Hello
Mon, 2008-08-04 18:20
#1
Hello
Mon, 2008-08-04 18:20
#2
A little late I suppose. I am a 24 year old living in London Ontario. My political philosophy is anarcho-capitalism. I enjoy politics (obv.), poker, books, youtube, posting on internet forums and partying.
Nice to meet everyone!
Mon, 2008-08-04 19:52
#3
Hello, Zak, and welcome.
What's your opinion on the Vietnam War (1960-75)?
Mon, 2008-08-04 20:02
#4
Probably the biggest tragedy of the latter half of the 20th century. A completely unnecessary war (like virtually every war), and the primary reason why I think LBJ is worse than Bush.
Mon, 2008-08-04 20:21
#5
quote:
Originally posted by Zak Young:
[b]Probably the biggest tragedy of the latter half of the 20th century. A completely unnecessary war (like virtually every war), and the primary reason why I think LBJ is worse than Bush.[/b]
Why do you think it was a tragedy, and for whom?
If as you say, the War against Vietnam was unnecessary, and Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson was worse than Republican George W. Bush, do you think that the war against Afganistan and Iraq is any less of a blunder? Please explain why or why not.
Mon, 2008-08-04 23:51
#6
Far be it from me to defend LBJ, but at least he had some positives to point to on the domestic side, while Bush just has abject failure and misery all around.
Also, why is LBJ singled out for Vietnam, but not Eisenhower and Kennedy (who started it) or Nixon (who illegally bombed and invaded Cambodia, and backed the invasion of Laos)?
Tue, 2008-08-05 11:26
#7
I think it was a tragedy for the millions (4-5?) of Vietnamese civilians who died. I think it was a tragedy for the some 100-300 thousand Cambodians who were killed in Kissinger/Nixon's secret bombing campaigns. I think it was a tragedy for the tens of thousands of U.S. troops who died in battle; and the additional lives scarred from facing such horrible circumstances. I think it was a tragedy for the American taxpayers who were forced - under threat of violence - to pay for it all.
I think the Iraq war is slightly less evil, because of scale. Depending on the estimates, there have been between 100,000 - 1,000,000 civilians murdered in the Iraq war, and substantially less in the Afghanistan conflict. It is evil, yes; an undeclared, unjustified pre-emptive war; but it is my opinion that shooting one person is less evil than shooting a dozen.
I do not see much difference between Bush or LBJ. On the domestic side they both believed in government spending. Johnson brought us (or America, I suppose) 'The Great Society' and Bush brought us no child left behind / the prescription med bill. The size of the federal government - both non defense and defense spending - has grown at a more massive rate than under any president. While it is true this is primarily Congress' burden to bear, the president obviously has tremendous impact.
I single out LBJ because he was the primarily individual responsible. Obviously others share heavy burdens, and I am no fan of Kennedy or Nixon, but I think under LBJ the war was escalated more.
Tue, 2008-08-05 13:30
#8
M. Spector
King Lear was a tragedy.
What happened to Vietnam and Cambodia was a crime against humanity perpetrated by the US capitalists that you trust to run the world.
Tue, 2008-08-05 16:09
#9
When did we started interrogating newbies?
Tue, 2008-08-05 16:28
#10
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Farmpunk:
[b]When did we started interrogating newbies?[/b]
We changed the policy shortly after you joined up. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Seriously, though, Zak is not exactly a newbie - he has 90 posts at last count, and this was about the 13th thread he posted in, so the kid gloves were left in the drawer.
Tue, 2008-08-05 16:32
#11
Yeah, I wouldn't have replied properly back then, either.
Tue, 2008-08-05 20:18
#12
I welcome the spirited debate [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
"What happened to Vietnam and Cambodia was a crime against humanity perpetrated by the US capitalists that you trust to run the world."
It is the state, that you seek to make omnipotent through incessantly increasing it's size, that waged that war. Capitalism is not to blame, statism is the culprit. The inevitable consequence of the well meaning expansion of the state via welfarism / intervention in the economy is the development of the warfare state. The state will never end it's desire to increase it's size, power and prestige, and as Randolph Bourne said, war is the health of the state.
Tue, 2008-08-05 22:29
#13
Long live the worker's state, may it grow so large and powerful that the bourgeoisie is crushed beneath it's weight and made extinct.
Wed, 2008-08-06 02:28
#14
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Zak Young:
[b]It is the state, that you seek to make omnipotent through incessantly increasing it's size, that waged that war. Capitalism is not to blame, statism is the culprit.[/b]
I'm afraid that politics will continue to remain a mystery to you until you realize that the reason the state exists at all is to preserve the power of the ruling class. That has been the case since long before capitalism began, and it will remain true long after the capitalists have been deposed as the ruling class.
The Vietnam War served the interests of nobody but the capitalist class of the USA and their allies.
Wed, 2008-08-06 05:21
#15
I recommend "The State in Capitalist Society" by Ralph Miliband.
Wed, 2008-08-06 06:21
#16
Hello and Welcome!
Regarding Miliband [url=http://socialistregister.com/socialistregister.com/files/SR_1965_Miliban... is his take on Marx's view of the state (PDF); personally I don't think that much of it but an anarcho-capitalist might enjoy it.
I'd rather recommend you read Lenin's [url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/]The State and Revolution[/url] (full text).
Wed, 2008-08-06 06:34
#17
N.Beltov
Yea, at least Lenin is crystal clear on the origin of the state and is therefore able to write intelligently on its possible demise. This is in marked contrast to those who think the state is some sort of accident of history, or the result of meddling liberals and socialists, or some similar idiotic fantasy, that can be dispensed with as easily as training wheels on a bicycle.
Wed, 2008-08-06 06:43
#18
What are you chaps talking about? All one needs to do is look at the highly successful anarcho-capitalist non-states in history to know that the scribblings of Lenin & Co. can be dismissed with the wave of a hand.
Wed, 2008-08-06 14:22
#19
Testing.
Wed, 2008-08-06 14:23
#20
Well that was wierd, who the hell did that, anyway?
Wed, 2008-08-06 14:25
#21
It sure wasn't me. I'm on vacation, remember? [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] I thought maybe the tech guys did it while working on the redesign or something. It was easy to fix - I just toggled the board back on. Weird.
[ 06 August 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Wed, 2008-08-06 15:03
#22
Please, don't interrupt the anti-imperialists. They're touchy that way.
Wed, 2008-08-06 15:09
#23
It is the spooks, CSIS has infiltrated babble again.
Opps I mean CSIS has infiltrated babble.
[ 06 August 2008: Message edited by: Webgear ]
Sun, 2008-08-17 21:06
#24
"What are you chaps talking about? All one needs to do is look at the highly successful anarcho-capitalist non-states in history to know that the scribblings of Lenin & Co. can be dismissed with the wave of a hand."
Your sarcasm aside, there are two relatively successful examples of anarcho-capitalism, the not-so-wild (american) west and iceland during the middle ages.
Sun, 2008-08-17 21:27
#25
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
quote:
Originally posted by Zak Young:
[b]"What are you chaps talking about? All one needs to do is look at the highly successful anarcho-capitalist non-states in history to know that the scribblings of Lenin & Co. can be dismissed with the wave of a hand."Your sarcasm aside, there are two relatively successful examples of anarcho-capitalism, the not-so-wild (american) west and iceland during the middle ages. [/b]
So [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Wars]well-practiced genocide[/url] is your idea of success, Zak?
Mon, 2008-08-18 06:28
#26
From your link (emphasis is mine)...
"Indian Wars is the name generally used in the United States to describe a series of conflicts between the colonial or federal [b]government [/b] and the indigenous peoples of North America.
[img]http://media.damnfunnypictures.com/dfp/EpicFailRoundup003.jpg[/img]
![http://media.damnfunnypictures.com/dfp/EpicFailRoundup003.jpg[/img]](http://media.damnfunnypictures.com/dfp/EpicFailRoundup003.jpg[/img]){kind=link}
Mon, 2008-08-18 07:20
#27
Talk about blinded by ideology.
That "successful example anarcho-capitalism" of the "not so wild west" only existed [i]because of[/i] the [b]government[/b]. It was gub'mint soldiers clearing the land of the indigenous inhabitants that allowed the west to be opened in the first place. It was the government's guarantees of private property that allowed some well-connected people to make a bundle.
Terrorists like Rockefeller, Hearst, and Morgan only became extremely wealthy because they could count on the backing of the Federal government in both law and use of force.
All this libertarian blather about the evils of government is like listening to a teenager complain about a curfew. The parents provide the house, the car, the food, and the spending money, but "I hate my parents!".
Mon, 2008-08-18 07:51
#28
remind
ahhh, too much lew rockwell it seems for Zak
Mon, 2008-08-18 08:10
#29
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Also from my source ([i]emphasis mine[/i]):
quote:
In 1864, one of the more infamous Indian War battles took place, the Sand Creek Massacre. A [b]locally raised[/b] militia attacked a village of Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians in southeast Colorado and killed and mutilated an estimated 150 men, women, and children. The Indians at Sand Creek had been [i]assured by the U.S. Government that they would be safe[/i] in the territory they were occupying, but anti-Indian sentiments by [b]white settlers[/b] were running high.
It would seem that the government does not shoulder all of the blame.
Mon, 2008-08-18 10:44
#30
Ronald Wright lays it out beautifully in A Short History of the New World Order (2008). The Globe and Mail ran a fine excerpt in Saturday's edition:
(quote)
All of us must live with this land of paradox: a democracy hobbled by theocracy and plutocracy; a "peace-loving" country at war almost constantly for 400 years; a nation both well-meaning and rapacious, welcoming and suspicious, devout and materialistic, friendly and fearful, innocent and corrupt, libertarian and repressive, individualistic and conformist, generous and grasping, imperial and parochial, modern and archaic.
Fri, 2008-08-22 00:25
#31
I see Zak's history books were printed in either Texas or New Yawk.
Welcome
Fri, 2008-08-22 17:35
#32
Polly B
Alright I admit it. I am only posting here because when you open up babble, the first thing you see is Hello (Fidel)and I thought it would be cool to see Hello (me).
[img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2008-08-22 17:39
#33
M. Spector
Maybe you should try bookmarking [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_daily]Today's Active Topics[/url] instead of [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php]Forum Home[/url] as your entry point to babble.
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2008-08-22 17:46
#34
Polly B
OK
Fri, 2008-08-22 17:47
#35
Polly B
[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]