Would you support ending all US foreign aid immediately?

[Swordsmyth]

And intervention violates these national rights?

Yes.

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes.

And the fact that intervention violates national rights is a sufficient reason for opposing intervention?

[Swordsmyth]

And the fact that intervention violates national rights is a sufficient reason for opposing intervention?

If it isn't justified by the self defense rights of the nation doing the intervention and in almost all cases it isn't.

The violation of any right is sufficient reason to oppose any action unless there is sufficient justification.

[r3volution 3.0]

If it isn't justified by the self defense rights of the nation doing the intervention and in almost all cases it isn't.

Then, as I said, you oppose intervention for nationalist, not libertarian, reasons.

[idiom]

Foreign Aid is often give in ways that intentionally or unintentionally create horrific distortions in the target economy.

Loans are often usurious requiring the country getting "help" to impose massive taxes to show they are credit worthy.

It can also be disturbingly imperialistic or disruptive. For example giving money to Israel to buy weapons from the US, crowding out its native industry.

Most export banks are guilty of the same thing.

[Swordsmyth]

Then, as I said, you oppose intervention for nationalist, not libertarian, reasons.

I oppose it for both, the collective rights of the nation are an extension of the individual rights of its citizens and both are violated by intervention.

[r3volution 3.0]

I oppose it for both, the collective rights of the nation are an extension of the individual rights of its citizens and both are violated by intervention.

For you, protecting national rights is a sufficient reason to oppose intervention.

It follows that, even if an intervention would result in a gain for individual liberty, you would still oppose it in the name of national rights.

Hence, you prioritize nationalism over libertarianism.

QED

[Pauls' Revere]

Yes, I say suspend it for 10 years.

[Swordsmyth]

For you, protecting national rights is a sufficient reason to oppose intervention.

It follows that, even if an intervention would result in a gain for individual liberty, you would still oppose it in the name of national rights.

Hence, you prioritize nationalism over libertarianism.

QED

They are intertwined and you can't use the net gain argument beyond actions required to secure your own rights, the very definition of rights is that they are things that you can't violate just because you think you are achieving a better outcome.

[r3volution 3.0]

They are intertwined

I know that you think that national rights are a means for protecting individual rights.

Are they valuable only as a means, or also as an end in themselves?

[Swordsmyth]

I know that you think that national rights are a means for protecting individual rights.

Are they valuable only as a means, or also as an end in themselves?

They exist as a means, once they exist they are an end but most of all they aren't ever separate from individual rights, you will always violate both whenever you violate one and you can't justify that if you aren't defending your own rights.

[r3volution 3.0]

they [national rights] are an end

Let me summarize where we stand:

I say: you would oppose an individual-liberty-increasing intervention in the name of protecting national rights (not a libertarian concept)

You say: yea, but since national rights are a means to protecting individual rights, I'm really still pursuing libertarian goals

I say: but now you admit that national right are ends in themselves, not just means, so no, you're not

but most of all they aren't ever separate from individual rights, you will always violate both whenever you violate one

Intervention necessarily violates individual rights, to be sure.

But does intervention necessarily result in a net loss for individual rights?

[Swordsmyth]

Let me summarize where we stand:

I say: you would oppose an individual-liberty-increasing intervention in the name of protecting national rights (not a libertarian concept)

You say: yea, but since national rights are a means to protecting individual rights, I'm really still pursuing libertarian goals

I say: but now you admit that national right are ends in themselves, not just means, so no, you're not



Intervention necessarily violates individual rights, to be sure.

But does intervention necessarily result in a net loss for individual rights?

I told you already that the net gain argument only applies when justified by self defense, you can't use it to violate rights when you aren't defending your own or you are no better than the communists who claim that they will make the best possible use of your property if they are allowed to take it whenever they see fit and everyone will be better off in the end.

[oyarde]

Would I ? Yes , of course . End it all tomorrow.

[r3volution 3.0]

I told you already that the net gain argument only applies when justified by self defense

Before moving on to that claim, I'll make some final points about national rights (to be revisited):

1. You admitted that, for you, protecting national rights is a sufficient reason to oppose intervention, whatever other reasons you may cite.

2. You admitted that you value national rights as ends in themselves, apart from any purported connection to individual rights.

...

Now, as for the self-defense issue:

Let's suppose you begin to state-build for the sake of defending yourself.

This means you go about robbing people to pay your soldiers.

You say that this robbing is just because you do it to defend yourself.

But it would be unjust if you did it to defend others.

...why would that be unjust?

[Swordsmyth]

Let suppose you begin to state-build for the sake of defending yourself.

This means you go about robbing people to pay your soldiers.

You say that this robbing is just because you do it to defend yourself.

But it would be unjust if you did it to defend others.

...why would that be unjust?

The justification for building a state is the defense of your own rights but as soon as you begin to build a state you have a duty to defend the rights of the other citizens of the state you are building.

If you didn't need a state to defend your rights you would have no justification for building one even to defend the rights of others.

[Swordsmyth]

...why would that be unjust?

To be clear and specific it would be unjust because you would be violating rights without any justification.

[r3volution 3.0]

The justification for building a state is the defense of your own rights but as soon as you begin to build a state you have a duty to defend the rights of the other citizens of the state you are building.

If you didn't need a state to defend your rights you would have no justification for building one even to defend the rights of others.

Is your life and property more valuable than the lives and property of others?

[Swordsmyth]

Is your life and property more valuable than the lives and property of others?

To me.

But more importantly I have ownership and control of it naturally whereas I do not have natural ownership and control of the lives and property of others, I therefore have an automatic right to defend my life and property but I do not have an automatic right to defend the lives and property of other people who don't agree.

[r3volution 3.0]

To me.

But more importantly I have ownership and control of it naturally whereas I do not have natural ownership and control of the lives and property of others, I therefore have an automatic right to defend my life and property but I do not have an automatic right to defend the lives and property of other people who don't agree.

Don't agree with...not being aggressed against? They want to be aggressed against?

On another note:

You said that once you've built your state to defend yourself, you then (for some reason) acquire a duty to protect your subjects.

This raises two questions:

1. What happens if there's a conflict between defending yourself and your duty to defend your subjects?

2. As to the people outside this happy circle, the foreigners, murdering all of them would improve your personal security, wouldn't it?

[enhanced_deficit]

It depends what we're getting in return for these bribes.

Growing police state appears to be direct result of financial/weapons bribery donations to foreign militaries, militant groups, dictatorship puppet regimes etc.

It has to be judged case by case, the criterion being whether there is a net gain or loss for liberty.

Nuanced approach towards such foreign aid decisions by politicians/senators purchased by foreign lobbies could be interesting exercise.
In that case, in your view which country should get largest aid from US taxpayers that will result in net gain for liberty?

Theese are the recent top cases, would you support aid in current cases and argue that aid was a net plus for liberty?





In previous decades, violent extremist Jihadi militants (Saudi-Israeli supported) in Afghanistan were major recepient of US taxpayers aid under MAGA 1.0 Reagan.







January 4, 2011


United States Secretary for Homeland Security Janet Napolitano is in Israel to check on joint security projects between the two countries.


To the untrained eye, it appaers that thy more aid we give to our closest "allies", the more we are moving towards becoming anti-liberty/fear-centric police state like these ****holes of anti-liberty, dogmatic religious experiments.



Israel detains American student for her alleged boycott support

12 hours ago
"Alqasem is registered to study human rights at Israel's Hebrew University in Jerusalem." She is getting a first hand lesson on human rights.

14 hours ago
The fact that they even know so much about everyone that comes into their country is what is scary. How on earth did they know this girl supports the boycott movement. Scary people for sure.


Could following report explain how they knew? If so, is this still going on under GOP-Jarvanka wing regime?



James Woods Writes: "Report: Data on Americans shared with Israel ... Obama: the gift from hell that keeps on giving."
The Washington , September 12, 2013

• 

The latest came this week, in response to a report from British press that revealed the National Security Agency commonly provides Israel with intelligence data — without first stripping out private and personal information on American citizens. The Guardian in London reported the item, the latest in its coverage of document leaks from Edward Snowden.
Mr. Woods unleashed his views of the matter — and of Mr. Obama's role in allowing the practice to occur — on Twitter.
He wrote: "Report: Data on Americans shared with Israel ... Obama: the gift from hell that keeps on giving."

James Woods: 'I Don't Expect to Work Again' in Hollywood
Oct 9, 2013


On a side note, James Woods used pretty harsh terms for then historic POTUS, he probably did not take into account the kind of pressure/abuse behind the scene he may have been subjected to.

Publisher of the ‘Atlanta Jewish Times’ suggests Mossad should assassinate Obama
Adam Horowitz on January 20, 2012

John Cook reports at Gawker: Andrew Adler, the owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, a weekly newspaper serving Atlanta’s Jewish community, devoted his January 13, 2012 column to the thorny problem of the U.S. and Israel’s diverging views on the threat posed by Iran. Basically Israel has three options, he wrote: Strike Hezbollah and Hamas, strike Iran, or “order a hit” on Barack Obama. Either way, problem solved!
Here’s how Adler laid out “option three” in his list of scenarios facing Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu (the column, which was forwarded to us by a tipster, isn’t online, but you can read a copy here):

Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.
Yes, you read “three” correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?
Another way of putting “three” in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives…Jews, Christians and Arabs alike?
You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.

Potentially Related


FBI files reveal ADL's long history spying on peace protesters ...
beforeitsnews.com/.../fbi-files-reveal-adls-long-history-spying-on-peace-...‎
Aug 11, 2013

1. FBI steps up AIPAC espionage probe
   Dec 16, 2004 - The FBI raided AIPAC's offices in early December. ... “Franklin affair” revealed the “escalating fight over Iran policy” in the Bush administration.
2. AIPAC/Likudnik Larry Franklin Arrested for Espionage on Behalf of ...
   www.wrmea.org › ... › 2005 July‎
   Nor does it explain the FBI raids on AIPAC's Capitol Hill headquarters, from which ... A struggle of the titans may be going on inside the Bush administration, with ...

Can any human being with a working conscience who is not traumatized/is in good mental health support sending billions worth of taxpayers aid to this regime and avoid boycotting this?


Palestinian Children Tortured, Used as Human Shields by Israel

New UN human rights agency report claims Israeli forces arbitrarily arrest Palestinian children in Gaza and West Bank, subject them to degrading treatment, exploit them to scope out potentially dangerous buildings and use them as shields to deter stone throwers.
Reuters Jun 20, 2013
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.530993











Related

The Loss Of Liberty (USS Liberty Cover-Up) High Quality Video

Former CIA Officer: US Fighting Israel's Wars





US Officially Sends Largest Ever $38 Billion Military Aid Package to Israel

Despite some conspiracy theories / innuendos in parts of left wing media, I'm still not convinced that MAGA could be easily initimidated by likes of Andrew Adler of Atlanta threat scandal or blackmailed by like of actors behind Kushner McGreevey honey-pot sex scandals into following neocons' pushed Syria/Iran war policies. MAGA seems too bold and upright to be victim of such manipulations.


US taxpayers paid more to Israeli military budget than Israelis

Billboards calling for cutting aid to Israel springing up across Montana




Israeli killings of civilians could cost Trump Nobel Peace Prize
Recently there has been lot of buzz about NK's KJU and Trump winning Nobel Peace prize but chances for Trump's Peace Prize seem to have diminished after controversial NYDailyNews cover about killing of large number of Palestinian civilians went viral.

[Swordsmyth]

Don't agree with...not being aggressed against? They want to be aggressed against?

On another note:

You said that once you've built your state to defend yourself, you then (for some reason) acquire a duty to protect your subjects.

You acquire that duty because the state is a collective entity, you are requiring others to defend your rights and you must defend theirs in return if you wish to have any justification.

This raises two questions:

1. What happens if there's a conflict between defending yourself and your duty to defend your subjects?

That depends on the nature of the conflict, if your subjects are attempting to violate your rights then you would have a right to defend yourself, if an outsider is threatening your subjects but offering to spare you then it is your duty to defend your subjects even if it risks your own rights, there are other possible situations and each one is different.

2. As to the people outside this happy circle, the foreigners, murdering all of them would improve your personal security, wouldn't it?

No it would not, it would endanger it by giving them an incentive to attack you and it would be totally unjustified if your rights were already secure and they were not threatening them.

[r3volution 3.0]

Nuanced approach towards such foreign aid decisions by politicians/senators purchased by foreign lobbies could be interesting exercise.

In that case, in your view which country should get largest aid from US taxpayers that will result in net gain for liberty?

...

Regarding the poll, by the way, I'd answer no, pending a case by case review of each program.

If it turned out that none of them brought about a net gain for liberty, I'd eliminate them all immediately.

I suspect that the vast majority of them should be scrapped, but I can't say with certainty that they all should be.

[r3volution 3.0]

You acquire that duty because the state is a collective entity, you are requiring others to defend your rights and you must defend theirs in return if you wish to have any justification.

That has no basis in libertarianism, but alright.

No it would not, it would endanger it by giving them an incentive to attack you and it would be totally unjustified if your rights were already secure and they were not threatening them.

Suppose you have a weapon which would kill all foreigners instantly.

By doing this, you would eliminate any risk of them attacking you in the future.

The security of your life and property (and your subjects') would be objectively enhanced.

So why would this be unjust?

You already justified robbing people in the interest of defending yourself, so what's the difference?

[Swordsmyth]

That has no basis in libertarianism, but alright.

It does because libertarianism believes in equal protection under the law, the only way to argue that you don't acquire a duty to protect the other citizens is to go anarchist and forbid the creation of a state or fully tyrannical and say that you are never required to protect the rights of anyone but yourself and you may violate anyone's rights at your pleasure.

Suppose you have a weapon which would kill all foreigners instantly.

By doing this, you would eliminate any risk of them attacking you in the future.

The security of your life and property (and your subjects') would be objectively enhanced.

So why would this be unjust?

You already justified robbing people in the interest of defending yourself, so what's the difference?

You are obviously violating the foreigners' rights to life, not only is it morally wrong but it endangers your own rights because it sets a precedent that would allow others to kill you and provides them with an incentive to do so because you have demonstrated a callous disregard for the right to life of people you consider a threat, the theoretical gain to your security vs. a potential future threat that doesn't even exist yet while your rights are safely secured by your state would in no way justify or even give a net benefit from such an action.

[r3volution 3.0]

It does because libertarianism believes in equal protection under the law, the only way to argue that you don't acquire a duty to protect the other citizens is to go anarchist and forbid the creation of a state or fully tyrannical and say that you are never required to protect the rights of anyone but yourself and you may violate anyone's rights at your pleasure.

Those may be problems for your novel and rather convoluted self-defense based justification of the state, but that justification isn't needed.

The state is already justified under the much simpler pragmatism (less aggression = good) that has always been the basis of minarchism.

You are obviously violating the foreigners' rights to life

You're already violating your subjects rights to property.

[Swordsmyth]

You're already violating your subjects rights to property.

Only so far as self defense allows.

[r3volution 3.0]

Only so far as self defense allows.

Does self-defense allow me to rob my neighbor to buy myself a gun to defend myself?

[Swordsmyth]

Does self-defense allow me to rob my neighbor to buy myself a gun to defend myself?

Only if there is no state and you are going to use the gun to defend your neighbor as well as yourself.

[r3volution 3.0]

Only if there is no state and you are going to use the gun to defend your neighbor as well as yourself.

Why only when there's no state?