already there.. some may feel that way but it’s not widespread)
So again, what extra deterrance would using a nuke give us? Is that advantage worth the huge negative PR (not to mention the innocent human lives which are to my mind no less valuable than American ones)?
“Sort out the issue now, and deal with the moral questions later.” is a bullshit attitude, unless you think of yourself as a thug equal to Al Quaida, & don’t mind the rest of the world thinking that too.
I am fascinated by R C Dean’s implied assertion that it would make strategic sense for the French to nuke the USA…
I also agree that most states would be highly unlikely to supply terrorists with nukes because the consequences, even without any prior examples, would be pretty easy to guess; potential nuclear retaliation & absolute certainty that the present government will no longer be in power very shortly. I can think of no governments which would enjoy the destruction of a US city so much that they’d be willing to sacrifice their own power to achieve it.
The biggest danger to my mind is the shambolic state of the former USSR; as far as I’m aware, we’re not currently doing enough to ensure that nuclear material in that area is secure. That scares me far more than Saddam ever did, & there’d be no-one in particular to nuke if that scenario came to fruition; who would you nuke? Good luck trying to find the corrupt official in bumfuckistan who sold the stuff so he could build a bigger house.
“So again, what extra deterrance would using a nuke give us? Is that advantage worth the huge negative PR (not to mention the innocent human lives which are to my mind no less valuable than American ones)?”
The extra deterrence would be ensuring that that nation would never again be a threat to us, because root and branch they’d cease to exist.
As far as the “negative PR” goes, well shucks, I guess we’d get a bad rap out of the deal. Good thing we’re dealing with nations and not Hollywood actors. When you’re talking about nuclear attack on a US city I give less than a damn about international opinion.
We killed a whole lot of innocent people in Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki as well, but you know what? They were all the correct decisions to make.
I suspect the difference may be that I feel precisely the same about unknown individuals in New York and Teheran being killed in large numbers. I’m against unthreatening people being killed by governments whoever and wherever they are.
Obviously my concern for London is stronger, but only because I and many people I know live here. nonetheless I still wouldn’t want anyone arbitrarily murdered in “revenge” if I were to be killed by a bomb here.
What is actually offered here by people who like to distinguish their civilization from that of the Arabs is the morality of the Palestinian suicide bombers: “Some people like you have done a wrong to some people like me, therefore I will kill some people like you at random.” But not by scores or hundreds but lakhs and crores.
“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds,” say our nuclear warriors–not in Oppenheimer’s fear for common humanity, but with an echo of the joy and bloodlust of the other holy warriors.
“”I am become death, the destroyer of worlds,” say our nuclear warriors–not in Oppenheimer’s fear for common humanity, but with an echo of the joy and bloodlust of the other holy warriors.”
Very poetic. Like most poetry it’s also a load of crap.
How is nuclear reciprocity any different than the mutual assured destruction doctrine we had towards the Soviets? The only difference I see is one of capabilities; the Soviet Union could destroy us in return, but Iran, North Korea, or Pakistan could only hurt us (badly, I’ll grant you, but not totally). Add in a somewhat functional missile defense program and we’ve further safeguarded ourselves when we retaliate.
This is simply the same doctrine we’ve always followed, retaliation upon being hit with a nuclear first strike.
I believe you are truly underestimating Republican hostility to libertarian ends. I think both parties are equally hostile to libertarian values. But the Republicans are more off-putting with their insistance at imposing evangelical Christian values on everyone.
“We killed a whole lot of innocent people in Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki as well, but you know what? They were all the correct decisions to make.”
Yep, because they made tactical sense; most of Japan & most of Germany were contributing in one way or another to hefty war machines which were set against us. This was also true of the USSR, hence plans to nuke their cities etc.
This would not be true of the population of Islamabad; as you point out, none of the countries ranged against the US have the capacity to destroy it or overrun it. Most citizens in these countries are contributing negligably if at all to any anti-US efforts. To build a nuke you need a few smart people, a lab, some raw materials & a little money. To give it to terrorists, a few dodgy government officials will do. The main priority should be ensuring that no more nukes hit the US. If you’re thinking long-term as well as short term, doing so without nuking anyone if possible is probably the wiser option.
Guy Herbert’s bang on the money;
“Some people like you have done a wrong to some people like me, therefore I will kill some people like you at random.”
is bullshit morality, whether applied by Palestinians, Americans or anyone else. It’s not morality at all; just fanaticism.
Iran getting nukes (in next 4 years)
http://tomgrey.motime.com/1097092250#352577
is the biggest issue, because state sponsored terrorism is far more deadly than mere terror cells.
I see the probability as 50% if Kerry, 10% if Bush.
I wish there was more effort to quantify people’s feelings.
TO: R C Dean
RE: First Strike
“Yes. I don’t see the US doing a first strike with nukes. Oh, I suppose there’s a remote possibility of a first strike to retaliate for a bio attack.” — R C Dean
Actually, US policy on use of nuclear weapons is that we will not strike first with Weapons of Mass Destruction. By official policy, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are considered WMDs. Therefore, if someone were to use any of those kinds of weapons against the US, we would consider that a first strike had been accomplished against US. And considering we have, for all intents and purposes, foresworn use of chemical or biological weapons, we only have nuclear weapons in our arsenal for such purposes.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: A_t
RE: Why?
“No-one here has properly explained why a nuclear strike would be necessary, other than some kind of “an eye for an eye” concept. The people launching a nuclear strike against the US or Israel would clearly be showing that they’re barbarians who don’t care about loss of civilian life. In retaliating against any city (& who would nuke the countryside?) we would largely be killing innocent civilians, and would be unlikely to achieve much that couldn’t be done with conventional weaponry. ” — A_t
Unless you have different criteria for “proper”, in terms of “properly explaining”, you’re mistaken. It’s available. It ‘s call Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).
It was not, necessarily, “an eye for an eye”. It also included the distinct possibility that if you took out my eye, I’d cave in your skull, just to make sure you didn’t take out my other eye, or one of my teeth, either.
Or it could be that you’d wind up looking like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail; armless and legless, just sort of shifting around and looking like a total fool.
We don’t have to kill off everyone in the country we use nukes against. We just take out every military installation and part of their infra-structure that isn’t near a major population center.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Just to echo Chuck, I’d also like to point out that there’s a reason we still have boomers patrolling the oceans; they’re there in the event that we ever have to use nukes.
Look, if you decide ahead of time that you’re only going to use nukes in X scenario, then you’ve somewhat helped to defang yourself. These things exist primarily for their potential; not necessarily for the really big boom they produce. By letting your enemies know just where you’ll draw the line you’re lessening the threat of their potential and removing a rather large arrow from your quiver.
TO: flaime
RE: Republicans On Libertarians
“I believe you are truly underestimating Republican hostility to libertarian ends.” — flaime
Actually, you’re very much wrong regarding the last part of this sentence.
“I think both parties are equally hostile to libertarian values.” — flaime
You might even be bordering on paranoia here.
“But the Republicans are more off-putting with their insistance at imposing evangelical Christian values on everyone.” — flaime
Au contraire, mon cher. Christ would not have anyone imposing Him on anybody else. It’s all up to you.
However, all laws are based on morals and all morals come from one’s religious beliefs, even if you are an atheist, THAT is a religious belief.
The point being, your whining about Republicans imposing christian values on you is no more than that; whining. One way or another one group or another imposes ITS values on all others in the system of government popular in a given country. Here, it’s a representative republic, i.e., majority rules.
If you don’t like it, stop whining and start pushing YOUR values down OUR throats. But you need to get a majority in power in order to do that. And, if the trends continue, you’re not going to do that. Especially in light of the Roe Effect. So, keep killing your children off. That’s fewer voters that will vote in favor of your values. [Note: One set of statistics shows that if Roe v. Wade had outlawed abortion on demand, there would have been over 1000 more young liberals to vote in Florida in 2000.]
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Those who would treat politics and morality apart will never understand the one or the other. — John, Viscount Morley of Blackburn]
TO: flaime
RE: Republicans On Libertarians
“I believe you are truly underestimating Republican hostility to libertarian ends.” — flaime
Actually, you’re very much wrong regarding the last part of this sentence.
“I think both parties are equally hostile to libertarian values.” — flaime
You might even be bordering on paranoia here.
“But the Republicans are more off-putting with their insistance at imposing evangelical Christian values on everyone.” — flaime
Au contraire, mon cher. Christ would not have anyone imposing Him on anybody else. It’s all up to you.
However, all laws are based on morals and all morals come from one’s religious beliefs, even if you are an atheist, THAT is a religious belief.
The point being, your whining about Republicans imposing christian values on you is no more than that; whining. One way or another one group or another imposes ITS values on all others in the system of government popular in a given country. Here, it’s a representative republic, i.e., majority rules.
If you don’t like it, stop whining and start pushing YOUR values down OUR throats. But you need to get a majority in power in order to do that. And, if the trends continue, you’re not going to do that. Especially in light of the Roe Effect. So, keep killing your children off. That’s fewer voters that will vote in favor of your values. [Note: One set of statistics shows that if Roe v. Wade had outlawed abortion on demand, there would have been over 1000 more young liberals to vote in Florida in 2000.]
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Those who would treat politics and morality apart will never understand the one or the other. — John, Viscount Morley of Blackburn]
TO: All
RE: Sorry About That
First time I tried, it said I failed.
RE: Some of My Thoughts on Libertarians
Can be found at…
The Tragedy of the Commons on the Arkansas River
And, being very much a Republican, who has been known to vote Democrat on occasion, if you can find something indicating hatred of libertarians in there, please point it out to me.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: Sysop
RE: System Problem
Okay….if I attempt to post something and it takes more than 60 seconds for confirmation that the post went in properly, I get timed-out. And the system, at my end, acts like nothing has been posted.
Then if I try to put it in again, it might go through properly. Then I find I’ve put it up on the system twice.
Any way to speed up actions on the blog’s side? In order to avoid this?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
“Any way to speed up actions on the blog’s side? In order to avoid this?
Who’s whining now?
Change your settings so you don’t time out.
Dale – I haven’t gotten anything via email lately at my samizdata inbox. You might try again.
Chuck, it boggles my imagination on how a lack of belief can be described as a religion.
A_t,
The point of nukes is deterrence. You don’t really want to nuke anyone. You just want to project an image as follows: “I’m totally paranoid, crazy and trigger happy. You just try the least attack on me and I’ll go mad and nuke your country into total oblivion, and might by mistake also hit some neighbors and lesser suspects.”
You want to project an image that is diametrically opposed to the image of the soft, effeminate, decadent, wobbly, hesistant guy that Osama had in his mind when he planned 9/11.
After the case (god forbid) you can think again and decide upon the best retaliation. But in declaring your policy beforhand you owe your enemies no obligation of honor to acurately inform them of your intentions and to stick to what you declared.
Ronald Reagan, before he became president, was asked whether he advocates using nukes against North Vietnam. His answer: “The commie SOBs should be the last people in the world to know the answer. Let them beleive I might.”
There is no point in having nukes if you declare you are never going to use them, no matter what. The point of having nukes is to threaten your enemies, hoping never to have to actually annihilate them.
Using Firefox, Chuck? I’ve noticed that the page won’t reload for around a minute when I’m using Firefox or Opera, but it works just fine in IE. Could just be the blog’s software being written for the LCD.
Not at all. Moral theories are produced in all manner of ways, and only for some are they the product of religious beliefs. I am an agnostic more or less by default because I have not found a theory I find compelling for either the existance or non-existance of God. As a result I have decided to just move on from the whole issue and look elsewhere for useful theories about the nature of reality. Certainly I have not personally found religious belief very useful for forming coherent moral theories.
Perry, I think you’re ignoring how religion has affected your culture, your society, and therefore your upbringing. Even if you grew up in a non-religious home you’d have a tough time denying that religious beliefs and ethos have had a fundamental effect on why you think the way you do and where your morals derive from.
My family wasn’t particularly religious either, but I was most definitely effected by the greater society around me in forming my fundamental ethics. Religion for good or bad permeates the culture, and effects even those who aren’t observant. And that’s the real danger of completely secularizing a society; there is no bedrock of ethics that religion stands for.
TO: David Beatty
RE: Lack of Belief In Something…
“Chuck, it boggles my imagination on how a lack of belief can be described as a religion.” — David Beatty
…is still belief, albeit in something else. Back in the early 60s, the Supremes ruled that secularism is a religious belief; believing that there is no god but whatever one finds in oneself.
I put it like this…
The human secularist has an almight god. It’s only commandment is, “I am the lord MY god. Thou shalt have no other god before ME.”
And he is a jealous god, indeed.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: Duncan
RE: Hmmmm
“Who’s whining now?
Change your settings so you don’t time out.” — Duncan
Does this thing run via Windoz? I notice that most good browsers seem to have trouble here, at least from the notes below the comment entry area.
That would go far to explaining things.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[When Microsoft finally makes a product that doesn’t suck, it’ll be a vacuum cleaner.]
TO: Hank Scorpio
RE: My Browser
“Using Firefox, Chuck?” — Hank Scorpio
Nope. Safari on a G4 running on OS 10.3.5.
Don’t have this sort of difficulty on any other blog I frequent. And, I do get around a bit.
Found a work-around. Just tell the system to reload the comments from the main board after hitting the post button.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: Perry de Havilland
RE: Law and Morality
“Not at all. Moral theories are produced in all manner of ways, and only for some are they the product of religious beliefs.” — Perry de Havilland
Show me a law on the books and I’ll show you a moral principle that was used to create that law. That includes tax and land use laws. It may be indirect, but it still impacts on why that law is on the books.
“I am an agnostic more or less by default because I have not found a theory I find compelling for either the existance or non-existance of God.” — Perry de Havilland
Not my problem.
“As a result I have decided to just move on from the whole issue and look elsewhere for useful theories about the nature of reality.” — Perry de Havilland
Again, that sounds like ‘a personal problem’, as we would say in the military here.
It certainly doesn’t seem to be an argument against what I stated earlier.
“Certainly I have not personally found religious belief very useful for forming coherent moral theories.” — Perry de Havilland
That doesn’t mean that laws are not based on moral codes.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
I think on the religion/morality front, unless you actually believe in a supreme being, it seems probable that religions were in fact fabricated by human beings to express morality & not vice-versa, so it’s silly to talk about the impossibility of non-religious morality when in fact this ‘impossibility’ may well be the basis of all religions.
TO: A_t
RE: What YOU ‘Think’
“I think on the religion/morality front, unless you actually believe in a supreme being, it seems probable that religions were in fact fabricated by human beings to express morality & not vice-versa, so it’s silly to talk about the impossibility of non-religious morality when in fact this ‘impossibility’ may well be the basis of all religions.” — A_t
…and what the Supremes ruled, are vastly different.
Which do you think carries more weight?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Diana Ross’ old band disagreed with me? Wow, I’m immediately contrite.
But more seriously, if you’re the type of person who thinks some (foreign in my case) judge is better placed to make decisions on your part on the big questions of life the universe & everything than your good self, fair enough. Personally I prefer to think for myself on that front.
I assume you’re a religious man yourself then. (no dis intended at all, but it would explain your rather myopic view of my stated position, which actually had little to do with what the judges decided).
As far as I understand from your mildly confusing posts, you appear to be suggesting that all moral principles arise from religion. If you wish to make this assertion, please back it up with some arguments (more than “these awfully important men said something”).
My position is that God may exist, or (more likely) he/she/they were thought up by early human beings as a way of codifying their interactions with the environment & each other. Thus they obviously came to embody whatever morality already existed among early humans, & have continued to change & evolve; sometimes influencing public morality, sometimes being changed by it; show me one influential church which has not changed with society.
Obviously, if you are certain there is a God, the whole line of reasoning above may be an anathema to you, and fair enough. However if that’s the case, we’re starting from incredibly different positions & whilst I’m able to understand yours from my position of uncertainty, you appear unable to comprehend mine.
TO: A_t
RE: Well…
“Personally I prefer to think for myself on that front.” — A_t
…I don’t recall anybody saying you couldn’t. I just said that a group of 9 men who are a bit more ‘educated’ than you and I made a decision and that decision is the law of the land, this side of the great pond.
Our ‘disagreement’ is moot in the eyes of the law, unless the law is changed. And that doesn’t seem to be about to happen.
So, as far as things are concerned here, human secularism is a religious belief. Whining will not do much to change that.
RE: On the Nosey
“As far as I understand from your mildly confusing posts, you appear to be suggesting that all moral principles arise from religion.” — A_t
Apparently it wasn’t too confusing. Except that you seem to be confused about it in this one aspect, I said “religious belief”, did I not?
RE: Starting Points
“However if that’s the case, we’re starting from incredibly different positions & whilst I’m able to understand yours from my position of uncertainty, you appear unable to comprehend mine.” — A_t
Hardly. Because it’s religious BELIEF that drives our morals. So what if you don’t believe in a being such as a god. That doesn’t mean your disbelief is not a belief. And you base your morals on that belief.
It’s akin to voting. Even if you don’t vote, you impact on the system by your abstinance.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. I’d recommend you avoid dabbling in quantum physics. That business about making an observation of a galaxy on the other side of the universe impacting on how that galaxy will behave would probably be much more confusing than what I’m saying.
Chuck, on the contrary, most accounts of quantum physics I have read were far more clearly expressed. I usually find muddled expression of ideas far more confusing than difficult concepts.
My main point was that one cannot ascertain that religion existed in human society prior to morality. It seems to me that human society could not have existed without some moral code governing behaviour. Religion on the other hand doesn’t seem like such an essential. My suggestion was that when humans invented religion, among other things it expressed the morality which already governed their society. If there was no religion prior to it’s invention, early men’s ‘secularism’ could hardly be described as a religious ‘belief’, since the whole concept of choosing whether to believe or not would not even have entered their minds; saying that they ‘believed’ there was no god would be as ridiculous as saying they ‘chose’ not to drive cars; neither was available to man until someone chose to invent them.
I understand the supreme court judges’ hair-splitting argument that lack of religious belief is in itself a form of belief, but as an intellectual exercise find it relatively unrewarding. In terms of the common sense understanding of such terms, to describe moral choices which stem from secular thinking as ‘motivated by religious beliefs’ is nonsensical. To extend the car analogy; it’s like saying that someone who doesn’t drive cars’ transport choices are driven by their ‘choice of car’; their choice being ‘none’. Certainly makes vague logical sense in a way, but isn’t how you’d usually describe it.