New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program

[error]

Ultimately, the problem is not that there's something wrong with government, (although there certainly is) but that there's something wrong with humanity.

Look for a moment at the reason "governments are instituted among men": to secure these rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) from each other.

To get rid of government, you have to come up with a better solution to the ultimate problem of how to secure the rights of the people from those who would violate it. Then you have to convince everyone the solution would work better.

But even before that, we have to finally win the nearly-lost war against socialism.

[lildog]

To get rid of government, you have to come up with a better solution to the ultimate problem of how to secure the rights of the people from those who would violate it.

Exactly.

Those who feel we can do without government or don't understand the need for defense are those who do not understand humanity.

Most from the WWII generation understand that there is real evil in this world.  Hitler was proof of that.  But many growing up since then don't understand.  The problem is they assume that the default setting of humanity is peace and it takes something for the war setting to get switched on... that's not the case.  The default setting of humanity is war, hate and voilence.

To prove we need NO government at all you would need to do two things, 1) prove that you can somehow get people to turn off the default setting on the local level and 2) prove you can turn off that default setting on the global level so that you wouldn't have other nations, groups, or whatever just walking over and taking over (similar to how the colonists took over America from the Indians).

[Raineyrocks]

My "opinion"  which everyone should be entitled to so no jumping down my throat and pissing me off with an attack post, please.

Is it right for a genocidal dictator, who used chemical weapons to kill thousands of innocent men, women, children, and infants because some of them opposed his regime, to be able to arm himself with a weapon capable of incinerating a city?

Look at our own government that gets paid off by pharmacuetical companies to vaccinate innocent children with lethal vaccines, that's just one example. What make us different, except for the fact that the media doesn't come out with the truth and alot of people in the US are brainwashed and dumbed down to believe if the government says it's good for me , it must be.  How about the large corporations that dump toxic waste in our waters and pollute the air we breathe? The government may fine them a miniscule amount of money but they allow them to keep poisioning,  "US citizens" , so what is the difference regarding a genocidal dictator that kills thousands of innocent, men, women, and children? Is it because he (Sadaam) didn't do it slowly and quietly like our government does?  I could go on and on but I hope you see my point.
I think there are greedy, shitty, scumbags in the world who don't give a damn who they kill or torment, it doesn't just stop at Iraq, so why not blow up the whole world then? Of course you could reply to "blow up the world" statement with an " innocent, good, people would die then", but they already are anyway so what's the difference?   What gives our government the "holier than thou" attitude to pass judgement and invade another country when they are guilty of the same shit just in different ways?  I don't believe for one minute that we invaded Iraq out of good intentions for the citizens or for "our" protection from WMD's, it has to do with money and oil as usual.
If we had a well meaning  government, what about the genocides that occur in China and Africa? What are we doing about that? What about North Korea and their insane leader threatening us constantly and showing us he has nuclear weapons?  Nothing happening there except "talks".
Sorry, I had to edit the post because I messed up the quote things, I hope it's fixed!

[Raineyrocks]

Ultimately, the problem is not that there's something wrong with government, (although there certainly is) but that there's something wrong with humanity.

Amen to that!

[eques]

It's all very nice and good to say that there's "something wrong" with humanity, but does government actually have any effect on limiting that, or does it exacerbate the problem?

Also, I have a philosophical disagreement with your assessment of humanity.  You say that "something's wrong" with humanity.  What standard are you using to say that something is wrong?  Do you happen to have the designer's blueprints handy so you can point out, "Ah!  Here is what went awry!"

I'm being somewhat sarcastic, but the point is that human behavior is not designed--it is emergent.  Another way of stating this is that humans are what they are--humans.

This absolutely does not mean that I think that humans are perfect or that there's no room for improvement.  However, nearly all avenues of improvement involve some sort of trade-off--that's how evolution works.

Furthermore, if there is something fundamentally, fatally wrong with human beings, how does it make any sense to put a few fatally flawed human beings in charge of everybody else?  Even in a system of "checks and balances," it is clear that those in charge make every effort to destroy them despite the outcry of those who are paying attention.

I'm definitely not saying that the answer is easy--living without government would require a vigilance and mental rigor that the majority of people nowadays would just as well not bother with.  However, simply because the potential is not being exercised does not mean that it couldn't be.

Lastly, I'd like to mention that the greatest evils of the last century--including WWII--were greatly facilitated by the existence of government.  I would like it if you could explain to me how Hitler could have swept the nation of Germany into a fervor if people had truly understood the implications of self-ownership.

I most certainly do not think that the "default setting of humanity" (whatever the hell THAT means) is peace.  All you have to do is look around the world--hell, look in your own backyard--to see that such a notion is complete and utter bullshit.  You didn't have to be alive during WWII in order to understand that about human beings (in fact, it kind of pisses me off to imply that I couldn't possibly understand it given the accident of when I was born).

My stance is that, while human beings have a disturbing potential to be evil, that effect would be largely mitigated if (and yes, that's a big if, so to speak) human beings were aware of their responsibility to protect their rights.  Now, yes, there are cases in which some do not have the ability to protect themselves, but the absence of government does not mean that there would be an absence of protection.  The question I would pose to you is that, given that the government has a monopoly on supposedly protecting the rights of its citizens from being infringed, how well does that government actually do?

[error]

Germany had been on its course toward Nazism for a century before it actually happened. It was entirely predictable.

What disturbs me is that we're on the same course now, not just here in the U.S., but all over the world.

As for the designer's blueprints, no, but I'm fairly good at reverse engineering.

[eques]

Germany had been on its course toward Nazism for a century before it actually happened. It was entirely predictable.

What disturbs me is that we're on the same course now, not just here in the U.S., but all over the world.

As for the designer's blueprints, no, but I'm fairly good at reverse engineering.

Right, counterfactual history isn't always a productive exercise, but I think that the point of Hitler's Germany is that the horrific evils of its government by the time Hitler came around were supported by and large by people who were not horrifically evil.  By the time Hitler had enough power to do what he ended up doing, it was most probably too late.

And yes, we're on the same course now, even globally speaking.  The way I see it (which could be wrong--I am human, after all ), pretty much all paths of government lead eventually towards Auschwitz, the Gulag, the guillotine, the Colosseum, the Pyramids (i.e., death camps, public executions, slave labor)... it happens in dribs and drabs, most of the time.  By the time it is too late, it can happen overnight.  I don't see what makes the United States so special that it couldn't happen here.  We may have a culture of independence, but even that has been whittled away as recent generations have grown accustomed to ever-increasing levels of government intrusion.

I don't think we disagree on many of our observations, just on what exactly should be done about them.

So, hey, can you answer a question about reverse-engineering lawyers?    (I don't have a question, I was just reminded of a silly joke to that effect.  )

[error]

The only thing I know about lawyers is that it's good for them to be at the bottom of the ocean.

What should be done?

No protest, no reform, no amount of whittling back the growing state, will make a bit of difference, until the people regain what they have lost: the "culture of independence" you mention. The unshakable belief in the power of the individual to make his own way and live his own life in the manner he desires, without interference from, or interfering with, anyone else.

So I'll put the question to you this way: How can a slave desire freedom if he can't even see his chains?

[eques]

The only thing I know about lawyers is that it's good for them to be at the bottom of the ocean.

That's a really good start! 

What should be done?

No protest, no reform, no amount of whittling back the growing state, will make a bit of difference, until the people regain what they have lost: the "culture of independence" you mention. The unshakable belief in the power of the individual to make his own way and live his own life in the manner he desires, without interference from, or interfering with, anyone else.

So I'll put the question to you this way: How can a slave desire freedom if he can't even see his chains?

That's the question that needs answering!  And, um, I don't know if I can actually answer it.  But I have a fair idea as to the overall method:

First, you have to know the person.  I don't think you can stop just any schmoe on the street and convince him of the chains that he can't see (assuming he's not an as-yet unknown FSP participant, of course ).  The preservation of liberty, which requires vigilance, isn't something that has broad-based appeal--at least, it won't, unless there's a broad basis for it (at which point, people might just decide that it's time to walk away from government altogether).

Second, since every person is different, you have to use your knowledge of the person to see if you can gain an inroad.  The On-Line Freedom Academy might be a very useful tool in this (it's the TOLFA's ambitious[!] aim to have the population of the United States walk away from government in 20 years).  I haven't seen any glaring flaws, but there are a few things in there that would almost certainly turn some people off if they weren't ready for it.

Third, you'd have to lather, rinse, and repeat, and encourage others to do the same.  It wouldn't be possible for one person to convince the rest of the world.  It wouldn't be possible for two, or ten, or a hundred, or a thousand.  But it is possible for one person to convince another.  So, it is up to individuals working in concert to convince individuals not yet possessed of the notion of self-ownership of their slavery, and of their chains.

There is an important point to be made regarding this, however, and it's that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.  People are just a little bit different than horses, and, like the chains they do not see, they may not know that they're thirsty.  In time, however, the horse led to water may decide that it is time to drink.  That's the key--you have to be able to exercise patience, because some people are eternally frustrating and contrary! 

[error]

Oooo, I hadn't heard of TOLFA before. I must check this out.

[Rocketman]

The default setting of humanity is war, hate and voilence.

I couldn't disagree more.  The benefit of promoting a free society (presumably, the default setting) is that war, hate, and violence would be minimized if government and corporate aggression could be minimized.

[Objectivist]

Germany had been on its course toward Nazism for a century before it actually happened. It was entirely predictable.

What disturbs me is that we're on the same course now, not just here in the U.S., but all over the world.

Over a century and a half, if you please.  I say this because Kant wrote and published predominatly in the 1770's and 1780's.

And we are certainly on the same course, and a good ways down a road that may not have an exit or reverse.

http://www.peikoff.com/op/home.htm

Objectivist

[Michael Fisher]

There is an important point to be made regarding this, however, and it's that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.  People are just a little bit different than horses, and, like the chains they do not see, they may not know that they're thirsty.  In time, however, the horse led to water may decide that it is time to drink.  That's the key--you have to be able to exercise patience, because some people are eternally frustrating and contrary! 

There are some people that will listen to our message, but you don't see them walking around on the streets. It's very easy to find these people. These people already know the true nature of government and merely have a difficult time putting their rebellion into words.

And there are some things we can do that make most people question their own government's legitimacy: red pills, my friend, red pills of eye-opening information and concepts. These people are the ones we show the true nature of government, through various means, to their utter shock, embarassment, and confusion.

[Braddogg]

The default setting of humanity is war, hate and voilence.

I couldn't disagree more.  The benefit of promoting a free society (presumably, the default setting) is that war, hate, and violence would be minimized if government and corporate aggression could be minimized.

Indeed.  If the default setting of humanity was hatred and violence, then why would we need so many euphamisms to hide what government does?  Ask someone if you should be shot for nonviolently disagreeing with them, and they'll be shocked that you even have to ask.  I think that's a good sign.  They need the lies of the state's morality to support such a system.

[vermass]

        There once was a country in the west that dropped a nuclear bomb on a country it was at war with in the east: On August 6, 1945 Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima killing an estimated 80,000 people. In the following months, an estimated 60,000 more people died from injuries or radiation poisoning. The western country gave the eastern country three days to surrender: On August 9, 1945, Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki at 11:02 a.m. and an estimated 39,000 people were killed. The United States government gave the Japanese just three days to respond to Little Boy before they dropped the Fat Man ( I suspect they just wanted to test Fat Man [It was after all a different type of nuclear device] before the Japanese realized the full extent of the damage and surrendered).
     60 years and 23 days later a devastating Level 5 huricane called Katrina hits the southeast coast of the western country. It takes THREE days for the United States government to respond, the excuse: it didn't know the extent of the damage. 60 years of communicative technology advancements and it took three days for the US government to respond to Katrina. That?s the same amount of time the Japanese were given 60 years earlier by our benevolent government interested in saving civilian lives (see paragraph one).
    The hawks will go on about WMD but the only country I know of with CRAZY and arrogant enough leaders to use nuclear weapons, the only country to ever use nuclear bombs...is the United States. I know what people will say: ? We used the bombs to save thousands of lives?. Yeah, OK, sure.
     Has the US government ever attacked another country that has nuclear capabilities of it's own? Didn't Bush include north Korea in his Axis of evil speech. If you were north Korea wouldn't you fast track your nuclear program fearing you might be attacked next?
    I?m a Dessert Storm veteran. I volunteered because when I was young and ignorant I believed the United States government did what was best for the people. The biggest hoax ever played on people by their governments are the fear tactics they employ to make the people believe they actually need a huge Leviathan of a government to protect them from the bad guys. The bad guys just have to be different and  enough for the people to believe the hoax. Maybe we should all sit down and watch a good movie. Like birth of a nation [LOL]. I?ll profile ideal bad guys: first lets give them dark skin, than a different religion, add a different way of dressing.......you?ve got: bad guys. I have news for you: they smile at the birth of their children and weep when their spouses die. There are extremist in every country and every culture. The extremist often obtain positions of power and often preach from bully pulpits.
     I don?t know what to say to anyone who buys the bullshit rhetoric of the politicians and their media puppets. Do terrorist half a world away scare me? Do criminals scare me? Not as much as the government that surrounds me. I can defend myself against criminals and terrorist would likely leave me alone if my government did the only job it has any justification in doing: protecting my rights. It doesn?t take a master mind to realize that the terrorist are RESPONDING to US foreign policy. Psychos gain power in desperate political climates. Don?t create desperate political climates all over the world and the message of the psychos will fall on mostly deaf ears. It is impossible to win a war on so-called ?terrorism? which is actually violent activism for change either good or bad. One of the few things John Kerry ever said that I can agree with, that I must agree with is the remark that ?One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter?.