Chris Matthews laughs at anti-semitic joke

Doctrinaire Libertarianism or any other term you wish to call it, it’s hard to deny that “the State” is a collective entity in the Platonic singular sense that exists only in the minds of people who accept it’s legitimacy apriori. “The State,” is nothing more than a group of individuals, a firm, who together claim to be above moral laws and their own civil laws and assert the right or monopoly violence against any and all within their arbitrary and illegitimate “borders.” The claims of authority within set limits of land are illegitimate because lands defining their “borders” are very often unhomesteaded, and if they are, they weren’t homesteaded by the firm itself which, aside from voluntary exchange, is the only legitimate means of acquiring property. This is why I say they are a fiat land monopoly and refuse to give the implicit nod as even slightly authoritative by saying “country,” they are nothing more than the regional faction at the head of this fraction of the global cartel of violent fiat land monopolies.

I call the imaginary entity “mythical” for obvious reasons just stated, I call it “pseudo-divine” because it is nothing more than a utopian archon or group of archons that in peoples minds possess some superpowers or collection of superpowers. Yahweh is the archon of Christianity and Judaism, Allah is the archon of Islam, and The State is the archon of Statism. Statism is the belief that a handful of chosen ones granted rights above and beyond any other individual has can manage society into a happy and prosperous arbitrary collective that would be impossible without their blessed guidance. It used to be supported by the absurd notion of the “divine right of kings,” but since that excuse has fallen out of favor since the Enlightenment, the court intellectuals have spun new clothes for the emperor to wear in the form of the “social contract” when in the end the emperor is still bare-assed naked.

The “sovereign” for a time used to be decided by special favored monarch genes, but these days it’s decided by elections in a form of mob rule in a sports coat. In other words, the modern archons of whichever region you happen to find yourself are decided by ritualistic popularity contests to decide what PERSON will rule the PEOPLE because PEOPLE of course cant be trusted to rule PEOPLE (themselves).

No “nation” is legitimate, and it would be treading water to try and point out to you that jewish people are not a collective group, and the individuals who accept judaism don’t have a genetic contract of link (ie. right) to any land that they have not obtained through homesteading or voluntary exchange. The people who moved there from Europe had no genetic or divinely gifted (by gods or the UN) rights to land. Their ancestors who worked the lands owned it, but unless they can papertrail their geneology back to those ancestors they are SOL on legitimate claims of ownership of any part of the Levant unless they acquire it through the methods given earlier.

There is no “2,000 year old” claim unless you want to diminish the individual and collectivize everyone descendent from people who lived in the Israel and Judah of old. Conservatives are usually loathe to collectivist thinking except in the special case of “the jooz.”
—————————————–
Will they be attacked? Likely. Will they win? Maybe. Will they lose? Maybe. That is a matter for the people living there to workout (or not) with their neighbors. Granting them a war guarantee harkening back to the days of World War 1 does nothing but make their problems become yours and mine, incentivizes them (foreign groups) to begin lobbying/bribing our own illegitimate aggressive monopoly and cause the blood and treasure of unaffected “Americans” to be spent in promotion of “ISRAEL’S” political goals.

“Nations” go to war all the time, are conquered, collapse, come, and go all throughout history. “Israel” is not somehow inherently anyone’s concern but the individuals living in and around there, and the INDIVIDUALS abroad who wish to PERSONALLY contribute.

When you argue for government/public/State policy that subsidizes, supports, and promises the lives of myself or my neighbors to the benefit of Israel you are using the coercive institution of government to steal for what YOU want and for us to die for what YOU want. Write a damn check or pick up a gun and fly over there if you believe in the statist collectivism of the dream Jewish State. It was not a non sequitur.
—————————————–
I never called Scheuer a Libertarian, he is right about this though. Outside of the Barbary wars, the “United States” has only had conflicts with radical Islam as the result of meddlesome foreign policy which has painted a big red bulls-eye on the forehead of anyone from this region. It has made the “United States” the enemy, and has radicalized countless more people than there were before.

If “Israel” were smart it would want the US to stop screwing around over there because there are more radicals looking for Jewish blood now than ever.

I’ll thank you not to call me dishonest.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard26.html

I both understand and acknowledge the threat to “Israel.” Why you seem to think I have trouble with that is confusing to me. My point is that theft of other person B’s wealth and the sacrifice of other Persons B’s lives because of Person A’s desire to protect Person C is legitimate or moral in any sense of other word.

Make no mistake, either, that when anyone argues for government action for anything that THAT is precisely what they are arguing for in the end of it all.

If you want to support “Israel,” cool, may your god bless you, and go follow your conscience. Write a check and/or go join the fight. But if you value individual rights I don’t see how you can square that with the end result of willing State action for aims of your conscience. And I will fight any any attempts for such because of what they are, not the warm-fuzzy aims.

If I ever find myself in a position where I have enough income to get by with some left over, I’ll probably dedicate some to helping innocents there as well, be they Palestinian or Israeli.

All “nations” at one time or another face an “annihilationist horde” at some point in their history. What makes Israel so much more legitimate and special in an objective sense that would impel me to actively take a side in the conflict when I don’t see any nation as legitimate. What makes the cause of Israel more worthy of my time and effort than the freedom and rights of my own family and community? What makes the “nation” of Israel more legitimate than any of the other thousands of illegitimate political entities in human history? What makes Israel come before Tibet?

To reiterate; when you say “Government, go support Israel,” you are at the point of a gun demanding I pick a side in a fight where I don’t see either side as moral or legitimate. Exactly like when Obama takes stolen money from taxes and gives it to the Palestinians.

Be a damn individual and stop insisting the imposition of collectivist action on individuals who want no part of it. If that makes me, what O’Reilly would call, ignoble then so be it, who are you to demand your conception of altruism or nobility from me?

I don’t wish for the death of Israel, just as I doubt you wish for the death of Palestinians. I just also don’t see any reason other than theology and international busybody-ism to get involved in a fight that is not my own. I don’t support Israel in the same way that I don’t support the US, I don’t support Canada, I don’t support Jordan, Syrian, Lebanon, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Yemen, Oman, Egypt, or Libya, because when you get right down to it they don’t really exist, anyway. It’s all just a bunch of individual cavemen tribalistically swinging 20th century sticks at each other, all with their own theological and political justifications that they all equally believe to be truth.

No “country” meets any litmus text of non-aggression because all “nations” tax. All States are founded on initiating violence and acting the aggressor against “its” own people.

“. . . Robin Hood. . .” If you read carefully, he’s not saying what you are characterizing at all. In your example of fathers/brothers defending a child/sibling from a bully, there would be no problem. That bully would be the aggressor, as Robin Hood would have been (in the sense of “take from the rich, give to the poor).

“No clear thinking person would suggest this.” No clear-thinking person would suggest that it is unjust to aggress against innocents in pursuit of a criminal? Maybe in the Conservative and Progressive worldview who so callously write off the dead innocents of such pursuits as “collateral damage.”

(If you are Person A, I am Person B, Israeli is Person C, and radical Islam is Person D)
My position may be “immoral” in the mind of those who see it as moral for Person A to aggress against Person B to save Person C from the Aggression of person D. My position does not prohibit Person A from supporting Person C or joining a just resistance of Person D. Non-Aggression condemns Person A for using violence to force Person B, and Person D from unprovokedly attacking Person C. Obviously, though, you cannot consider all Israelis innocent, just as you cannot consider all Muslims who are unhappy about the situation as guilty.

When Person C is an aggressor in it’s own right, then in the eyes of the Libertarian there is no just side to this to favor with support. And to repeat, if I had (or have in the future) the income to spare to contribute in an effort to aid innocents caught in the conflict, I of course will. You have no right, though, to force me with the barrel of a gun, just as Hamas has no right to kill truly innocent Israelis and Israelis have no right to kill or evict Palestinians from property they justly acquired and did not surrender.

Is it my turn to call you dishonest now in your reference to the piece’s addressing of “just wars?” The distinction is made between “just wars” between individuals (ie. the Jones example that you yourself quoted), and “just wars” between States (ie. conflicts between coercively cartelized populations to be harvested as tax cattle).

The former exists, the latter does not.

I’m familiar also with the use of “Big/Great Satan,” and “Little Satan.” Would it be too “naive” of me to assume that such phrases were not used regarding the United States and the many faultless aggressed upon tax-cattle under it’s jurisdiction before the UN tried to play “god” and the US gave Israel decades of a virtual war guarantee? Afterall, since the Barbary Wars the US had no conflict with Islam until post-World War 2 with it’s undying support of just one more illegitimate state in a sea of them on top of it’s meddling in Iranian politics with the Shah.

“. . .brutes that have no other reason for being than that of being brutes.” That sounds a good bit like “they hate us for our freedoms.” Come now, you know better than that.

The Soviet Union would have collapse not long after Reagan on it’s on regardless. Such blatant and total Statism never does anything but kill of it’s host quickly and in a very ugly way. The USSR was much weaker than anyone dared believe during the Cold War.

The rest of your post quoting the piece about nuclear weapons and comparing them to Israel is a bunch of emotional appeals to one side of a conflict I’ve already addressed at least three times.

You support the notion of a Jewish state to the disregard of the displacement of the Palestinians and thusly insist that Israel is righteous, just, and legitimate. FINE, as I’ve said, support them with your own checkbook and your own blood, stop trying to support them with MY checkbook and MY blood via the government. I won’t bar use government to bar you from contributing as an individual because it is not my place, as it is not your place to force me to do as you do. Just as it is not your place nor my place to violently control whether Abdul down the road gave money to Palestinians.

My opinion and stance is to be Switzerland regarding Israel vs. Palestine, but YOU, the government, and others like you in or supporting the government wont let me!.

Daniel…

I was not attacking your person, I was questioning your reason. What I really meant to say was disingenuous.. a form of intellectual dishonesty to oneself to support a position, it was not a moral judgement.

My position is neither absolutist nor neo-con ( as it is popularly misunderstood). I don’t believe the US should be nation builder nor the total policeman of the world. Nation States make choices based on varying parameters. Israel is one of those choices.

The absolutist progressivist Alinskyite tactic of tearing down one’s opponent’s moral position if all other moral positions are not upheld, is very de rigueur at the moment. I can’t help but notice that a few of your arguments have this element . At the risk of making a moral choice, then I believe America’s choice, and the West’s choice, for multitudinous reasons, should be for the protection of Israel.

If I really have to explain to you the plans of the whole Arab and Muslim world and the progressive left in America and Europe, and yes even strident Libertarians towards Israel… for reasons which have very little to do with America’s past sins… then there is really nothing further to explain. If one is pro-Israel, one is a target… period. In short… does Israel need protection from those most able to give it? Yes! But until one acknowledges the very real existential threat faced by Israel from the annihilationist delegitimization hordes surrounding it, then it is pointless to discuss it further.

If I took what you lay out above as your real feelings then sadly, as things are now going in the mob rule of nations, you will get your wish for Israel. You simply tend to view things from what I believe is the closed box of anarcho-capitalism. I see things from the messy and unfortunate discomfort of realpolitik, as well as the moral and religious. No harsh feelings, and none intended. You and I will just have to agree to disagree.