Minarchy vs. Anarchocapitalism

[newbitech]

Prove it. You are yet to back up your baseless assertion.



Not going to do what you should have done yourself 5 posts ago.



Please back up everything you just said. What statements, what misunderstanding of philosophy? What on earth are you talking about? Go try apply gravity to social systems, see how far that gets you..



Only if you distort it's meaning. Which is what you are attempting to do.

It's all you've got mate. Word plays, it's getting pretty old.



No, it's not reality - it's your fantasy land.

"Nationalism" is constantly referred to and associated with the nation-state. That is what was meant, and understood by everyone - because it is in context.

What you do then, is take it out of context - completely and utterly, and then go; oh Rothbard says it differently.

Yes, because Rothbard uses it in reference to no nation-state.

Since you seem to like appeals to authority, and dictionaries - I'll use both:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/

The term “nationalism” is generally used to describe two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination. (1) raises questions about the concept of nation (or national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and while an individual’s membership in a nation is often regarded as involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as voluntary. (2) raises questions about whether self-determination must be understood as involving having full statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs, or whether something less is required.

Rothbard in the article you won't cite = (1)

What 27 was referring too as incompatible with Liberty = (2)

And thus makes this whole ordeal a complete waste of time.

So don't expect any "well yeah newbitech is right" - because it's as clear as day, you are wrong.

How am I distorting anything when you just proved (without the Rothbard quote, ironically) that my statement is legitimate and 27's is not. You are saying I am distorting the words, and then turn around and post evidence that I am not. What the hell?

We don't know what 27 was referring to because he didn't provide the context. He made the blanket statement that nationalism is incompatible with liberty. WRONG. You can't admit it because why? Who knows. You just like to discredit any idea that is not from your keyboard or mouth. Pretty lazy minded if you ask me. Sounds like an personal problem.

All that other BS is you trying to discredit and slander my opinion. Pretty insulting if you ask me.

Go ahead, post the Rothbard quote, all of it in context. I dare you. But you won't you would rather hide the truth. I will give it to anyone who ask me for it in PM.


More evidence that you only pick out the parts that fit your view.

From the above source that you cited to try and prove me wrong. I added emphasis to show you that you don't understand what is common.

4. Conclusion

The philosophy of nationalism nowadays does not concern itself much with the aggressive and dangerous form of invidious nationalism that often occupies center stage in the news and in sociological research. Although this pernicious form can be of significant instrumental value mobilizing oppressed people and giving them a sense of dignity, its moral costs are usually taken by philosophers to outweigh its benefits. Nationalist-minded philosophers distance themselves from such aggressive nationalisms and mainly seek to construct and defend very moderate versions; these have therefore come to be the main focus of recent philosophical debate.

[newbitech]

so do you think nations can exist under anarchocapitalism? would there still be an "america" if the state were to disappear?

no curly/conza hates America and see the liberty movement here as an opportunity to lash out and plant seeds of anger and hatred for any idea of a nation.

He wants us to believe that the common use of nation and nationalism is to be a pro-state version, yet the common use of the term anarchy is the theoretical voluntarily ordered society version. He has this exactly opposite of what is really common. Why? Dunno really, but I can speculate based on previous statements.

I don't think Curly/Conza appreciates what is considered to be "common" at least as far as IN THE UNITED STATES is concerned.

I could be wrong tho, but there is definitely a pattern of nation hating on America from our down under "friends".

[tremendoustie]

so do you think nations can exist under anarchocapitalism? would there still be an "america" if the state were to disappear?

I think "America" is defined by the geographic area, the culture, and the people, no the government, so absolutely think it will continue. I am happy to call myself an American.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Anarchy poses the same question to minarchy that minarchy poses to big government:

will you use violence against me when I've done nothing wrong? If the answer is yes, then there's nothing I can do. I don't cling to any macho illusions of fending off statist intruders. If you pick up the gun, you win, but the cost of winning is your soul.

Frankly, I don't think Ron Paul would ever send a gang of armed men to take down a peaceful anarchist commune, and I don't expect many CFLers to shoot me for the glory of the constitution, so there's breathing room for us to cooperate. But anyone who would deny me the right of self-government is guilty of practicing barbaric violence, regardless of what label they cling to.

And yeah, you can find all sorts of intricate arguments about how polycentric law is superior to monocentric, or how no government allows the economy to function X% better than a little government, but that sort of utilitarian squabbling avoids the heart of the matter: I don't want to pay for your $#@!. What are you going to do to stop me from living freely?

[Joe3113]

no curly/conza hates America and see the liberty movement here as an opportunity to lash out and plant seeds of anger and hatred for any idea of a nation.

He wants us to believe that the common use of nation and nationalism is to be a pro-state version, yet the common use of the term anarchy is the theoretical voluntarily ordered society version. He has this exactly opposite of what is really common. Why? Dunno really, but I can speculate based on previous statements.

I don't think Curly/Conza appreciates what is considered to be "common" at least as far as IN THE UNITED STATES is concerned.

I could be wrong tho, but there is definitely a pattern of nation hating on America from our down under "friends".

"I can speculate"

All lies. All strawmen. All falsehoods. A pathetic response, from a pathetic person.

[Joe3113]

How am I distorting anything when you just proved (without the Rothbard quote, ironically) that my statement is legitimate and 27's is not. You are saying I am distorting the words, and then turn around and post evidence that I am not. What the hell?

Your delusion exceeds your intellectual honesty. So unfortunate.

We don't know what 27 was referring to because he didn't provide the context. He made the blanket statement that nationalism is incompatible with liberty. WRONG. You can't admit it because why? Who knows. You just like to discredit any idea that is not from your keyboard or mouth. Pretty lazy minded if you ask me. Sounds like an personal problem.

WRONG. He did provide context and you've done your very best to ignore it.

Minarchy =/= national socialism.

Believing that those who reside within your borders are 'special' people deserving of more rights than others in the world, and thus deciding others should not be allowed to freely enter your country and it's market is NATIONALIST.

Believing that government using force must intervene in the free exchange of goods to 'protect' your NATIONAL jobs/prices/trades/etc. is SOCIALIST.

If you believe in Nationalist and Socialist theory, you are a national socialist. If you are afraid of being labeled correctly by your own views, perhaps you should re-evaluate your views, not the aptly placed title.

Protectionism and nationalism are incompatible with liberty. I will always call out those who wish to tarnish the image of liberty by associating it with these things.

All that other BS is you trying to discredit and slander my opinion. Pretty insulting if you ask me.

Pretty paranoid if you ask me. I'm defending the separation of the two notions, the distinction between the nation "America" and the nation-state "The United States of America". One is great, one is bad.

Go ahead, post the Rothbard quote, all of it in context. I dare you. But you won't you would rather hide the truth. I will give it to anyone who ask me for it in PM.

Lmao! Hide the truth? How delusional, so hil-arious. You wouldn't post it, I did. Speaks volumes who is "avoiding" what. i.e It's you, go run to the PM's so you can spread your propaganda.

More evidence that you only pick out the parts that fit your view.

From the above source that you cited to try and prove me wrong. I added emphasis to show you that you don't understand what is common.

Moving the goal posts fallacy. What did 27 mean? It is clear as day.

You've done nothing to prove otherwise. Keep trying.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[newbitech]

Your delusion exceeds your intellectual honesty. So unfortunate.

WRONG. He did provide context and you've done your very best to ignore it.

Pretty paranoid if you ask me. I'm defending the separation of the two notions, the distinction between the nation "America" and the nation-state "The United States of America". One is great, one is bad.



Lmao! Hide the truth? How delusional, so hil-arious. You wouldn't post it, I did. Speaks volumes who is "avoiding" what. i.e It's you, go run to the PM's so you can spread your propaganda.



Moving the goal posts fallacy. What did 27 mean? It is clear as day.

You've done nothing to prove otherwise. Keep trying.

psstt conza/curly, you didn't post a Rothbard quote. You posted a standford quote. Did you forget what the discussion was about in your hysterical laughter?

actually no, 27 did not provide context. he used a definition of nationalist that is apparently commonly Misconstrued among ancaps and libs. IF you read Rothbard and understand the ancap philosophy, you'd probably know this. Oh, and one key thing that 27 did leave out of his context was the violation of NAP... hmmm so he either misapplied the term, doesn't understand the term, or falsly accused someone of being one and decided it was necessary to "call them out".

I am not interested in defending anyone who may or may not be the wrong kind of nationalist.. I just think that if you attack nationalism then you at least ought to understand what it is you are attacking. Further, throwing the blanket statement out that nationalism is incompatible with liberty is false. In fact, that may portray a stance exactly opposite of the stance that an ancap like Murray Rothbard would take.

I thought I politely corrected him, but if you think linking to something that is not mises, or rothbard, or lewrockwell, or whatever better defines what an ancap is, by all means post your links. And here I have an assignment for you.

Explain to everyone and the OP how nationalism is in fact not compatible with liberty as the statement that I disagree with says.

Then argue against true Ancaps and Rothbard about nationalism being of vital importance in terms of liberation for an oppressed people.

Next, explain to us why we should ignore Rothbard when he tells us that the differences in political and philosophical points between Ancaps and Constitutionalist IS IRRELEVANT.

After that, your extra credit will be explaining how those of us who are working towards and in favor of ending the oppression of IMPERIAL America are in fact NOT liberators and therefore DO NOT deserve your WHOLEHEARTED support.

BTW, you don't get any credit if you do not correctly cite the source.

Ready set go.

[Joe3113]

psstt conza/curly, you didn't post a Rothbard quote. You posted a standford quote. Did you forget what the discussion was about in your hysterical laughter?

actually no, 27 did not provide context. he used a definition of nationalist that is apparently commonly Misconstrued among ancaps and libs. IF you read Rothbard and understand the ancap philosophy, you'd probably know this. Oh, and one key thing that 27 did leave out of his context was the violation of NAP... hmmm so he either misapplied the term, doesn't understand the term, or falsly accused someone of being one and decided it was necessary to "call them out".

Minarchism violates the NAP.

There is no misunderstanding. I differentiate between "the nation" and the "nation-state." Your claims, as usual - are beyond bogus.

Again, you've done nothing but make baseless assertions and proved nothing.

I am not interested in defending anyone who may or may not be the wrong kind of nationalist.. I just think that if you attack nationalism then you at least ought to understand what it is you are attacking.

He was attacking the right kind.... the one that is PROTECTIONIST. Like the quote said.

You are the one who, to try make his point - has to remove it from it's context. Shameful.

You are defending the wrong type of nationalism. The quote was to highlight your failure of application. You did nothing to refute it.

Further, throwing the blanket statement out that nationalism is incompatible with liberty is false.

He didn't. He said protectionism and nationalism, he then stipulated they form national socialism - that is the concept he was attacking... NOT the Rothbardian conception.

Your analysis is childish, and a joke. You're just looking for a fight. Strawmen by the hay-full.

In fact, that may portray a stance exactly opposite of the stance that an ancap like Murray Rothbard would take.

I thought I politely corrected him, but if you think linking to something that is not mises, or rothbard, or lewrockwell, or whatever better defines what an ancap is, by all means post your links. And here I have an assignment for you.

You don't have anything to correct. You are yet to even prove it was wrong.

Explain to everyone and the OP how nationalism is in fact not compatible with liberty as the statement that I disagree with says.

Shifting the burden of prove fallacy. You said he was wrong, prove it. You have yet to do anything of the sort.

Then argue against true Ancaps and Rothbard about nationalism being of vital importance in terms of liberation for an oppressed people.

I am in agreement, as I have always been - it's unfortunate all you have is strawmen. As always, I differenated between the nation and the nation-state. You haven't.

Next, explain to us why we should ignore Rothbard when he tells us that the differences in political and philosophical points between Ancaps and Constitutionalist IS IRRELEVANT.

After that, your extra credit will be explaining how those of us who are working towards and in favor of ending the oppression of IMPERIAL America are in fact NOT liberators and therefore DO NOT deserve your WHOLEHEARTED support.

BTW, you don't get any credit if you do not correctly cite the source.

Ready set go.

More strawmen, I've never said anything of the sort. All you have is invalid arguments, pathetic.

When did I ever say ignore Rothbard? When has anything I have said been at odds with him? What a joke you are.

[Joe3113]

http://mises.org/rothbard/protectionism.asp

The best way to look at tariffs or import quotas or other protectionist restraints is to forget about political boundaries. Political boundaries of nations may be important for other reasons, but they have no economic meaning whatever.

If the 50 states were separate nations, the protectionists would then be able to use the trappings of patriotism, and distrust of foreigners, to camouflage and get away with their looting the consumers of their own region.

"But even with this clear barrier, and even without being able to wrap themselves in the cloak of nationalism, protectionists have been able to impose inter-state tariffs in another guise."

In the host of special interests using the political process to repress and loot the rest of us, the protectionists are among the most venerable. It is high time that we get them, once and for all, off our backs, and treat them with the righteous indignation they so richly deserve.

Oh wait, protectionism and nationalism... not compaitble with Liberty.

This is exactly the point 27 was making.

AGAIN, the only way you can possibly say otherwise; is to do what you have done...

Remove "protectionism" from his origional quote and isolate the other-words context. And then applying a different analysis, to the same word, which was used in a different context elsewhere - you have tried to spin that I and others are ignorant of Rothbard.

Hil-arious... and yet, still - you are yet to prove this. Everything you do pussy foots around the issue. "PM me" "No, you try disprove something I am yet to prove"..

All amusing, all a waste of time.

For shame, for shame.

[newbitech]

http://mises.org/rothbard/protectionism.asp











Oh wait, protectionism and nationalism... not compaitble with Liberty.

This is exactly the point 27 was making.

AGAIN, the only way you can possibly say otherwise; is to do what you have done...

Remove "protectionism" from his origional quote and isolate the other-words context. And then applying a different analysis, to the same word, which was used in a different context elsewhere - you have tried to spin that I and others are ignorant of Rothbard.

Hil-arious... and yet, still - you are yet to prove this. Everything you do pussy foots around the issue. "PM me" "No, you try disprove something I am yet to prove"..

All amusing, all a waste of time.

For shame, for shame.

look at the post man, who is doing the word smithing? that'd be you.

you are implying that protectionism AND nationalism are the same thing? Notice the big red highlighted word. The article you have cited derides protectionism, NOT nationalism. Sure protectionist cloak themselves in nationalism. Does that make nationalism incompatible with liberty? No it doesn't. Protectionist do this to give themselves legitimacy in the eyes of confused people. So why confuse people even more by asserting that BOTH nationalism AND protectionism have the SAME effect on liberty? THEY DO NOT.

It is this muddying of the water that I am concerned about, and that is exactly what 27's statement did. He didn't mention anything about a cloak of nationalism, nor did he mention anything about protectionism in his "context" post before he decided to make the overreaching and broad statement.

Sure after the fact that I pointed out the error, you come along to explain it, but it still doesn't deal with the fact that 27 was wrong. Of course you are going to find every article out there that has protectionism and nationalism in it, then try to convince us that is what 27 meant. But really, all you have to do is go back and look at his post and it is quite clear that he and you are talking about two different things.

Your insulting attacks on me belabors your opinion. Try to get past the emotional and rhetorical appeals, and stick to the facts about what was posted. I know you can do it.

Oh, and don't forget to explain to people that "minarchism" is a word made up by none other than anarchist to explain anything that is not anarchy. There really is no debate outside of anarchist circles, so in answering the OP question, it would be important to start with a level frame of reference rather than giving one opinion a significant boost by restricting the conversation to the use of only the made up words and definition for words that are not commonly accepted outside of anarchist fan clubs.

Maybe you should also deal with the fact that nationalism IS in FACT compatible with liberty, and that the statement 27 made whether in context or not was still wrong. At the very least, worded in such a way that required an assumption of the kind of nationalism he was using in terms of ancap that he did not provide. I still stand by my correction, because according to ancap, it is quite clear that nationalism is to be embraced by everyone as long as the goal is to dislodge the oppression of the Imperialist "state". Not only should nationalism be embraced as the prerequisite for restoring liberty under this circumstance, it should be supported WHOLEHEARTEDLY, by YOU, 27, and anyone else calling themselves and ancap DESPITE your disagreement with those folks involved who may have differences in philosophy and politics as those differences in terms of nationalism and liberty ARE IRRELEVANT.

So now, again, tell us how those of us YOU are accusing of being "statist" are not fighting for the release of oppressive forces of the imperialist "statist"? Go on tell us how that is not what 27 meant when he accused forum members of being national socialist. Which by the way had nothing to do with nationalism and everything to do with protectionism, even tho he didn't make that clear in his false statement that protectionism AND nationalism are incompatible with liberty.

Go, on quote some more Rothbard political and philosophical points that define the distinction between what you call "minarchy" and I call "anarchy" and I will tell you that the man you are quoting considers those differences to be completely irrelevant in terms of nationalism that seeks to liberate the people of the united states from the imperialist government of the united states. THAT is what this movement is trying to accomplish, THRU "MINARCHY".

Attacking those "minarchist", and slapping false labels on them (in this case, by confusing the meanings of words like protectionism and nationalism) is a huge mistake for ancaps, ACCORDING TO ROTHBARD.

You and 27 are confusing the people fighting against the imperialist with the imperialist. Common mistake of anarchist in history as Rothbard has pointed out. By attacking those folks who are fighting the imperialist, or at least have the ideological goal of fighting the imperialist and removing the oppression, you are becoming concrete objective supporters of the bloated nation-states of today.

To bad you don't want to discuss that article. Or maybe you just don't know about it. W/E.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[teacherone]

I think "America" is defined by the geographic area, the culture, and the people, no the government, so absolutely think it will continue. I am happy to call myself an American.

if 300,000,000 americans decided to live their lives according to the NAP and created a homogenous libertarian society then maybe they would continue calling themselves americans.

if, however, groups, societies, communities, developed on the continent, each with its own brand of morality, then over time the idea of america would be lost for the ages.

i think the latter is more conceivable.

i know we disagree.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Joe3113]

if, however, groups, societies, communities, developed on the continent, each with its own brand of morality, then over time the idea of america would be lost for the ages.

Ahh.... isn't that really... the very essence of America?

Note, your use of the word morality, and not ethics. (i.e Political philosophy)

Regardless your objections are irrelevant, the United States of America - the civilization is imploding, just like the fall of Rome and many before it.

[andrewh817]

I think "America" is defined by the geographic area, the culture, and the people, no the government, so absolutely think it will continue.

I'd say it is absolutely defined by the government and NOT by the area, culture, or the people. America is not one culture, one group of people, or one area. There is no US culture, there are no such thing as "Americans," and the geographic area is a bunch of lines that have no relevance except that an individual from the government drew it.

When there's a news headline like "US warns Iran to halt nuclear reactor tests" you wouldn't think that meant a protest group from America traveling to Iran to complain. OBVIOUSLY it means the US government is warning Iran, and thus the label of US or America is used to define the government.

I am happy to call myself an American.

Collectivism is a brain-dead ideology........ you might as well say you're happy to call yourself a human.

[newbitech]

I'd say it is absolutely defined by the government and NOT by the area, culture, or the people. America is not one culture, one group of people, or one area. There is no US culture, there are no such thing as "Americans," and the geographic area is a bunch of lines that have no relevance except that an individual from the government drew it.

When there's a news headline like "US warns Iran to halt nuclear reactor tests" you wouldn't think that meant a protest group from America traveling to Iran to complain. OBVIOUSLY it means the US government is warning Iran, and thus the label of US or America is used to define the government.



Collectivism is a brain-dead ideology........ you might as well say you're happy to call yourself a human.

do you live in the geographic region commonly referred to as the United States of America?

I think the comment I highlighted in red is pretty short-sited to say the least. So we have baseball and football, jazz music, hip-hop, country music, guns, etc etc... I can go on.. America absolutely has culture. We all speak and read the same language etc...

I am not sure which definition you are using, but to say that there is no such things as Americans is just absurd. How in the world did you come up with this opinion? Re: Iran and the US warning Iran, do you remember who won the elections in the last 20 years? I know diebold and all, but really, it was Americans of the red blooded kind that put those people in power. I am not proud of it, and will do everything I can to change that, but really, it IS THE AMERICAN people who are warning Iran, don't build nukes or else.

[tremendoustie]

do you live in the geographic region commonly referred to as the United States of America?

I think the comment I highlighted in red is pretty short-sited to say the least. So we have baseball and football, jazz music, hip-hop, country music, guns, etc etc... I can go on.. America absolutely has culture. We all speak and read the same language etc...

I am not sure which definition you are using, but to say that there is no such things as Americans is just absurd. How in the world did you come up with this opinion?

Yes, I'm pretty sure, even without a government, they won't be referring to this land as, "that general area in the middle part of the upper blob that's next to the atlantic and pacific oceans". I'm no collectivist, but geographic areas need names, and it makes to identify people from that area as such. Also, people who live in a particular geographic region tend to share certain cultural charactaristics.

I'm also happy to call myself a human, and a New Hampsheroon, and a New Englander, and a Westerner, etc.

Re: Iran and the US warning Iran, do you remember who won the elections in the last 20 years? I know diebold and all, but really, it was Americans of the red blooded kind that put those people in power. I am not proud of it, and will do everything I can to change that, but really, it IS THE AMERICAN people who are warning Iran, don't build nukes or else.

I do disagree here. I don't think the actions of the government can property be attributed to the people. Perhaps some people, but there is no "the" people. People are individuals, who can be classified, yes, but they take action and hold opinions independently, and are responsible for those actions on an individual basis.

[newbitech]

Yes, I'm pretty sure, even without a government, they won't be referring to this land as, "that general area in the middle part of the upper blob that's next to the atlantic and pacific oceans". I'm no collectivist, but geographic areas need names, and it makes to identify people from that area as such. Also, people who live in a particular geographic region tend to share certain cultural charactaristics.

I'm also happy to call myself a human, and a New Hampsheroon, and a New Englander, and a Westerner, etc.



I do disagree here. I don't think the actions of the government can property be attributed to the people. Perhaps some people, but there is no "the" people. People are individuals, who can be classified, yes, but they take action and hold opinions independently, and are responsible for those actions on an individual basis.

real quick, why is it ok to say "the government" or "the state" and not "the people"? Am I misunderstanding what you are saying? I certainly agree that if there is no "the people" then of course we cannot place attributes or responsibilities for actions on "the people". Take for instance the actions of a team or a company. When that nasty bill collector calls you up or the annoying sales person won't leave you alone, then your view of that company becomes more negative. Now, anyone wearing that company logo is going to automatically start off on a more negative footing with you. As far as a team, if one person on that team acts out of character, that brings the entire team down a notch as far as character goes. As the saying goes, one bad apple ruins the bunch.

[LibertyEagle]

I'd say it is absolutely defined by the government and NOT by the area, culture, or the people. America is not one culture, one group of people, or one area. There is no US culture, there are no such thing as "Americans," and the geographic area is a bunch of lines that have no relevance except that an individual from the government drew it.

This is very sad that you actually believe this. Yes, there is a culture in this country, even though it appears that there is every attempt to nullify it. Beyond the obvious that newbitech already pointed out to you, the culture of this country was understanding the principles upon which this country was founded. Things like individual liberty, rugged individualism, the proper role of government and why it was important to limit it, hard work, etc. and why these things made us prosperous and free. And what would happen, if we forgot the lessons of our Founders....

[tremendoustie]

real quick, why is it ok to say "the government" or "the state" and not "the people"? Am I misunderstanding what you are saying? I certainly agree that if there is no "the people" then of course we cannot place attributes or responsibilities for actions on "the people". Take for instance the actions of a team or a company. When that nasty bill collector calls you up or the annoying sales person won't leave you alone, then your view of that company becomes more negative. Now, anyone wearing that company logo is going to automatically start off on a more negative footing with you. As far as a team, if one person on that team acts out of character, that brings the entire team down a notch as far as character goes. As the saying goes, one bad apple ruins the bunch.

You make a good point -- referring to groups makes sense sometimes. The government is a group after all. I just don't think it's proper to ascribe the actions of the government to the people of the United States. A company, like the government, has an established power structure by which it makes decisions, as an organization. People are free to not be part of that organization, but if they choose to be associated with it, it's likely that their reputation will be bound up with it, to an extent. Still, even in these circumstances, we must be careful to recognize the responsibility of the individual for his/her own actions.

The United States does not fit that catagory. It is not an organization, it is a geographic area, a people, and a culture. People can't simply opt in or out of it as they could a company. Certainly the people who choose to vote in the United States exert some degree of control over the organization known as government, but the government also often does things which the overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of, and even when they take popular actions there are many who do not agree, or consider those actions illegitimate.

In short, government is an organization which operates within the United States -- it is not itself the United States, and the good people of this country who do not consent to foreign interventionism, for example, do not deserve to have their names besmirched by the actions of that organization - no matter how much they would like to draw us in with them, and pretend that their decisions are our own, or that we are morally responsible for what they do.

It's one of the many reasons the actions of the 9/11 hijackers were so very wrong, and evil. The men and women who worked in the towers were not the government. They were not occupying their lands, they were simply living in a country whose government had decided to do so.

[__27__]

It's one of the many reasons the actions of the 9/11 hijackers were so very wrong, and evil. The men and women who worked in the towers were not the government. They were not occupying their lands, they were simply living in a country whose government had decided to do so.

Which are the exact same reasons the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were so very wrong, and evil. As were the bombings of Germany and occupied Europe, and the bombings of Iraq and Afghanistan, and on and on and on.

(not in any way implying you support them tremendoustie)

[newbitech]

You make a good point -- referring to groups makes sense sometimes. The government is a group after all. I just don't think it's proper to ascribe the actions of the government to the people of the United States. A company, like the government, has an established power structure by which it makes decisions, as an organization. People are free to not be part of that organization, but if they choose to be associated with it, it's likely that their reputation will be bound up with it, to an extent. Still, even in these circumstances, we must be careful to recognize the responsibility of the individual for his/her own actions.

The United States does not fit that catagory. It is not an organization, it is a geographic area, a people, and a culture. People can't simply opt in or out of it as they could a company. Certainly the people who choose to vote in the United States exert some degree of control over the organization known as government, but the government also often does things which the overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of, and even when they take popular actions there are many who do not agree, or consider those actions illegitimate.

In short, government is an organization which operates within the United States -- it is not itself the United States, and the good people of this country who do not consent to foreign interventionism, for example, do not deserve to have their names besmirched by the actions of that organization - no matter how much they would like to draw us in with them, and pretend that their decisions are our own, or that we are morally responsible for what they do.

It's one of the many reasons the actions of the 9/11 hijackers were so very wrong, and evil. The men and women who worked in the towers were not the government. They were not occupying their lands, they were simply living in a country whose government had decided to do so.

Thank you for elaborating your opinion for me. I appreciate that. I think from the perspective of a Chinese farmer for instance, when it is reported that the "US has warned Iran to halt production of nukes" the Chinese farmer is going to come to the conclusion that the people of the US do not want Iran to possess nukes. Further, if that same farmer posted at a Chinese message board to his fellow Chinese citizens there would be very little divergence on what the "average" American desired in the case of Iranian nukes. And if that particular discussion turned to the issues that you and I are discussing, the difference of individual will vs collective will (and what terms to use to describe these ideas) then ultimately the same conclusions would be drawn.

You'd have to poll each individual and decide if a unanimous decision is required to act/speak/threaten, or if some ratio of consent is required, OR if "the government" has the power to act/speak/threaten on its own accord without the requisite polling of the individuals. In the case of the Chinese farmer, he would have to draw his conclusion based on what he already knows about the United States (since he couldn't run this poll), that being the United States government (historically) teeters between a representative democracy and a constitutional republic. In both cases, the government for better or worse, represents the people being governed even if it does so without a representative or elected mandate.

[tremendoustie]

Thank you for elaborating your opinion for me. I appreciate that. I think from the perspective of a Chinese farmer for instance, when it is reported that the "US has warned Iran to halt production of nukes" the Chinese farmer is going to come to the conclusion that the people of the US do not want Iran to possess nukes. Further, if that same farmer posted at a Chinese message board to his fellow Chinese citizens there would be very little divergence on what the "average" American desired in the case of Iranian nukes. And if that particular discussion turned to the issues that you and I are discussing, the difference of individual will vs collective will (and what terms to use to describe these ideas) then ultimately the same conclusions would be drawn.

You'd have to poll each individual and decide if a unanimous decision is required to act/speak/threaten, or if some ratio of consent is required, OR if "the government" has the power to act/speak/threaten on its own accord without the requisite polling of the individuals. In the case of the Chinese farmer, he would have to draw his conclusion based on what he already knows about the United States (since he couldn't run this poll), that being the United States government (historically) teeters between a representative democracy and a constitutional republic. In both cases, the government for better or worse, represents the people being governed even if it does so without a representative or elected mandate.

I know it is likely that the farmer would form such conclusions, but I think he would be wrong for doing so.

I do not think we must determine some collective will, and require all to comply with it, rather, I think we should all do what we believe to be right. Of course, the behavior of the aggregate will more closely reflect the views of the majority than that of the minority, but I think this should be a natural consequence of people being free, rather than the consequence of one enforced will.

[tremendoustie]

Which are the exact same reasons the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were so very wrong, and evil. As were the bombings of Germany and occupied Europe, and the bombings of Iraq and Afghanistan, and on and on and on.

(not in any way implying you support them tremendoustie)

You are exactly right.

[andrewh817]

do you live in the geographic region commonly referred to as the United States of America?

I think the comment I highlighted in red is pretty short-sited to say the least. So we have baseball and football, jazz music, hip-hop, country music, guns, etc etc... I can go on.. America absolutely has culture. We all speak and read the same language etc...

I am not sure which definition you are using, but to say that there is no such things as Americans is just absurd. How in the world did you come up with this opinion? Re: Iran and the US warning Iran, do you remember who won the elections in the last 20 years? I know diebold and all, but really, it was Americans of the red blooded kind that put those people in power. I am not proud of it, and will do everything I can to change that, but really, it IS THE AMERICAN people who are warning Iran, don't build nukes or else.

I was saying that when someone uses a phrase like "the American people," often followed by an action verb, they are using a phrase which cannot be defined.

EX. The American people want a government that respects their property rights.

"The American people" is everyone that resides within said artificial boundaries so clearly the statement is FALSE because there are "Americans" who don't want a government at all.

Most politicians say "the American people" while actually referring to some people in America. The literal phrase and the intended meaning are contradictory and thus the phrase in this context is just a lie.

I was only trying to point out the differences between the definition of a word, and how that word is commonly used.

[newbitech]

I was saying that when someone uses a phrase like "the American people," often followed by an action verb, they are using a phrase which cannot be defined.

EX. The American people want a government that respects their property rights.

"The American people" is everyone that resides within said artificial boundaries so clearly the statement is FALSE because there are "Americans" who don't want a government at all.

Most politicians say "the American people" while actually referring to some people in America. The literal phrase and the intended meaning are contradictory and thus the phrase in this context is just a lie.

I was only trying to point out the differences between the definition of a word, and how that word is commonly used.

hang on now, you said quote

Originally Posted by andrewh817
I'd say it is absolutely defined by the government and NOT by the area, culture, or the people. America is not one culture, one group of people, or one area. There is no US culture, there are no such thing as "Americans," and the geographic area is a bunch of lines that have no relevance except that an individual from the government drew it.

as a response to quote

Originally Posted by tremendoustie
I think "America" is defined by the geographic area, the culture, and the people, no the government, so absolutely think it will continue.

you then went on to state that quote

Originally Posted by andrewh817
Collectivism is a brain-dead ideology........ you might as well say you're happy to call yourself a human.

you were saying what? To me it sounded like you were saying that there is no such thing as America. As if the American people, culture, geography, etc DO NOT EXIST. It also sounded like you were calling someone who believed in and is happy to identify themselves with America, brain-dead.

Not sure how what you originally said was supposed to be a differentiation between the definition of a word, and the words common use. The word of course being America. You are saying that America, and the American people are defined by government, yet that is not the common use? What is the common use of America then? And please tell us, what is the governments definition of America. Or, just stop defining America and American people in terms of its government, that would be the first step in shedding the collectivist mentality that is bothering you.

[HVACTech]

it seems pretty obvious to me, who the trouble makers are.

[A Son of Liberty]

[heavenlyboy34]

do you live in the geographic region commonly referred to as the United States of America?

I think the comment I highlighted in red is pretty short-sited to say the least. So we have baseball and football, jazz music, hip-hop, country music, guns, etc etc... I can go on.. America absolutely has culture. We all speak and read the same language etc...

I am not sure which definition you are using, but to say that there is no such things as Americans is just absurd. How in the world did you come up with this opinion? Re: Iran and the US warning Iran, do you remember who won the elections in the last 20 years? I know diebold and all, but really, it was Americans of the red blooded kind that put those people in power. I am not proud of it, and will do everything I can to change that, but really, it IS THE AMERICAN people who are warning Iran, don't build nukes or else.

Bolded is false. What's called "American English" is a generic term for a number of dialects that happen to be spoken in 'Murica. This is just one of many ways that the US can be more rationally described/dissected than the arbitrary political boundaries: