US Retardation of Free Markets (was Airport insanity)
On 18 Oct 2004 at 15:31, Tyler Durden wrote:
Aside from that, your posts are completely saturated with the "They're more evil than we are therefore it's OK for us to be fuckin them over" logic.
They are more evil that we are, as demonstrated by their propensity to kill all sorts of people, including each other, and including us. This forces us to do something violent. Imposing democracy on Iraq at gunpoint was probably a bad idea, but it was selected as the option that would raise the least objection. Any more effectual measure is going to piss you lot off even more. A more effectual measure and considerably less costly measure would have been to confiscate Iraq's and Saudi Arabia's oil reserves, and ethnically cleanse all male muslims above the age of puberty from the oil bearing areas. This democracy stuff did not work in Haiti and things look considerably more difficult, and more expensive, in Iraq.
Well, let's dig into this. It appears on the surface to harbour a lot of the common myths shared in the hallowed corridors of DC. Most Cypherpunks would agree that free markets are a good thing. Basically, if you leave people alone, they'll figure out how to meet the needs that are out in there and, in the process, get a few of the goodies available to us as vapors on this world. I assume you would agree to this. That said, the question is whether American interference abroad has helped or possibly greatly hindered the formation of free markets. And I think the verdict is beocmming increasingly clear that American interference hurts free markets. Of course, there are the arguable exceptions: Post-war Germany and Japan, but these countries not only had a strong history of free markets at the time they both ahd large corporations and a rapidly modernizing infrastrcture. In developing markets the US track record is terrible. The more we interfere and set up puppet governments and petty dictators, the result has always been the near elimination of any kind of real modern economy. More than that, some of the countries we've been kicked out or prevented from influencing have been modernizing rapidly, the most obvious example is China and Vietnam. Bolivia is interesting to watch. One could in fact argue that the faster a country removes our shadowy "help", the sooner they can get on their own two feet and start developing. In this light, US influence starts to look like it's on some levels designed to quash the local development of modern industrialization and perhaps this is no suprise: We don't really want the competition. In the long run this is unsustainable, and can only lead to even bigger September 11ths. under there and examine the substance of what he's saying. -TD _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee. Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
-- On 19 Oct 2004 at 10:23, Tyler Durden wrote:
Most Cypherpunks would agree that free markets are a good thing. Basically, if you leave people alone, they'll figure out how to meet the needs that are out in there and, in the process, get a few of the goodies available to us as vapors on this world. I assume you would agree to this.
There are however some bad people, who want to conquer and rule. Some of them are nastier than others. Those people need to be killed. Killing some of them is regrettably controversial. Killing terrorists should not be controversial.
More than that, some of the countries we've been kicked out or prevented from influencing have been modernizing rapidly, the most obvious example is China and Vietnam.
Your history is back to front. China and Vietnam stagnated, until they invited capitalists back in, and promised they could get rich. Mean while the countries that we were not "kicked out of" for example Taiwan and South Korea, became rich. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG y7IV2I3RzvTRwezbeYDac49MQJFtu4pLd09CpaV1 4wwT8kfGpRCZY7aO/mhgeoOcaR9vYeYFWae8aMM/M
I am curious, Mr. Donald, how exactly you define the word "terrorist". I request that your definition be generic; i.e. not a definition like "anyone who attacks the US". I'd be willing to bet that you cannot provide a clear generic definition of "terrorist". Moreover, I can guarantee that you cannot provide a definition that isn't self-contradictory. -Adam On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:59:15 -0700, "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> said:
-- On 19 Oct 2004 at 10:23, Tyler Durden wrote:
Most Cypherpunks would agree that free markets are a good thing. Basically, if you leave people alone, they'll figure out how to meet the needs that are out in there and, in the process, get a few of the goodies available to us as vapors on this world. I assume you would agree to this.
There are however some bad people, who want to conquer and rule. Some of them are nastier than others. Those people need to be killed. Killing some of them is regrettably controversial. Killing terrorists should not be controversial.
More than that, some of the countries we've been kicked out or prevented from influencing have been modernizing rapidly, the most obvious example is China and Vietnam.
Your history is back to front. China and Vietnam stagnated, until they invited capitalists back in, and promised they could get rich. Mean while the countries that we were not "kicked out of" for example Taiwan and South Korea, became rich.
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG y7IV2I3RzvTRwezbeYDac49MQJFtu4pLd09CpaV1 4wwT8kfGpRCZY7aO/mhgeoOcaR9vYeYFWae8aMM/M
-- On 23 Oct 2004 at 22:58, Adam wrote:
I am curious, Mr. Donald, how exactly you define the word "terrorist". I request that your definition be generic; i.e. not a definition like "anyone who attacks the US".On 23 Oct 2004 at 22:58, Adam wrote: I am curious, Mr. Donald, how exactly you define the word "terrorist". I request that your definition be generic; i.e. not a definition like "anyone who attacks the US".
Terrorist: One who uses terror as a means of coercion. The word was originally coined to describe the committee of public safety created by the french revolution, and was subsequently used to decribe similar regimes, most of them revolutionary, for example Lenin's. However it is equally applicable to non government groups who use similar measures. The difference between guerrilas and non government terrorists is that terrorists target random innocents - for example blowing up schoolchildren for accepting candy from US soldiers, as recently happened in Iraq. Similarly the deliberately capricious executions by most communist regimes, intended to produce a sense of fear and helplessness in their subjects. McViegh did not target innocents. Bin Laden did target innocents. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Kiq2Py/gfRNvDbIgFETkSh12S9ilsTHs1STZ0G+i 4YtWt9FfhBsS+aa3NSU17iXdsABNEuxtdCDwkYKjY
On Sun, 2004-10-24 at 03:43 -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
McViegh did not target innocents. Bin Laden did target innocents.
I'm confused. Is Mr. Donald saying McVeigh did not surveil his target sufficiently to know that there was a day care center in the damage pattern? Or is he saying it only takes one "non-innocent" in a damage zone to justify an attack? (in which case, how is he privy to Bin Laden's attack plan, such that he can rule out any "non-innocent" targets) Or is the problem perhaps that any reasonable definition of "terrorist" must describe both McVeigh and Bin Laden? Ends do not justify means. A reasonable man would argue that attacking an occupied building with highly destructive weapons is an act intended to incite terror, without needing to even consider the motive. -- Roy M. Silvernail is roy@rant-central.com, and you're not "It's just this little chromium switch, here." - TFS SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss http://www.rant-central.com
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
McViegh did not target innocents. Bin Laden did target innocents.
I'm confused.
So is Mr. Donald.
Is Mr. Donald saying McVeigh did not surveil his target sufficiently to know that there was a day care center in the damage pattern? Or is he saying it only takes one "non-innocent" in a damage zone to justify an attack? (in which case, how is he privy to Bin Laden's attack plan, such that he can rule out any "non-innocent" targets)
No, Mr. Donald is demonstrating irrational thought processes. You see, McVeigh isn't a terrorist because he had purity of purpose. But Bin Laden IS a terrorist because he had purity of purpose. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF "An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core" S. Plath, Temper of Time
-- James A. Donald:
McViegh did not target innocents. Bin Laden did target innocents.
Roy M. Silvernail
I'm confused. Is Mr. Donald saying McVeigh did not surveil his target sufficiently to know that there was a day care center in the damage pattern?
Bin Laden's intent was to make anyone in America afraid - thus the use of airliners, rather than truck bombs. McViegh's intent was to make BATF afraid. Analogously, in Iraq, the murder of schoolchildren for accepting candy from Americans, the use of children as human shields. If group A, acting as an organized cohesive entity with single central will, makes people belonging to group B rationally afraid by violent and evil acts, and someone in group B strikes back at group A in order to make group A afraid to do wrong, this is not terrorism, even if innocents happen to get in the way. If instead he goes after the guy who washes the windows for someone in group A, and the friend of the little sister in someone in group A, and the child who smiled at someone in group A, this is terrorism. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 9z/D+14dhYWqJz3LanaRzjhsYSdPrA+GrFSJrVNJ 4lnTkcOSZD+o/0b5hjEfABYlF305Ice+SWzVDUsTs
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
James A. Donald:
McViegh did not target innocents. Bin Laden did target innocents.
Roy M. Silvernail
I'm confused. Is Mr. Donald saying McVeigh did not surveil his target sufficiently to know that there was a day care center in the damage pattern?
Bin Laden's intent was to make anyone in America afraid - thus the use of airliners, rather than truck bombs. McViegh's intent was to make BATF afraid.
This is idiotic. You're claiming that the definition of "terrorist" is dependent not on the act, but on why the act was committed. So if I was to go out tomorrow and spread 2000 curies of Ci into the local subway system "As payback for Ruby Ridge", this would not be an act of terrorism? You're a fucking moron. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF "An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core" S. Plath, Temper of Time
-- James A. Donald:
Bin Laden's intent was to make anyone in America afraid - thus the use of airliners, rather than truck bombs. McViegh's intent was to make BATF afraid.
J.A. Terranson:
This is idiotic. You're claiming that the definition of "terrorist" is dependent not on the act, but on why the act was committed.
Analogously, the definition of "murderer" depends on why the act was committed.
So if I was to go out tomorrow and spread 2000 curies of Ci into the local subway system "As payback for Ruby Ridge", this would not be an act of terrorism?
That would be terrorism, because regardless of what you *said* your intent was, you would not be targeting those responsible for Ruby Ridge. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG VD3OmstfdjDi423472WFnOcF4OoAi0gOL2FZR45Y 4G2LCL/l1ZIVyRLfDcdladNssQtPhB0PR3mZs2VbO
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
James A. Donald:
Bin Laden's intent was to make anyone in America afraid - thus the use of airliners, rather than truck bombs. McViegh's intent was to make BATF afraid.
J.A. Terranson:
This is idiotic. You're claiming that the definition of "terrorist" is dependent not on the act, but on why the act was committed.
Analogously, the definition of "murderer" depends on why the act was committed.
So if I was to go out tomorrow and spread 2000 curies of Ci into the local subway system "As payback for Ruby Ridge", this would not be an act of terrorism?
That would be terrorism, because regardless of what you *said* your intent was, you would not be targeting those responsible for Ruby Ridge.
And if the station I chose just happened to be the one servicing ATF? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF "An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core" S. Plath, Temper of Time
-- J.A. Terranson:
So if I was to go out tomorrow and spread 2000 curies of Ci into the local subway system "As payback for Ruby Ridge", this would not be an act of terrorism?
James A. Donald:
That would be terrorism, because regardless of what you *said* your intent was, you would not be targeting those responsible for Ruby Ridge.
J.A. Terranson:
And if the station I chose just happened to be the one servicing ATF?
If your intent was to nail passing BATF employees, surely hitting closer to their office would be more effectual. Spray some radioactives in the entrance lobby. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG KWVunJBmZ52AZSOdaQb2Q5Zoz2Crn5g0U31NRSlo 4iLTYoVpo0AgmiEow46ObxjN4dPkqPP6I0kKDTG+9
participants (5)
-
Adam -
J.A. Terranson -
James A. Donald -
Roy M. Silvernail -
Tyler Durden