Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

.
  Archive Message Manager
.

September  2002


Subject: Re: More than 6 million people behind bars or on probation or parole
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 22:06:42 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

> But you'd expect that only if you knew nothing of the relative crime rates
> of the races.

I'll try and deal with this tomorrow. Again, I don't have all the
answers. But in my judgement anyway, this doesn't point to a solution
either. Is there another way that libertarians can address the
disparity [in crime] issue? Let's take this up tomorrow. I don't
believe that government can ever resolve such a dilemma or provide any
real resolutions. It only exacerbates such. And, again, I don't have
definitive answers either. Maybe I'm kidding. Maybe I have my own
private answers, but they are entirely mine. No one else is required
to accept them.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: More than 6 million people behind bars or on probation or parole
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 11:36:27 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in part:

>> But you'd expect that only if you knew nothing of the relative
>>crime rates of the races.

>I'll try and deal with this tomorrow. Again, I don't have all the
>answers. But in my judgement anyway, this doesn't point to a
>solution either. Is there another way that libertarians can
>address the disparity [in crime] issue?

Do we need to?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: Labor Day
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:43:09 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: August 29, 2002
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Libertarians unveil 3-point plan
to help workers on Labor Day

WASHINGTON, DC -- Libertarians are challenging Congress to celebrate
Labor Day by ending the income tax, privatizing Social Security, and
repealing the minimum wage.

"Labor Day is the perfect time for a parade – a parade of tax cuts and
other measures that would help hard-working Americans," said Steve
Dasbach, Libertarian Party executive director. "Instead of using this
holiday for campaign-related publicity stunts, politicians should use
it to introduce serious proposals to help American workers."

Labor Day is traditionally the time when Congressional candidates kick
their campaigns into high gear for the November elections. But with
the
economy teetering on the brink of a double-dip recession, Libertarians
are urging politicians to forego the usual campaign rhetoric and focus
on jump-starting the economy instead.

"If politicians are serious about wanting to help American workers,
here are three things they should commit to doing the moment they
return to Washington," Dasbach said.

* End the income tax – and give the average American an immediate
raise
of $6,200.

"That's how much money an average worker pays in income taxes each
year, according to the Tax Foundation," Dasbach said. "Here's the
Libertarian Party's economic stimulus program, in just four words:
Give
the money back."

* Repeal the minimum wage – and create up to 460,000 jobs.

"Every time politicians raise the minimum wage, they throw thousands
of Americans out of work because some employers can no longer afford
to
pay them," said Dasbach. "In fact every 10 percent increase in the
minimum wage reduces employment by between 2 percent and 6 percent,
according to economists Richard Burkhauser, Kenneth Couch and David
Wittenburg.

"They estimate that Congress' 1996 minimum wage hike alone cost
between 150,000 and 460,000 workers their jobs. If politicians really
want to improve the job market, especially for American youths, they
can prove it by ending the penalty for hiring people."

* Privatize Social Security – so workers can put an average of $5,200
a
year into a private retirement account.

"Currently the government compels employees and employers to put 12.4%
of workers' incomes – or an average of $5,200 per year – into a
government-controlled retirement program," Dasbach said. "In honor of
Labor Day, let's give the laborers, and not their rulers in
Washington,
DC, control over their own retirement money."

So, do Libertarians really expect Democrats and Republicans to adopt
this pro-worker agenda?

"Probably not," Dasbach said. "One reason the economy is such a mess
is that politicians care far more about keeping their jobs than about
helping you keep yours.

"The good news is that 226 Libertarians are running for the U.S. House
and 21 are competing for the U.S. Senate – and every single one of
them
supports this economic plan. Every American who agrees can vote for
them in November."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Danger of perceptions...
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 00:56:16 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

A large percentage of Americans today support the present agenda of
the Shrub Regime<tm>. It isn't particularly hard to understand why
either. It's happened before.

A lot of Americans really do love liberty, and believe that their vote
for the radical right, or at least the GOP, is a vote for liberty.
Historically, this has proved to be a fallaciously misplaced logic,
and a disastrous mistake. As long as I've been around anyway, which
by now has been quite a long while, my observations are that when the
radical right is elected to power, our most precious liberties seem to
be offered upon the altar of public safety, defence, and all sorts of
bogus wars in which are too numerous to mention right now.

Only a few years ago, as I recall now, John F. McManus, the President
of the John Birch Society was scheduled to speak in Spokane,
Washington. The JBS, on at least most occasions anyway, has long been
a liberty-promoting organization, and had enjoyed a rather robust
membership. McManus was interviewed by several of the local Spokane
news media during his last visit.

During one of the televised interviews, McManus was asked why there
was such a stark decline in JBS membership, particularly since the
1980s?

As all of you, who were active and alive at the time can recall, this
is the exact time that Ronald Reagan occupied the White House. This
man was supposed to be the ultimate champion of freedom and liberty,
the man who would finally end such things as the Department of
Education, along with a host of other atrocities against free choice,
and against the socialist onslaught against making such choices.

McManus spelled it out rather clearly and suscintly. He stated that
with the election of Ronald Reagan, most Americans went to sleep at
night believing we had won the battle in defending human liberty and
freedom over the opposite by defeating Jimmy Carter and his agenda of
bringing about his failed socialist disaster. It was a victory! And,
as such, it was no longer necessary to re-new membership in the JBS
and thereby membership began a steep decline.

Well folks, that was then. And here is now. The majority of Americans
today that even have any clue whatsoever over what liberty really
means, have staked their trust in George W. Bush, a pretender of
liberty causes, the man who will finally rid this nation of eight
solid years of the Clinton regimes 'war on liberty'.

Nothing could be further from the truth! The FACT of the matter is,
The Shrub has managed to squander just about every intrusive invasion
of our rights and liberties that even Bill Clinton could accomplish in
two full terms in office! All based, of course, on the notion of
public safety, security, and defeating our enemies. It turns out that
our enemies are not even properly defined. Wide assumptions of
spurious enemies exist, such as the dragons of those who export drugs
to willing buyers (the 'war on drugs), and those who don't
particularly like our aggressive foreign policies (the 'war on
terror').

I've had the privilege of personally listening to John McManus speak
-- he is no fool. Misguided on some subject yes. But he overall does
really believe in liberty, and the JBS has promoted liberty for over
four decades! Therefore, when McManus speaks on such matters, I have
to take some time to at least listen to what he has to say. And in
this case, and I am speaking of current realities, we are in far
greater threat to losing our liberties than we were a few years ago
when McManus uttered this statement to the Spokane media.

Let me make this just as simple as I possibly can. We are losing our
fundamental and core inalienable rights today at a much faster rate
than we were when McManus uttered these words! We are complacent with
the Shrub Regime, and many, if not most of those here on Liberty
Northwest seem to find a way to justify this loss of liberty as
somehow necessary! The Shrub Regime<tm> has nothing at all to do with
promoting furthering liberty, defending it, having anything to do with
it -- every policy, every attempt to create a more draconian police
state is rather destroying liberty.

The question here is NOT whether Al Gore would be a better defender of
liberty. Obviously NOT! However, at least, there would be more
objective criticism of such things that are currently going on today!
I am not about for a moment to promote the Democratic agenda which is
probably worse even that the Shrub Regime's<tm> wild accumulation of
power over individual rights. All I am saying is that we are losing
our individual rights and choices today much faster than if probably
Al Gore were President due to no fault of his own to the contrary.

Ronald Reagan was no leader to bring about liberty. And G.W. Bush has
become far worse, and it isn't going to get any better either. In
fact, if this regime is allowed to continue in power, it will get far,
far, worse than anyone who really believes in individual choice, and
personal liberty, can ever imagine.

You can't even talk about liberty without embracing the idea of
self-determination. Nations have to be free, just as individuals have
to be free. Some here have really tried very hard to distinguish
between the two -- ultimately, I submit, it isn't possible to make
such a case. Freedom takes a lot of time, and it isn't a matter of
arrogant military force to impose it upon those who will not accept
it.

If Americans choose to place on the altar their own freedom as a
result of a miserably failed US foreign policy, then Americans deserve
that government, and the subsequent loss of freedom such decisions
entail. That is America's choice! Yes folks, we deserve entirely and
exactly what government will ultimately represent us. That's our
choice.

At the same time, I hope we have the character to at least explain to
the rest of the world that liberty has nothing at all to do with US
foreign policy, and this mindless and insane use of military force
that has nothing at all to do with self-determination, nor liberty!
Let me make this entirely clear, the Shrub Regime<tm> and the current
foreign policy of the US government has NOTHING, NOTHING WHATSOEVER,
to do with liberty!

Case made.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Danger of perceptions...
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:08:02 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

By FRANK M. REICHERT
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

A large percentage of Americans today support the present agenda of
the Shrub Regime<tm>. It isn't particularly hard to understand why
either. It's happened before.

A lot of Americans really do love liberty, and believe that their vote
for the radical right, or at least the GOP, is a vote for liberty.
Historically, this has proved to be a fallaciously misplaced logic,
and a disastrous mistake. As long as I've been around anyway, which
by now has been quite a long while, my observations are that when the
radical right is elected to power, our most precious liberties seem to
be offered upon the altar of public safety, defence, and all sorts of
bogus wars in which are too numerous to mention right now.

Only a few years ago, as I recall now, John F. McManus, the President
of the John Birch Society was scheduled to speak in Spokane,
Washington. The JBS, on at least most occasions anyway, has long been
a liberty-promoting organization, and had enjoyed a rather robust
membership. McManus was interviewed by several of the local Spokane
news media during his last visit.

During one of the televised interviews, McManus was asked why there
was such a stark decline in JBS membership, particularly since the
1980s?

As all of you, who were active and alive at the time can recall, this
is the exact time that Ronald Reagan occupied the White House. This
man was supposed to be the ultimate champion of freedom and liberty,
the man who would finally end such things as the Department of
Education, along with a host of other atrocities against free choice,
and against the socialist onslaught against making such choices.

McManus spelled it out rather clearly and suscintly. He stated that
with the election of Ronald Reagan, most Americans went to sleep at
night believing we had won the battle in defending human liberty and
freedom over the opposite by defeating Jimmy Carter and his agenda of
bringing about his failed socialist disaster. It was a victory! And,
as such, it was no longer necessary to re-new membership in the JBS
and thereby membership began a steep decline.

Well folks, that was then. And here is now. The majority of Americans
today that even have any clue whatsoever over what liberty really
means, have staked their trust in George W. Bush, a pretender of
liberty causes, the man who will finally rid this nation of eight
solid years of the Clinton regimes 'war on liberty'.

Nothing could be further from the truth! The FACT of the matter is,
The Shrub has managed to squander just about every intrusive invasion
of our rights and liberties that even Bill Clinton could accomplish in
two full terms in office! All based, of course, on the notion of
public safety, security, and defeating our enemies. It turns out that
our enemies are not even properly defined. Wide assumptions of
spurious enemies exist, such as the dragons of those who export drugs
to willing buyers (the 'war on drugs), and those who don't
particularly like our aggressive foreign policies (the 'war on
terror').

I've had the privilege of personally listening to John McManus speak
-- he is no fool. Misguided on some subject yes. But he overall does
really believe in liberty, and the JBS has promoted liberty for over
four decades! Therefore, when McManus speaks on such matters, I have
to take some time to at least listen to what he has to say. And in
this case, and I am speaking of current realities, we are in far
greater threat to losing our liberties than we were a few years ago
when McManus uttered this statement to the Spokane media.

Let me make this just as simple as I possibly can. We are losing our
fundamental and core inalienable rights today at a much faster rate
than we were when McManus uttered these words! We are complacent with
the Shrub Regime, and many, if not most of those here on Liberty
Northwest seem to find a way to justify this loss of liberty as
somehow necessary! The Shrub Regime<tm> has nothing at all to do with
promoting furthering liberty, defending it, having anything to do with
it -- every policy, every attempt to create a more draconian police
state is rather destroying liberty.

The question here is NOT whether Al Gore would be a better defender of
liberty. Obviously NOT! However, at least, there would be more
objective criticism of such things that are currently going on today!
I am not about for a moment to promote the Democratic agenda which is
probably worse even that the Shrub Regime's<tm> wild accumulation of
power over individual rights. All I am saying is that we are losing
our individual rights and choices today much faster than if probably
Al Gore were President due to no fault of his own to the contrary.

Ronald Reagan was no leader to bring about liberty. And G.W. Bush has
become far worse, and it isn't going to get any better either. In
fact, if this regime is allowed to continue in power, it will get far,
far, worse than anyone who really believes in individual choice, and
personal liberty, can ever imagine.

You can't even talk about liberty without embracing the idea of
self-determination. Nations have to be free, just as individuals have
to be free. Some here have really tried very hard to distinguish
between the two -- ultimately, I submit, it isn't possible to make
such a case. Freedom takes a lot of time, and it isn't a matter of
arrogant military force to impose it upon those who will not accept
it.

If Americans choose to place on the altar their own freedom as a
result of a miserably failed US foreign policy, then Americans deserve
that government, and the subsequent loss of freedom such decisions
entail. That is America's choice! Yes folks, we deserve entirely and
exactly what government will ultimately represent us. That's our
choice.

At the same time, I hope we have the character to at least explain to
the rest of the world that liberty has nothing at all to do with US
foreign policy, and this mindless and insane use of military force
that has nothing at all to do with self-determination, nor liberty!
Let me make this entirely clear, the Shrub Regime<tm> and the current
foreign policy of the US government has NOTHING, NOTHING WHATSOEVER,
to do with liberty!

Case made.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Klan Cards Found in Wal-Mart Goods
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:13:59 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again folks!

Now isn't this really special!

Kindest regards,
Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Klan Cards Found in Wal-Mart Goods
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:56:48 -0600
From: "M.O.M." <nox2128@blackfoot.net>
Reply-To: militia@montana.com
Organization: Militia of Montana

Klan Cards Found in Wal-Mart Goods

By Associated Press
August 27, 2002, 7:30 AM EDT MUSCLE SHOALS, Ala. -- Shoppers at a
Wal-Mart in Alabama found business cards from the Ku Klux Klan inside
books at a patriotic display in the store. "I was so startled I read
it three times," said Mary Meherg, who saw the cards while shopping at
the Muscle Shoals store on Monday. "I couldn't believe it." The cards
were tucked inside copies of a book written by Lynne Cheney, wife of
Vice President Dick Cheney, and red, zip-up book covers sold to
benefit a nonprofit foundation named for Todd Beamer, one of the
heroes on United Airlines Flight 93 last September. The KKK cards
touted a "message of hope and deliverance to America" and solicited a
$3 donation to the group for information on helping white children,
"America's new minority." The cards listed an Arkansas post office box
and the address for an online Klan store. Officials at the Muscle
Shoals Wal-Mart said they previously have found KKK literature in
other goods. As in Monday's case, the literature was removed as soon
as it was found, store officials said. "It's definitely not something
we want in our store," company spokeswoman Sharon Weber said. "Now
that we've learned about it, we need to get them out." Rebecca Irwin,
marketing director for Gregg Gift Co., which makes the book covers for
the Todd M. Beamer Foundation, said the company was "shocked and
extremely upset to learn that someone is using our product as a
vehicle to promote their hate organization."

--

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-wal-mart-kkk0827aug27.story

--
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107,
any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use
without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
educational
purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]

Join the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by writing to MOM, P.O.Box
1486, Noxon, Montana 59853 and enclosing $15.00 for one year(Feb. 1 to
Jan. 31)

For the latest in great survival, preparedness and politically incorrect
materials visit
our Online Catalog at:

http://www.militiaofmontana.com Some great deals are to be
had! Or, send $2.00 to the address below for a copy of our 44+ page
Preparedne
ss Catalog.

Militia of Montana
P.O. Box 1486, Noxon, MT 59853
Tel: 406-847-2735 n Fax: 406-847-2246

Remove yourself from this list by writing to: militia@montana.com and type
"UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Klan Cards Found in Wal-Mart Goods
Date: 30 Aug 2002 12:39:16 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 11:13, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again folks!
>
> Now isn't this really special!

What is your point, Frank?
So someone from the KKK put their business cards in someone else's book
in the store. What the hell does this have to do with the topic of
libnw? I really don't think we are so hard up for conversation here that
this is really relevant. And, your point is completely vaporous. What is
your purpose in posting this here??

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Klan Cards Found in Wal-Mart Goods
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:09:48 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...

> What is your point, Frank?

If you have to ask, then you are probably out of touch on various
issues that this article alluded to.

> So someone from the KKK put their business cards in someone else's book
> in the store. What the hell does this have to do with the topic of
> libnw?

Several I guess, again wondering why you didn't discover some of them
yourself.

> I really don't think we are so hard up for conversation here that
> this is really relevant. And, your point is completely vaporous. What is
> your purpose in posting this here??

Have you considered that this is a libertarian list, open for
discussion of such things as the right of private stores, and their
owners (stockholders) NOT to have their products violated in such a
way. Then, there is the right to free speech and press, which is
another issue in which is clearly present in the article in question.
Then there is the subject of political, religious and social rights of
a minority group.

So, I figured this small article was really loaded with all kinds of
subject matter that we have been discussing on Liberty Northwest over
the past decade! How you managed to miss all of that is still a
mystery to me.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Klan Cards Found in Wal-Mart Goods
Date: 31 Aug 2002 00:46:43 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 22:09, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> > What is your point, Frank?
>
> If you have to ask, then you are probably out of touch on various
> issues that this article alluded to.

No, Frank, you are out of touch with reality if you think forwarding a
routine news item and saying "interesting" is an obvious explanation of
point.

>
> > So someone from the KKK put their business cards in someone else's book
> > in the store. What the hell does this have to do with the topic of
> > libnw?
>
> Several I guess, again wondering why you didn't discover some of them
> yourself.

Maybe because it was all occurring between private individuals/entities?

>
> > I really don't think we are so hard up for conversation here that
> > this is really relevant. And, your point is completely vaporous. What is
> > your purpose in posting this here??
>
> Have you considered that this is a libertarian list, open for
> discussion of such things as the right of private stores, and their
> owners (stockholders) NOT to have their products violated in such a
> way. Then, there is the right to free speech and press, which is
> another issue in which is clearly present in the article in question.
> Then there is the subject of political, religious and social rights of
> a minority group.
>
> So, I figured this small article was really loaded with all kinds of
> subject matter that we have been discussing on Liberty Northwest over
> the past decade! How you managed to miss all of that is still a
> mystery to me.

So Frank, something that the government was not even implicated in;
something that was entirely between private entities, is relevant to us
considering liberty how? There was not even a mention of someone calling
the cops!

So one private group disrespected the rights of another, and did not get
the government to aid them, and the injured party has -as of yet- not
involved the government. This relates how, EXACTLY?

So stories about two or more private entities disrespecting each other
is on topic???

Well then ... there was this one time, at band camp ...

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Klan Cards Found in Wal-Mart Goods
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 21:30:44 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> > If you have to ask, then you are probably out of touch on various
> > issues that this article alluded to.

And, you replied:
> No, Frank, you are out of touch with reality if you think forwarding a
> routine news item and saying "interesting" is an obvious explanation of
> point.

Routine news? Isn't "routine" news just about all we get these days?
"Routine News" about the impending US military aggression against
Iraq? Do you have any idea at all about the consequences for
"liberty" that ordinary, "routine" news usually brings these days?
Perhaps not. What I posted, I have no reason to retract because you
can't find one single way of discussing liberty issues within that
context.

> Maybe because it was all occurring between private individuals/entities?

Well then, why didn't you just say so? Let's take this a step or two
further. What about the government's intervention on private choices,
to smoke cigarettes or drink alcoholic beverages? What would you say
if you walked into K-Mart or any other retail outlet and found the
radical right's self-righteous literature embedded on your next
six-pack?

You miss the whole point, Bill. I often post rather routine news
clips, and often from the same source, with a further source of AFP or
AP reporting on "routine" events currently taking place, as was the
case here. It is "routine" everyday, or our otherwise "routine"
liberties to be taken away, and in this instance at least, I question
your judgement for allowing such to continue. Maybe that's the
problem, everything these days seems to be rather "routine".

I receive a lot of news from various sources every day. I only choose
to re-post on Liberty Northwest for what for me, at least are relevant
to liberty issues. And this one was a giant invitation to discuss the
issues at hand. It involves very much, touching upon what we have been
discussing here for more than a decade for crying out loud.

What if this topic in question was centred around the 'war on drugs'?
Think about it. You probably wouldn't have objected at all, now would
you? But because this message involve a rather minority group, such as
the KKK, and had everything to do with property rights, you deduced to
take it all on as a "non-issue". Yes, let me explain some of this to
you. The KKK is probably the most detested minority group in America
today. BUT, do they have rights? K-Mart, and other retailers own
their own property -- do they have rightful ownership over what they
sell, and does any special interest group have a rights to tamper with
their own property? All of this is legitimate discussion on ANY
libertarian forum, including Liberty Northwest. What is YOUR problem,
or heartburn on what I re-posted? Just discuss it if you will, but
you shouldn't find any terrible burden of self-righteous indignation,
to deprive everyone else in such a discussion from debating such
issues.

> So Frank, something that the government was not even implicated in;
> something that was entirely between private entities, is relevant to us
> considering liberty how? There was not even a mention of someone calling
> the cops!

I guess, Bill, that was the point in the discussion, and an invitation
to discuss this in the first place, right? So why not just jump off
your bandwagon and do so without the pretentious? I didn't post it
out of thin air. It was a press release, and was grounds for
discussion, that's it. And were liberation issues involved?, certainly
they were!

> So one private group disrespected the rights of another, and did not get
> the government to aid them, and the injured party has -as of yet- not
> involved the government. This relates how, EXACTLY?

So, why didn't YOU make this the centre of discussion, instead of
ranting about why it is being discussed at all? Don't you believe this
is worthy of discussion on a libertarian list? I don't know, I would
like to support you if you care to really dialogue on what your beef
is.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Klan Cards Found in Wal-Mart Goods
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 09:37:10 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

bill@libc.org wrote in part:

>So Frank, something that the government was not even implicated in;
>something that was entirely between private entities, is relevant
>to us considering liberty how? There was not even a mention of
>someone calling the cops!

>So one private group disrespected the rights of another, and did
>not get the government to aid them, and the injured party has -as
>of yet- not involved the government. This relates how, EXACTLY?
>So stories about two or more private entities disrespecting each
>other is on topic???
>--
Does it have to always be about gov't? You mean crime doesn't affect
liberty?! Societal trends don't affect liberty?!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Klan Cards Found in Wal-Mart Goods
Date: 31 Aug 2002 12:18:03 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2002-08-31 at 07:30, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> I previously wrote:
> > > If you have to ask, then you are probably out of touch on various
> > > issues that this article alluded to.
>
> And, you replied:
> > No, Frank, you are out of touch with reality if you think forwarding a
> > routine news item and saying "interesting" is an obvious explanation of
> > point.
>
> Routine news? Isn't "routine" news just about all we get these days?

is this a news list, or a discussion list? If it is a news list, just
say so and I'll drop this list. I have plenty of news sources in my
life, and don't need yet another one.

> "Routine News" about the impending US military aggression against
> Iraq? Do you have any idea at all about the consequences for
> "liberty" that ordinary, "routine" news usually brings these days?
> Perhaps not. What I posted, I have no reason to retract because you
> can't find one single way of discussing liberty issues within that
> context.

Apparently, neither can you.

> > Maybe because it was all occurring between private individuals/entities?
>
> Well then, why didn't you just say so? Let's take this a step or two
> further. What about the government's intervention on private choices,
> to smoke cigarettes or drink alcoholic beverages? What would you say
> if you walked into K-Mart or any other retail outlet and found the
> radical right's self-righteous literature embedded on your next
> six-pack?

Frank, a simple question;
What government involvement was noted in the piece you forwarded? None.
nobody even called the government. if oyu want to bitch about your
cigarettes again, do so, don't hide behind wholly unrelated stories.

>
> You miss the whole point, Bill. I often post rather routine news
> clips, and often from the same source, with a further source of AFP or
> AP reporting on "routine" events currently taking place, as was the
> case here. It is "routine" everyday, or our otherwise "routine"
> liberties to be taken away, and in this instance at least, I question
> your judgement for allowing such to continue. Maybe that's the
> problem, everything these days seems to be rather "routine".

Answer this simple question:
In the article you posted, what *specific* rights/liberties were taken
away, and by whom?

>
> I receive a lot of news from various sources every day. I only choose
> to re-post on Liberty Northwest for what for me, at least are relevant
> to liberty issues. And this one was a giant invitation to discuss the
> issues at hand. It involves very much, touching upon what we have been
> discussing here for more than a decade for crying out loud.

Such as what topic *exactly*?

>
> What if this topic in question was centred around the 'war on drugs'?

Then it would be a topic where the government was using force to push
the views of some on tot he views of others; a clear topicality is seen.
In the post you made, no reference to force was even mentioned, nor was
the government, nor the removal of liberties or rights. A violation of
one or more entity's rights by another is not the same thing.

> Think about it. You probably wouldn't have objected at all, now would
> you? But because this message involve a rather minority group, such as
> the KKK, and had everything to do with property rights, you deduced to
> take it all on as a "non-issue". Yes, let me explain some of this to
> you. The KKK is probably the most detested minority group in America
> today. BUT, do they have rights? K-Mart, and other retailers own
> their own property -- do they have rightful ownership over what they
> sell, and does any special interest group have a rights to tamper with
> their own property? All of this is legitimate discussion on ANY

Does anybody here think what the KKK did was right, or within their
rights? Does it matter that it was the KKK? A minority does not gain the
right to violate others' rights because they are a minority, what
exactly is your point, Frank?

> libertarian forum, including Liberty Northwest. What is YOUR problem,
> or heartburn on what I re-posted? Just discuss it if you will, but
> you shouldn't find any terrible burden of self-righteous indignation,
> to deprive everyone else in such a discussion from debating such
> issues.

I questioned the topicality of it, and you jump to censorship. Seems you
are the one having a hard time discussing it. Oh, wait, it makes sense,
I disagree with you again, so I must be somehow wrong.

>
> > So Frank, something that the government was not even implicated in;
> > something that was entirely between private entities, is relevant to us
> > considering liberty how? There was not even a mention of someone calling
> > the cops!
>
> I guess, Bill, that was the point in the discussion, and an invitation
> to discuss this in the first place, right? So why not just jump off
> your bandwagon and do so without the pretentious? I didn't post it
> out of thin air. It was a press release, and was grounds for
> discussion, that's it. And were liberation issues involved?, certainly
> they were!

What was being liberated? What threads preceded it that pertained to it?
if you can not find them, then yes, Frank for better or worse, it was
out of thin air. I've looked, and the only threads I can see are about
government. This one was not.

> > So one private group disrespected the rights of another, and did not get
> > the government to aid them, and the injured party has -as of yet- not
> > involved the government. This relates how, EXACTLY?
>
> So, why didn't YOU make this the centre of discussion, instead of
> ranting about why it is being discussed at all? Don't you believe this

I didn't rant, I questioned. Oh, wait to you that is the same.

> is worthy of discussion on a libertarian list? I don't know, I would
> like to support you if you care to really dialogue on what your beef
> is.

I have specifically given my questions, and you repeatedly ignore them.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Klan Cards Found in Wal-Mart Goods
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 22:57:31 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Bill wrote in part:

>What government involvement was noted in the piece you forwarded?
>None.

So? Why does that make it off topic?

>Answer this simple question:

>In the article you posted, what *specific* rights/liberties were
>taken away, and by whom?

Maybe the reason it was posted is that it's NOT a simple question to answer.
When somebody puts leaflets in books in a bookstore -- an advertising method
that's been done for decades -- maybe that should be considered trespassing.

>> What if this topic in question was centred around the 'war on
>>drugs'?

>Then it would be a topic where the government was using force to
>push the views of some on tot he views of others; a clear
>topicality is seen. In the post you made, no reference to force was
>even mentioned, nor was the government, nor the removal of
>liberties or rights.

It may have been a violation of somebody's property rights.

>A violation of one or more entity's rights by
>another is not the same thing.

Of course it's not EXACTLY the same thing -- few things are exactly the same
-- but I don't see why it's not grist for the mill.

>Does anybody here think what the KKK did was right, or within their
>rights?

I'm not sure. Did the bookstore SAY "no inserting leaflets in the books"?
Should that be assumed? If so, why? Why should that be assumed any more
than "no talking on the premises about the books" or simply "no talking"?

>Does it matter that it was the KKK?

It might, but not for the reasons you raise above. It's interesting news
what the KKK is doing, because that can affect social thinking which in turn
can affect individual liberty. People post all the time in libertarian
discussion forums about items that concern climate of opinion that can
indirectly affect freedom. So, for instance, if some organization is using
a new medium or message to publicize the danger of narcotics, that is often
a topic of discussion because attitudes re drug safety will affect attitudes
toward drug laws.

The issue of leaflets in books (or newspapers or magazines, whether in
bookstores, libraries, or vending machines) on topic for activists for the
additional reason that it illustrates a means of activism.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Klan Cards Found in Wal-Mart Goods
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 19:37:16 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Bill Anderson...

Bill Anderson wrote:
> >In the article you posted, what *specific* rights/liberties were
> >taken away, and by whom?

You replied:
> Maybe the reason it was posted is that it's NOT a simple question to
answer.
> When somebody puts leaflets in books in a bookstore -- an advertising
method
> that's been done for decades -- maybe that should be considered
trespassing.

I pointed out three or four other areas in which several libertarian
matters were raised by the article. Without going back to look, I
believe those areas were: (1) The owners of the books in question (in
this case stockholders) had their products tampered with, or violated;
(2) the freedom of minority groups to publish their material; (3) the
freedom of religious, political and social beliefs; and I believe (4)
the right to self defence against such aggression, in this case again
by the owners, including manager etc.

I suspect we could also add to that list, "trespass", although that
case might be harder to defend, since the books were in a public
store, and the store encouraged people to pick them up and check them
out, hoping customers would buy the products. But on the other hand,
you're probably right, since this was a premeditated attempt to alter
the product and insert the literature as a means of circulating such
material at the store owner's expense. We could also in this case
talk about "theft", with criminal intent. The store owners weren't
consulted, and did not agree to circulate the Klan's material. The
store could also suffer damages, when individuals buying such books
believe that the store was supporting a radical racist agenda.
Customers might not return to buy other books at a later date. The
store could have been boycotted, and the public reputation of the
store blacklisted.

So, yes, this article was loaded with just about everything
libertarians discuss on Liberty Northwest every day. Unfortunately,
the posted article did not get into any legal action that the store
may have taken to seek redress. If it were MY store, I would have
certainly sought legal action by calling the police and filing
charges.

But on some of the other obvious issues, I would have to admit and
support the Klan's right to exercise free speech and press in
promulgating such filth. But it is not up to private individuals, e.g.
store owners, store managers, etc., to help distribute it, or even
such as the case here, fund such distribution! If I remember
correctly, I believe this was a WalMart store. And, if that is the
case, then the average person would probably conclude that members of
the Klan were responsible for infiltrating the material into the
store's books without the company actually sanctioning or giving
approval to do so. However, that would likely NOT be the case of a
small town privately owned (non-corporate) bookstore, where the
owner's political orientation might not be well known.

> It may have been a violation of somebody's property rights.

It was, but again the "trespass" thing is more difficult to prove,
since the books were technically open to the public to pick up,
examine, even perhaps read the table of contents etc. There are other
matters of aggression that occurred here that might be more easy to
prove, such as theft, in illegally using the store to fund the
circulation of the printed material in which the store was neither
consulted, nor did it give contractual approval to circulate Klan
material. Then there could easily be the monetary loss which might
result from the store getting a bad public reputation by its "former"
customers who won't shop there anymore.

The real underlying reason why this article does concern libertarians,
is that the act was aggression. In this case certainly not government
aggression, but even here this presents something along the line of
argument at least for libertarians, since some around here don't
believe government should exist at all to defend against such
aggression.

Bill Anderson wrote:
> >Does anybody here think what the KKK did was right, or within their
> >rights?

You replied:
> I'm not sure. Did the bookstore SAY "no inserting leaflets in the books"?
> Should that be assumed? If so, why? Why should that be assumed any more
> than "no talking on the premises about the books" or simply "no talking"?

I think you just raised a great point here. Retailers usually do not
want to put up antagonistic signs that might turn off potential
customers. But that doesn't mean that no aggression has taken place.
In this case, the Klan was using the store as a vehicle to fund the
circulation of the Klan's material, and obviously this was without the
contractual agreement of the store's owner, or management personnel.
Since the Klan didn't purchase the books the material was inserted
into, the Klan did commit aggression by tampering and violating the
store's products.

Bill Anderson wrote:
> >Does it matter that it was the KKK?

You replied:
> It might, but not for the reasons you raise above. It's interesting news
> what the KKK is doing, because that can affect social thinking which in
turn
> can affect individual liberty. People post all the time in libertarian
> discussion forums about items that concern climate of opinion that can
> indirectly affect freedom. So, for instance, if some organization is
using
> a new medium or message to publicize the danger of narcotics, that is
often
> a topic of discussion because attitudes re drug safety will affect
attitudes
> toward drug laws.

That's exactly the point here. The owners of the store certainly did
not want to contribute to creating such a climate as the KKK has in
mind. Probably from genuine moral conviction, but also not to alarm
their customers or create a false illusion that the owners, or the
store was promoting and funding the Klan's agenda! I know that I
would be outraged if my resources were being used to promote an agenda
that I detested, and particularly if my business suffered irreparable
damage as a result of such aggression.

I am not arguing at all that the Klan does not have the right to
freely print whatever material they wish, or disseminate it. Which
means that Klan's members would be required to either fund the
publication and the means for distribution, or else freely take the
initiative to get others to do so on their behalf. If this store had
such a contractual agreement with the Klan, then I might have seen
this as a non-libertarian issue pretty much. Not entirely of course,
since there are still issues of freedom of religion, the press, and so
forth. But insofar as the store was concerned, if such an agreement
existed, then the store would also be within the rights in doing so.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Liberty Northwest Policies & Guidelines
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 15:56:50 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

=========================================================
L I B E R T Y N O R T H W E S T C O N F E R E N C E
A N D N E W S G R O U P

A Fidonet Backbone Echo

FidoNet 1:346/16 -*- Bonners Ferry, Idaho
Email subscriber list: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

E-MAIL - moderator@liberty-northwest.org
=========================================================

MODIFIED AND UPDATED: 13th, July 2002

Liberty Northwest is a moderated Fidonet Backbone echo. Fidonet
Policy applies. The Fidonet TAG is LIB_NW. Fidonet policy is
Contained in the current edition of Policy 4 of the Fidonet
standards. A copy of such Policy will be provided upon request.
In cases of conflict between policy rules for Liberty Northwest
and Fidonet standards, Fidonet Policy hereby supersedes such
policies as contained herein.

PURPOSE: Liberty Northwest Conference and Newsgroup is a discussion
Conference dedicated to promoting various discussions of political,
economic, and social issues in the overall context and perspective of
Libertarian idealism. The overall hope is to promote and discuss
"free choice" as the best and most viable alternative to coerced
or forced solutions and choices made by others for us, and embodied
in the so-called "statist" government "solutions" most prevalent
in the mentality and political reference as institutionalised today.

Therefore, we believe that the best solutions are the free choices
that individuals make for themselves, their families and their own
privately owned property. We believe that individuals have the
unalienable right to not only make their own personal choices for
themselves, but that they have the responsibility for the consequences
of such choices once made.

PARTICIPATION: Bringing people together to discuss these issues is the
goal and objective. However, we are also a genuine Newsgroup, receiving
news and press releases from the national Libertarian Party of the
U.S. and other organisations that are most consistent with these goals.

Although we are a Libertarian-oriented conference, we welcome all
participants. However the topic is "libertarianism" and the Moderator
reserves the right to limit and restrict discussions that fail to
meet this criteria. The Moderator will at all times set overall
policy. Participants disagreeing with the Moderator are directed
to submit such disagreements to the Moderator via NETMAIL, or
private email, not publicly on the Liberty Northwest Conference
and Newsgroup.

Generally, all political, economic and social issues are on-topic.
Therefore a variety of perspectives and philosophy are expected and
encouraged. However, all participants are expected to communicate
in an adult and responsible fashion. Flame throwing is discouraged,
as are personal attacks against the character of others participating
regardless of they're political beliefs! In other words, the Golden
Rule applies here. Respect others as you would wish them to respect
you!

This does NOT mean you necessarily have to respect their beliefs --
you may feel free to debate any issue as you see fit and appropriate.
In doing that however, it is important to remember: you are not
looking into the faces of those you choose to communicate with here.
Some personalities take a while to get to know and appreciate.

The restrictions here are intended to be minimal. Here are a few of
The obvious that are considered necessary:

1. Posting of messages: Communication should be personal communication
between you and other participants on the Conference itself, not
a conversation you are entertaining on another forum or platform
elsewhere. News releases and personal essays are considered within
the above mentioned scope, if the intent is to engender communication
or begin a thread or discussion.

2. Crossposting of messages between members of other conferences are
strictly prohibited unless a clear unbroken dialogue between LIB_NW
participants can be established within the Conference itself.
If it cannot, then it has no place or purpose on LIB_NW. Endless
or voluminous cross posting of material is NOT permitted and is
considered grossly disrespectful to others! It serves no purpose
for personal dialogue and is irritating to almost everyone who has to
download such unwarranted material, most often at personal expense
off a commercial news or mail server.

2. Resource Information: Participants are free to post (sparingly)
resource information to include Conservative, Libertarian and
Constitutionalist meetings, group discussions, and other pertinent
information that back up and supplement ongoing discussion topics on
the Conference. Multiple posting of lengthy and fragmented information
is prohibited without Moderator approval in advance.

3. Human dignity. Regardless of perspective, philosophy or ideology,
all persons deserve the dignity and respect that you feel is due
yourself. Anyone expressing racial, ethnic, religious or slurs or
comments should be ignored, and if done deliberately and with malice,
will not be tolerated. Proselytising and other "salesmanlike" behaviour
will not be tolerated. Matters and concerns of a religious nature are
welcome, but preaching sermons and attempting to entice others to
accept your particular religious views go beyond the purpose of this
Conference.

4. Political restraints: None. All perspectives are invited.

5. Grievances and protocol. If any participant feels personally
offended by another participant on the conference, a private NETMAIL
message to the Moderator would normally be in order if the two
parties in question cannot otherwise resolve a particular
conflict. If subject matter is a source of conflict, then the
offended party should normally post the alleged offence directly to
the Conference itself and not the Moderator, since the input of
others concerning the subject would be pertinent to resolving the
issue.

6. In order to keep the rules and standards of the echo at a bare
minimum, participants are asked to contribute as responsible adults.
The above rules and standards are subject to change at any time
when it becomes necessary to do so.

Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup
---

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Foriegn policy == More than 6 million people behind bars or on
probation or parole
Date: 31 Aug 2002 11:41:59 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2002-08-31 at 08:03, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> I previously wrote:
> > > Again, that doesn't tell the whole story, now does it? What percentage
>
> You replied:
> > Did I say it did? No, I did not. I didn't post a single number to the
> > list and use it to slam "fascism". I posted the rest of what MoM (and
> > you) left out.
>
> Oh! really? So can I at least speculate that YOU support the current
> fascist government in place?

You can build your strawmen however you want to. That doesn't make them
any more valid than your other strawmen. Nor does it make it any more
valid than the last time you tried this crap. Do we have to go back to
last fall, when you were supporting the very things that you complain
about now, and the rest of us were pointing this out to you, and you
"justified" it by saying it was only temporary, and we kept telling you
that it wasn't?

Facts are, Frank, that less than one percent of this country is
represented by your statistic, and you submit that that is evidence of
fascism. Therefore, if I were to use your "reasoning", I wold have to
say that you believe that any amount of incarceration/parole/probation
is also fascism. At which point your cries over it are worthless, since
even a privately run criminal justice system would have people in that
category.

> You have to find a way to take sides
> Bill. Problem is, if your solutions involve government solutions, it
> will be between fascism and socialism. Do you really believe
> "government" is going to GIVE YOU individual choices to make?

More strawmen. This is a classic Frank Reichert Straw man. if you
disagree with Franks assertions regarding government, or Bush, or
anything else for that matter, you must be a fascist. If you disagree
with Frank the Omniscient's rantings, you must support the government.
Funny how you bitch about Bush saying "either you are with us, or you
are against us", and then proceed to do that to everyone yourself.
Either you agree with Frank, or you agree with Bush. Frank's way or the
fascist/government/bush/gestapo way. How droll.

Either provide evidence that I believe as you say, of STFU and admit
your strawman.

>
> > Guess I'll have to repeat it. MoM whined about some "racial disparity"
> > by pointing out that blacks are more often incarcerated, and whites are
> > more often put on probation. I questioned the point in that
>
> I suspect that YOU do.

Why suspect, I SAID so? Can't you read Frank? I always question things,
rather than just accepting things put forth without foundation, or
explanation. What is wrong with questioning things, or should we all
just accept whatever you spew forth? Not very libertarian of you, to
suggest that questioning things is wrong.

> Unfortunately at least, these statistics don't
> lie. MoM doesn't whine, at least not usually. You see, I know

So they don't lie? Tell me Frank, what EXACTLY to the "prove", and what
does it mean? Why single out race? I have the data right here, and guess
what, men are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice
system compared to women. In fact, of the roughly 2.1 million violent
female offenders each year, nearly three in four are set free. No
probation, no parole, nothing. Was that in the article? Nope. Why,
Frank? Maybe because it doesn't bait people the way saying blacks are in
jail more than whites does? Race baiting is race baiting, whatever your
cause.

> personally MoM. They are individuals that question the fascist nature
> of the US government, as I do. I know the Trochmann family, do you?
> Have you spent any time at all at lunch, getting together with members
> of the militia movement? I've spent years getting to know what they
> are all about, what the believe, and what they objectives are. So, why
> do you believe that YOU are an authority to speak on their behalf when

Did I claim to be? Nope, my name is Bill Anderson, I don't do as Frank
Reichert.

> you obviously don't have a single clue? And, if you want to know the
> whole truth, MoM obviously didn't even write the article you complain
> about so profusely. It likely originated entirely from AFP, or AP,
> Routers, and another source of more so-called acceptable public
> information.

Both you and MoM forwarded it along without any comment, implicitly
giving it their support. They could have pointed out the race-baiting,
they could have pointed out the inaccuracy, and the incompleteness of
the article, but they did not, nor did you. You both could have said
"look the rates are decreasing", but instead you chose the opposite
angle, doom and gloom despite the facts. That was your choice, as it as
theirs. You gave an implicit approval of the shoddy, baiting work. There
was no "I don;t agree with all of this" or anything that implied any
disapproval or disagreement from you, or MoM. Something that is
historically present when there is either disapproval or disagreement

> > what the difference in crimes, if any, there was between those being
> > put on probation, and those incarcerated. I then went to look, presuming
> > (base don history) that neither you, nor the authors would answer the
> > question, went to find out for myself.
>
> I won't speak from the author's point of view. I will say absolutely
> that most everyone today, in the subsequent aftermath of the 9/11
> world in America, is endorsing and advocating a giant of a police
> state. Look at that stats. That, my friend, doesn't come from me! It
> most usually comes from public domain news sources around the planet.

Sigh, another inability to answer the question. We are talking about
probation vs. incarceration, not flying planes into buildings.

>
> It is my firm intention here to say only this. We, as a party, cannot
> claim any affiliation at all with US foreign policy over the last

FORIEGN POLICY?!?!?!
Geezus, Frank you do stray and wander an awful lot! You posted a single
statistic about the criminal justice statistic, compared it to other
nations, and your intention is to talk about the LP and FOREIGN POLICY!?
No wonder nobody gets your point, Frank, it is so convoluted as to defy
words!

> several 50 decades or so. Probably more than that. Most of our
> current problems are a result of our own making. We have no
> legitimate moral right to attack any sovereign government on the face
> of the earth to attain polemical goals or objectives.

And putting murderers and rapists, and other criminals in prison is
related EXACTLY how to attacking other governments?!?!

>
> If YOU want to try and pretend to support the current regime in power,
> then that is your choice. Sorry, I can't and wont' do that. I think
> Bill, two things. You have missed the point entirely, or you just
> don't want to talk about what really justifies support for liberty.

Frank, take a poll. Ask how many people, based on your original post,
got the point that you were bitching about attacking other governments,
and U.S. Foreign Policy. I'll bet not a single subscriber made that
illogical leap.

There you have it folks, Frank posting about 6.6 million people in the
United States being involved with the correctional system in the U.S. is
a post about U.S. Foreign policy.

I notice you completely ignored the part where your "belief" was shown
to be false regarding the age of the population in prison, or that your
assertion that it is getting worse was also shown false. I note that you
continue to ignore data that shows your coveted fascist ways are
decreasing. I posted data that clearly showed that the rate of
incarceration of non-violent offenders is decreasing (and that the rate
of incarceration is decreasing), that the rate of growth of persons in
prison, and under correctional supervision is decreasing, has been for
years and has reached it's lowest point in about a decade or so, and you
remove it and call it irrelevant.

Oh but wait, I guess since this was about the LP vs. U.S. Foreign
policy, it MUST have been. Then again, so was everything you posted.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: anarchy or chaos -
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 20:48:32 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
CC: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Phyllis, everyone!

This is very topical, at least for some of us, as Larry and I have
had, what I would consider, a very productive discussion about this
over on Liberty Northwest.

I've had many discussions with "true anarchists", or should I say
"true believers" in this doctrine back in the days when libernet-d,
one of the early internet discussion groups, was still around and
active, more than a decade ago now.

I was therefore happy to see that Larry brought the matter up here on
Idaho_Libs. Larry and I discussed this in rather stark detail for well
over a week or two, and it was certainly a time for both of us to go
back into the very core of our beliefs. I will not at this point
concede that Larry convinced me that I am a "closet anarchist", but I
think some of what we finally agreed to is relevant, since I still
believe that there is a necessary place for government in some remote
degree, particularly in terms of national defence.

In the end, I wrote that only two operative definitions were really
important: "voluntary association and contribution", and "no coercion
or force on the part of government", which in this case would also
include "no government-controlled monopolies in services".

So without further ado, and in keeping with the above...

Phyllis wrote to everyone...

> I agree with Larry that, among libertarians, use of the
> word "anarchy" in the commonly-used sense of "chaos" can be
> deemed an insult by true anarchists. I believe Larry has
> done a great job of pointing this out. But I think most of
> us understood that Ted did not mean to insult anyone. (At
> least this anarchist did not take offense.)

I also want to thank Michelle Eilers for making an outstanding
contribution, on Liberty Northwest, in really exploring what some
libertarians who believe in anarchy, really mean. Individual choice,
and voluntary association and participation is NOT synonymous with
"chaos". What is does breed is nothing more than an environmental
climate for a lot more alternatives, and a lot more choices!

The notion that government can provide "order" or "non-chaos" is also
misleading, and it is instructive to note what is currently taking
place in our current misguided and insane US foreign policy for
starters, to demonstrate that global chaos reigns supreme. You can
also throw into this equation the chaos that is currently resulting in
the US and world economies as evidence that government interference,
whether that be in the form of monetary policies, controlled and
regulated world trade, and regulation and licensing of monopolies have
been the major factors leading up to mass confusion (chaos) in stock
markets around the planet.

Am I suggesting then that government should cease and desist building
roads and highways, providing police protection, or providing
retirement or medical care "insurance" schemes? Not necessarily.

There are several things that really need to be considered in
discussing any of this from a libertarian perspective, whether you are
a market anarchist, or whether you might allow for some form of
government to exist. In any case it comes down to really two
categories (from a libertarian point of view): (1) the right to
initiate force, whether that comes in the form of coercion, or
ultimately brute lethal force at the point of a gun; and (2) the right
of each individual to make their own personal choices, decisions, and
associations. Let's take them in that order, and this is from MY point
of view, and I will not pretend to represent Larry, Phyllis, Michelle
and others who may disagree with some of my assessments. My view
recognizes that some form of "government" is allowed, maybe necessary,
to exist.

1. The "Initiation" of force.

a. Who is going to pay for such things, e.g.: police protection, roads
and highways, medical or retirement insurance, education, and the list
goes on? The answer to that from a libertarian point of view is that
it should be entirely voluntary. That is, each individual could make
free and un-coersed choices without duress, and without being forced
to fund, and then use, anything that the government, or any other
party, provides as a service. Obviously, in just about all cases, the
COST of government in providing such services would be too high, and
with less effect than various private sector alternatives -- they
would simply wither away, get smaller, and in some cases finally
disappear entirely.

b. Taxation would be replaced entirely by voluntary user fees (except
maybe, perhaps in the area of national defence. I'm still out on this
one, and unconvinced that any model has been perfected that can
address this issue). The government should have no power to force
taxation, but rather revenue would be collected by voluntary user
fees, and the services (by government) rendered according to cost and
voluntary remuneration at free-market rates.

There are some real issues here. We have to address them also.

First, those NOT paying user fees for government services, would not
be allowed any benefits or services provided. If a rapist enters your
home and looking lustfully at your wife and daughters, you can't just
call 911. You take care of the matter yourself, or else call "HiJack
Security Services, Ltd" or whatever private provider you have freely
and voluntarily chosen to help defend you.

Second, you can't use any of the government's roads or highways unless
you pay the appropriate user fees. You will rely entirely on other
arrangements that you have made with other private-sector
alternatives.

Third, you have no recourse to claim benefits from any of the
government social networks, such as social security, medicare or other
social benefits in which you have never contributed. I know this gets
dicey, since we have ALL been forced to pay into such schemes for a
great number of years, perhaps our entire lifetimes in many cases.
This is one area I believe we would have to take a pragmatic look at
what has come to be known as "grandfathering". That too is a huge
problem. Particularly when individuals claim they will not give one
dime of their money to support those grandfathered in! Is there any
possibility for compromise? I'm not so sure there is. I can hear
Larry's heels digging into the pavement, as I speak here, just for
starters. [Remember what I just wrote above: no coercion, and no
initiation of force!]

Now, let us move on to the other half.

2. The inalienable right of making free choices.

First, every individual does have an inalienable right to choose
whatever product, service or social structure in which they choose to
live, exist, raise their families and provide for their private
property.

Second. No initiation of force by government, or any other private
party, should interfere with such choices, freely made, unless such a
choice constitutes aggression against another individual, another
party, or another association in which various individuals hold a free
interest. I know. This implies a lot of things, including ultimately
national defence. I only bring this up because the entire "house of
cards" collapse if Saddam Hussein comes knocking at our door, and if
we DO NOT have a superior central military response to respond to such
aggression. The "Libertarian World" as a utopian pipe dream comes
crashing down, and the result is even far less liberty, and a complete
subjugation of free choice for any time in the foreseeable future!
So, in my judgement, a strong and highly funded military, national
borders, and a tightly controlled immigration policy still requires
the function of a central government, all of which I believe is not
only necessary, but critical to any civilization!

Third. All such contracts are effectual and entirely binding. You are
required to pay for whatever government or private contracts you have
made, if any, and the contractor is entirely obligated to deliver the
services that you have paid for. Again, the fact is, almost every
Libertarian has already paid for a measure of such services, such as
medical and retirement insurance. The question then becomes, who will
be paying for such benefits? All of this breaks down if we cannot
find a way to answer this question. What about military retirement?
We demand a strong defence against external aggression, and in that
way, we have usually been rather consistent in determining that to
enlist or hire that protection has been necessary to guarantee certain
benefits for those who served and performed in such a capacity! This
plays itself out across a huge playing field. YOU believe you have
paid a great price for these benefits already, to Social Security, to
Medicare, in your tenure in the US military. Now, under a libertarian
government, how will you collect? And how will YOU fund it? Are YOU
required to fund it at all? The answer for Libertarians would likely
be "NO!". We are not required to pay for anyone's benefits, regardless
of what had been wrongfully accumulated from involuntary and coerced
extortion previously.

And, that folks, is our huge dilemma here! I believe that government
ought to have a play in this, and that government, in some form, is
necessarily vital to the survival of liberty itself. National defence
comes to mind at the top of the burner. Private individuals cannot
defeat Saddam Hussein's desire to send tremendous force and subject
you to give your forced allegiance to islamic rule, or his
dictatorship.

At any rate, liberty cannot really exist at all without a carefully
defined and limited government with the power, and limitation, to
defend liberty, and against those who seek to take liberty away from
us. This current government isn't doing that very well. In fact, it
is quickly becoming our worst enemy, at least in terms of free
individual choices that we are "allowed" to make for ourselves.

So, this is our ballpark right now. The Libertarian Party must never
concede anything to government, that is, in terms of initiating force
against its own citizens, whatever form that takes. It isn't
impossible either to gain liberty, other nations have done that. And
we are all living in the time that we have seen that happen. It
happened across eastern Europe. It happened throughout the Soviet
Union's empire, and it even happened in New Zealand, after decades of
socialist government, the people simply said NO. It all evaporated
almost overnight. Why does it take a dictator to make such things
happen? I'm talking about the rise of Pinochet in Chile, and who
overthrew the marxist Allende in a military coup. He was the one who
dismantled Chile's national Social Security scam and privatized it!
It's worked so well since, that no one in Chile, even today, cares to
even discuss re-nationalizing it!

Is that what it might take in America today! Dictatorship. God, I
hope not, but things work well when real people have real choices.
We, as libertarians, should never fall in love with democracy.
Sometimes, even dictators, make better decisions favouring a more
libertarian agenda. I'm certainly not condoning dictatorships either,
such pointing out that liberty does not necessary depend on the the
form that any particular government takes. Liberty only exists when
government recognizes, supports and will defend such inalienable
rights. In the absence of such a defence, any such government, rights
are suppressed and denied.

As I've written on several occasions, Americans today have a
tremendous difficulty in even defining what liberty is anymore these
days. We have been indoctrinated to believe we are the freest nation
on the face of the earth. A lot of professing libertarians today
still believe in such fiction. America is NOT the freest nation on
the face of the earth, and far, far from it!

It is much more productive that we spend all of our productive time
talking about real liberty issues. We shouldn't become obsessed in
talking about the absence of government, since government will always
exist in some form. It is utopian to even suggest that we talk about
the absence of all government, and even that isn't going to work or
effect liberty. In the absence of all government it could deprive us
of any liberty whatsoever. We need to concentrate here on who is in
power, and who is really the "government" that controls our choices.

There is a legitimate case for liberty. We must stay focused on
that. Democracy isn't about to bring anyone any liberty. Real
government, regardless of what it calls itself, isn't about
democracy. That government is very limited in its use of force. It
cannot, first, initiate force against its own citizens. Second, it
cannot initiate force against any other sovereign government either on
how such a government conducts its own affairs. Third, that government
has the power to protect your own inalienable right to make your free
choices, to protect you against external aggression. Nothing more.
Nothing less.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: anarchy or chaos -
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 09:28:58 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

FRank wrote in very small part:

>America is NOT the freest
>nation on the face of the earth, and far, far from it!

Which nations are more so, and how?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: anarchy or chaos -
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 10:42:19 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> >America is NOT the freest
> >nation on the face of the earth, and far, far from it!

You replied:
> Which nations are more so, and how?

I couldn't begin to name them all, of course. However, in terms of
social and economic freedom, any government that has substantially,
per capita, far less government than the US does, likely also has less
restrictions on what people are "allowed" to do. At least in terms of
enforcement, that is enforcing laws that may exist with only small,
perhaps inefficient, or corrupt police agencies. Certainly the
Philippines is one of those. Hong Kong prior to the end of British
rule, had a lot more economic freedom than the US has had for
decades. The Cayman Islands certainly has a lot more economic
freedom, as does scores of other such nations which have less
restrictions on banking, movement of capital, and a respect for
private business practices.

To incorporate a new corporation in Anguilla today, all you need is a
$250.00 filing fee, and pay annually about $150.00, and even the
directors and stockholders of such a corporation is not a matter for
public disclosure. You don't even have to reside there. The
corporation can open its own bank accounts, do business globally, and
not be required to even report or file any income tax return to any
government, at least under Anguillan law. If you are a US citizen,
obviously the US government WOULD want to know what you are doing in
Anguilla, and I guess that's my point.

Try doing that in the US. Try avoiding such things as employee pension
sharing laws, or unemployment compensation arrangements, not to
mention failing to file your tax papers, and you'd certainly be
prosecuted, fined, and maybe landed in the slammer for tax evasion,
and your "corporation" would likely have its assets frozen or
confiscated by your "free" government.

To really make any case that the US is more free than everyone else,
you would have to demonstrate that individuals, and businesses, have
more economic and social freedom in America than the would anywhere
else. I see no evidence, that the most regulation nation on earth,
can be called "free". What are you free to do in the US, that you can
show you would be less free under another sovereignty?

Am I free to buy a pack of Winston cigarettes here in the Philippines
for 35 cents, and then show up in the US and do that same thing? Not
likely. As I did while residing in San Diego, I would have to drive a
few miles south, across the border into Mexico and buy the smokes
without the high tax rates. Ibid, same with beer and other alcoholic
beverages.

About the ONLY thing I can think of these days that might be
considered still free in America is the insanity of the rhetoric from
politicians, the media, and other opinion spin doctors that tell us
everyday that we are a free nation! How they can be free to tell us
such things is of course a giant fraud. Nevertheless obviously they
have been very effective, as only a small percentage of Americans
today believe they are NOT free. The rest seem to parrot the fiction
that America is the freest nation on earth!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: anarchy or chaos -
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 23:09:35 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in part:

>> >America is NOT the freest
>> >nation on the face of the earth, and far, far from it!

>You replied:

>> Which nations are more so, and how?

>I couldn't begin to name them all, of course. However, in terms of
>social and economic freedom, any government that has substantially,
>per capita, far less government than the US does, likely also has
>less restrictions on what people are "allowed" to do. At least in
>terms of enforcement, that is enforcing laws that may exist with
>only small, perhaps inefficient, or corrupt police agencies.
>Certainly the Philippines is one of those.

Sounds like in the Phillippines one is "allowed" to be a criminal. I'm not
sure that makes for greater freedom for the average person!

>Hong Kong prior to the
>end of British rule, had a lot more economic freedom than the US
>has had for decades.

I meant now.

>The Cayman Islands certainly has a lot more
>economic freedom, as does scores of other such nations which have
>less restrictions on banking, movement of capital, and a respect for
>private business practices.

I meant someplace people actually live, not just a shell of a country that
exists only to take advantage of the relative restrictiveness of the whole
rest of the world.

>To incorporate a new corporation in Anguilla

Another tiny shell of a place.

>today, all you need is
>a $250.00 filing fee, and pay annually about $150.00, and even the
>directors and stockholders of such a corporation is not a matter for
>public disclosure. You don't even have to reside there.

Except for the disclosure part, one can do the same in most states of the
USA, and not even have to pay an annual fee.

>Try doing that in the US. Try avoiding such things as employee
>pension sharing laws, or unemployment compensation arrangements,
>not to mention failing to file your tax papers, and you'd certainly
>be prosecuted, fined, and maybe landed in the slammer for tax
>evasion, and your "corporation" would likely have its assets frozen
>or confiscated by your "free" government.

But at least the USA's level of taxation is less than most of the world's,
and its employment law is much freer. Most advanced countries (probably
most of the unadvanced ones too) have so many legal "benefits" for workers
for which employers are liable that it's very risky to hire people.

>What are you free to do in the US, that you
>can show you would be less free under another sovereignty?

Plenty! Most countries censor political speech. One hears about various
types of published material that are seized heading from the USA into
Canada, but never vice versa.

Many countries have various lines of business that one is forbidden to enter
into, because there are gov't-established monopolies therein. And even when
you can establish businesses, many countries require far more in the way of
permissions than does the USA. For instance, the USA now famously allows
one to own any number of broadcasting stations.

The USA has some of the laxest gun laws on Earth. It's in a very small
minority of countries that allow many people to have guns.

Unless you're a sex offender, in the USA you can live anywhere without
registering with the local authorities. Not so in most other countries.
It's also harder to become a legal resident of most other countries.

Many countries' systems of socialized medicine amount to rationing. Not so
in the USA.

>Am I free to buy a pack of Winston cigarettes here in the
>Philippines for 35 cents, and then show up in the US and do that
>same thing? Not likely.

But the USA is only catching up to other countries in tobacco regulation.
Other countries either entirely prohibit cigaret ads or restrict them to a
far greater degree than in the USA. And most countries tax gasoline much
more than the USA.

At least a great many countries have conscription. It doesn't seem they
need large military establishments, but it seems they think requiring
universal service is a good in itself. They'll MAKE you carry guns, but
they won't LET you carry guns!

There's even a fair number of countries, of which the USA is not one, that
limit the names you can have to a fixed list.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: anarchy or chaos -
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 03:04:45 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

frank, robert, group,

damn glad to read ya debating which country is the freest on earth under my
subjecline. truth is, given the choices, i don't care a real lot. the
choices are damn poor.

minarchists, market anarchists - we damn well gotta do better if humans are
to have hope.

larry

uhhh, frank, others, i'm damned far behind on e-mail. tonight i read and
responded to the latest, not necessarily the most important.

on 9/1/02 9:09 PM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

> Frank wrote in part:
>
>>>> America is NOT the freest
>>>> nation on the face of the earth, and far, far from it!
>
>> You replied:
>
>>> Which nations are more so, and how?
>
>> I couldn't begin to name them all, of course. However, in terms of
>> social and economic freedom, any government that has substantially,
>> per capita, far less government than the US does, likely also has
>> less restrictions on what people are "allowed" to do. At least in
>> terms of enforcement, that is enforcing laws that may exist with
>> only small, perhaps inefficient, or corrupt police agencies.
>> Certainly the Philippines is one of those.
>
> Sounds like in the Phillippines one is "allowed" to be a criminal. I'm
not
> sure that makes for greater freedom for the average person!
>
>> Hong Kong prior to the
>> end of British rule, had a lot more economic freedom than the US
>> has had for decades.
>
> I meant now.
>
>> The Cayman Islands certainly has a lot more
>> economic freedom, as does scores of other such nations which have
>> less restrictions on banking, movement of capital, and a respect for
>> private business practices.
>
> I meant someplace people actually live, not just a shell of a country that
> exists only to take advantage of the relative restrictiveness of the whole
> rest of the world.
>
>> To incorporate a new corporation in Anguilla
>
> Another tiny shell of a place.
>
>> today, all you need is
>> a $250.00 filing fee, and pay annually about $150.00, and even the
>> directors and stockholders of such a corporation is not a matter for
>> public disclosure. You don't even have to reside there.
>
> Except for the disclosure part, one can do the same in most states of the
> USA, and not even have to pay an annual fee.
>
>> Try doing that in the US. Try avoiding such things as employee
>> pension sharing laws, or unemployment compensation arrangements,
>> not to mention failing to file your tax papers, and you'd certainly
>> be prosecuted, fined, and maybe landed in the slammer for tax
>> evasion, and your "corporation" would likely have its assets frozen
>> or confiscated by your "free" government.
>
> But at least the USA's level of taxation is less than most of the world's,
> and its employment law is much freer. Most advanced countries (probably
> most of the unadvanced ones too) have so many legal "benefits" for workers
> for which employers are liable that it's very risky to hire people.
>
>> What are you free to do in the US, that you
>> can show you would be less free under another sovereignty?
>
> Plenty! Most countries censor political speech. One hears about various
> types of published material that are seized heading from the USA into
> Canada, but never vice versa.
>
> Many countries have various lines of business that one is forbidden to
enter
> into, because there are gov't-established monopolies therein. And even
when
> you can establish businesses, many countries require far more in the way
of
> permissions than does the USA. For instance, the USA now famously allows
> one to own any number of broadcasting stations.
>
> The USA has some of the laxest gun laws on Earth. It's in a very small
> minority of countries that allow many people to have guns.
>
> Unless you're a sex offender, in the USA you can live anywhere without
> registering with the local authorities. Not so in most other countries.
> It's also harder to become a legal resident of most other countries.
>
> Many countries' systems of socialized medicine amount to rationing. Not
so
> in the USA.
>
>> Am I free to buy a pack of Winston cigarettes here in the
>> Philippines for 35 cents, and then show up in the US and do that
>> same thing? Not likely.
>
> But the USA is only catching up to other countries in tobacco regulation.
> Other countries either entirely prohibit cigaret ads or restrict them to a
> far greater degree than in the USA. And most countries tax gasoline much
> more than the USA.
>
> At least a great many countries have conscription. It doesn't seem they
> need large military establishments, but it seems they think requiring
> universal service is a good in itself. They'll MAKE you carry guns, but
> they won't LET you carry guns!
>
> There's even a fair number of countries, of which the USA is not one, that
> limit the names you can have to a fixed list.
>
> In Your Sly Tribe,
> Robert
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: anarchy or chaos -
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 21:33:30 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> >Am I free to buy a pack of Winston cigarettes here in the
> >Philippines for 35 cents, and then show up in the US and do that
> >same thing? Not likely.

> But the USA is only catching up to other countries in tobacco regulation.
> Other countries either entirely prohibit cigaret ads or restrict them to a
> far greater degree than in the USA. And most countries tax gasoline much
> more than the USA.

Boy do you have THAT wrong.

What counties are you talking about, Canada?

You got to know that I've spent the last 30 years of my life living in
such places as Japan, the Philippines, and occasionally at home
somewhere under the jurisdiction of the US government. 30 years ago,
in Japan, the cost for a pack of US exported cigarettes was really
high. However... today, you can buy a pack of Winstons for around
$1.00 (US). That's exported, from the US, shit. The local stuff is
even much lower than that! And, Japan is the world's second largest
economy! What is the average cost of one pack of Winstons in the US
today? NOT IMPORTED? Local (national) grown variety and product?

> At least a great many countries have conscription. It doesn't seem they
> need large military establishments, but it seems they think requiring
> universal service is a good in itself. They'll MAKE you carry guns, but
> they won't LET you carry guns!

I do know this. YOU haven't lived very long outside of US
jurisdiction, and therefore you have NO clue as to how free you
believe you are relative to the rest of the planet. Sorry. It's true.
You are making sweeping comparisons not even knowing anything at all
about what freedoms may exist outside of that sacred domain you call
America. You want to talk about economic or social freedom? Really
great! I do too! Problem is you can't establish that such exists in
greater form outside of US jurisdiction now can you?

I do know that just three years ago I was physically booted out of a
San Diego Bar. Reason, I lite up a cigarette in the bar. I was told
by the manager, bar tender, to snuff out the light, or get the fuck
out! It's the law. Do I want to deal with such bull shit any longer.
Fuck NO! I've mentioned this a multitude of times, and I have no idea
why I should even take the time to say it any longer: in America we
exist under the most regulated society on earth! We have no choices.
There is no freedom of choice. If I had any freedoms to protect I
would be home right now. They're aren't any. There gone. We live
and exist under regulatory mandates. If you choose to disagree, you're
thrown in jail, fined, and your property may be confiscated. That's
America. Isn't America BEAUTIFUL!

I'm tired of listening to you tell me that life elsewhere is so
terrible. In reality it isn't at all. America is a living hell of
government regulation, and consequently the loss of both social and
economic choices. Tell me Canada is a real alternative? Canada isn't
the rest of the world either, now is it? I guess what I am saying is
that most of the world, at least in many respects, is far freer that
the examples you provide as an alternative. The examples you provide
aren't clear either. I only supposed Canada might be an example, and
that's why Canadians are lined up to come across the border to get
medical attention in US facilities. What does that tell me? That I
should be proud to be under subjugation by the US government? I don't
think that is even an option! It's not an option for me anyway.

> There's even a fair number of countries, of which the USA is not one, that
> limit the names you can have to a fixed list.

The question was, and still is, "Is the US government the freest
nation on the face of the earth?" There are other choices to make,
and the entire planet is full of such choices. No Robert. The US
government, and far from it, is not the freest nation on the face of
the earth!

Sorry, I have to disagree. I wish you were right, and things might be
different. The dream "bubble" burst a long time ago.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: anarchy or chaos -
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 21:47:51 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Larry!

larry fullmer wrote to: frank, robert, group,

> damn glad to read ya debating which country is the freest on earth under
my
> subjecline. truth is, given the choices, i don't care a real lot. the
> choices are damn poor.

I don't believe they are. I have several choice to make out of the
list.

> minarchists, market anarchists - we damn well gotta do better if humans
are
> to have hope.

Individuals only have hope, when alienable rights are protected
somehow in law. And that involves force, not aggressive force, but in
the sense of self-protection against aggression. You seem to talk
here that non-humans are those who oppose your free choices. In other
words, humans have no capacity to make decisions relative to their own
rights. Unfortunately, it works both ways. There are human who wish
to take your choices away from you. Do YOU have a way of resolving
that? Again Larry, how will you defend yourself for the
non-aggressive choices you wish to make?

That's a problem to me.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: anarchy or chaos -
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 11:36:21 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in part:

>> But the USA is only catching up to other countries in tobacco
>>regulation. Other countries either entirely prohibit cigaret ads
>>or restrict them to a far greater degree than in the USA. And
>>most countries tax gasoline much more than the USA.

>Boy do you have THAT wrong.
>What counties are you talking about, Canada?

European countries. The price of gasoline is high to start with, so on a
percentage basis the tax isn't that high, but on a gallon basis it's high.

>You got to know that I've spent the last 30 years of my life living
>in such places as Japan, the Philippines, and occasionally at home
>somewhere under the jurisdiction of the US government. 30 years
>ago, in Japan, the cost for a pack of US exported cigarettes was
>really high. However... today, you can buy a pack of Winstons for
>around $1.00 (US). That's exported, from the US, shit. The local
>stuff is even much lower than that! And, Japan is the world's
>second largest economy! What is the average cost of one pack of
>Winstons in the US today? NOT IMPORTED? Local (national) grown
>variety and product?

Is that all you can discuss, the price of cigarets? As if that were the
gnomon by which to judge freedom?

>> At least a great many countries have conscription. It doesn't
>>seem they need large military establishments, but it seems they
>>think requiring universal service is a good in itself. They'll
>>MAKE you carry guns, but they won't LET you carry guns!

>I do know this. YOU haven't lived very long outside of US
>jurisdiction, and therefore you have NO clue as to how free you
>believe you are relative to the rest of the planet.

But I've talked to a lot of other people who have.

>Sorry. It's
>true. You are making sweeping comparisons not even knowing anything
>at all about what freedoms may exist outside of that sacred domain
>you call America. You want to talk about economic or social
>freedom? Really great! I do too! Problem is you can't establish
>that such exists in greater form outside of US jurisdiction now can
>you?

You seem to be making the argument from ignorance -- writing that because I
can't PROVE a point, that it's impossible to make any judgements about it at
all, or even that the contrary is true. While it's not possible to do a
scientific comparison of freedom, because all values are relative, I think
we can get a fair sense of things. I judge universal service to be a
gigantic stroke against freedom -- it's enslavement of the entire population
for a period of their lives! The USA has had a selective draft at times,
but you have all these countries where service is universal and a positive
point of policy rather than a temporary expedient.

>I do know that just three years ago I was physically booted out of a
>San Diego Bar. Reason, I lite up a cigarette in the bar. I was
>told by the manager, bar tender, to snuff out the light, or get the
>fuck out! It's the law. Do I want to deal with such bull shit any
>longer. Fuck NO! I've mentioned this a multitude of times, and I
>have no idea why I should even take the time to say it any longer:
>in America we exist under the most regulated society on earth!

You seem to be making an enormous tsimmes out of your experiences with
smoking, while neglecting the big picture. From what I read from around the
world, the USA is one of the less regulated places, not one of the most.

To take another example, I participate in Usenet group rec.pyrotechnics, and
one of the FAQs from people outside the USA is how to obtain chemicals. The
USA happens to have less control on access to chems used in pyrotechny than
most countries.

I also hear about so many countries south of the USA where kidnapping is
prevalent. It's gotten to be enough that my cousin Lee, who used to visit
Latin America a lot, is now afraid to. That may not be a problem in most
countries, but at least the USA is not part of the minority in which it is.

We also read of countries wherein Islamic law is enforced even on
non-believers. Again, not a majority of the world, but at least the USA is
not in the bad minority.

The USA is a rarity in having price controls on practically nothing, and a
minimum wage that is less burdensome than in most places. One hears of
countries having political actions or general strikes to raise wages, and
that's because in those countries the law effectively sets the pay rates for
many or most people. Ditto price controls on various necessities.

In the USA the contents of entertainment movies are limited by social
pressure; however, in many other countries it's limited by law. Censors in
those countries take out sex, violence, blasphemy, offenses to minorities,
and/or things deemed to tend to destabilize social or political order.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: anarchy or chaos -
Date: 02 Sep 2002 16:05:41 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2002-09-02 at 07:33, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings Robert!
>
> Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> I previously wrote:
> > >Am I free to buy a pack of Winston cigarettes here in the
> > >Philippines for 35 cents, and then show up in the US and do that
> > >same thing? Not likely.
>
> > But the USA is only catching up to other countries in tobacco
regulation.
> > Other countries either entirely prohibit cigaret ads or restrict them to
a
> > far greater degree than in the USA. And most countries tax gasoline
much
> > more than the USA.
>
> Boy do you have THAT wrong.
>
> What counties are you talking about, Canada?

Given my experience in Europe, I'd say that is where he is probably
talking about.

> You got to know that I've spent the last 30 years of my life living in
> such places as Japan, the Philippines, and occasionally at home
> somewhere under the jurisdiction of the US government. 30 years ago,

That's it? You make a big stink about "most of the world", based on your
experience in three countries, including the US?

> in Japan, the cost for a pack of US exported cigarettes was really
Oh yeas, tobacco, the harbinger of freedom and measure of liberty. Not.

> high. However... today, you can buy a pack of Winstons for around
> $1.00 (US). That's exported, from the US, shit. The local stuff is
> even much lower than that! And, Japan is the world's second largest
> economy! What is the average cost of one pack of Winstons in the US
> today? NOT IMPORTED? Local (national) grown variety and product?

Hey make it even cheaper and grow your own!

>
> > At least a great many countries have conscription. It doesn't seem they
> > need large military establishments, but it seems they think requiring
> > universal service is a good in itself. They'll MAKE you carry guns, but
> > they won't LET you carry guns!
>
> I do know this. YOU haven't lived very long outside of US
> jurisdiction, and therefore you have NO clue as to how free you
> believe you are relative to the rest of the planet. Sorry. It's true.

I do know I HAVE! And I disagree with you! I've lived in Europe for a
significant portion of my life.

> You are making sweeping comparisons not even knowing anything at all
> about what freedoms may exist outside of that sacred domain you call
> America. You want to talk about economic or social freedom? Really
> great! I do too! Problem is you can't establish that such exists in
> greater form outside of US jurisdiction now can you?

problem is, you can't see that anyone other than your own bloated ego
can have reasonable, rational and DIFFERING opinions than you. One doe
snot HAVE to live I a country to rate the relative freedom-ness of it,
as long as one can see the laws, the effects, and can talk to people
living there. It is only arrogance on your part that makes you tout your
living in another country over verifiable facts.

>
> I do know that just three years ago I was physically booted out of a
> San Diego Bar. Reason, I lite up a cigarette in the bar. I was told
> by the manager, bar tender, to snuff out the light, or get the fuck
> out! It's the law. Do I want to deal with such bull shit any longer.
> Fuck NO! I've mentioned this a multitude of times, and I have no idea

So, give frank his precious cigarettes for free, let him light up
anywhere he damned pleases, and he's in heaven. Of course, he shouldn't
object to this list being censored, and his computer being routinely
searched surreptitiously, or even prohibited from having one, as long as
his cigarettes are cheap and he can light up anywhere.

> why I should even take the time to say it any longer: in America we
> exist under the most regulated society on earth! We have no choices.
> There is no freedom of choice. If I had any freedoms to protect I
> would be home right now. They're aren't any. There gone. We live
> and exist under regulatory mandates. If you choose to disagree, you're
> thrown in jail, fined, and your property may be confiscated. That's
> America. Isn't America BEAUTIFUL!

Name me one country where there are no laws that can result in your
property being confiscated, or you ending up incarcerated, or your
comments above are irrelevant. In fact, they are a logical fallacy.

>
> I'm tired of listening to you tell me that life elsewhere is so
> terrible. In reality it isn't at all. America is a living hell of
> government regulation, and consequently the loss of both social and
> economic choices. Tell me Canada is a real alternative? Canada isn't

Canada is your strawman, not Robert's. you defend it.

> > There's even a fair number of countries, of which the USA is not one,
that
> > limit the names you can have to a fixed list.
>
> The question was, and still is, "Is the US government the freest
> nation on the face of the earth?" There are other choices to make,

Yes, it was, and the price of cigarettes is a pathetically minor issue
on the grand scheme. there are many, many countries that prohibit your
choice of religion, self-defense, speech, privacy, economic choices,
etc.. Yet your myopic concern over such relatively unimportant
considerations as cigarette prices prevent you from seeing true.

> and the entire planet is full of such choices. No Robert. The US
> government, and far from it, is not the freest nation on the face of
> the earth!

Nor is it the least, as you imply. I'm guessing your keister was never
in East Germany, or any of the states which were more appropriate to
call "a living hell". I'm guessing you never personally watched the
Polizie operate in West Germany. I'm suspecting you've never truly
experienced what you are calling our lives. That's why you do that. To
those who have seen the type of environment that you assert exists in a
country you are not living in, your assertions are nearly hysterically
comical.

> Sorry, I have to disagree. I wish you were right, and things might be
> different. The dream "bubble" burst a long time ago.

I'd say you are still living in a dream bubble. it is very telling that
Robert talked about a wide variety of freedoms/rights, and all you can
do is butch about cigarettes.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Nazis and Commies and Tranzis
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 10:57:39 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

This fine piece was just forwarded to me, and certainly it is worth
sharing. One or two here might actually have the audacity to say this
hasn't anything at all to do with liberty. Oh well, what can I say?
As I have been saying for decades, globalism and one-world government
is about as alien to liberty, and would be just about as effectual in
bringing liberty about as a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest's
prospects for winning.

I hope that the following author is correct, and that even academia
may finally be taking an objective look at the insanity of a
globalist, borderless, government.

Kindest regards,
Frank

===============================================================================
Nazis and Commies and Tranzis
Richard Poe
Aug. 30, 2002

First there was Communism. Then Fascism. Then Nazism. Then Communism
again.
Now there's a new ideology in town. It's called Tranzi-ism.

Like previous "isms," Tranzi-ism has the potential to plunge our world
into
a howling maelstrom of war, poverty and dictatorship.

Yet, weirdly, most Tranzis don't even know they are Tranzis. Some call
themselves "progressives." Some affect free-market sympathies. Some
espouse
a "Third Way" between communism and capitalism.

Don't be fooled. They are Tranzis, one and all.

Tranzi stands for Transnational Progressive a term coined by Hudson
Institute researcher John Fonte in a new article entitled "The
Ideological
War Within the West."

According to Fonte, elite institutions ranging in size and influence
from
the National Council of Churches to the United Nations are pushing the
notion that "the nation-state and the idea of national citizenship are
ill
suited to deal with the global problems of the future." They propose
abolishing nations and replacing them with a single, global
government.

Under ordinary circumstances, no one would lose sleep over some
crackpot
theory circulating among U.N. bureaucrats. Unfortunately, for reasons
that
are still not entirely clear, virtually every government in the world
appears to have embraced Transnational Progressivism and is working
around
the clock to make global government a reality.

Fonte warns that the coming global regime will not respect liberal
freedoms.
Though couching his message in the polite euphemisms of academia,
Fonte
essentially suggests that the Tranzis will impose a kind of racialist
police
state, in which historically downtrodden or oppressed groups will be
encouraged by the "elites" to rise up and get even with their former
oppressors.

"Dominant" groups (I guess he means white men) will be forced to yield
power
to "oppressed" groups in all areas. In the economic sphere, the system
will
compel "dominant" people to give up their jobs to "oppressed" people,
until
every job category reflects the proportion of "oppressed" people in
the
population.

But it won't stop there. The proportion of "oppressed" people in the
population will constantly grow. That's because another tenet of
Tranzi-ism
holds that "dominant" countries must welcome immigrants from
"oppressed"
countries in unlimited numbers.

If any "dominant" people protest, they will be jailed for "hate
speech."

When I read Fonte's essay, my first impulse was to yawn. He seemed to
be
stating the obvious. Anyone who has tuned into talk radio or surfed
the Web
in the last 10 years already has a pretty good idea of what the
"elites" are
planning.

Yet Fonte's article became an instant cult classic among the bloggers
linked, praised, glossed and debated on blog sites throughout
cyberspace.

"His work is valuable because it names the beast," writes Godless
Capitalist
on the popular blog site Gene _Expression.

David Carr a London-based blogger who posts on the "rational
libertarian"
Web site Samizdata.net put it thus:

"A lot of us have known for some time there was something wrong in the
world
but it was difficult to pin down and put our fingers on. It was
something
that has no face and no name. Like fog it swirled all around us but
not
being corporeal we lashed out in all directions, landing blows on
nothing.
It was like an itch we could never scratch."

Carr has a point. We don't really know who is masterminding this plot
or
why.

When I worked for David Horowitz at FrontPageMagazine.com, we used to
call
these people "the left." But many of those pushing the "leftist"
agenda seem
to be high-level statesmen, wealthy blue bloods and heads of
multibillion-dollar corporations. Class struggle just doesn't seem to
explain their behavior.

If indeed the Tranzis are leftists, they are leftists only in the
sense that
a butterfly was once a caterpillar. They have long since emerged from
their
chrysalises and spread their wings to fly.

It was David Carr who gave the Transnational Progressives their
now-universal nickname: Tranzis.

In the end, Carr's nickname even more than Fonte's rather nebulous
concept
may prove to be the catalyst that focuses world attention on this
grave
new threat to our liberty. As Carr observed, it is hard to fight
something
until you know what to call it.

The word "Tranzi" nicely evokes the ideology it represents. It has a
nasty,
sneaky sound, like Commie or Nazi. And, like those earlier words, it
is easy
to say and remember.

Fonte may have stated the obvious. And Carr merely thought up a
nickname.
But together, they have sparked a debate that even now may rouse our
world
from its slumber.

http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2002/8/30/121900

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Shrub Regime<tm> losing ground...
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 20:44:03 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

As we get closer to the first anniversary of the September 11
tragedies, several things may be playing out, signalling that
Americans might finally be taking a second look at the insanity of the
Shrub Regime's<tm> threat to unilaterally wage war on Iraq, in the
name of the 'war on terror'.

Even Fox News, which up until now has largely been the Shrub
Regime's<tm> unofficial press office and mouth piece, is now finally
discussing objecting Republicans, and a growing swell of Americans who
believe the regime hasn't made a sufficient case to invade Iraq
"now". To mention "objectivity" and "Fox News" in the same sentence
to me is an oxymoron, but it does appear even Fox is becoming more
objective in reporting these days.

That's really good news. Perhaps now Americans will begin to start
questioning a lot of the other actions that this regime has put into
place during the past year, beginning of course with the creation of
the centralization of police authority under the first "Office", then
"Department" of Homeland Security, the expansion of police authority
to include unconstitutional violations of private communication,
unlawful detentions, kangaroo military tribunals, and kidnaping of
individuals from foreign territories and spiriting them away to be
imprisoned without due process under US military jurisdictions outside
of US soil.

Now I am becoming more optimistic that some of this will finally be
called into question, indeed it should be. In fact, the first
anniversary makes a statement all on its own. The more distance we
can put from the tragic events, the more objective we will become to
much of what has taken place subsequent to those events. It certainly
does appear that there is some movement taking place to put such
things into question for the first time since 9/11/01. It appears now
that the Shrub Regime<tm> no longer enjoys carte blanc public
enthusiasm to reshape America into the 21st Centuries most brutal and
rogue fascist police state.

That's the good news. Sadly, there is likely some bad news also. The
bad news is that this is an election year. As a result, the Shrub
Regime<tm> will likely be seen as temporarily to posture itself as
moving into a more moderate position to gain control over the US
Senate, and maintain control over the House of Representatives. Now,
even Fox News is reporting that there is dissension growing within the
Executive Branch itself, pitting Colin Powell against Commandant
Donald Rumsfield, with Powell as the more moderate and seasoned
diplomatic, against the "cold war" hawkish rhetoric of Heir
Rumsfield.

Therefore, I believe NO US aggression against Iraq will likely occur
at all until after the November election. If The Shrub is able to
capture control over the Senate, by moderating his course for "other
options", and still maintain control of the House, then NOTHING AT ALL
stands in his way to a blatant unilateral attack against Iraq in the
aftermath of the November election! I'm wondering just how
"objective" the news media will be then, that is, after 'The Shrub'
seemingly has a mandate to do what he damn well pleases to do?

As Libertarians, we should not lose our focus here. To underscore
this, I just now tonight, reached into my wallet, and pulled out my
2002 Libertarian Party membership card. Yep. Nothing has changed in
all of these years. The back of my card still reads thusly:

"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion
over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner
they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal
right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."

This is all about "self-determination". Individuals have a right to
choose. And sovereign, independent nations, have a right to choose how
they will live and conduct their internal and external affairs. We
all know what the "Oath" says, and what we subscribe to when we join
the Libertarian Party. We renounce the initiation of force to achieve
political or social goals.

Now, before the "anarchists" here go into "hyper mode" and object,
saying, "Well the above only involves individual "self choices", let's
go back to the fact that governments are the sum of delegated power by
individuals. I find it rather fascinating in fact that a lot of those
arguing for unilaterally attacking Iraq here on this list, are also
individuals, and even in some cases, that the US government itself, or
any government representing such individuals, is illegitimate. There
is a huge contradiction here!

Here's the thing about this dilemma. Individuals everywhere usually
choose their own governments, whatever form or fashion results. About
1/3 of the planet has chosen some form of islamic government. The only
time that does not happen is when outside intervention has taken
place, such as western European colonialization, or else the creation
of Yugoslavia, or the Russian Empire. Most of those are gone now, and
we are stuck with the results of a bifurcated Africa, southern Asia,
and eastern Europe. Some of this turned out pretty good in
retrospect, but others have not. The Middle East is just that sort of
forced external solutions, and that's pretty much where we are right
now. The Middle East too, including Iraq, must be self-determined
along the lines of the individuals who choose the government that will
best represent them.

If you are willing now to take an objective gander at REAL history,
you must admit that colonialism was an abject disaster. The Russian
Empire was a disaster awaiting resolution. The externally created
"Yugoslavia" was a disaster, one in which all western governments,
including the United States, is deeply embroiled today. The Mid East
is a disaster, and again, a region whose condition has resulted
largely from external aggression. Africa has become a wanton
disaster.

External aggression always, or almost always, results in artificial
and unstable realities. Why would ANYONE here believe that US
aggression will solve anything at all, particularly when such
aggression is targeted again against the will of the people
themselves? Answer that one! That is a giant of a question.

Bill Anderson, for one here, believes I like to "rant" a lot. Good.
That's really a sideshow in all of this, and for what I know not why.
The point is, why is the US government in favour of applying massive
aggression against people, as if they can never make their own choices
-- in most cases they are, and in some they are dealing with such
issues everyday. Such policies invite retaliation.

As I've watched the news tonight on a number of networks, the same
message is coming home in spades: People, individuals, MUST have the
inalienable right to self-determine for themselves what they want.
That might not stack up with what WE believe they OUGHT to choose, but
that's entirely THEIR own choice to make, and not one for us to make
by imposing brute aggressive force to make it so! I know of few
Americans who might accept such external choices being applied by
lethal force, to force such choices that Americans believe they have a
right to make -- for themselves.

The Shrub Regime<tm> has made it clear, that under our own
definitions, the US government has become a rogue state, an
imperialistic aggressive state, whose purpose is to force "our"
solutions upon individuals on a global scale, whether they choose it
or not!

Thankfully, Americans, and even American leaders within the GOP
itself, are starting to have second thoughts in all of this. And,
after almost a year of this madness, that is truly good news!

I would like to invite each of you tonight to download and re-read the
US Declaration of Independence. Read it again. And again. And,
again! If you really believe that, then how can you possibly justify
the current regime that occupies power and seeks to force other
sovereign nations to do otherwise? Think about it.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Shrub Regime<tm> losing ground...
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 12:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Frank,

> This is all about "self-determination". Individuals
> have a right to
> choose. And sovereign, independent nations, have a
> right to choose how
> they will live and conduct their internal and
> external affairs. We
> all know what the "Oath" says, and what we subscribe
> to when we join
> the Libertarian Party. We renounce the initiation
> of force to achieve
> political or social goals.
>
> Now, before the "anarchists" here go into "hyper
> mode" and object,
> saying, "Well the above only involves individual
> "self choices", let's
> go back to the fact that governments are the sum of
> delegated power by
> individuals. I find it rather fascinating in fact
> that a lot of those
> arguing for unilaterally attacking Iraq here on this
> list, are also
> individuals, and even in some cases, that the US
> government itself, or
> any government representing such individuals, is
> illegitimate. There
> is a huge contradiction here!

Umm, Frank, what anarchists are you talking about?
I'm an anarchist and I'm very much opposed to
attacking Iraq. Indeed, I would think that most
market anarchists - believing that it is wrong and
counterproductive to initiate force - would also be
very, very leery of attacking another country under
any circumstances and certainly wouldn't be in favor
of attacking a country without adequate indication
that the war was necessary for self defense.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Shrub Regime<tm> losing ground...
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 18:55:31 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Michelle!

Michelle wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote, in part:
> > Now, before the "anarchists" here go into "hyper
> > mode" and object,
> > saying, "Well the above only involves individual
> > "self choices", let's
> > go back to the fact that governments are the sum of
> > delegated power by
> > individuals.

Michelle Eilers replied:
> Umm, Frank, what anarchists are you talking about?
> I'm an anarchist and I'm very much opposed to
> attacking Iraq.

Wonderful, that's certainly enough for me, and thank you for
responding affirmatively against initiating force, and particularly
when the consequences of such aggression could have catastrophic
consequences! I didn't have you in the back of my mind when I wrote
what I did.

> Indeed, I would think that most
> market anarchists - believing that it is wrong and
> counterproductive to initiate force - would also be
> very, very leery of attacking another country under
> any circumstances and certainly wouldn't be in favor
> of attacking a country without adequate indication
> that the war was necessary for self defense.

That is also wonderful to hear. I know when I finally joined the
Libertarian Party it was primarily when I began to understand the
party's rejection of initiating force for the purpose of bringing
about political or social goals. I am glad that most anarchists at
least also share that view. The Libertarian Party continues to oppose
foreign aggression, and the initiation of force.

Unfortunately, there are a few on this list who continue to call for a
US unilateral pre-emptive war against Iraq, and I've often felt boxed
in because the few that seem to believe this, are some of our most
vocal subscribers. So for me at least, it's comforting to hear your
words of encouragement against initiating force against other people
because we arrogantly believe we have higher moral character, or
something to that effect.

Thank you!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 15:56:56 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automatted. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: crayfish.....
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 02:22:30 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

group,

i was out with friends this past weekend. friends all around, one said to
me, vegggie she is, it's okay with me if you suck on crawfish heads.

well, not wanting to offended her, i didn't. damn good thing.

i saved one to look at the next day.

i had the head confused with the butt. thank gawd i chose not to proceed.

i figure sucking on a cray fish's butt ain't a thing to do.

just want ya to know, friends, if i'm confused about the head end of a
crayfish, well, it's likely i'm confused about more than that.

just want ya to know, head or butt, i love ya all.

lar

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: US vs. the world
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 09:08:22 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wants to rate the USA vs. the rest of the world in terms of freedom.
Obviously it depends a lot on the categories one focuses on -- dig Frank
about smoking. And how you weight the world is arguable -- do China & India
count a lot because of their population? Overall I'd say the USA is way
ahead of the world average. Here are the categories in which the USA seems
deficient compared to the pack:

1. Vice laws. Seems policy in the USA more than most comparable countries
focuses on getting between people & their vices -- sex, drugs, gambling.

2. Liability. The USA seems considerably outside the pack in tort law.

Right now I can't think of any other category in which most of the world's
better than the USA for its people. For most facets of freedom the USA's
usually better than all but a few places. You can always find a country
here and there where you get a special break in some narrow way -- like
tax-free income for poets in Ireland.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: US vs. the world
Date: 03 Sep 2002 11:08:07 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Tue, 2002-09-03 at 08:08, Robert Goodman wrote:
> Frank wants to rate the USA vs. the rest of the world in terms of freedom.
> Obviously it depends a lot on the categories one focuses on -- dig Frank
> about smoking. And how you weight the world is arguable -- do China &
India
> count a lot because of their population? Overall I'd say the USA is way

Well, there are two ways to figure it. It depends on how it is proposed.
If it proposed in terms of country quantity, such as "most countries" or
"more countries" then population is not applicable, and hence all those
little countries with tin-pot dictators in funny hats, count as much as
China or the US.. Every country is just one in, what several hundred?
That also means no exceptions.

If the terms are expressed by people, then certainly one would consider
the population of a given country. That, however, is a very rare case.

> Right now I can't think of any other category in which most of the world's
> better than the USA for its people. For most facets of freedom the USA's
> usually better than all but a few places. You can always find a country
> here and there where you get a special break in some narrow way -- like
> tax-free income for poets in Ireland.

Naturally.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: US vs. the world
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 21:04:21 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to everyone...

> Frank wants to rate the USA vs. the rest of the world in terms of freedom.

Indeed. So far on the mark.

> Obviously it depends a lot on the categories one focuses on -- dig Frank
> about smoking.

Smoking was only an example. I could have chosen a lot of other ones,
but this one seems to stand out as huge aggression on life style
choices. Ya need to know something Robert, I'm not really
collaterally singling out the US government, because I hate
government, any government. No one should fall in love with ANY
government, or believe that "government" is your friend.

> And how you weight the world is arguable -- do China & India
> count a lot because of their population? Overall I'd say the USA is way
> ahead of the world average. Here are the categories in which the USA
seems
> deficient compared to the pack:
>
> 1. Vice laws. Seems policy in the USA more than most comparable countries
> focuses on getting between people & their vices -- sex, drugs, gambling.

I believe there is much more to this than that. What about "taxation"?
That might be a great way to start. I don't deal in drugs, and
usually don't gamble either. What REALLY comes home to roost for MOST
Americans? Why should I care to support in taxes the use of force
against those who choose to engage in such activities? It seems to me
that the USA is probably one of the highest contributors and
confiscators in demanding funding for such "wars". Am I right, or am
I wrong? I think you'll find that even in western Europe, there is
far less aggression to personal choices, and even in some cases
government "subsidies" for such choices, as in the case of the
Netherlands, Denmark, and moving onward, even Spain and Portugal.

Your next point:
> 2. Liability. The USA seems considerably outside the pack in tort law.

Whatever that means, since you haven't defined it as such, so I have
no idea.

> Right now I can't think of any other category in which most of the world's
> better than the USA for its people. For most facets of freedom the USA's
> usually better than all but a few places.

God! Do YOU have a lot to learn. What about just living your own life
in the absence of a huge regulatory government? Face it, (I'd like to
call you Bob or something, it isn't that we are complete strangers
after a decade or so), but life in America is regulated by government,
and America is probably one of the most regulated societies on the
face of the earth! And the US government is just about a huge as its
former Soviet counterpart. I don't have any idea where you are going
with this, but you've got to look at trends. The Soviet Union has
largely disappeared. Even China is now having to deal with "choices",
its' own choices, and the choices of moving into more practical
reform.

If you were placing your bets, your investment in liberty -- where
would you place your bets today, with the Shrub Regime<tm> or the one
that follows? This is NOT 1776. Where will Americans likely place
their allegiance today, tomorrow, and in the future? In centralized
government. Sorry, that's the historical trend. And the trend
continues. And, I don't see any of that reversing itself any time
soon. Everything I hear on US news channels ways basically the same
thing. We need, require, and MUST support even more government
solutions to solve everything!

I guess the real question surrounds whether there will ever come a day
when Americans will accept any notion at all of individual rights.
That seems to be a foregone conclusion that it will NEVER be
acceptable, nor will it even be a viable option for public
discussion. I don't hear Fox News talking about it, or any other
network. I only hear Fox News because it seems to be portrayed these
days as the alternative to liberalism, and that makes me sick!

Take another look around and see what's really going on. America is
in serious regression when it comes to individual freedom, and there
is an equally serious upbeat of increasing freedom in such places as
eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, and even in China. When do
YOU want to stake your bets for the future?

Kindest regards,
Frank
------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: US vs. the world
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 21:40:13 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Robert Goodman...

Robert Goodman wrote:
> > Frank wants to rate the USA vs. the rest of the world in terms of
freedom.
> > Obviously it depends a lot on the categories one focuses on -- dig Frank
> > about smoking. And how you weight the world is arguable -- do China &
India
> > count a lot because of their population? Overall I'd say the USA is way

Bill Anderson replied:
> Well, there are two ways to figure it. It depends on how it is proposed.
> If it proposed in terms of country quantity, such as "most countries" or
> "more countries" then population is not applicable, and hence all those
> little countries with tin-pot dictators in funny hats, count as much as
> China or the US.. Every country is just one in, what several hundred?
> That also means no exceptions.

This is again, an exercise in mousemilking. The question was, what
"nations" were more free than other ones, populations
notwithstanding. There are plenty of examples, and "nations" around
that are far more free than America today. If you want to use generic
examples of huge populations such as the Islamic World, then you
really skirt the issue entirely.

One question you need to ask here, is who TAXES the most! Yea, sure.
You'll talk about Canada, western Europe, etc. What about Russia? Is
Russian income taxes rapidly going down, and is there a momentum for
reducing regulation from decades ago? It seems to me you need to take
a serious look at current trends.

> If the terms are expressed by people, then certainly one would consider
> the population of a given country. That, however, is a very rare case.

Indeed. It is irrelevant, or mostly so. Not always. A lot of people
today are recipients of freedom, and less taxation as I've already
pointed out.

Robert wrote:
> > Right now I can't think of any other category in which most of the
world's
> > better than the USA for its people. For most facets of freedom the
USA's
> > usually better than all but a few places. You can always find a country
> > here and there where you get a special break in some narrow way -- like
> > tax-free income for poets in Ireland.

You replied:
> Naturally.

Well, isn't this really special? You agree with that? That's up to
you, but sadly I disagree. Here's why. You really need to take a
serious look at giant trends that have occurred, and are still
occurring in the last couple of decades or so. And, should you say,
"this doesn't matter", then let me remind you that the entire US
government as we know it, has only been in existence for little over
the last 200 years! Before you sign on to Robert's argument, you need
to understand that "liberty" as such, is in a downward spiral in the
US and most of the western world, when at the same time it is
increasing throughout much of eastern Europe, former Soviet republics,
and in most of east Asia and in southern Asia. If you are a betting
man, would you hedge your bets that American will be the sole bastion
for social and economic freedom in the next decade or two?

Bill, you sir, are ignoring a lot of recent history. The direction of
freedom, or liberty, today has nothing much at all with the current US
government, nor for that matter particularly with what is going on in
western Europe. If the current US government is a beacon for liberty,
then God help us all.

You are missing something here. As the Communist regime finally
crumbles and falls in China, so will most of the fears you seem to
believe will establish the equalitarian status quo in defence of
liberty. Liberty has the best ultimate chance in east Asia, because
that is where it is all happening in the absence of force. North
Korea will soon disappear. The Chinese communist regime which is
already "dated" will disappear, because no one really cares anyway.

Meanwhile, America will continue to add multitudes of statues on the
books to deny social and economic liberty. The tables are turning,
and I knew that was occurring at least two decades ago! I am not
surprised. In this scheme of things, likely Iraq won't really matter
too much down the road, because I doubt seriously that Iraq poses any
military challenge against the US, Europe, and certain NOT China for
multiple decades to come!

Can I prove any of this? Yea, in some ways I can. History is own my
side, and it shows tangible evidence to support everything I say. Am
I Jesus Christ, or Nastrodomas, hardly? I am only suggesting that I
have been a student of history, and much of what I write is based upon
what I have learned over a very long period of time. In East Asian
history, I've been immersed in it most of my life, and have read such
things as "EAST ASIA" by scholarly historians such as Reichourer,
Fairbanks and Craig; definitive material that is a "must" if you ever
hope to get a grasp on current realities in any historical perspective
NOT written in hindsight by western "historians" who don't even have a
clue.

I noticed also, that Lowell Savage didn't even care to buy the book,
because it today costs around $100. It is still the definitive effort
to look at East Asia history. I own the book. But Savage, if he
cared to do so, could have easily checked it out for free at his local
library! That's hardly an excuse!

Unfortunately, the real excuse is that there are a lot of people who
don't even care at all to examine much of anything, even when it is
freely available. There are a lot of people who just want to make a
rant, and have no understanding of the direction of things, including
substantial things, such as the direction of "liberty" in the 21st
century. A MAJOR clue: The US is not a very good example.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: US vs. the world
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 11:19:58 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in part:

>One question you need to ask here, is who TAXES the most!

It's sure not the USA. Of course, some other countries live largely off
income from gov't enterprises such as mineral sales.

>Yea,
>sure. You'll talk about Canada, western Europe, etc. What about
>Russia? Is Russian income taxes rapidly going down, and is there a
>momentum for reducing regulation from decades ago?

But I suspect they'll level off before hitting that of the USA. I hope I'm
wrong, but I think not.

>If you
>are a betting man, would you hedge your bets that American will be
>the sole bastion for social and economic freedom in the next decade
>or two?

I never thought of the USA as "sole bastion", but I would bet on the USA's
staying ahead of the pack in coming decades.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: US vs. the world
Date: 04 Sep 2002 13:21:09 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 07:40, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote to Robert Goodman...
>
> Robert Goodman wrote:
> > > Frank wants to rate the USA vs. the rest of the world in terms of
freedom.
> > > Obviously it depends a lot on the categories one focuses on -- dig
Frank
> > > about smoking. And how you weight the world is arguable -- do China &
India
> > > count a lot because of their population? Overall I'd say the USA is
way
>
> Bill Anderson replied:
> > Well, there are two ways to figure it. It depends on how it is proposed.
> > If it proposed in terms of country quantity, such as "most countries" or
> > "more countries" then population is not applicable, and hence all those
> > little countries with tin-pot dictators in funny hats, count as much as
> > China or the US.. Every country is just one in, what several hundred?
> > That also means no exceptions.
>
> This is again, an exercise in mousemilking. The question was, what
> "nations" were more free than other ones, populations
> notwithstanding. There are plenty of examples, and "nations" around
> that are far more free than America today. If you want to use generic
> examples of huge populations such as the Islamic World, then you
> really skirt the issue entirely.

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. Frank, I was responding to Roberts question, not yours.
How presumptuous ... again. And another strawman. Where in that did I
mention an Islamic country? Last I knew the US and China were not
Islamic countries. Then again, maybe you know something the rest of the
world doesn't?

> One question you need to ask here, is who TAXES the most! Yea, sure.

How do you define most? Do you define it as highest base percentage,
most individual items taxed, most tax revenue? Genuine questions, and to
hell with you, your mouse and it's teats.

> You'll talk about Canada, western Europe, etc. What about Russia? Is
> Russian income taxes rapidly going down, and is there a momentum for

No, their taxes are increasing (revenue-wise -- see below), and they are
being "instructed" by "our" IRS. Hey, you chose Russia. Remember that
before the fall of their Communism, they had no tax system.

In many areas, regulation is increasing in Russia. In fact, employer sin
Russia have to give written justification for not hiring a woman w/a
child under three (married or no) or a single mother w/a child under 14
years of age.

Taxes in Russia are divided into three categories:
* Federal taxes
* Taxes for constituent republics of the Russian Federation, taxes of
territories, provinces, autonomous provinces and autonomous districts
* Local taxes

Legal entities doing business in Russia are subject to a corporate
profit tax, assets tax and road fund tax. Capital gains are included in
the corporate profit tax base. A value added tax (VAT) is applied to the
sale, exchange, transfer or import of most goods and services. Employers
must pay payroll taxes to the Pension Fund, the Social Insurance Fund,
the State Employment Fund and the Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund,
plus a transportation tax and an education tax that are also based on
wages. Withholding taxes are imposed on dividends, interest on
debentures and payments to nonresidents for services.

Other local and regional taxes such as housing, advertising and militia
taxes, are also imposed. These taxes may use a basis other than profits,
such as sales, turnover, or the amount of payroll or advertising
expenses.

Sounds quite familiar already.

Russian import duties change frequently. Rates of 15-20% per cent are
imposed on most goods considered nonessential for economic development,
and rates of 25-30 per cent are applied on a range of consumer goods.
The highest duties are levied on such goods as alcoholic beverages,
cigarettes (ok, now we know why Frank hasn't moved to Russia! :)
entertainment goods, precious metals and stones, and watches.

Commodities imported into the customs territory of Russia are also
subject to a 20 per cent VAT.

Duties are applied to imports and exports. When goods cross the customs
border, they must be placed under a customs regime. Goods brought into
Russia by foreign companies usually fall under two regimes:

Release for Free Circulation
Duty calculated by multiplying the customs value of the goods by the
appropriate duty rate, which ranges from zero to 100 per cent.

Temporary Import
This status may be applied only to goods to be used by the foreign
company that will not be sold and will remain in the ownership of the
company. Two types of exemptions from duties are granted: full and
partial. No duties are charged on goods that receive a full exemption.
For goods receiving a partial exemption, the importer is required to pay
three per cent per month of the amount that would have been due had the
goods been sold.

This is in addition to the recently instituted 13% flat tax. Note that
(as predicted) their revenues went up. Also, under their higher tax
rates, there was a massive issue with "evasion" which resulted in a
dramatically lower revenue. Their tax rates were higher, but since they
had no enforcement means, most simply refused to "participate". now,
with lower rates, and an enforcement system, taught to them by the IRS,
they are collecting more revenues. This means that more Russians are
paying taxes, and that the government is collecting more in taxes. Even
the issue of taxation is not as black and white as you claim.

While I'm still on the subject, the flat tax isn't all that flat,
either.
* A flat 13% rate applies to all income for which another rate is not
specified. This 13% rate would apply to salary and other earned income
received by tax resident individuals.

* A flat 35% rate applies to income in the form of bank interest
exceeding ? of the Central Bank’s refinancing rate (or exceeding 9% on
non-ruble deposits), certain insurance pay-outs, gambling and lottery
winnings, certain prizes, and deemed income from low- or zero-interest
loans.

* A flat 30% rate applies to dividends and incomes received by
individuals who are not tax resident.

All "taxpayers" are required to register with the tax Service(s). when
you look at what the tax agencies can do to people and businesses, it
looks more than familiar, and on some cases, actually much worse. Being
registered with a tax agency (which is required) gives them "the right"
to inspect your premises, documents, records, etc. at will. They are
given the authority to "liquidate enterprises", "declare transactions
invalid and exact all proceeds from these transactions to the state
treasury".

* Failure to Meet the Deadline for Registering with a Tax Authority:
o For 90 days or less: five thousand rubles;
o For more than 90 days: ten thousand rubles;

* Avoiding Registration with a Tax Authority
o An organization operating without registration for less than
90 days shall be fined 10% of the income received during this period in
question or twenty thousand rubles, whichever is greater.
o For a period over three months a fine in the amount of 20%
of the incomes received.

* Failure to Meet the Deadline for Reporting the Opening of a Bank
Account:
o If this has not lead to tax evasion: five thousand rubles;
o If this has resulted in tax evasion: a fine in the amount of
ten percent of the total amount of money funds remitted to that account
during the period of late submittal or non-submittal of the information
on the opening of this bank account;

* Failure to Meet the Deadline for Filing a Tax Return or Other
Documents:
o If the taxpayer is registered and provided that there are no
elements of a tax offence - a fine in the amount of five per cent of the
amount of tax payable on the basis of such tax return for each full
month from the deadline established for filing [tax returns], but not
more than 30%;
o For more than 180 days after the legislatively established
deadline for filing such tax returns - a fine in the amount of 30% of
the entire amount of tax payable, plus 10% of this sum for every full
month over 181 days;

* Failure to Comply with the Rules of Accounting for Income,
Expenses and Objects of Taxation
o A gross violation* of rules if these actions were committed
within one tax period: five thousand rubles;
o A gross violation of rules if these actions were committed
during a period of time that exceeds one tax period: fifteen thousand
rubles;
o A gross violation of rules if these actions resulted in
under reporting of income: 10% of the amount of unpaid tax, or 15
thousand rubles, whichever is less;

*A gross violation of rules of accounting for income, expenses and
objects of taxation for the purposes of the present Article shall mean
absence of primary [detailed] documents, absence of book-keeping
registries, repeated untimely or incorrect coverage of business
transactions, monetary funds, tangible assets, intangible assets and
financial investments of the taxpayer in the balance sheet accounts and
in reporting.

On the concept of tax crimes:
* Failure to pay taxes due as a result of understatement of the tax
base or incorrect assessment of taxes due based on results of the tax
period, if revealed by the tax authority during field audit:
o Unintentional: 20 per cent of the unpaid tax liability;
o Intentional: 40 per cent of the unpaid tax liability;

* Failure of a tax agent to fulfill his duties under legislation on
taxes and fees to withhold from the taxpayer and/or remit the withheld
amounts of taxes to the budget:
o 20% of the amount that was to be withheld and remitted;

* Denial of access to the grounds or premises of a taxpayer to an
officer of a tax authority conducting a tax by the taxpayer or his legal
representative:
o Five thousand rubles;

* Failure to comply with the procedures established by the Tax Code
for tenancy, use and/or disposal of property under lien:
o Ten thousand rubles;

* Withholding of information about a taxpayer to a tax agent, as
well as failure to provide such documents, or providing documents
containing false information:
o Five thousand rubles.

For the "Unified Social Tax Rate":
Up to 100,000 Rb:
35.6%
>From 100,000 to 300,000 Rb:
36,600 Rb + 20% of amount exceeding 100,000 Rb
>From 300,000 to 600,000 Rb:
75,600 Rb + 10% of amount exceeding 300,000 Rb
Over 600,000 Rb:
105,600 Rb + 2% of amount exceeding 600,000 Rb

This tax is collected at the business level, and is based on Payroll
amounts.

Enterprises who advertise their products in St. Petersburg pay a tax of
5% of the cost of advertising services.

Oh, but wait there's more! they have an "Asset Tax":
2% of the sum of the net book value of fixed and intangible assets,
low-value and high-wear objects, stocks, incomplete production and
deferred expenses. The calculation of Asset Tax must be submitted to the
tax services quarterly by the 30th of the month following the quarter
and paid within 5 days of submission.

Oh, and in case anybody was wondering, yes they use April 15th as an
important tax date too.
A licensed firm registered in Russia must audit the annual returns and
financial statements of the following entities:

* Open joint-stock companies
* Enterprises with turnover exceeding 500,000 minimum monthly wages;
* Enterprises with assets exceeding 200,000 minimum monthly wages;
* Any other entities with foreign ownership.

The minimum monthly wage for 2001 was 100 Rubles.

Sorry, Frank, these are not things that MSNBC typically produces for
it's viewers, but the data is there if you go to the Russians, you know
... the source.

And remember, YOU brought up Russia.

> reducing regulation from decades ago? It seems to me you need to take
> a serious look at current trends.

I prefer long term trends, and real data, not your presumptions and
assertions, for determinng where things will be in a decade. Of course,
trends don't give any comfort to the chinese citizen who finds that
recently his government starting blocking Google.com since he can fund
"subversive" information using it. I'm sure it makes the Russian child
who still doesn't have enough food to eat that there is an alleged trend
in his country toward deregulation. I'm sure the Bosnian or Iraqi
citizen in front of a firing squad, or sucking his last gasps through
chemicals dropped on him by his government is relieved to know that
somewhere, someone thinks things are getting better somewhere.

Trends being used to predict future is by definition, not now.

> > If the terms are expressed by people, then certainly one would consider
> > the population of a given country. That, however, is a very rare case.
>
> Indeed. It is irrelevant, or mostly so. Not always. A lot of people
> today are recipients of freedom, and less taxation as I've already
> pointed out.

And lots are recipients of more taxation, and less freedom. something
you casually ignore.

>
> Robert wrote:
> > > Right now I can't think of any other category in which most of the
world's
> > > better than the USA for its people. For most facets of freedom the
USA's
> > > usually better than all but a few places. You can always find a
country
> > > here and there where you get a special break in some narrow way --
like
> > > tax-free income for poets in Ireland.
>
> You replied:
> > Naturally.
>
> Well, isn't this really special? You agree with that? That's up to

Do you disagree with this statement (it is a yes or no question):
"You can always find a country here and there where you get a special
break in some narrow way -- like tax-free income for poets in Ireland."

That is what I agreed with. Even here you can see it between the states.
Mayeb you should consider kentucky, frank. With the Federal tax rates on
cigarettes, they only pay 42 cents/pack -- with no change since 1970.
The highest is Massachusetts which combined with the federal ($.39/pack)
pays 1.90/pack in taxes. The average of all states is 58.8 cents plus
the 39 cents for the feds ... call it 98 cents. Average retail price
per pack is 3.85 including taxes ... hmm and average of 34 percent.
Looks a lot like Russia's tax rates on cigarettes (which is misleading,
since that only represents one tax, there are more taxes that are levied
in Russia).

On trends, let us use your favorite dog: cigarettes.

In 2002, 19 states in the US have higher tax rates on cigarettes. yet 27
states have not increased them since the 1980's, and four not since
1970. The "giant" trend, the one that MSNBC reports to its loyal
advertising targets, is that 19 increased. Yet the underlying trend is
that 31 have not in over a decade.

One thing not shown by the "data" in that "trend" is the increase in
non-tax retail price of a pack of cigarettes. It has increased (due in
part to inflation), just like many things. Since beginning of 1998, the
major cigarette companies increased the prices they charge by over $1.20
per pack. Idaho ha snot had a cigarette excise tax increase since 1994.
Any increase in prices of cigarettes you have seen in this state are due
to companies increasing their prices by a little under 50%. And people
still buy the stuff. If the people are willing to pay higher prices, and
the curve works out such that you make more money, that's capitalism,
baby.

As this happens, the relative percentage of the tax rates decreases.
Thus, increases in the raw cents/pack more often than not bring the rate
back into a previous percentage. Thus, the rates, in the states that are
increasing them, do not seem to be varying much when compared to the
rate at the last time of increase.

Of course, these are Excise taxes, so state sales taxes apply as well,
but since those are not specific to cigarettes, those are excluded.

Regarding Canada at, they charge as of 2002, 15 cents per cigarette.
hmm, as I understand it, there are 10 cigarettes/pack .. that makes the
per pack rate 1.50. One penny below the highest state on the US.

Even on your favorite dog, the US does not come out as bad as you make
out, compared to other places, which is what this discussion is about,
lest you forget.

> you, but sadly I disagree. Here's why. You really need to take a
> serious look at giant trends that have occurred, and are still

Sorry, but reality is that it is the smaller trends that show where the
future lies. Big trends tend more often than not to represent passing
fads, or trends at their peak, which means they are set to decline.

> occurring in the last couple of decades or so. And, should you say,
> "this doesn't matter", then let me remind you that the entire US
> government as we know it, has only been in existence for little over
> the last 200 years! Before you sign on to Robert's argument, you need

The entire Russian government as we know it has been in existence for
less than a decade. Your point?

> to understand that "liberty" as such, is in a downward spiral in the
> US and most of the western world, when at the same time it is

Before I "sign on" to "Frank's arguments", I need more than general
unfounded assertions. Frank, all you do is make assertions, I can't but
that blindly. Sorry, I don't worship you anymore than I worship Robert.
I don't "sign on" to arguments, I examine them. Those that don't make
the logic grade, are dismissed. Those that are presented with no
evidence, incorrect or insufficient evidence, are dismissed as well.

> increasing throughout much of eastern Europe, former Soviet republics,
> and in most of east Asia and in southern Asia. If you are a betting
> man, would you hedge your bets that American will be the sole bastion
> for social and economic freedom in the next decade or two?
>
> Bill, you sir, are ignoring a lot of recent history. The direction of

No Frank, I am well aware of much, I just don't have your blinders on.
Tell me Frank, have you taken the Meyers-Briggs/Kiersey Temperament
sorter? I am curious.

> freedom, or liberty, today has nothing much at all with the current US
> government, nor for that matter particularly with what is going on in
> western Europe. If the current US government is a beacon for liberty,
> then God help us all.
>
> You are missing something here. As the Communist regime finally
> crumbles and falls in China, so will most of the fears you seem to
> believe will establish the equalitarian status quo in defence of
> liberty. Liberty has the best ultimate chance in east Asia, because
> that is where it is all happening in the absence of force. North
> Korea will soon disappear. The Chinese communist regime which is
> already "dated" will disappear, because no one really cares anyway.

Oh, I see, you dismiss china, the nation with the highest population, as
outdated, so you don't care about it. Got it, if Frank disagrees, they
other country must be dated and thus irrelevant. Noted.

> Meanwhile, America will continue to add multitudes of statues on the
> books to deny social and economic liberty. The tables are turning,
> and I knew that was occurring at least two decades ago! I am not

And damn the facts, Frank must be right!

> surprised. In this scheme of things, likely Iraq won't really matter
> too much down the road, because I doubt seriously that Iraq poses any
> military challenge against the US, Europe, and certain NOT China for
> multiple decades to come!
>
> Can I prove any of this? Yea, in some ways I can. History is own my
> side, and it shows tangible evidence to support everything I say. Am

No, it does not. Only the arrogant one asserts that history supports
EVERYTHING he says. Oh, wait ... never mind, I almost forgot who I was
conversing with for a moment.

> I noticed also, that Lowell Savage didn't even care to buy the book,
> because it today costs around $100. It is still the definitive effort
> to look at East Asia history. I own the book. But Savage, if he
> cared to do so, could have easily checked it out for free at his local
> library! That's hardly an excuse!

Yeah, and I notice you have still not joined the organizations that
devote their life to studying in great detail the events on the world
stage, and have much data that stands in contradiction to your claims.

> Unfortunately, the real excuse is that there are a lot of people who
> don't even care at all to examine much of anything, even when it is

And there are a lot of people who believe they hold the keys and
answers, and get pretty pissed off when ANYONE doubts them. News flash
Frank: In case you've missed it over the years, I doubt everything, and
everyone. yeah, I'd probably question "the Almighty" too, given the
chance. ("Excuse me, what does God need with a starship?" *ZOT*!)

I have noticed a trend. You refusing to give citations and evidence to
support your position. "It is obvious" is not a valid piece of evidence.
I've noticed over the last year that whenever someone agrees with you
regarding Bush, the U.S., foreign policy, you cal them names, and say
they are anti-liberty. You assign statements to them that were never
made, and when called or pressed for details, you call them names again,
and try to deflect the question by calling it mousemilking. You go into
an "I am omniscient" mode, and quite Frankly, I find it saddening and
annoying. I'm not the only one who has noted that, either.

JQS used to make statements that look just like yours "I CAN post loads
of ..." and never did. Sad to see you are moving in that trend. maybe it
is time for a break? Yeah, a break sounds good.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: US vs. the world
Date: 04 Sep 2002 13:49:00 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 10:19, Robert Goodman wrote:
> Frank wrote in part:
>
> >One question you need to ask here, is who TAXES the most!
>
> It's sure not the USA. Of course, some other countries live largely off
> income from gov't enterprises such as mineral sales.

Much to Frank's consternation, if the question is which country taxes
the most, the US is not even close to the "leader: in taxing the most,
unless you want to count total revenue, and ignore everything else,
which would of course, be dishonest, and disingenuous.

Is the question highest total tax rate? Highest per-capita revenue?

> >Yea,
> >sure. You'll talk about Canada, western Europe, etc. What about
> >Russia? Is Russian income taxes rapidly going down, and is there a
> >momentum for reducing regulation from decades ago?
>
> But I suspect they'll level off before hitting that of the USA. I hope
I'm
> wrong, but I think not.

Yeah, it's pretty hard to go anywhere but down from 80%, especially when
few are "participating" in it. Russia found out what Reagan knew in the
80's, they lowered rates and saw a net increase in revenues. Uh oh, I
mentioned Reagan in a non-negative light, here we go again.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: US vs. the world
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 23:39:08 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...

> Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. Frank, I was responding to Roberts question, not yours.

How sanctimonious of you Bill, and how presumptuous, that you write on
a public list and not entertain any public commentary. Nice. Since
this is my list, I feel compelled to call your presumption to order.
Whatever your write on THIS list is open to public commentary and
debate. Do you have a problem with that? If you do son, then you
presume too much. It doesn't work that way here, and it never has.

So, now, nevertheless, having said such, you want to contribute
anyway... interesting...

> How presumptuous ... again. And another strawman. Where in that did I
> mention an Islamic country? Last I knew the US and China were not
> Islamic countries. Then again, maybe you know something the rest of the
> world doesn't?

What is YOUR problem? First, you claim I butted into your private
conversation, one that, by the way, was by your own choice, made
public, right here on Liberty Northwest. Now, you want to claim I am
being presumptuous. Yes, Bill, I can play the same games, and I can
probably do that even better than you can yourself! So what's the
point? Bill, you don't post shit here publicly and expect no response
from anyone else. You've certainly been around here long enough to
know that, since you've butted into such conversations all the time.

> > One question you need to ask here, is who TAXES the most! Yea, sure.

I know. I'm wondering if YOU do? Your question appears to be in the
same category of listening carefully to "the sound one hand clapping",
so to speak. What's your point.

In practical terms, the one doing the most taxing is the government
that extracts the most in terms of private property. Get real! "Yea,
sure", what? Which governments extract the greatest percentage of
income, wealth, revenue, whatever, what belong to you?

Bill, I guess I just don't understand your hostility. What point am I
rubbing on that you choose to make here? Does this have to do with
your ego, or what?

> How do you define most?

I don't know anymore. This is lost on me. Do I hear the "sound of one
hand clapping?" Be more specific and just tell me why I pissed you
off. What did I say?

> Genuine questions, and to
> hell with you, your mouse and it's teats.

This conversation is entirely left up to you, your arrogance, and your
ego. I don't have a clue, nor do I particularly want to know, not
really.

> Taxes in Russia are divided into three categories:
> * Federal taxes
> * Taxes for constituent republics of the Russian Federation, taxes of
> territories, provinces, autonomous provinces and autonomous districts
> * Local taxes

Sounds a lot like the conditions forced upon Americans, doesn't it?
So, again, what's your point in all of this? I never said, did I,
that I support such a scheme? What does this have to do with
liberty?

> Legal entities doing business in Russia are subject to a corporate
> profit tax, assets tax and road fund tax.

Good. This sounds a lot like what goes on each and every day, anywhere
within the US. However, you failed to define how the rate of taxation
is declining, the one point that I mentioned previously that relevant
to any of this!

> Capital gains are included in
> the corporate profit tax base. A value added tax (VAT) is applied to the
> sale, exchange, transfer or import of most goods and services.

Again, what is the cumulative rate of taxation, based entirely upon
comparison with US taxation, let's say, tobacco products for starters,
and "cigarettes" to be more specific. Yea, Bill. You don't like to
talk about cigarettes. I never used to either, but since I know now
you probably don't smoke them, you could care less, right? Let's go
back to cigarettes, since likely in Russia, most people, or the
majority smoke 'em!

> Employers
> must pay payroll taxes to the Pension Fund, the Social Insurance Fund,
> the State Employment Fund and the Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund

Fuck! Don't get me started on this one.

The US is just the inter varsity in getting into this. The former
Soviet republics are moving rapidly in the opposite direction. The
life and conditions were entirely socialist, 100% taxation. Your job
was to the state. That was the point in my previous post, and you know
it. You don't want to talk about declining tax rates do you, not
really? You're throwing in motherhood, apple pie, and increasing US
socialism to try and justify how things are changing. I am suggesting
that tax rates are decreasing and liberty is increasing! There's a
humongous difference here. I am not saying that liberty will finally,
ultimately win in the final blow. I'm saying it is now possible. It
is not likely that liberty will prevail in the US, Canada, western
Europe or Japan.

> plus a transportation tax and an education tax that are also based on
> wages. Withholding taxes are imposed on dividends, interest on
> debentures and payments to nonresidents for services.

Sounds like the good 'ol USA doesn't it? Difference is, tax rates are
declining. Stick with that for a while Bill. Liberty is also
increasing. Deal with that anyway that you can find a way to conjure
up some specifics that may deviate from the obvious.

> Other local and regional taxes such as housing, advertising and militia
> taxes, are also imposed. These taxes may use a basis other than profits,
> such as sales, turnover, or the amount of payroll or advertising
> expenses.

Sounds a lot like an inter varsity rendention of what the IRS and
clones have been doing to rape and pillage US taxpayers for decades,
only likely decreasing. So what's your point?

> Russian import duties change frequently.

Yea, so what's so different with frequent and sudden changes in such
things as steel import duties? The reason I mention that one, is
because it directly affects Russia, and other steel producers. In
case you haven't noticed recently, US exports subsidies are finally
becoming under attack by the rest of the world as we speak. Wake up
and smell the coffee Bill.

A lot of things change constantly. So, again, what's your point? Is
liberty declining in the west, and rising elsewhere, or not? You're
the one who wanted to start this tirad. I'm only asking why you
believe liberty is growing in western civilization, and declining
elsewhere? It's a fair question. If you want to continue to blow
smoke, I can likely do that as well, or better, than you can, despite
your ego.

Let's continue:

> Rates of 15-20% per cent are
> imposed on most goods considered nonessential for economic development,
> and rates of 25-30 per cent are applied on a range of consumer goods.
> The highest duties are levied on such goods as alcoholic beverages,
> cigarettes (ok, now we know why Frank hasn't moved to Russia! :)
> entertainment goods, precious metals and stones, and watches.

Nice try. Ya want to bet a cost for a pack of cigarettes in Russia is
around $5.00 a pack? I haven't been there, but I can promise you,
that isn't the case! Russians, as I do, smoke cigarettes. They aren't
going to pay anywhere even close to what Americans, Canadian, western
Europeans pay for and you know it! The duties you are talking about
are all about imports, imported cigarettes!

So, what is your fucking point Bill? Russians have every right to
impose duties on US steel, since the us slapped a huge tariff on
Russian steel! They can impose likewise duties on US manufactured
cigarettes. Your arguments are nothing much than "applies and
oranges", again. You forget the origin of this; it was the US that
first imposed unilaterally, tariffs on steel products. I don't
believe this has very much to do with cigarettes in Russia, except
those imported from the US!

> Commodities imported into the customs territory of Russia are also
> subject to a 20 per cent VAT.

Imports again. Right? I thought so. Thank you.

> Duties are applied to imports and exports. When goods cross the customs
> border, they must be placed under a customs regime. Goods brought into
> Russia by foreign companies usually fall under two regimes:

Ah, fuck it. You really do want to twist this discussion into
something of non-relevance to anything at all that I originally
wrote. We can discuss all of this forever. Point is, plainly I don't
believe it is relevant to the fact that liberty is increasing in the
former Soviet republics, and it is decreasing in the US, Canada,
western Europe and presumably elsewhere.

This is all a giant smokescreen. Show me why taxation is NOT
decreasing, and liberty is not increasing in the former Soviet Union?
You can't do that, can you? I am not about to get into this kind of
dialogue with you. Mainly because you skirt entirely everything I
wrote, and seek to bring it all into some kind of semblance to what
goes on everywhere. Every region or political unit on the entire
planet does the same thing. The only real questions that are relevant
is where taxation is declining, and liberty is increasing. You
haven't yet demonstrated your case, now have you?

There is NO question at all, in my mind, that liberty is decreasing
markedly in the US. You can pretend if you want that this is okay, but
you have to, as a libertarian, say something! For starters, you have
to say, "This is unacceptable". You have to recognize too that some
nations, regions, or political boundaries are getting a lot more
freedom than they once had.

You sir, are playing silly games with me. I know. You know, that
times are changing rapidly. Liberty is not a dead issue. Liberty is
increasing in certain places, as I've laid out. Liberty is DECREASING
in the United States, western Europe, and other areas. Point is we
need to find a way to reinforce and defend liberty where it can be
defended. I am NOT convinced that the US is a really great place to
start doing that. I'll do that only because I am an American. I
however at this stage, don't believe this is the most productive place
to begin.

Kindest regards,
Frank
> Release for Free Circulation
> Duty calculated by multiplying the customs value of the goods by the
> appropriate duty rate, which ranges from zero to 100 per cent.
>
> Temporary Import
> This status may be applied only to goods to be used by the foreign
> company that will not be sold and will remain in the ownership of the
> company. Two types of exemptions from duties are granted: full and
> partial. No duties are charged on goods that receive a full exemption.
> For goods receiving a partial exemption, the importer is required to pay
> three per cent per month of the amount that would have been due had the
> goods been sold.
>
> This is in addition to the recently instituted 13% flat tax. Note that
> (as predicted) their revenues went up. Also, under their higher tax
> rates, there was a massive issue with "evasion" which resulted in a
> dramatically lower revenue. Their tax rates were higher, but since they
> had no enforcement means, most simply refused to "participate". now,
> with lower rates, and an enforcement system, taught to them by the IRS,
> they are collecting more revenues. This means that more Russians are
> paying taxes, and that the government is collecting more in taxes. Even
> the issue of taxation is not as black and white as you claim.
>
> While I'm still on the subject, the flat tax isn't all that flat,
> either.
> * A flat 13% rate applies to all income for which another rate is not
> specified. This 13% rate would apply to salary and other earned income
> received by tax resident individuals.
>
> * A flat 35% rate applies to income in the form of bank interest
> exceeding ? of the Central Bank’s refinancing rate (or exceeding 9% on
> non-ruble deposits), certain insurance pay-outs, gambling and lottery
> winnings, certain prizes, and deemed income from low- or zero-interest
> loans.
>
> * A flat 30% rate applies to dividends and incomes received by
> individuals who are not tax resident.
>
> All "taxpayers" are required to register with the tax Service(s). when
> you look at what the tax agencies can do to people and businesses, it
> looks more than familiar, and on some cases, actually much worse. Being
> registered with a tax agency (which is required) gives them "the right"
> to inspect your premises, documents, records, etc. at will. They are
> given the authority to "liquidate enterprises", "declare transactions
> invalid and exact all proceeds from these transactions to the state
> treasury".
>
> * Failure to Meet the Deadline for Registering with a Tax Authority:
> o For 90 days or less: five thousand rubles;
> o For more than 90 days: ten thousand rubles;
>
> * Avoiding Registration with a Tax Authority
> o An organization operating without registration for less than
> 90 days shall be fined 10% of the income received during this period in
> question or twenty thousand rubles, whichever is greater.
> o For a period over three months a fine in the amount of 20%
> of the incomes received.
>
> * Failure to Meet the Deadline for Reporting the Opening of a Bank
> Account:
> o If this has not lead to tax evasion: five thousand rubles;
> o If this has resulted in tax evasion: a fine in the amount of
> ten percent of the total amount of money funds remitted to that account
> during the period of late submittal or non-submittal of the information
> on the opening of this bank account;
>
> * Failure to Meet the Deadline for Filing a Tax Return or Other
> Documents:
> o If the taxpayer is registered and provided that there are no
> elements of a tax offence - a fine in the amount of five per cent of the
> amount of tax payable on the basis of such tax return for each full
> month from the deadline established for filing [tax returns], but not
> more than 30%;
> o For more than 180 days after the legislatively established
> deadline for filing such tax returns - a fine in the amount of 30% of
> the entire amount of tax payable, plus 10% of this sum for every full
> month over 181 days;
>
> * Failure to Comply with the Rules of Accounting for Income,
> Expenses and Objects of Taxation
> o A gross violation* of rules if these actions were committed
> within one tax period: five thousand rubles;
> o A gross violation of rules if these actions were committed
> during a period of time that exceeds one tax period: fifteen thousand
> rubles;
> o A gross violation of rules if these actions resulted in
> under reporting of income: 10% of the amount of unpaid tax, or 15
> thousand rubles, whichever is less;
>
> *A gross violation of rules of accounting for income, expenses and
> objects of taxation for the purposes of the present Article shall mean
> absence of primary [detailed] documents, absence of book-keeping
> registries, repeated untimely or incorrect coverage of business
> transactions, monetary funds, tangible assets, intangible assets and
> financial investments of the taxpayer in the balance sheet accounts and
> in reporting.
>
> On the concept of tax crimes:
> * Failure to pay taxes due as a result of understatement of the tax
> base or incorrect assessment of taxes due based on results of the tax
> period, if revealed by the tax authority during field audit:
> o Unintentional: 20 per cent of the unpaid tax liability;
> o Intentional: 40 per cent of the unpaid tax liability;
>
> * Failure of a tax agent to fulfill his duties under legislation on
> taxes and fees to withhold from the taxpayer and/or remit the withheld
> amounts of taxes to the budget:
> o 20% of the amount that was to be withheld and remitted;
>
> * Denial of access to the grounds or premises of a taxpayer to an
> officer of a tax authority conducting a tax by the taxpayer or his legal
> representative:
> o Five thousand rubles;
>
> * Failure to comply with the procedures established by the Tax Code
> for tenancy, use and/or disposal of property under lien:
> o Ten thousand rubles;
>
> * Withholding of information about a taxpayer to a tax agent, as
> well as failure to provide such documents, or providing documents
> containing false information:
> o Five thousand rubles.
>
> For the "Unified Social Tax Rate":
> Up to 100,000 Rb:
> 35.6%
> >From 100,000 to 300,000 Rb:
> 36,600 Rb + 20% of amount exceeding 100,000 Rb
> >From 300,000 to 600,000 Rb:
> 75,600 Rb + 10% of amount exceeding 300,000 Rb
> Over 600,000 Rb:
> 105,600 Rb + 2% of amount exceeding 600,000 Rb
>
> This tax is collected at the business level, and is based on Payroll
> amounts.
>
> Enterprises who advertise their products in St. Petersburg pay a tax of
> 5% of the cost of advertising services.
>
> Oh, but wait there's more! they have an "Asset Tax":
> 2% of the sum of the net book value of fixed and intangible assets,
> low-value and high-wear objects, stocks, incomplete production and
> deferred expenses. The calculation of Asset Tax must be submitted to the
> tax services quarterly by the 30th of the month following the quarter
> and paid within 5 days of submission.
>
> Oh, and in case anybody was wondering, yes they use April 15th as an
> important tax date too.
> A licensed firm registered in Russia must audit the annual returns and
> financial statements of the following entities:
>
> * Open joint-stock companies
> * Enterprises with turnover exceeding 500,000 minimum monthly wages;
> * Enterprises with assets exceeding 200,000 minimum monthly wages;
> * Any other entities with foreign ownership.
>
> The minimum monthly wage for 2001 was 100 Rubles.
>
> Sorry, Frank, these are not things that MSNBC typically produces for
> it's viewers, but the data is there if you go to the Russians, you know
> ... the source.
>
> And remember, YOU brought up Russia.
>
> > reducing regulation from decades ago? It seems to me you need to take
> > a serious look at current trends.
>
> I prefer long term trends, and real data, not your presumptions and
> assertions, for determinng where things will be in a decade. Of course,
> trends don't give any comfort to the chinese citizen who finds that
> recently his government starting blocking Google.com since he can fund
> "subversive" information using it. I'm sure it makes the Russian child
> who still doesn't have enough food to eat that there is an alleged trend
> in his country toward deregulation. I'm sure the Bosnian or Iraqi
> citizen in front of a firing squad, or sucking his last gasps through
> chemicals dropped on him by his government is relieved to know that
> somewhere, someone thinks things are getting better somewhere.
>
> Trends being used to predict future is by definition, not now.
>
> > > If the terms are expressed by people, then certainly one would
consider
> > > the population of a given country. That, however, is a very rare case.
> >
> > Indeed. It is irrelevant, or mostly so. Not always. A lot of people
> > today are recipients of freedom, and less taxation as I've already
> > pointed out.
>
> And lots are recipients of more taxation, and less freedom. something
> you casually ignore.
>
> >
> > Robert wrote:
> > > > Right now I can't think of any other category in which most of the
world's
> > > > better than the USA for its people. For most facets of freedom the
USA's
> > > > usually better than all but a few places. You can always find a
country
> > > > here and there where you get a special break in some narrow way --
like
> > > > tax-free income for poets in Ireland.
> >
> > You replied:
> > > Naturally.
> >
> > Well, isn't this really special? You agree with that? That's up to
>
> Do you disagree with this statement (it is a yes or no question):
> "You can always find a country here and there where you get a special
> break in some narrow way -- like tax-free income for poets in Ireland."
>
> That is what I agreed with. Even here you can see it between the states.
> Mayeb you should consider kentucky, frank. With the Federal tax rates on
> cigarettes, they only pay 42 cents/pack -- with no change since 1970.
> The highest is Massachusetts which combined with the federal ($.39/pack)
> pays 1.90/pack in taxes. The average of all states is 58.8 cents plus
> the 39 cents for the feds ... call it 98 cents. Average retail price
> per pack is 3.85 including taxes ... hmm and average of 34 percent.
> Looks a lot like Russia's tax rates on cigarettes (which is misleading,
> since that only represents one tax, there are more taxes that are levied
> in Russia).
>
> On trends, let us use your favorite dog: cigarettes.
>
> In 2002, 19 states in the US have higher tax rates on cigarettes. yet 27
> states have not increased them since the 1980's, and four not since
> 1970. The "giant" trend, the one that MSNBC reports to its loyal
> advertising targets, is that 19 increased. Yet the underlying trend is
> that 31 have not in over a decade.
>
> One thing not shown by the "data" in that "trend" is the increase in
> non-tax retail price of a pack of cigarettes. It has increased (due in
> part to inflation), just like many things. Since beginning of 1998, the
> major cigarette companies increased the prices they charge by over $1.20
> per pack. Idaho ha snot had a cigarette excise tax increase since 1994.
> Any increase in prices of cigarettes you have seen in this state are due
> to companies increasing their prices by a little under 50%. And people
> still buy the stuff. If the people are willing to pay higher prices, and
> the curve works out such that you make more money, that's capitalism,
> baby.
>
> As this happens, the relative percentage of the tax rates decreases.
> Thus, increases in the raw cents/pack more often than not bring the rate
> back into a previous percentage. Thus, the rates, in the states that are
> increasing them, do not seem to be varying much when compared to the
> rate at the last time of increase.
>
> Of course, these are Excise taxes, so state sales taxes apply as well,
> but since those are not specific to cigarettes, those are excluded.
>
> Regarding Canada at, they charge as of 2002, 15 cents per cigarette.
> hmm, as I understand it, there are 10 cigarettes/pack .. that makes the
> per pack rate 1.50. One penny below the highest state on the US.
>
> Even on your favorite dog, the US does not come out as bad as you make
> out, compared to other places, which is what this discussion is about,
> lest you forget.
>
> > you, but sadly I disagree. Here's why. You really need to take a
> > serious look at giant trends that have occurred, and are still
>
> Sorry, but reality is that it is the smaller trends that show where the
> future lies. Big trends tend more often than not to represent passing
> fads, or trends at their peak, which means they are set to decline.
>
> > occurring in the last couple of decades or so. And, should you say,
> > "this doesn't matter", then let me remind you that the entire US
> > government as we know it, has only been in existence for little over
> > the last 200 years! Before you sign on to Robert's argument, you need
>
> The entire Russian government as we know it has been in existence for
> less than a decade. Your point?
>
> > to understand that "liberty" as such, is in a downward spiral in the
> > US and most of the western world, when at the same time it is
>
> Before I "sign on" to "Frank's arguments", I need more than general
> unfounded assertions. Frank, all you do is make assertions, I can't but
> that blindly. Sorry, I don't worship you anymore than I worship Robert.
> I don't "sign on" to arguments, I examine them. Those that don't make
> the logic grade, are dismissed. Those that are presented with no
> evidence, incorrect or insufficient evidence, are dismissed as well.
>
> > increasing throughout much of eastern Europe, former Soviet republics,
> > and in most of east Asia and in southern Asia. If you are a betting
> > man, would you hedge your bets that American will be the sole bastion
> > for social and economic freedom in the next decade or two?
> >
> > Bill, you sir, are ignoring a lot of recent history. The direction of
>
> No Frank, I am well aware of much, I just don't have your blinders on.
> Tell me Frank, have you taken the Meyers-Briggs/Kiersey Temperament
> sorter? I am curious.
>
> > freedom, or liberty, today has nothing much at all with the current US
> > government, nor for that matter particularly with what is going on in
> > western Europe. If the current US government is a beacon for liberty,
> > then God help us all.
> >
> > You are missing something here. As the Communist regime finally
> > crumbles and falls in China, so will most of the fears you seem to
> > believe will establish the equalitarian status quo in defence of
> > liberty. Liberty has the best ultimate chance in east Asia, because
> > that is where it is all happening in the absence of force. North
> > Korea will soon disappear. The Chinese communist regime which is
> > already "dated" will disappear, because no one really cares anyway.
>
> Oh, I see, you dismiss china, the nation with the highest population, as
> outdated, so you don't care about it. Got it, if Frank disagrees, they
> other country must be dated and thus irrelevant. Noted.
>
> > Meanwhile, America will continue to add multitudes of statues on the
> > books to deny social and economic liberty. The tables are turning,
> > and I knew that was occurring at least two decades ago! I am not
>
> And damn the facts, Frank must be right!
>
> > surprised. In this scheme of things, likely Iraq won't really matter
> > too much down the road, because I doubt seriously that Iraq poses any
> > military challenge against the US, Europe, and certain NOT China for
> > multiple decades to come!
> >
> > Can I prove any of this? Yea, in some ways I can. History is own my
> > side, and it shows tangible evidence to support everything I say. Am
>
> No, it does not. Only the arrogant one asserts that history supports
> EVERYTHING he says. Oh, wait ... never mind, I almost forgot who I was
> conversing with for a moment.
>
> > I noticed also, that Lowell Savage didn't even care to buy the book,
> > because it today costs around $100. It is still the definitive effort
> > to look at East Asia history. I own the book. But Savage, if he
> > cared to do so, could have easily checked it out for free at his local
> > library! That's hardly an excuse!
>
> Yeah, and I notice you have still not joined the organizations that
> devote their life to studying in great detail the events on the world
> stage, and have much data that stands in contradiction to your claims.
>
>
> > Unfortunately, the real excuse is that there are a lot of people who
> > don't even care at all to examine much of anything, even when it is
>
> And there are a lot of people who believe they hold the keys and
> answers, and get pretty pissed off when ANYONE doubts them. News flash
> Frank: In case you've missed it over the years, I doubt everything, and
> everyone. yeah, I'd probably question "the Almighty" too, given the
> chance. ("Excuse me, what does God need with a starship?" *ZOT*!)
>
> I have noticed a trend. You refusing to give citations and evidence to
> support your position. "It is obvious" is not a valid piece of evidence.
> I've noticed over the last year that whenever someone agrees with you
> regarding Bush, the U.S., foreign policy, you cal them names, and say
> they are anti-liberty. You assign statements to them that were never
> made, and when called or pressed for details, you call them names again,
> and try to deflect the question by calling it mousemilking. You go into
> an "I am omniscient" mode, and quite Frankly, I find it saddening and
> annoying. I'm not the only one who has noted that, either.
>
> JQS used to make statements that look just like yours "I CAN post loads
> of ..." and never did. Sad to see you are moving in that trend. maybe it
> is time for a break? Yeah, a break sounds good.
>
> --
> Bill Anderson
> Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
> Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
> Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: US vs. the world
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 23:14:03 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in small part:

>Liberty is
>increasing in certain places, as I've laid out. Liberty is
>DECREASING in the United States, western Europe, and other areas.

That last is not clear at all, as we've already discussed here. It's not an
easy overall judgement to make when you're gaining some liberty and losing
some, as respects different facets of life. Check the archives at Yahoo.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:00:06 -0400
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank:

Well I don't know how vocal I am, but I am viscerally against the attack of
Iraq. We simply do not have enough evidence to support a unprovoked attack
on that country; the reasons I have seen look very custom fabricated and
remind me of the reasons Germany came up with for initiating an attack on
Poland.
Let them bomb us, or lets get some uncontrovertable proof of an impending
planned attack on us, or something first.
Inter alia, I have recently read in big headlines that some terrorist
organization in america was funding something or other using drug money. Boy
what they must have done to dig something like that up. They are going to
try to paint the whole kettle black, because somewhere someone somehow has
sold drugs and donated some of the proceeds to what they believe to be a
terrorist function.
People in America don't sell drugs to fund terrorism. They sell it to make
money, just like any other capitalist enterprise. What propagandizing
idiots. I feel like I am more and more in the middle of Goebel's information
mfg machine.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Reichert"
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: Shrub Regime<tm> losing ground...

> Greetings again Michelle!
>
> Michelle wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> I previously wrote, in part:
> > > Now, before the "anarchists" here go into "hyper
> > > mode" and object,
> > > saying, "Well the above only involves individual
> > > "self choices", let's
> > > go back to the fact that governments are the sum of
> > > delegated power by
> > > individuals.
>
> Michelle Eilers replied:
> > Umm, Frank, what anarchists are you talking about?
> > I'm an anarchist and I'm very much opposed to
> > attacking Iraq.
>
> Wonderful, that's certainly enough for me, and thank you for
> responding affirmatively against initiating force, and particularly
> when the consequences of such aggression could have catastrophic
> consequences! I didn't have you in the back of my mind when I wrote
> what I did.
>
> > Indeed, I would think that most
> > market anarchists - believing that it is wrong and
> > counterproductive to initiate force - would also be
> > very, very leery of attacking another country under
> > any circumstances and certainly wouldn't be in favor
> > of attacking a country without adequate indication
> > that the war was necessary for self defense.
>
> That is also wonderful to hear. I know when I finally joined the
> Libertarian Party it was primarily when I began to understand the
> party's rejection of initiating force for the purpose of bringing
> about political or social goals. I am glad that most anarchists at
> least also share that view. The Libertarian Party continues to oppose
> foreign aggression, and the initiation of force.
>
> Unfortunately, there are a few on this list who continue to call for a
> US unilateral pre-emptive war against Iraq, and I've often felt boxed
> in because the few that seem to believe this, are some of our most
> vocal subscribers. So for me at least, it's comforting to hear your
> words of encouragement against initiating force against other people
> because we arrogantly believe we have higher moral character, or
> something to that effect.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 17:01:31 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Gary Triest wrote:
>Frank:
>
>Well I don't know how vocal I am, but I am viscerally against the attack of
>Iraq. We simply do not have enough evidence to support a unprovoked attack
>on that country; the reasons I have seen look very custom fabricated and
>remind me of the reasons Germany came up with for initiating an attack on
>Poland.

Let me see...1) Poland had lost an earlier war with Germany and was in
violation of the terms that ended the conflict. 2) Poland was preparing
WMD. 3) Poland was funding terrorists. 4) Poland had used WMD on its own
people. 5) Poland was a dictatorship run by a power-mad fellow oppressing
his people.

Yeah, yeah, that's it! Dirty, nasty ol' Poland. England and France and
the US should never have gotten involved in WWII.

>Let them bomb us, or lets get some uncontrovertable proof of an impending
>planned attack on us, or something first.

Well, well, well. Gary gets credit for honesty. He wants the mushroom
cloud (or equivalent) over a major US city before we go to war. Most of us
who favor of attacking Iraq do so because we would like to *avoid* that
mushroom cloud. What's interesting about Gary's admission is that it this
both (1) confirms his earlier statement about being "viscerally against the
attack of Iraq" (i.e. his emotions are clouding his judgement--another bit
of honest for which I applaud him) and (2) contradicts his very next
sentence that we "do not have enough evidence to support a unprovoked
attack" on Iraq. (Of course, there's been plenty of provocation, but Gary
probably just thinks that the enforcement of the agreements signed by
Iraq--and the provocations against them--are just more "bullying" on the
part of the western nations.)

But, nobody's perfect. Gary committed a little bit of truth (accidentally,
perhaps, but done all the same) so he gets some major kudos from this side
of the peanut gallery....

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: f--- saddam.........
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 22:15:02 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>

frank, michelle, group,

frank, i despise u.s. foriegn policy, at least as much as you. and i have
been surprised by the support and rationalization it has garnered on this
list.

also, i loved michelle's response to you, "ummm, what market anarchists".

well, frank, michelle, i'm gonna pee ya both off here.

though i'd prefer that saddam end up in ny's central park zoo, short of
that, i want the f----- dead. i'd kill him myself if i could!

ya, as you wrote, that makes me a hypocrite, i guess, but i plan to look the
other way, comes to that evil asshole.

yeah, michelle, i'm a market anarchist, like you. but we do not have the
benifit of anarchy right now, with its "foriegn policy".

saddam was, and is, a creation of u.s. foriegn policy, as was the shaw of
iran, who preceded him.

i want that f----- dead!! it's past time!!

a university professor of mine told me once that "consistency is the
hobgoblin of small minds", quoting someone else. i have despised his
argument ever since, until tonight, when i decided to write this
communication.

i don't give a f--- how it happens, i want saddam dead!!

sincerely,

larry




---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: f--- saddam.........
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 20:34:57 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Larry!

larry fullmer wrote to Michelle Eilers and Frank Reichert...

> frank, i despise u.s. foriegn policy, at least as much as you. and i have
> been surprised by the support and rationalization it has garnered on this
> list.

Understood. At least I think I do.

> also, i loved michelle's response to you, "ummm, what market anarchists".

Also taken in good spirit, and I appreciated her post.

> well, frank, michelle, i'm gonna pee ya both off here.

Now. This should prove interesting. Hint, it's very hard to piss me
off, Larry. I've been doing this for a very long time, and virtually
nothing surprises me very much anymore. But give it your best shot.

> though i'd prefer that saddam end up in ny's central park zoo, short of
> that, i want the f----- dead. i'd kill him myself if i could!

Now, I may piss you off. What has Saddam done to you lately that has
raised your blood pressure to such high levels that you would initiate
force to "kill" him, if you could? Grant it, he's an asshole, but has
he threatened you? If so, how? So, why do you feel so threatened that
you want to kill him come hell or high water? If you resided in
Baghdad, I might understand. You don't obviously, so what the
aggression?

> ya, as you wrote, that makes me a hypocrite, i guess, but i plan to look
the
> other way, comes to that evil asshole.

Yea, evil, right! So what? The entire earth is full of such evil,
such assholes. What's your point? We have 'em in Idaho for crying
out loud. Should you be more focused here on what really threatens
YOU! Me! and others? Saddam certainly is NO threat to me, but I don't
know about you. You'll have to explain what Saddam Hussein is a
threat to you, and your liberty for me to sign on.

> yeah, michelle, i'm a market anarchist, like you. but we do not have the
> benifit of anarchy right now, with its "foriegn policy".

That ought to be a good one. What kind of "foreign policy" would
archives posture as legitimate, since anarchist refuse to discuss such
things as "borders", or "sovereignty"? You can't have it both ways
Larry. If total anarchy was the modus operandi, then you can't even
talk about "foreign" policy, can you?

> saddam was, and is, a creation of u.s. foriegn policy, as was the shaw of
> iran, who preceded him.

Noted. And agreed.

> i want that f----- dead!! it's past time!!

That doesn't logically follow, and you know it! Point I am making
here is you do not recognize any foreign soverignty, any foreign
borders, yet you want this "fucker" dead at any cost, regardless of
your ideology, and regardless of what is commonly recognized as
"libertarian" principles! If he's not a threat to you Larry, why do
YOU want him dead at any cost? Seems to me you are sanctioning the
use of force, the initiation of force, to force your own parochial
political agenda here. Hate to say it, but the evidence by your own
words, deceive you.

> a university professor of mine told me once that "consistency is the
> hobgoblin of small minds", quoting someone else. i have despised his
> argument ever since, until tonight, when i decided to write this
> communication.
> i don't give a f--- how it happens, i want saddam dead!!

Yea, and you might want to re-think what you just wrote. Because in
subscribing to such, you choose to initiate force against someone who
is not threatening you, your liberty, property, family, or private
property! And, to throw some more mud in your face, you want the US
government to do that for you! I find this repugnant and repulsive,
since you've insisted that you don't one penny of your assets funding
such "collective" military defence! Don't you see something here as a
giant contradiction?

I don't know how you wish to address this. I am no lover of Saddam
Hussein either; but nevertheless I don't see him as an aggressor
against my life, my family, my liberty, or private property. I have
to reason to sanction to use of aggression in any "self-defence"
contingency to kill the bastard. Why do you? I'm just curious.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: f--- saddam.........
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 11:19:42 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank asked of Larry Fullmer:

>What has Saddam done to you lately that
>has raised your blood pressure to such high levels that you would
>initiate force to "kill" him, if you could? Grant it, he's an
>asshole, but has he threatened you? If so, how? So, why do you
>feel so threatened that you want to kill him come hell or high
>water? If you resided in Baghdad, I might understand. You don't
>obviously, so what the aggression?

Is that it? You expect us to respond only to things that affect us
personally? A great deal of what I'm agitated about, being an activist,
don't affect me personally. I don't smoke, and yet anti-smoking rules
bother me. Terrorism in Israel bothers me, although I'm not in Israel. I'm
interested in medical marijuana on the west coast of the USA, although I'm
far from there and have no need for medical marijuana. For that matter, I'd
like to abolish earthquakes on the west coast and malaria in Africa. Why
don't I focus on malaria in NY? Because we don't have malaria in NY, that's
why! (Although we do have West Nile encephalitis now.)

Your Sin: Liberty,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LIBERTY KIDS.....
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 04:22:54 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>,
<libnw@immosys.com>

GROUP,

LIBERTY KIDS IS A BRAND NEW PBS SERIES. IT'S WONDERFUL!! MOUNTIAN TIME,
IT'S ON EVERY DAY AT 3:30. WITH THE GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS IN CHARGE OF
TEACHING HISTORY, EVERY DAMN ADULT OUGHTA WATCH IT. YUP, EVEN US LIBS.
CHECK IT OUT, JUST ONCE. I FIGURE YOU'LL BE AN ADDICT.

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: >> Frank [still] wants to rate the USA vs. the rest of the world in
>> terms of freedom.
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 11:19:52 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
CC: <Re:USvs.theworld@bestweb.net>

>Smoking was only an example. I could have chosen a lot of other
>ones,

Why don't you? I gave several.

>> Overall I'd say the USA
>> is way ahead of the world average. Here are the categories in
>> which the USA seems deficient compared to the pack:

>> 1. Vice laws. Seems policy in the USA more than most comparable
>>countries focuses on getting between people & their vices -- sex,
>>drugs, gambling.

>I believe there is much more to this than that. What about
>"taxation"?

People in the USA are less taxed than most.

>> 2. Liability. The USA seems considerably outside the pack in
>> tort law.

>Whatever that means, since you haven't defined it as such, so I have
>no idea.

We've discussed it before here. The legal system puts liability on people
it shouldn't, or shouldn't to such a degree.

>> Right now I can't think of any other category in which most of
>> the world's better than the USA for its people. For most facets
>> of freedom the USA's usually better than all but a few places.

>God! Do YOU have a lot to learn. What about just living your own
>life in the absence of a huge regulatory government? Face it, (I'd
>like to call you Bob or something, it isn't that we are complete
>strangers after a decade or so), but life in America is regulated
>by government, and America is probably one of the most regulated
>societies on the face of the earth!

You keep writing that, but don't give any evidence.

>If you were placing your bets, your investment in liberty -- where
>would you place your bets today, with the Shrub Regime<tm> or the
>one that follows? This is NOT 1776. Where will Americans likely
>place their allegiance today, tomorrow, and in the future? In
>centralized government. Sorry, that's the historical trend. And
>the trend continues. And, I don't see any of that reversing itself
>any time soon. Everything I hear on US news channels ways
>basically the same thing. We need, require, and MUST support even
>more government solutions to solve everything!

But I don't think much of the world will pass us up in deregulation and
destatization. I think countries that were recently totalitarian will stop
short of the degree of liberty we have in the USA, because for all you write
of what people think in the USA, they traditionally think so even more
elsewhere.

>I guess the real question surrounds whether there will ever come a
>day when Americans will accept any notion at all of individual
>rights.

People in the USA have a very strong sense of individual rights -- it's just
that it's a bit confused, and often includes their "right" to help
themselves to what others own. Compare that to other countries, where
people aren't even confused -- they're against individual liberty, and they
know it!

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: >> Frank [still] wants to rate the USA vs. the rest of the world
in>> terms of freedom.
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 22:03:46 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> >Smoking was only an example. I could have chosen a lot of other
> >ones,

And, you replied:
> Why don't you? I gave several.

I've already done that, but you seem to be fixated on my problem with
3000 percent taxation on tobacco products in the US. Why is it anyway
you seem to have a problem with that? You don't smoke? So, you don't
believe this is a problem for those of us who chose to smoke? Nice!
You seem to be pretty selective about the issues you believe are
important only to YOURSELF!

> People in the USA are less taxed than most.

Now, here's a real jewel! You claim that the percentage of
assets/wealth in terms of revenue confiscated by government in the us
is less than MOST! I have no idea what planet you live on, but other
than Canada, western Europe, Japan, and similar countries, is such a
gross percentage of property, assets, income, etc., confiscated per
capita in the majority of countries on earth. That's why, in case you
missed it, tobacco taxation is an important benchmark. Even in Japan,
the second largest economy on the planet, "allows" you to buy imported
cigarettes in the market place at about $1.00 a pack!

You don't like talking about this at all, I know that. Probably
because you don't' smoke cigarettes. But I think it is worth
discussing anyway. Why is it that the US/State governments decide to
impose a 3000 percent tax on what individuals chose to consume a
certain product? I don't want to hear that Canada does the same
thing, only worse, or ibid, western Europe. I'll bet you, although I
haven't been there since around 1970, that Vietnam doesn't even have
the audacity to do such a thing! The Chinese, who like their
cigarettes, probably don't either, although I've never been there, and
can't document any of that.

You previously wrote:
> >> 2. Liability. The USA seems considerably outside the pack in
> >> tort law.

And I responded:
> >Whatever that means, since you haven't defined it as such, so I have
> >no idea.

You clarified:
> We've discussed it before here. The legal system puts liability on people
> it shouldn't, or shouldn't to such a degree.

So, once again the cigarette manufacturers. Gaff this off if you want
to, but this is a very good case in point. Particularly since the
government has "required" cigarette manufacturers to put "warning
labels" on every pack of cigarettes they sell, and have done so for
decades! How can the US (in)Justice system go back in, several
decades later, and cry foul? People didn't seem to get the message?
Companies provide products as the demand necessitates that they
should, yet you claim this is somehow "outside" of discussion. I
submit this is exactly on discussion, particularly when the billions
of packs of cigarettes have carried the government mandated warning
labels for decades!

No, Robert, I don't work or have anything much to do with R.J.
Reynolds, or Phillip Morris, or where they hang their hats. Point is
that all tobacco companies have for decades been required to give the
government free advertising in the millions of dollars to promote the
government's agenda.

I previously wrote:
> >God! Do YOU have a lot to learn. What about just living your own
> >life in the absence of a huge regulatory government? Face it, (I'd
> >like to call you Bob or something, it isn't that we are complete
> >strangers after a decade or so), but life in America is regulated
> >by government, and America is probably one of the most regulated
> >societies on the face of the earth!

You replied:
> You keep writing that, but don't give any evidence.

I've been screaming for over a decade now about evidence. Did I
provide all of that evidence in my last post, certainly not. If you
want to compare the US government, and American society with Canada,
or perhaps, western Europe, you've already made your case. I'll
accept that you have won the argument given such parameters.

But the world as such, is much larger than that. You'll have to
examine what takes place in the scheme of things, in the former Soviet
Union, eastern Europe, and indeed the rest of the planet. The jury is
out on what really takes place, and I am only speculating. I do
suspect that unless the US government juggernaut finds a way to
control what other government's do, then there is hope that others
will choose liberty, and be able to still keep most of the money they
earn in honest labour. Problem is, vis-a-vis, Iraq etc., they will be
given less choices to decide such things. The 'war on drugs' as is
the 'war on terror' interfering greatly in people making their own
choices, albeit some bad, and some good choices.

This is important, I previously wrote:
> >If you were placing your bets, your investment in liberty -- where
> >would you place your bets today, with the Shrub Regime<tm> or the
> >one that follows? This is NOT 1776. Where will Americans likely
> >place their allegiance today, tomorrow, and in the future? In
> >centralized government. Sorry, that's the historical trend. And
> >the trend continues. And, I don't see any of that reversing itself
> >any time soon. Everything I hear on US news channels ways
> >basically the same thing. We need, require, and MUST support even
> >more government solutions to solve everything!

And, you replied:
> But I don't think much of the world will pass us up in deregulation and
> destatization. I think countries that were recently totalitarian will
stop
> short of the degree of liberty we have in the USA, because for all you
write
> of what people think in the USA, they traditionally think so even more
> elsewhere.

WHY? Why do you think they will, or they MUST? Is this natural? Or
is it a product of the use of force by the US government and other
players? Will they be forced to comply with sin taxes on cigarettes,
or else!? You have to remember too, we have no real liberty in the
good 'ol USA! What do you have "liberty" to do anymore without
creating suspicion? You're region isn't the right one, and you are
place on the "suspect" list. I don't need to go on and on with this,
as I have written profusely on all of this previously.

Point is, what if "people" had real choices, without government
coercion to make such choices? I know that you have followed my
discussions with Larry on some of these threads, and although I am not
an "anarchist", I at least give people a right to make their own
decisions and choices (along with the consequences), for what they
wish to accept as a basic criteria for personal freedom.

All I am suggesting here is that you seem to capitulate to the use of
some governments exercising their dominion and power to decide YOUR
choices for you, particularly if you are dealing with the so-called
G7, the nations that seem to have dictatorial control over what other
nations are left in a hand basket to consider, and even reluctantly
accept as a "last choice" alternative.

> People in the USA have a very strong sense of individual rights -- it's
just
> that it's a bit confused, and often includes their "right" to help
> themselves to what others own. Compare that to other countries, where
> people aren't even confused -- they're against individual liberty, and
they
> know it!

I guess I agree with that, at least to a point. That's why I got into
the "human nature" argument with Larry, and I still have found no way
in which he has satisfactorily resolved that issue. Individuals, call
them "people" if you must, are really barbarians at heart. They want
to find a way to steal, plunder, and get for themselves what they see
others have accumulated, most often from honest labour, and
admittedly, sometimes not. Problem is, in a "democracy" you have no
recourse to that, do you? The people have the power to rape, plunder
and confiscate what they will, and they use "government" as the
vehicle of choice.

I've often made it rather clear that I don't know, nor do I have any
ability to foretell how the former Soviet republics will develop. I
do know there is an opportunity now that we haven't seen in the last
hundred years for liberty to flourish, and it will not happen by
design, I hope, by example of the US government in the last 100 years!

Unlike a lot of people who profess to be libertarians, I don't have a
real problem with nationalism. I don't have a problem with
self-determination, and I don't have a problem with individuals making
up their own minds on what government will serve or represent them. I
believe completely that individuals, make their own choices, and in a
national sense, people make up the government that best represents
them, and their goals and choices. I have no moral right to decide
for others what they choose for themselves. And I don't believe any
aggression from me, or MY government, is in their own best interests,
ever.

And, as you wrote, with the USA, we don't even know how to make up our
minds yet, and that is scary! Believe me, and I am one of those,
Americans are living in a world of delusion. The Shrub Regime<tm>
wants to wage a catastrophic war that will result in creating less
liberty, more hatred against America and probably the western world if
it signs on, and will create an even greater climate for terror and
aggression for years to come. I will not sign on to any of that.

You and I both know that we had the balance of world opinion on our
side after September 11, 2001. That is NO LONGER THE CASE. We should
not allow the Shrub Regime<tm> to self-destruct the American
civilization, and notice I didn't say, the U.S. government
civilization (which I want no part of whatsoever).

If you do, then you have my regrets.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: >> Frank [still] wants to rate the USA vs. the rest of the world in>> terms of freedom.
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 19:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ken <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
wrote:

> I've already done that, but you seem to be fixated
> on my problem with
> 3000 percent taxation on tobacco products in the US.
> Why is it anyway
> you seem to have a problem with that? You don't
> smoke? So, you don't
> believe this is a problem for those of us who chose
> to smoke? Nice!
> You seem to be pretty selective about the issues you
> believe are
> important only to YOURSELF!

Well, Frank, I don't agree with all the tobacco laws,
but when big matters of life, liberty, and property
are at stake, the price of a pack of cigarettes
doesn't make a big dent in our freedom. Whether you
pay fifty cents or ten bucks a pack probably isn't the
best yardstick of a nation and its civil rights, even
if the latter sucks for smokers.

> > People in the USA are less taxed than most.
>
> Now, here's a real jewel! You claim that the
> percentage of
> assets/wealth in terms of revenue confiscated by
> government in the us
> is less than MOST! I have no idea what planet you
> live on, but other
> than Canada, western Europe, Japan, and similar
> countries, is such a
> gross percentage of property, assets, income, etc.,
> confiscated per
> capita in the majority of countries on earth.

Here's another thing, Frank. You keep wanting to bring
up developing countries like Vietnam. I think if you
want a comparison, you have to use other
industrialized nations like Canada, Japan, and the
countries of western Europe. Governments in less
developed countries generally lack the power to
enforce their laws nationwide, like in India where
they can't enforce child labor laws. Not only that,
but in industrialized nations you can tax a higher
percentage of income, and people can still live off of
the remainder. This becomes harder and harder to do in
countries where the average daily income is less than
what we pay for a meal at McDonalds. Comparing the
U.S. to Vietnam really isn't a valid argument.

I've been following this debate with some interest.
The problem is the same as most others you have been
involved in, Frank. You usually present your initial
arguments well and back them reasonably. However, when
people start challenging you on a deeper level, your
arguments become more emotional. You repeat yourself
more and it becomes more apparent that you have made
up your mind, and use whatever facts you can find to
back you, rather than getting the information and then
forming an opinion. You also tend not to acknowledge
that other opinions are valid, or that anyone would
have good reasons for disagreeing with you. I notice
this even when I agree with you, and I'm not saying
I'm the best debator either, so please don't take this
an attack or anything.

Ken Butler

=====
Remember the days when Ozzy was dangerous and the Catholic Church was safe?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: >> Frank [still] wants to rate the USA vs. the rest of the world
in>> terms of freedom.
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 21:54:43 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Ken, it's been a while!

I appreciate hearing from you Ken. I really do. And some of what I am
about to write does not mean I am trying to insult you. I also take
your criticism as fair and worthy of comment, and in some cases I
agree with you here. But there are other important matters in which I
strongly disagree, as will be evident below.

In any case, I ask your indulgence. Please bear with me, as I really
want to make some point to clarify what I believe. And, not at your
expense at all, either.

Ken Butler wrote to Frank Reichert...

> Well, Frank, I don't agree with all the tobacco laws,
> but when big matters of life, liberty, and property
> are at stake, the price of a pack of cigarettes
> doesn't make a big dent in our freedom. Whether you
> pay fifty cents or ten bucks a pack probably isn't the
> best yardstick of a nation and its civil rights, even
> if the latter sucks for smokers.

Well, I don't know. One thing I do know however, is that if I were
currently living in the US today, I'd be paying much more in cigarette
or tobacco taxes than I do to the IRS in income taxes! That's a
fact. So, is this an issue about taxation, mainly against those who
can least afford it? Yes! Tell me just to quit smoking. Then you
become just another authoritarian who wants to use the force of
government to control what I choose to do!

Don't pass judgement to quickly on me. If I smoke just two packs a
day, and pay $5.00 a pack (and I've heard it is even worse now), I'm
paying $9.00 a day X 365 days of the year in pure taxes or government
contrived "drive up costs". My calculator just told me that I would
be paying $3,285 a year to make a personal choice to just smoke
cigarettes. Again, I've heard that the price today is even higher
than that!!! Ken, if you choose not to smoke, wonderful! But do you
have a moral right to tax my personal choice along with millions of
other Americans to the tune of $3,285 a year? In other words, Ken --
IT'S NOT TRIVIAL TO ME! It might be to you. But remember, I'm not
advocated taxing YOUR choices, am I? It's none of my business what
your choices are. Why do you believe my choices, and what government
force would be used and applied against my choices, are trivial?

That's a lot of the problem, at least as I see it anyway. A lot of
folks believe because such shit doesn't affect them at all, that it is
a trivial matter and of little consequence. At least it isn't as bad
as if I chose to smoke MJ. For that I could have my home, my car, my
business confiscated and face years in the slammer.

Well, at least Ken, triviality is in the mind of the subject. If it
doesn't affect you, then my liberty to you is of little consequence.
Let's at least agree that that is pretty much what you just said. If
my liberty isn't important to you, why on earth should I care about
YOUR choices, and what you believe is important for you? Should I
think your choices are trivial. In some cases I might be inclined to,
particularly if such choices weren't my own. See my point?

> Here's another thing, Frank. You keep wanting to bring
> up developing countries like Vietnam. I think if you
> want a comparison, you have to use other
> industrialized nations like Canada, Japan, and the
> countries of western Europe.

I disagree. Vietnam and such others are the MOST important of all. All
of the countries you mention are heading in the same direction.
Liberty is decreasing, period. Yes, in a sense at least, they are all
in their heyday. Japan, the world's second largest economy is plunging
downward to 30 year lows! The US isn't far behind either, but the
demise will likely occur after some of the other ones have long
plunged into hopeless disarray, economic decline, such as Canada.

It is interesting that you chose Vietnam as an example. The
"libertarian" jury is still out, but it is moving rapidly toward
dismantling tyranny, with a lot of economic freedom coming into play
with its emergence into the ASEAN alliance. Liberty, and ultimately a
libertarian form of some kind of government is ALWAYS more possible
under such conditions. It is less possible in all of the countries
you site above, and you should be able to see that that is the case by
just looking at history in the last century, and in the case of Japan,
for the last five decades.

Before you react as hostile to what I am saying, let's try and stay
focused upon when the "opportunities" for liberty really occur. In
America that was during the time of the American revolution against
King George. In the case of the former Soviet Union, it was in the
aftermath of the Soviet Union, and its demise. And, contrary to
"revisionist history", Ronald Reagan was NOT the architect for the
collapse of the Soviet Union. It imploded, just as eventually the
American civilization will likely implode.

I'm going to take the following commentary in two parts. You seem to
mention them as one...

First:
> Governments in less
> developed countries generally lack the power to
> enforce their laws nationwide, like in India where
> they can't enforce child labor laws.

Is that bad? Is it bad when government is so inefficient, so corrupt,
that it can't enforce laws that have the effect of reducing free
choice? The Philippines is a lot like that. They even enacted a year
or so ago, a seat belt law. Even on buses! Thing is, I haven't seen
one individual "buckle up" yet, including drivers, much less
passengers! And, I haven't seen anyone arrested for NOT doing so! Is
that bad? Related as well: they passed a law for "No Smoking" on
buses. Everyday I see bus drivers, passengers, and bus conductors
lighting up, and again, no one arrested. Is THAT bad? I think it's
wonderful! I love inefficient government, especially when it doesn't
have the ability to tax very much -- I don't have a real problem with
that. You seem to indicate here that it is bad when governments can't
enforce unjust laws.

Even those tasked with enforcing such laws, don't like the laws. If
you are going to have a revolt, that's where the rubber meets the
road. Problem with the Philippine government, is that they are trying
to be "politically correct" with world opinion on such laws,
particularly trying to copy US laws. I remember more than a decade
ago when the then President, Corizon Aquino tried to enact "Daylight
Savings Time" in the Philippines. The time for sunset and sunrise over
a twelve month period in the Philippines is less than ONE HOUR A DAY,
since we are located very close to the equator. The result was,
filipinos just ignored the time change, and did what they normally did
and at the same time that they chose! Amazingly, Aquino capitulated
and the law was abolished.

I wish Americans could find a way to ignore (and say NO) to about 95
percent of the laws on the books and just gaff them all off and refuse
to obey them all! But that isn't happening now, is it? Ibid.:
western Europe, the US and Canada, all of the great examples you so
cite! The Philippines is also a country that deposed the dictator,
Ferdinand Marcos (PEACEFULLY WITHOUT A SHOT BEING FIRED), and again a
couple of years ago, Joseph Estrada (AGAIN THE SAME WAY, WITHOUT
VIOLENCE).

So, again, where, in your opinion, is the best place for "liberty" to
emerge? With your examples of failed and miserable taxation,
regulation, and "correct" thinking, how is liberty going to become an
option? I just want to know. I haven't seen much of such happening
these days.

> Not only that,
> but in industrialized nations you can tax a higher
> percentage of income, and people can still live off of
> the remainder. This becomes harder and harder to do in
> countries where the average daily income is less than
> what we pay for a meal at McDonalds. Comparing the
> U.S. to Vietnam really isn't a valid argument.

This is the second part of what you just wrote. Ken, this is a
non-arguement. YES. You are absolutely correct. Higher performing
economies obviously can accommodate, at least for a while, higher
taxation. That's not the issue. Please bear with me a little longer.
With higher (percentage of) taxation, also comes with a commensurate
loss of liberty. More laws, more police, more "no tolerance" jail
sentences, as in the US. A higher percentage of the population in
jail, under the court system. All I am saying, is that what YOU are
saying is inevitable, is really a reduction in liberty, your right to
choose.

In your argument you do not justify why it is necessary for higher
taxes, percentage wise, or proportionally! You seem to feel
complacent here that emerging economies, with higher income levels,
can justify the imposition of enforcing new laws by draconian means
against free choices. You may not like this, but think for a moment
on what I just wrote above. Isn't it much better to have a government
that is inefficient, with a much lower tax base, and even corrupt
enforcing laws that shouldn't even be on the books at all? Yea, even
Vietnam, although I haven't been there in 30 years, is probably just
such a government. And, that government is changing, and their is a
much greater chance that liberty will emerge as a result than in the
United States of America today.

You seem to want to justify the tremendous burden of taxation based
upon whether or not the median income could reasonably support such a
base, rather than what the resources being squandered upon increasing
the efficiency of government could result in "less" liberty! So, if
YOU believe in liberty, why is this a good thing? As I've mentioned,
I don't believe it is good at all, but rather an indication that THAT
civilization is in serious decline.

> I've been following this debate with some interest.

I'll thank you for this. But my agenda is "liberty". I also again want
to thank you for making this discussion possible, it's been a good
one, at least for what I feel, is really somewhat a circumspect and
meaningful debate on government power, and the concomitant loss of
liberty upon a giant scale.

In the following, and your last comments, I hope you'll take it all in
context.

> The problem is the same as most others you have been
> involved in, Frank. You usually present your initial
> arguments well and back them reasonably. However, when
> people start challenging you on a deeper level, your
> arguments become more emotional.

Okay. I understand that. Who doesn't get emotional, when in their gut
they have been challenged, and in some instances at least, with rather
irrelevant commentary that misses the mark terribly. You've know me
long enough that I usually don't deal in one-liners to get my points
across. Often when I write, I've found others will clip and paste
pretty much what they want, and then resort to one-liners to challenge
a contrived position of their own choosing. I do get annoyed by such
tactics, yet after over a decade of doing this, I expect it.

Look at it this way Ken. I just answered your entire post. And I am
still in the process of doing so. Did I resort to one-liner type
responses? No I did not. I took every issue you posted and replied to
all of them. I usually don't receive such a courtesy in a lot of the
posts where you claim, "go to a deeper level". It is very hard to
respond to individuals who seem to have the propensity to "delete" a
lot of what you already posted to underline your position. You end up
having to do it all over again, and that is why you say I have this
tendency to "repeat myself". Well, you tell me, when a challenger
refuses to reveal what you wrote, then resorts to one-liner
"challenges", I'm inclined to repeat myself, repeating what I
previously wrote, because they were left out, probably by design.

> You repeat yourself
> more and it becomes more apparent that you have made
> up your mind

See above. No, it usually means that the challenger has refused to
post what I "really" wrote. Back off a moment Ken. Have I done that
here, with you tonight?

> and use whatever facts you can find to
> back you, rather than getting the information and then
> forming an opinion.

It's rather difficult to "form an opinion" when what you have already
written has been conveniently left out of the continuing discussion,
and then you are faced with strange "one-liners".

> You also tend not to acknowledge
> that other opinions are valid, or that anyone would
> have good reasons for disagreeing with you.

I'll admit I am opinionated. So, what does that have to do with
others who disagree and choose rather to use "one-liners"? Are you
saying "THEY" aren't opinionated? I doubt very much you'll go that
far. Probably the most "opinionated" subject on Liberty Northwest
since September 11, 2001 has been "US Foreign Policy". Correct? Do
you believe that others here, who may disagree with me, aren't
"opinionated"? Why the one-liners, and why do I REALLY have to repeat
myself? Because most always, they failed to really quote much of
anything, in most cases, on what I REALLY did say! I don't like
repeating myself either. It takes a lot of my time, and I am insulted
that somehow it magically gets lost in such conversations, and most
likely by design.

Now, having covered your entire post, I'm going to close. But before
completely doing so, let me say just this.

> I notice
> this even when I agree with you, and I'm not saying
> I'm the best debator either, so please don't take this
> an attack or anything.

Well maybe now you'll know now why I write the way I do. My question:
if you agreed with me, why didn't you say so? Many of the ones
playing hard ball for US military adventurism against the entire
planet seem to take up the majority of the bandwidth here lately. The
Libertarian Party does NOT support the initiation of force to bring
about political or social change. I have supported that position. I
find it strange that others who might support this are so strangely
silent.

Even the late Roger Erdman, who did NOT profess to be "libertarian",
saw the hypocrisy in all of this and was able to express himself on
the outrages of US aggression and arrogance. Even Larry, although
acknowledging that government shouldn't exist at all, seems to turn a
blind eye in all of this and is willing to "look the other way". NOT
ME!

So, Ken. That's what I am dealing with here. Sorry if I get repetitive
sometimes. Maybe now you can appreciate why that is the case.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Frank [still] wants to rate the USA vs. the rest of the world
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 11:04:48 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in part:

>> >Smoking was only an example. I could have chosen a lot of
>>other >ones,

>> Why don't you? I gave several.

>I've already done that, but you seem to be fixated on my problem
>with 3000 percent taxation on tobacco products in the US. Why is
>it anyway you seem to have a problem with that? You don't smoke?
>So, you don't believe this is a problem for those of us who chose
>to smoke? Nice! You seem to be pretty selective about the issues
>you believe are important only to YOURSELF!

Are you arguing with yourself? Just a day ago you questioned why somebody
was so upset about Saddam Hussein, when he hadn't done anything to him
personally.

>> People in the USA are less taxed than most.

>Now, here's a real jewel! You claim that the percentage of
>assets/wealth in terms of revenue confiscated by government in the
>us is less than MOST! I have no idea what planet you live on, but
>other than Canada, western Europe, Japan, and similar countries,

That sure takes in a lot! How about naming a country that isn't a similar
country, so we can get an idea of the relevant comparison?

>You don't like talking about this at all,

What makes you write that? If I didn't, would I be in this discussion?

>I know that. Probably because you don't' smoke cigarettes.

Oh, sure, like people don't care about Saddam Hussein because they don't
live in Bagdad!

>But I think it is worth
>discussing anyway. Why is it that the US/State governments decide to
>impose a 3000 percent tax on what individuals chose to consume a
>certain product?

Tobacco's long been considered a gov't cash cow. It largely financed the
American Revolution, and every country that imported it, after they got over
the urge to prohibit it, has taxed it. Why are certain levels of taxation
sustained? Because people pay it, that's why. Canada's tobacco taxes came
down quickly once it was obvious people weren't paying them. The USA
sustains higher taxes on certain items than poor countries do because people
can afford to pay them.

>> But I don't think much of the world will pass us up in
>>deregulation and destatization. I think countries that were
>>recently totalitarian will stop short of the degree of liberty we
>>have in the USA, because for all you write of what people think
>>in the USA, they traditionally think so even more elsewhere.

>WHY?

Combination of teaching, greed, and malevolence.

>Why do you think they will, or they MUST? Is this natural?

Yes, at least for some probable ideas of what "natural" means.

>Or is it a product of the use of force by the US government and
>other players?

Only on the issue of narcotics, by means of import controls. On everything
else, no.

Sourly By Inert I,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Frank [still] wants to rate the USA vs. the rest of the world
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 23:13:53 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in small part:

>> Governments in less
>> developed countries generally lack the power to
>> enforce their laws nationwide, like in India where
>> they can't enforce child labor laws.

>Is that bad? Is it bad when government is so inefficient, so
>corrupt, that it can't enforce laws that have the effect of
>reducing free choice? The Philippines is a lot like that. They
>even enacted a year or so ago, a seat belt law. Even on buses!
>Thing is, I haven't seen one individual "buckle up" yet, including
>drivers, much less passengers! And, I haven't seen anyone arrested
>for NOT doing so! Is that bad? Related as well: they passed a law
>for "No Smoking" on buses. Everyday I see bus drivers, passengers,
>and bus conductors lighting up, and again, no one arrested. Is
>THAT bad? I think it's wonderful! I love inefficient government,
>especially when it doesn't have the ability to tax very much -- I
>don't have a real problem with that. You seem to indicate here
>that it is bad when governments can't enforce unjust laws.

No, trouble is it's bad when gov'ts can't enforce JUST laws -- which is true
in many poor countries. Then you get indeterminate real property boundaries
& ownership, kidnapping for ransom, plenty of plunder. Basically it works
to keep people from getting ahead.

Usually there's no favorable discrimination on this issue. Gov'ts too weak
to enforce unjust laws are too weak to enforce just laws.

>I wish Americans could find a way to ignore (and say NO) to about 95
>percent of the laws on the books and just gaff them all off and
>refuse to obey them all! But that isn't happening now, is it?

Mostly because the price of disobedience can be pretty high. In a poor
country, people can't afford to obey. In a rich country, they can't afford
not to. You can live very well by obeying, and live very poorly by
disobeying. Of course there are lots of exceptions; who doesn't cheat on
taxes or break speed limits?

Part of it is that society segregates partly by propensity to be law
abiding. The people who routinely break unjust laws are usually the same
people who break just laws, so if you're honest you'd better avoid them.
It's a sorting machine. The less law abiding places tend to be poor
neighborhoods.

Would you prefer to live in a neighborhood known for prostitution and
narcotics trade? Probably not. However, if those activities were legal you
wouldn't mind living in such a neighborhood, because the people doing those
things wouldn't be crooks.

>So, again, where, in your opinion, is the best place for "liberty"
>to emerge?

What, like I have a crystal ball? Who could predict these things? Peru
looked like they were in for major advances in that regard until from out of
nowhere this foreigner Fujimori showed up and overtook the guy whose name
now I can't even remember who showed so much progress. Who coulda known?

Movements get hijacked, sidetracked, blunted. Revolutions spring up with
little warning.

>Isn't it much better to have a
>government that is inefficient, with a much lower tax base, and
>even corrupt enforcing laws that shouldn't even be on the books at
>all?

No, because "much lower tax base" means much less productive people, and
inefficient and corrupt gets in the way of enforcing laws that SHOULD be on
the books. Corruption usually means they plunder every bit as much, but not
as predictably. It's not like the cops & tax men take less of your money in
Mexico, far from it; it's just that the money gets diverted into informal
channels. And because the operation is informal, you're more likely to get
killed in the process!

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: anarchy, government, comparisons, etc. (was rating the USA) LONG
Date: 05 Sep 2002 11:22:53 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2002-09-05 at 08:03, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Robert!
>
> Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> I previously wrote:
> > >Smoking was only an example. I could have chosen a lot of other
> > >ones,
>
> And, you replied:
> > Why don't you? I gave several.
>
> I've already done that, but you seem to be fixated on my problem with
> 3000 percent taxation on tobacco products in the US. Why is it anyway
I've already posted that it is more along the lines of am average of
35%, not your much asserted, and wrong, 3000 percent. Those are facts,
bub.

> > People in the USA are less taxed than most.
>
> Now, here's a real jewel! You claim that the percentage of
> assets/wealth in terms of revenue confiscated by government in the us
> is less than MOST! I have no idea what planet you live on, but other
> than Canada, western Europe, Japan, and similar countries, is such a
> gross percentage of property, assets, income, etc., confiscated per
> capita in the majority of countries on earth. That's why, in case you
> missed it, tobacco taxation is an important benchmark. Even in Japan,
> the second largest economy on the planet, "allows" you to buy imported
> cigarettes in the market place at about $1.00 a pack!
>
> You don't like talking about this at all, I know that. Probably
> because you don't' smoke cigarettes. But I think it is worth
> discussing anyway. Why is it that the US/State governments decide to
> impose a 3000 percent tax on what individuals chose to consume a

Put or shut up, Frank. The facts are, it is more like 35%. I can post
the PDF files and/or links to them, to show how wrong you are, if you
persist in this false assertion. Tax rates are public knowledge.

<snip of "I say nobody else does it but don't want to hear how others
do">

> This is important, I previously wrote:
> > >If you were placing your bets, your investment in liberty -- where
> > >would you place your bets today, with the Shrub Regime<tm> or the
> > >one that follows? This is NOT 1776. Where will Americans likely
> > >place their allegiance today, tomorrow, and in the future? In
> > >centralized government. Sorry, that's the historical trend. And
> > >the trend continues. And, I don't see any of that reversing itself
> > >any time soon. Everything I hear on US news channels ways
> > >basically the same thing. We need, require, and MUST support even
> > >more government solutions to solve everything!
>
> And, you replied:
> > But I don't think much of the world will pass us up in deregulation and
> > destatization. I think countries that were recently totalitarian will
stop
> > short of the degree of liberty we have in the USA, because for all you
write
> > of what people think in the USA, they traditionally think so even more
> > elsewhere.
>
> WHY? Why do you think they will, or they MUST? Is this natural? Or
> is it a product of the use of force by the US government and other
> players? Will they be forced to comply with sin taxes on cigarettes,
> or else!? You have to remember too, we have no real liberty in the
> good 'ol USA! What do you have "liberty" to do anymore without
> creating suspicion? You're region isn't the right one, and you are
> place on the "suspect" list. I don't need to go on and on with this,
> as I have written profusely on all of this previously.
>
> Point is, what if "people" had real choices, without government
> coercion to make such choices? I know that you have followed my

Yes, what if they did? A person is smart, but people are dumb.

We already see what happens, it does not take a visionary to see it.
Media controls so much of our lives, with or without government
regulation, that they would assume even greater sway. People buy
products base don advertising that implies they will feel good in a
given automobile, as opposed to real information about it. The same
happens with candidates for office; thirty second sound bytes and of to
the polls.

Until people as a rule, rather than the exception, turn off MSNBC and do
their own research, using multiple sources, they will be a slave to
those who are on the tube, or in the newspaper. It matters not whether
there is a government there or not, people have become enslaved to
others by failure to do their own research.

> > People in the USA have a very strong sense of individual rights -- it's
just
> > that it's a bit confused, and often includes their "right" to help
> > themselves to what others own. Compare that to other countries, where
> > people aren't even confused -- they're against individual liberty, and
they
> > know it!
>
> I guess I agree with that, at least to a point. That's why I got into
> the "human nature" argument with Larry, and I still have found no way
> in which he has satisfactorily resolved that issue. Individuals, call
> them "people" if you must, are really barbarians at heart. They want
> to find a way to steal, plunder, and get for themselves what they see
> others have accumulated, most often from honest labour, and
> admittedly, sometimes not. Problem is, in a "democracy" you have no
> recourse to that, do you? The people have the power to rape, plunder
> and confiscate what they will, and they use "government" as the
> vehicle of choice.

And they will use mob rue for it otherwise. A pure democracy has the
same trappings as an anarchistic system -- namely mob rule.

As long as *anyone* in a society or civilization tries to take advantage
of another, or violate their rights, there will arise some sort of
system to deal with it. If it happens more, there will arise some system
to try to prevent it form happening. Human nature.

If the system that so arises is done using a pure democracy, than the
majority always wins, regardless of whether the thing being contested is
right or wrong. Pure democracy, as you know, is mob rule, majority is
always right, might makes right. I believe neither of us prefer
democracy when that fact is taken into account.

A society where this system is done by purchasing services, is
fundamentally not any different. In fact, I posit that it may be an
expression of a pure democracy. Stay with me here, it may get a bit
rough.

In a pure free-market economy of purchasing/selling protective services
(either through rent-a-cops and/or "crime insurance") and legal matters
(such as private courts, etc.), it is often talked about how it becomes
a club for those who can afford it, unless the
indigent/poor/unable-to-afford-the-good-stuff get charity by/from
another organization or person. Who decides the "rules"? Why, society,
of course! But who really does it? The majority, at best.

Barring the control of a vocal minority (which will happen when the
people do not do their own research), the majority controls what is
acceptable and what is not. [note: when a vocal minority can use sound
bites and dishonesty to convince the majority to vote their way, it is
still technically majority rule) The private organizations, through the
force of their majority. Again, mob rule. There is, by design, nothing
in an anarchic system that provides for protection from majority rule.

Yes, the argument could well be made that this exists in any system,
even one designed to protect from mob rule. We witness this happen to
the U.S. through history. Contrary to countering my thesis, it rather
illustrates it quite well.

This is why anarchy can not be created. In order for it to function, it
requires a fundamental shift in human nature. You can not make that
shift from the top down. It true anarchy is to exist, it must do so
through a process of evolution. The conditions that it require to
function must be in place prior to it's existence. If that has been met,
the system of anarchy is superfluous. At the point that mankind has
progressed to the point of being able to exist in a true anarchy, it
will become irrelevant whether the system is anarchistic, or technically
a dictatorship, or even communist.

In order for this to happen, everyone needs to be able to make their own
decisions, based on a full complement of the facts and realities, as
well as the ramifications of the proposal. As the complexity of
civilization increases, this becomes even more difficult, and less
likely.

This next exploration may well hack people here off, but I challenge you
to stick with the mechanics, and not the philosophies. There is a time
where philosophy meets reality, where the rubber hits the road, and
something has to give.

It may well take government to create minarchy.

So, there are two ways to go from bloated government to trim, svelte
government. One is by force of arms. Not likely to happen.

The other is by force of government.
On my website (currently transforming), I deal with this a bit in the
article about the danger of shrinking government. In our society, there
are three arenas of power. Personal, business, and government.

This field of three represent a zero-sum game. (Rights, are a zero sum
game in nearly all respects.) Think of it as a market, a market of
rights. In this market, each sector is a player.

The more rights any one of the three have, the less the others do.
Currently, the 800 pound gorilla in the market of rights, is government.
In second place, is business. It seems to me that the fundamental
premise among most libertarians, is that the personal category should
always be the top dog. Hence, with personal at the bottom, and
government at the top, libertarians use those two as diametric opponents
in a monstrous battle of good vs. evil, much the way democrats and
Republicans use class warfare in taxation. ("Chain the rich/chain the
government","Free the poor/free the people").

However, as many have noted, the libertarians largely ignore the third
player in that market; the businesses.

In a battle of three players in a marketplace of three players,
supremacy will be attained through mob rule. Before you object, hear
this out. The American system as it currently exists, is a combined
effort of Government and business, I don't think many will doubt that.
What Libertarianism proposes, is a change in the team. Libertarianism
proposes that the dominance be a co-op between personal and business.
Think about it. Private business doing things at the behest of people,
who will control it through money, the market.

This is a system where people are at the top, with business their
willing ally, and government relegated to getting whatever is left over,
or the top two players are willing to dole out.

In concept, this system is excellent. However, if the discussion is ever
anything more than academic, there is a major problem with it. Getting
there. Libertarianism in theory swaps personal and government positions
in this market of rights (or power -- rights are power, IMO). In
practice, however, it merely removes government from the top rung. it
does nothing to remove business from the second rung. Libertarianism in
practice, involves divvying up the share of rights (power) that the
Personal and Government players have. It does nothing to deal with the
percentage that the Business player has. The end result is that Business
winds up with the greatest share.

In one episode of South Park, there are these "underpants gnomes". They
steal underpants. When they are caught up with, they reveal it is a plan
to make money. The plan goes like this:

Step 1: Collect Underpants
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Profit

Now, aside from this looking like the dot-com fiasco ( Step 1: Make
Website; Step 2: ?; Step 3: Profit), it looks like the libertarian
solution:

Step 1: Cut government's power
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Have more power (rights)

But what is missing, is that crucial Step 2. Step 2 must be filled in.

Step 1: Cut government's power
Step 2: Cut business' power
Step 3: Have more power (rights)

Well, I should probably not write an entire book in one email ... :)
So, if anyone wants to continue this discussion, speak up. I'll be
posting more of it to my website later as well.

Cheers,
Bill

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: purity of democracy (was anarchy, government, comparisons, etc.)
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 17:29:15 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

bill@libc.org wrote in small part:

>A pure democracy has the
>same trappings as an anarchistic system -- namely mob rule.
>As long as *anyone* in a society or civilization tries to take
>advantage of another, or violate their rights, there will arise
>some sort of system to deal with it. If it happens more, there will
>arise some system to try to prevent it form happening. Human nature.
>If the system that so arises is done using a pure democracy, than
>the majority always wins, regardless of whether the thing being
>contested is right or wrong. Pure democracy, as you know, is mob
>rule, majority is always right, might makes right. I believe
>neither of us prefer democracy when that fact is taken into account.

What would make a democracy impure? It would seem you'd have to have some
variation in the political powers of persons based on factors outside the
system, as by having a hereditary aristocracy or a heriditary class of
persons ineligible to participate.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: purity of democracy (was anarchy, government, comparisons, etc.)
Date: 05 Sep 2002 17:05:40 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2002-09-05 at 16:29, Robert Goodman wrote:
> bill@libc.org wrote in small part:
>
> >A pure democracy has the
> >same trappings as an anarchistic system -- namely mob rule.
> >As long as *anyone* in a society or civilization tries to take
> >advantage of another, or violate their rights, there will arise
> >some sort of system to deal with it. If it happens more, there will
> >arise some system to try to prevent it form happening. Human nature.
> >If the system that so arises is done using a pure democracy, than
> >the majority always wins, regardless of whether the thing being
> >contested is right or wrong. Pure democracy, as you know, is mob
> >rule, majority is always right, might makes right. I believe
> >neither of us prefer democracy when that fact is taken into account.
>
> What would make a democracy impure? It would seem you'd have to have some
> variation in the political powers of persons based on factors outside the
> system, as by having a hereditary aristocracy or a heriditary class of
> persons ineligible to participate.

A "pure democracy" as I have always known it, means every adult has a
vote on everything (since it is self-evident that toddlers, for example
are incapable of voting, teenagers could certainly vote). Hence,
majority rule.

Now, if you want to discuss about the morality side of "pure" that is a
different animal altogether. :^)

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: purity of democracy (was anarchy, government, comparisons, etc.)
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 21:11:21 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

bill@libc.org wrote in part:

>A "pure democracy" as I have always known it, means every adult has
>a vote on everything (since it is self-evident that toddlers, for
>example are incapable of voting, teenagers could certainly vote).

Meaning direct democracy, then. Why do indirect democracies not have the
defects you mentioned, or have them in lesser degree?

>Hence, majority rule.

Isn't that the case in indirect democracies as well?

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: purity of democracy (was anarchy, government, comparisons, etc.)
Date: 06 Sep 2002 00:55:18 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2002-09-05 at 20:11, Robert Goodman wrote:
> bill@libc.org wrote in part:
>
> >A "pure democracy" as I have always known it, means every adult has
> >a vote on everything (since it is self-evident that toddlers, for
> >example are incapable of voting, teenagers could certainly vote).
>
> Meaning direct democracy, then. Why do indirect democracies not have the
> defects you mentioned, or have them in lesser degree?

A lesser degree, depending on the form.

>
> >Hence, majority rule.
>
> Isn't that the case in indirect democracies as well?

Yes. I did not intend to state that they were immune from it. I
apologize of that was what came across.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: purity of democracy (was anarchy, government, comparisons, etc.)
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 20:25:17 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

I'd like to take a stab at this one, recognizing in advance that this
is a conversation mainly between you and Bill. Nevertheless...

Robert Goodman wrote to Bill Anderson...

Bill Anderson previously wrote:
> >A "pure democracy" as I have always known it, means every adult has
> >a vote on everything (since it is self-evident that toddlers, for
> >example are incapable of voting, teenagers could certainly vote).

And, you replied thusly:
> Meaning direct democracy, then. Why do indirect democracies not have the
> defects you mentioned, or have them in lesser degree?

I've pointed this out several times before. America was not structured
to be a democracy, hence the term "indirect democracy" only confuses
the issue on whether democracies are good, bad, or neutral in the case
of the U.S. government. I believe the original Constitution's intent
was to allow individual states to be as democratic as they wished, but
the federal government was never intended to be controlled by a
democracy.

That is not to say that the people had no democratic input. They did.
It was called the House of Representatives, and they people elected
legislators to represent them within their district by proportional
choice.

Meanwhile, the Senate was comprised of legislators nominated by the
individual states, mostly state legislators. These legislators were
responsible for representing their state on all legislative matters.
This was NOT democratic in most cases, as again, most states appointed
their representatives using the state legislator. This was a good
practice. No public campaigning for populist sentiments, no false
promises to "get elected, and no promises to the people of milking the
federal government to fund populist socialist wealth transfers.
Usually respected legislators or others recognized as "statesmen" were
appointed who could effectively best represent the state that
appointed them.

This served as a counter weight, or veto power, over the populist
democratic House. To get legislation to pass however, the Senate had
to work things out with the House in much the same was as they do now,
with ONE exception. They represented the State's interest, and did not
have to go back home for re-election. They were responsible to the
state, and usually that was the state legislature which appointed them
to serve.

All of this worked fine until around the turn of the 20th century.
Around that time, the Senate was pressured into surrendering the
state's power over them, and rather went along with the mob ruled
populist House of Representatives to recreate the senate around
"democratic" lines! This was a huge sell out, and effectively ended
the states representation in the U.S. federal government. This is the
main reason why power has ever since gravitated away from the States
and into the centralized authority of the federal government.

We can say today that most of the federal government no longer has any
checks against mob rule, since the entire legislative branch is
responsible to the mob, the hordes, and the states continue to lose
whatever power that they have managed to retain. Prior to that
draconian change in the national legislature, there was no democracy
in America that could effective govern the hordes of barbarians (the
people) who quickly began demanding economic equality, and used the
government as the means to steal from those who produce, to those who
do not.

> Isn't that the case in indirect democracies as well?

Again, the term is misleading. Democratic power should NEVER be in
charge, or in charge of any government. Again, the best example ever,
was the pre-20th century America where the democratic tendencies was
checked and vetoed from such absolute control by the Senate. I
suppose you are using the word "indirect" to imply that we still are
"represented" and have no direct vote on each and every issue. That's
another good reason why it is misleading, since if the entire
legislature is dependent upon the votes of the democratic mob, it is
essential for each member of the legislature to constantly monitor
such things as public opinion polls in his/her district to determine
whether or not the people will approve of the way they vote on issues,
and home much pork he or she is able to steal from the taxpayers, the
federal treasury.

If you are using the term in that manner, then yes perhaps, but only
in degree. It just takes a little longer before the civilization will
finally collapse anyway, since some times a representative may go
against the wishes of the people. Usually if that happens often
enough, the bastard is defeated and replaced by someone that the
people believe is more receptive to their desires to pilfer the
wealth, for their fair share of the loot.

This is why socialist governments usually have a single democratically
elected legislature. There is no need for any check against the
barbarian nature of mob rule. The real reason why the US government
was designed to have two house in the legislative branch was to put a
check upon democratic rule, or control, over the US government.

There is still only a minor check against the House by the Senate.
The Senator represents the entire state. So there is only a minor
check of the state as a whole (still decided by democratic processes)
against a larger district overpowering a smaller one in representation
at the national level.

You know, this is an interesting conversation. When you look at the
U.S. federal government today, who really represents a state's
interest? This is a good question. You might argue on the one hand
that the Senate still does that. On the other hand however, the Senate
is still responsible to the mob, the people who elect them. So, in
essence anyway, any compromises between the two Houses of Congress are
really a compromise ONLY by the representatives of the mob.

The closest thing I can think of right now that really discusses
State's interest is the National Conference of Governors. Now get
this -- they CAN'T and DON'T legislate anything! They have little
power to even influence legislation at all on the national level, and
since the Senators are not responsible to the state legislatures, it's
all a matter of influence and pressure. And even this is outside of
the realm of what a Governor should do as the Chief Executive of his
state.

I wonder if there is really any resolution to this dilemma? Once the
mob has the power, history shows that it only ends when a civilization
has deteriorated to such a point that a dictator finally emerges out
of the chaos to take control, as was the cases in both ancient Greece
and Rome.

We might well ask ourselves, "Is the Libertarian Party of the U.S.
even relevant under such conditions as exist today?" I'm not going to
answer that question for two reasons: first, because it leads in other
directions that aren't very pretty or pleasant, and second, frankly, I
don't have the answers, and probably no one really does. I believe a
Libertarian Party might have some degree of success in such places as
Russia, since the decentralization of power hasn't been settled in
such places, and there is still some time left to put checks upon the
mob.

What I am saying here is that "liberty" usually only has a chance to
emerge once a civilization has finally collapsed, as in the case of
the former Soviet Union, or the ending of British colonial rule over
the American colonies. It's a morbid thought, but it might have some
measure of reality as well. If that is the case, then libertarians
will never be able to convince the "mob" to relinquish the power to
loot. And, if that is the case, then no matter how "correct" we may
be, we may still be largely irrelevant, since our time has not come.
If history has to follow its natural course, and every US institution,
the economy, and the military strength that supports it, will have to
be destroyed entirely before any real emergence of liberty may be
possible, then the Libertarian Party may be only prophets for a time
yet to come and nothing more.

Again, I don't know. I don't have all the "right answers". I do know
that there is an increasing 'war on business and commerce',
'corporations', and the 'mob' has more and more to do with bringing
down the independent institutions that make up America. We have a
large imperialistic military presence around the globe to protect 'the
mob's' interests, even though such a course will ultimately be far
more costly than anything we will ever be able to afford. We preach
such things as "self-determination", the right of nations to make free
choices, then we crush them when they choose different paths.

If you believe that I erred somewhat that US military aggression
promotes the "mob's" interest, you are only partially correct. But
note how the Shrub Regime<tm> is aggressively courting the "mob" for
authorization to conduct this latest aggression? If the "mob" signs
on, then it is out of fear that the looting process will be interfered
with in some way if such "tyrants as Saddam Hussein" are allowed to
challenge "democratic" control or a justification for the continuance
of mob rule.

In the end, I'm not particularly worried about 'mob rule'. As John
Adams wrote, "Every democracy that has ever existed, has always
committed suicide". In other words, they never last very long. They
always self-destruct, much in the same way as America is currently
doing. The ONLY difference between ancient Greece and the US
government today is that Greece accepted democracy, total democracy.
The US didn't start out that way, and it has taken a century (the 20th
century) for democracy to really take hold in America. But the demise
is just as certain, and will ultimately end this civilization as we
know it.

What eventually takes place, once again, might not be so pretty or
pleasant. It may be the horror of dictatorship and tyranny that will
be of horrific proportions. But it could end in other ways as well.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was terrible for the people who went
through it all, but not so terrible in terms of other tyrannies in
history have experienced, and even the Soviet collapse certainly could
have been much more violent and ruthless than it was.

But unfortunately, history shows that liberty always has its greatest
opportunity during such times of total collapse, if men of vision and
character believe in liberty and are able to bring about a system of
government that really protects it. The horror is that it doesn't
always work that way. Sometimes the opposite occurs as well, and in
such a case it might be decades or centuries before such possibilities
or opportunities ever arise again where individual liberty has the
potential to grow.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: purity of democracy (was anarchy, government, comparisons, etc.)
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 23:13:42 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

bill@libc.org wrote in part:

>> Meaning direct democracy, then. Why do indirect democracies not
>> have the defects you mentioned, or have them in lesser degree?

>A lesser degree, depending on the form.

But why?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: purity of democracy (was anarchy, government, comparisons, etc.)
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 23:13:46 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in part:

>> Meaning direct democracy, then. Why do indirect democracies not
>>have the defects [Bill] mentioned, or have them in lesser degree?

>I've pointed this out several times before. America was not
>structured to be a democracy, hence the term "indirect democracy"
>only confuses the issue on whether democracies are good, bad, or
>neutral in the case of the U.S. government. I believe the original
>Constitution's intent was to allow individual states to be as
>democratic as they wished, but the federal government was never
>intended to be controlled by a democracy.

>That is not to say that the people had no democratic input. They
>did. It was called the House of Representatives, and they people
>elected legislators to represent them within their district by
>proportional choice.

Hence, indirect democracy.

>Meanwhile, the Senate was comprised of legislators nominated by the
>individual states, mostly state legislators. These legislators were
>responsible for representing their state on all legislative matters.
>This was NOT democratic in most cases, as again, most states
>appointed their representatives using the state legislature.

But the legislatures were elected by the people. Hence, indirect democracy.

>This
>was a good practice. No public campaigning for populist sentiments,
>no false promises to "get elected, and no promises to the people of
>milking the federal government to fund populist socialist wealth
>transfers. Usually respected legislators or others recognized as
>"statesmen" were appointed who could effectively best represent the
>state that appointed them.

Why wouldn't those interests coincide with the above populist sentiments?
Wouldn't the will of the people be expected to be reflected all the way up
and down? What magic happens when person A votes for person B who votes for
person C that doesn't happen when person A votes for person C directly? Or
when person A votes on legislation directly instead of electing legislators?

>Around that time, the Senate was pressured into surrendering the
>state's power over them, and rather went along with the mob ruled
>populist House of Representatives to recreate the senate around
>"democratic" lines! This was a huge sell out,

Who sold out to whom? The state legislators voted for what people wanted,
which was to vote for senators directly. They still represent the states,
but are elected directly by the people of that state instead of being
elected by people elected by people of that state. BTW, the reform was
already being enacted by the states separately before the federal
Constitution was changed to require it, just as states wre having people
elect presidential electors.

>We can say today that most of the federal government no longer has
>any checks against mob rule, since the entire legislative branch is
>responsible to the mob, the hordes, and the states continue to lose
>whatever power that they have managed to retain.

You write as if states were some alien thing -- maybe robots or something --
as opposed to being composed of people.

>Again, the term is misleading. Democratic power should NEVER be in
>charge, or in charge of any government.

The only way to achieve that is to abolish the franchise.

>I suppose you are using the word "indirect" to imply that
>we still are "represented" and have no direct vote on each and
>every issue. That's another good reason why it is misleading,
>since if the entire legislature is dependent upon the votes of the
>democratic mob, it is essential for each member of the legislature
>to constantly monitor such things as public opinion polls in
>his/her district to determine whether or not the people will
>approve of the way they vote on issues, and home much pork he or
>she is able to steal from the taxpayers, the federal treasury.

Well, only if re-election or recall is possible. Limit everybody to one
term, and have no opportunity for recall, and they could do as they pleased
instead of paying attention to public opinion.

But who else can elect part of the legislature? Hereditary lords? That can
be done, sure. Foreigners? That too. The colonies were ruled in part by
lords & foreigners.

Or you could have laws be unrepealable, constitutions unamendable -- in
effect, gov't by the dead. Or you could have another version of gov't by
the dead -- no law can take effect until the last of its enactors has died.

>This is why socialist governments usually have a single
>democratically elected legislature. There is no need for any check
>against the barbarian nature of mob rule. The real reason why the
>US government was designed to have two house in the legislative
>branch was to put a check upon democratic rule, or control, over
>the US government.

No, that was just a cover story. The real reason was that it was a
compromise necessary to forge a union of the states.

>You know, this is an interesting conversation. When you look at the
>U.S. federal government today, who really represents a state's
>interest?

Can you name a single interest of state that is not an interest of people?

>The closest thing I can think of right now that really discusses
>State's interest is the National Conference of Governors.

Have you ever read any of their product? Mostly it seems they're after more
pork, from what I remember. I think they have a WWW site; should check some
time.

>I believe a Libertarian Party might have some degree of success in
>such places as Russia, since the decentralization of power hasn't
>been settled in such places, and there is still some time left to
>put checks upon the mob.

The idea of a "mob" is so picturesque -- and so meaningless. AFAICT, "the
mob" is just everybody who isn't as smart as one thinks s/he is.

There is no mob. There are only people.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: BULLSHIT, KEN frank [still] wants to rate the USA vs. the rest
of the world in>> terms of freedom.
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 22:00:59 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hey, ya, ken,

dunnot where ya came from, likely here longer than i. the thingo is,
government always starts with those who have the least acceptable arguments.

that's why the 'boston tea party' was over tea. tea-totallers had nothing
to worry about, unless they valued liberty. then GOV. included MJ folks,
not to mention cocaine.

now it's a war of all against all.

i'd like for ya to know, ken, focusing on tobacco as he is, frank has his
head into essentials.

LF

FIRST THEY CAME TO GIT, AND THEN, AND THEN, AND THEN -- AND THEN THERE WAS
NOBODY LEFT BUT HITLER, BUT, TO QUIBBLE WITH FRANK, TOO, HITLER WAS AN
ASSHOLE, AND SO IS SADDDAM!!

DEATH TO ALL ASSHOLES!!

LF

on 9/5/02 7:53 PM, Ken at happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> --- Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I've already done that, but you seem to be fixated
>> on my problem with
>> 3000 percent taxation on tobacco products in the US.
>> Why is it anyway
>> you seem to have a problem with that? You don't
>> smoke? So, you don't
>> believe this is a problem for those of us who chose
>> to smoke? Nice!
>> You seem to be pretty selective about the issues you
>> believe are
>> important only to YOURSELF!
>
> Well, Frank, I don't agree with all the tobacco laws,
> but when big matters of life, liberty, and property
> are at stake, the price of a pack of cigarettes
> doesn't make a big dent in our freedom. Whether you
> pay fifty cents or ten bucks a pack probably isn't the
> best yardstick of a nation and its civil rights, even
> if the latter sucks for smokers.
>
>>> People in the USA are less taxed than most.
>>
>> Now, here's a real jewel! You claim that the
>> percentage of
>> assets/wealth in terms of revenue confiscated by
>> government in the us
>> is less than MOST! I have no idea what planet you
>> live on, but other
>> than Canada, western Europe, Japan, and similar
>> countries, is such a
>> gross percentage of property, assets, income, etc.,
>> confiscated per
>> capita in the majority of countries on earth.
>
> Here's another thing, Frank. You keep wanting to bring
> up developing countries like Vietnam. I think if you
> want a comparison, you have to use other
> industrialized nations like Canada, Japan, and the
> countries of western Europe. Governments in less
> developed countries generally lack the power to
> enforce their laws nationwide, like in India where
> they can't enforce child labor laws. Not only that,
> but in industrialized nations you can tax a higher
> percentage of income, and people can still live off of
> the remainder. This becomes harder and harder to do in
> countries where the average daily income is less than
> what we pay for a meal at McDonalds. Comparing the
> U.S. to Vietnam really isn't a valid argument.
>
> I've been following this debate with some interest.
> The problem is the same as most others you have been
> involved in, Frank. You usually present your initial
> arguments well and back them reasonably. However, when
> people start challenging you on a deeper level, your
> arguments become more emotional. You repeat yourself
> more and it becomes more apparent that you have made
> up your mind, and use whatever facts you can find to
> back you, rather than getting the information and then
> forming an opinion. You also tend not to acknowledge
> that other opinions are valid, or that anyone would
> have good reasons for disagreeing with you. I notice
> this even when I agree with you, and I'm not saying
> I'm the best debator either, so please don't take this
> an attack or anything.
>
> Ken Butler
>
> =====
> Remember the days when Ozzy was dangerous and the Catholic Church was
safe?
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
> http://finance.yahoo.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: BULLSHIT, KEN frank [still] wants to rate the USA vs. the rest
of the world in>> terms of freedom.
Date: 06 Sep 2002 00:57:21 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2002-09-05 at 23:00, larry fullmer wrote:

> DEATH TO ALL ASSHOLES!!

patience, man, I'll die when I'm good and ready. ;^)

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: BULLSHIT, KEN frank [still] wants to rate the USA vs. the rest
of the world in>> terms of freedom.
Date: 06 Sep 2002 01:09:36 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2002-09-05 at 23:00, larry fullmer wrote:
> hey, ya, ken,
>
> dunnot where ya came from, likely here longer than i. the thingo is,
> government always starts with those who have the least acceptable
arguments.

Larry, did you perhaps mean the "most" acceptable arguments? I would
think that to *start* something, it would have be be acceptable to the
most people. I then goes downhill from there.

Maybe I'm thinking of something else, I dunno.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: BULLSHIT, KEN frank [still] wants to rate the USA vs. the rest of the world in>> terms of freedom.
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 19:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ken <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
> hey, ya, ken,
>
> dunnot where ya came from, likely here longer than
> i. the thingo is,
> government always starts with those who have the
> least acceptable arguments.

I've been here awhile. You've cursed me out a couple
times.

> that's why the 'boston tea party' was over tea.
> tea-totallers had nothing
> to worry about, unless they valued liberty. then
> GOV. included MJ folks,
> not to mention cocaine.

What's "mj"? You are not the most coherent writer.

The Boston tea party was about taxation without
representation. The current tobacco laws are all from
officials popularly elected, so if you don't like them
go bitch at your senator. Actually, never mind. If you
rant like you do on this list you'll do more harm than
good.

> FIRST THEY CAME TO GIT, AND THEN, AND THEN, AND THEN
> -- AND THEN THERE WAS
> NOBODY LEFT BUT HITLER, BUT, TO QUIBBLE WITH FRANK,
> TOO, HITLER WAS AN
> ASSHOLE, AND SO IS SADDDAM!!
>
> DEATH TO ALL ASSHOLES!!

That would kill both of us.

Ken

=====
Remember the days when Ozzy was dangerous and the Catholic Church was safe?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: DEAD ASSHOLES!!
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 21:48:57 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

KEN, FRANK,

TOBBACO IS ONE THING, MARIJUANA IS ANOTHER:
(FRANK: DEFEND DRUGS NOT OF YOUR CHOICE, OR I'LL SIGN UP WITH KEN):

on 9/6/02 7:36 PM, Ken at happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com wrote:

>> DEATH TO ALL ASSHOLES!!
>
> That would kill both of us.
>
> Ken

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!! LOVE YA, KEN. IF I CALLED YOU NAMES BEFORE IT WAS
BECAUSE ONE ASSHOLE HAD NOT RECOGNIZED ANOTHER. MJ? YOU WRITE. WELL, HELL,
KEN, EVERYBODY OUGHTA TRY MARIJAUNA ONCE.

LUVYA, KEN!!!!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: BILL, FRANK, YOU REMIND ME OF ME AFTER VINO - Re: US vs. the world
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 22:03:27 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

BILL, FRANK,

GAWD DAMN IT, WE'RE BUDDIES.

LET'S SAVE THE REAL ANGRY STUFF FOR THE COLLECTIVISTS (LIKE STAN & MARK).

PEACE, BROTHERS,

LF

on 9/6/02 8:39 AM, Frank Reichert at admin@liberty-northwest.org wrote:

> Greetings again Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
>> Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. Frank, I was responding to Roberts question, not yours.
>
> How sanctimonious of you Bill, and how presumptuous, that you write on
> a public list and not entertain any public commentary. Nice. Since
> this is my list, I feel compelled to call your presumption to order.
> Whatever your write on THIS list is open to public commentary and
> debate. Do you have a problem with that? If you do son, then you
> presume too much. It doesn't work that way here, and it never has.
>
> So, now, nevertheless, having said such, you want to contribute
> anyway... interesting...
>
>> How presumptuous ... again. And another strawman. Where in that did I
>> mention an Islamic country? Last I knew the US and China were not
>> Islamic countries. Then again, maybe you know something the rest of the
>> world doesn't?
>
> What is YOUR problem? First, you claim I butted into your private
> conversation, one that, by the way, was by your own choice, made
> public, right here on Liberty Northwest. Now, you want to claim I am
> being presumptuous. Yes, Bill, I can play the same games, and I can
> probably do that even better than you can yourself! So what's the
> point? Bill, you don't post shit here publicly and expect no response
> from anyone else. You've certainly been around here long enough to
> know that, since you've butted into such conversations all the time.
>
>>> One question you need to ask here, is who TAXES the most! Yea, sure.
>
> I know. I'm wondering if YOU do? Your question appears to be in the
> same category of listening carefully to "the sound one hand clapping",
> so to speak. What's your point.
>
> In practical terms, the one doing the most taxing is the government
> that extracts the most in terms of private property. Get real! "Yea,
> sure", what? Which governments extract the greatest percentage of
> income, wealth, revenue, whatever, what belong to you?
>
> Bill, I guess I just don't understand your hostility. What point am I
> rubbing on that you choose to make here? Does this have to do with
> your ego, or what?
>
>> How do you define most?
>
> I don't know anymore. This is lost on me. Do I hear the "sound of one
> hand clapping?" Be more specific and just tell me why I pissed you
> off. What did I say?
>
>> Genuine questions, and to
>> hell with you, your mouse and it's teats.
>
> This conversation is entirely left up to you, your arrogance, and your
> ego. I don't have a clue, nor do I particularly want to know, not
> really.
>
>> Taxes in Russia are divided into three categories:
>> * Federal taxes
>> * Taxes for constituent republics of the Russian Federation, taxes of
>> territories, provinces, autonomous provinces and autonomous districts
>> * Local taxes
>
> Sounds a lot like the conditions forced upon Americans, doesn't it?
> So, again, what's your point in all of this? I never said, did I,
> that I support such a scheme? What does this have to do with
> liberty?
>
>> Legal entities doing business in Russia are subject to a corporate
>> profit tax, assets tax and road fund tax.
>
> Good. This sounds a lot like what goes on each and every day, anywhere
> within the US. However, you failed to define how the rate of taxation
> is declining, the one point that I mentioned previously that relevant
> to any of this!
>
>> Capital gains are included in
>> the corporate profit tax base. A value added tax (VAT) is applied to the
>> sale, exchange, transfer or import of most goods and services.
>
> Again, what is the cumulative rate of taxation, based entirely upon
> comparison with US taxation, let's say, tobacco products for starters,
> and "cigarettes" to be more specific. Yea, Bill. You don't like to
> talk about cigarettes. I never used to either, but since I know now
> you probably don't smoke them, you could care less, right? Let's go
> back to cigarettes, since likely in Russia, most people, or the
> majority smoke 'em!
>
>> Employers
>> must pay payroll taxes to the Pension Fund, the Social Insurance Fund,
>> the State Employment Fund and the Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund
>
> Fuck! Don't get me started on this one.
>
> The US is just the inter varsity in getting into this. The former
> Soviet republics are moving rapidly in the opposite direction. The
> life and conditions were entirely socialist, 100% taxation. Your job
> was to the state. That was the point in my previous post, and you know
> it. You don't want to talk about declining tax rates do you, not
> really? You're throwing in motherhood, apple pie, and increasing US
> socialism to try and justify how things are changing. I am suggesting
> that tax rates are decreasing and liberty is increasing! There's a
> humongous difference here. I am not saying that liberty will finally,
> ultimately win in the final blow. I'm saying it is now possible. It
> is not likely that liberty will prevail in the US, Canada, western
> Europe or Japan.
>
>> plus a transportation tax and an education tax that are also based on
>> wages. Withholding taxes are imposed on dividends, interest on
>> debentures and payments to nonresidents for services.
>
> Sounds like the good 'ol USA doesn't it? Difference is, tax rates are
> declining. Stick with that for a while Bill. Liberty is also
> increasing. Deal with that anyway that you can find a way to conjure
> up some specifics that may deviate from the obvious.
>
>> Other local and regional taxes such as housing, advertising and militia
>> taxes, are also imposed. These taxes may use a basis other than profits,
>> such as sales, turnover, or the amount of payroll or advertising
>> expenses.
>
> Sounds a lot like an inter varsity rendention of what the IRS and
> clones have been doing to rape and pillage US taxpayers for decades,
> only likely decreasing. So what's your point?
>
>> Russian import duties change frequently.
>
> Yea, so what's so different with frequent and sudden changes in such
> things as steel import duties? The reason I mention that one, is
> because it directly affects Russia, and other steel producers. In
> case you haven't noticed recently, US exports subsidies are finally
> becoming under attack by the rest of the world as we speak. Wake up
> and smell the coffee Bill.
>
> A lot of things change constantly. So, again, what's your point? Is
> liberty declining in the west, and rising elsewhere, or not? You're
> the one who wanted to start this tirad. I'm only asking why you
> believe liberty is growing in western civilization, and declining
> elsewhere? It's a fair question. If you want to continue to blow
> smoke, I can likely do that as well, or better, than you can, despite
> your ego.
>
> Let's continue:
>
>> Rates of 15-20% per cent are
>> imposed on most goods considered nonessential for economic development,
>> and rates of 25-30 per cent are applied on a range of consumer goods.
>> The highest duties are levied on such goods as alcoholic beverages,
>> cigarettes (ok, now we know why Frank hasn't moved to Russia! :)
>> entertainment goods, precious metals and stones, and watches.
>
> Nice try. Ya want to bet a cost for a pack of cigarettes in Russia is
> around $5.00 a pack? I haven't been there, but I can promise you,
> that isn't the case! Russians, as I do, smoke cigarettes. They aren't
> going to pay anywhere even close to what Americans, Canadian, western
> Europeans pay for and you know it! The duties you are talking about
> are all about imports, imported cigarettes!
>
> So, what is your fucking point Bill? Russians have every right to
> impose duties on US steel, since the us slapped a huge tariff on
> Russian steel! They can impose likewise duties on US manufactured
> cigarettes. Your arguments are nothing much than "applies and
> oranges", again. You forget the origin of this; it was the US that
> first imposed unilaterally, tariffs on steel products. I don't
> believe this has very much to do with cigarettes in Russia, except
> those imported from the US!
>
>> Commodities imported into the customs territory of Russia are also
>> subject to a 20 per cent VAT.
>
> Imports again. Right? I thought so. Thank you.
>
>> Duties are applied to imports and exports. When goods cross the customs
>> border, they must be placed under a customs regime. Goods brought into
>> Russia by foreign companies usually fall under two regimes:
>
> Ah, fuck it. You really do want to twist this discussion into
> something of non-relevance to anything at all that I originally
> wrote. We can discuss all of this forever. Point is, plainly I don't
> believe it is relevant to the fact that liberty is increasing in the
> former Soviet republics, and it is decreasing in the US, Canada,
> western Europe and presumably elsewhere.
>
> This is all a giant smokescreen. Show me why taxation is NOT
> decreasing, and liberty is not increasing in the former Soviet Union?
> You can't do that, can you? I am not about to get into this kind of
> dialogue with you. Mainly because you skirt entirely everything I
> wrote, and seek to bring it all into some kind of semblance to what
> goes on everywhere. Every region or political unit on the entire
> planet does the same thing. The only real questions that are relevant
> is where taxation is declining, and liberty is increasing. You
> haven't yet demonstrated your case, now have you?
>
> There is NO question at all, in my mind, that liberty is decreasing
> markedly in the US. You can pretend if you want that this is okay, but
> you have to, as a libertarian, say something! For starters, you have
> to say, "This is unacceptable". You have to recognize too that some
> nations, regions, or political boundaries are getting a lot more
> freedom than they once had.
>
> You sir, are playing silly games with me. I know. You know, that
> times are changing rapidly. Liberty is not a dead issue. Liberty is
> increasing in certain places, as I've laid out. Liberty is DECREASING
> in the United States, western Europe, and other areas. Point is we
> need to find a way to reinforce and defend liberty where it can be
> defended. I am NOT convinced that the US is a really great place to
> start doing that. I'll do that only because I am an American. I
> however at this stage, don't believe this is the most productive place
> to begin.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank
>> Release for Free Circulation
>> Duty calculated by multiplying the customs value of the goods by the
>> appropriate duty rate, which ranges from zero to 100 per cent.
>>
>> Temporary Import
>> This status may be applied only to goods to be used by the foreign
>> company that will not be sold and will remain in the ownership of the
>> company. Two types of exemptions from duties are granted: full and
>> partial. No duties are charged on goods that receive a full exemption.
>> For goods receiving a partial exemption, the importer is required to pay
>> three per cent per month of the amount that would have been due had the
>> goods been sold.
>>
>> This is in addition to the recently instituted 13% flat tax. Note that
>> (as predicted) their revenues went up. Also, under their higher tax
>> rates, there was a massive issue with "evasion" which resulted in a
>> dramatically lower revenue. Their tax rates were higher, but since they
>> had no enforcement means, most simply refused to "participate". now,
>> with lower rates, and an enforcement system, taught to them by the IRS,
>> they are collecting more revenues. This means that more Russians are
>> paying taxes, and that the government is collecting more in taxes. Even
>> the issue of taxation is not as black and white as you claim.
>>
>> While I'm still on the subject, the flat tax isn't all that flat,
>> either.
>> * A flat 13% rate applies to all income for which another rate is not
>> specified. This 13% rate would apply to salary and other earned income
>> received by tax resident individuals.
>>
>> * A flat 35% rate applies to income in the form of bank interest
>> exceeding ? of the Central Bank’s refinancing rate (or exceeding 9% on
>> non-ruble deposits), certain insurance pay-outs, gambling and lottery
>> winnings, certain prizes, and deemed income from low- or zero-interest
>> loans.
>>
>> * A flat 30% rate applies to dividends and incomes received by
>> individuals who are not tax resident.
>>
>> All "taxpayers" are required to register with the tax Service(s). when
>> you look at what the tax agencies can do to people and businesses, it
>> looks more than familiar, and on some cases, actually much worse. Being
>> registered with a tax agency (which is required) gives them "the right"
>> to inspect your premises, documents, records, etc. at will. They are
>> given the authority to "liquidate enterprises", "declare transactions
>> invalid and exact all proceeds from these transactions to the state
>> treasury".
>>
>> * Failure to Meet the Deadline for Registering with a Tax Authority:
>> o For 90 days or less: five thousand rubles;
>> o For more than 90 days: ten thousand rubles;
>>
>> * Avoiding Registration with a Tax Authority
>> o An organization operating without registration for less than
>> 90 days shall be fined 10% of the income received during this period in
>> question or twenty thousand rubles, whichever is greater.
>> o For a period over three months a fine in the amount of 20%
>> of the incomes received.
>>
>> * Failure to Meet the Deadline for Reporting the Opening of a Bank
>> Account:
>> o If this has not lead to tax evasion: five thousand rubles;
>> o If this has resulted in tax evasion: a fine in the amount of
>> ten percent of the total amount of money funds remitted to that account
>> during the period of late submittal or non-submittal of the information
>> on the opening of this bank account;
>>
>> * Failure to Meet the Deadline for Filing a Tax Return or Other
>> Documents:
>> o If the taxpayer is registered and provided that there are no
>> elements of a tax offence - a fine in the amount of five per cent of the
>> amount of tax payable on the basis of such tax return for each full
>> month from the deadline established for filing [tax returns], but not
>> more than 30%;
>> o For more than 180 days after the legislatively established
>> deadline for filing such tax returns - a fine in the amount of 30% of
>> the entire amount of tax payable, plus 10% of this sum for every full
>> month over 181 days;
>>
>> * Failure to Comply with the Rules of Accounting for Income,
>> Expenses and Objects of Taxation
>> o A gross violation* of rules if these actions were committed
>> within one tax period: five thousand rubles;
>> o A gross violation of rules if these actions were committed
>> during a period of time that exceeds one tax period: fifteen thousand
>> rubles;
>> o A gross violation of rules if these actions resulted in
>> under reporting of income: 10% of the amount of unpaid tax, or 15
>> thousand rubles, whichever is less;
>>
>> *A gross violation of rules of accounting for income, expenses and
>> objects of taxation for the purposes of the present Article shall mean
>> absence of primary [detailed] documents, absence of book-keeping
>> registries, repeated untimely or incorrect coverage of business
>> transactions, monetary funds, tangible assets, intangible assets and
>> financial investments of the taxpayer in the balance sheet accounts and
>> in reporting.
>>
>> On the concept of tax crimes:
>> * Failure to pay taxes due as a result of understatement of the tax
>> base or incorrect assessment of taxes due based on results of the tax
>> period, if revealed by the tax authority during field audit:
>> o Unintentional: 20 per cent of the unpaid tax liability;
>> o Intentional: 40 per cent of the unpaid tax liability;
>>
>> * Failure of a tax agent to fulfill his duties under legislation on
>> taxes and fees to withhold from the taxpayer and/or remit the withheld
>> amounts of taxes to the budget:
>> o 20% of the amount that was to be withheld and remitted;
>>
>> * Denial of access to the grounds or premises of a taxpayer to an
>> officer of a tax authority conducting a tax by the taxpayer or his legal
>> representative:
>> o Five thousand rubles;
>>
>> * Failure to comply with the procedures established by the Tax Code
>> for tenancy, use and/or disposal of property under lien:
>> o Ten thousand rubles;
>>
>> * Withholding of information about a taxpayer to a tax agent, as
>> well as failure to provide such documents, or providing documents
>> containing false information:
>> o Five thousand rubles.
>>
>> For the "Unified Social Tax Rate":
>> Up to 100,000 Rb:
>> 35.6%
>>> From 100,000 to 300,000 Rb:
>> 36,600 Rb + 20% of amount exceeding 100,000 Rb
>>> From 300,000 to 600,000 Rb:
>> 75,600 Rb + 10% of amount exceeding 300,000 Rb
>> Over 600,000 Rb:
>> 105,600 Rb + 2% of amount exceeding 600,000 Rb
>>
>> This tax is collected at the business level, and is based on Payroll
>> amounts.
>>
>> Enterprises who advertise their products in St. Petersburg pay a tax of
>> 5% of the cost of advertising services.
>>
>> Oh, but wait there's more! they have an "Asset Tax":
>> 2% of the sum of the net book value of fixed and intangible assets,
>> low-value and high-wear objects, stocks, incomplete production and
>> deferred expenses. The calculation of Asset Tax must be submitted to the
>> tax services quarterly by the 30th of the month following the quarter
>> and paid within 5 days of submission.
>>
>> Oh, and in case anybody was wondering, yes they use April 15th as an
>> important tax date too.
>> A licensed firm registered in Russia must audit the annual returns and
>> financial statements of the following entities:
>>
>> * Open joint-stock companies
>> * Enterprises with turnover exceeding 500,000 minimum monthly wages;
>> * Enterprises with assets exceeding 200,000 minimum monthly wages;
>> * Any other entities with foreign ownership.
>>
>> The minimum monthly wage for 2001 was 100 Rubles.
>>
>> Sorry, Frank, these are not things that MSNBC typically produces for
>> it's viewers, but the data is there if you go to the Russians, you know
>> ... the source.
>>
>> And remember, YOU brought up Russia.
>>
>>> reducing regulation from decades ago? It seems to me you need to take
>>> a serious look at current trends.
>>
>> I prefer long term trends, and real data, not your presumptions and
>> assertions, for determinng where things will be in a decade. Of course,
>> trends don't give any comfort to the chinese citizen who finds that
>> recently his government starting blocking Google.com since he can fund
>> "subversive" information using it. I'm sure it makes the Russian child
>> who still doesn't have enough food to eat that there is an alleged trend
>> in his country toward deregulation. I'm sure the Bosnian or Iraqi
>> citizen in front of a firing squad, or sucking his last gasps through
>> chemicals dropped on him by his government is relieved to know that
>> somewhere, someone thinks things are getting better somewhere.
>>
>> Trends being used to predict future is by definition, not now.
>>
>>>> If the terms are expressed by people, then certainly one would consider
>>>> the population of a given country. That, however, is a very rare case.
>>>
>>> Indeed. It is irrelevant, or mostly so. Not always. A lot of people
>>> today are recipients of freedom, and less taxation as I've already
>>> pointed out.
>>
>> And lots are recipients of more taxation, and less freedom. something
>> you casually ignore.
>>
>>>
>>> Robert wrote:
>>>>> Right now I can't think of any other category in which most of the
world's
>>>>> better than the USA for its people. For most facets of freedom the
USA's
>>>>> usually better than all but a few places. You can always find a
country
>>>>> here and there where you get a special break in some narrow way --
like
>>>>> tax-free income for poets in Ireland.
>>>
>>> You replied:
>>>> Naturally.
>>>
>>> Well, isn't this really special? You agree with that? That's up to
>>
>> Do you disagree with this statement (it is a yes or no question):
>> "You can always find a country here and there where you get a special
>> break in some narrow way -- like tax-free income for poets in Ireland."
>>
>> That is what I agreed with. Even here you can see it between the states.
>> Mayeb you should consider kentucky, frank. With the Federal tax rates on
>> cigarettes, they only pay 42 cents/pack -- with no change since 1970.
>> The highest is Massachusetts which combined with the federal ($.39/pack)
>> pays 1.90/pack in taxes. The average of all states is 58.8 cents plus
>> the 39 cents for the feds ... call it 98 cents. Average retail price
>> per pack is 3.85 including taxes ... hmm and average of 34 percent.
>> Looks a lot like Russia's tax rates on cigarettes (which is misleading,
>> since that only represents one tax, there are more taxes that are levied
>> in Russia).
>>
>> On trends, let us use your favorite dog: cigarettes.
>>
>> In 2002, 19 states in the US have higher tax rates on cigarettes. yet 27
>> states have not increased them since the 1980's, and four not since
>> 1970. The "giant" trend, the one that MSNBC reports to its loyal
>> advertising targets, is that 19 increased. Yet the underlying trend is
>> that 31 have not in over a decade.
>>
>> One thing not shown by the "data" in that "trend" is the increase in
>> non-tax retail price of a pack of cigarettes. It has increased (due in
>> part to inflation), just like many things. Since beginning of 1998, the
>> major cigarette companies increased the prices they charge by over $1.20
>> per pack. Idaho ha snot had a cigarette excise tax increase since 1994.
>> Any increase in prices of cigarettes you have seen in this state are due
>> to companies increasing their prices by a little under 50%. And people
>> still buy the stuff. If the people are willing to pay higher prices, and
>> the curve works out such that you make more money, that's capitalism,
>> baby.
>>
>> As this happens, the relative percentage of the tax rates decreases.
>> Thus, increases in the raw cents/pack more often than not bring the rate
>> back into a previous percentage. Thus, the rates, in the states that are
>> increasing them, do not seem to be varying much when compared to the
>> rate at the last time of increase.
>>
>> Of course, these are Excise taxes, so state sales taxes apply as well,
>> but since those are not specific to cigarettes, those are excluded.
>>
>> Regarding Canada at, they charge as of 2002, 15 cents per cigarette.
>> hmm, as I understand it, there are 10 cigarettes/pack .. that makes the
>> per pack rate 1.50. One penny below the highest state on the US.
>>
>> Even on your favorite dog, the US does not come out as bad as you make
>> out, compared to other places, which is what this discussion is about,
>> lest you forget.
>>
>>> you, but sadly I disagree. Here's why. You really need to take a
>>> serious look at giant trends that have occurred, and are still
>>
>> Sorry, but reality is that it is the smaller trends that show where the
>> future lies. Big trends tend more often than not to represent passing
>> fads, or trends at their peak, which means they are set to decline.
>>
>>> occurring in the last couple of decades or so. And, should you say,
>>> "this doesn't matter", then let me remind you that the entire US
>>> government as we know it, has only been in existence for little over
>>> the last 200 years! Before you sign on to Robert's argument, you need
>>
>> The entire Russian government as we know it has been in existence for
>> less than a decade. Your point?
>>
>>> to understand that "liberty" as such, is in a downward spiral in the
>>> US and most of the western world, when at the same time it is
>>
>> Before I "sign on" to "Frank's arguments", I need more than general
>> unfounded assertions. Frank, all you do is make assertions, I can't but
>> that blindly. Sorry, I don't worship you anymore than I worship Robert.
>> I don't "sign on" to arguments, I examine them. Those that don't make
>> the logic grade, are dismissed. Those that are presented with no
>> evidence, incorrect or insufficient evidence, are dismissed as well.
>>
>>> increasing throughout much of eastern Europe, former Soviet republics,
>>> and in most of east Asia and in southern Asia. If you are a betting
>>> man, would you hedge your bets that American will be the sole bastion
>>> for social and economic freedom in the next decade or two?
>>>
>>> Bill, you sir, are ignoring a lot of recent history. The direction of
>>
>> No Frank, I am well aware of much, I just don't have your blinders on.
>> Tell me Frank, have you taken the Meyers-Briggs/Kiersey Temperament
>> sorter? I am curious.
>>
>>> freedom, or liberty, today has nothing much at all with the current US
>>> government, nor for that matter particularly with what is going on in
>>> western Europe. If the current US government is a beacon for liberty,
>>> then God help us all.
>>>
>>> You are missing something here. As the Communist regime finally
>>> crumbles and falls in China, so will most of the fears you seem to
>>> believe will establish the equalitarian status quo in defence of
>>> liberty. Liberty has the best ultimate chance in east Asia, because
>>> that is where it is all happening in the absence of force. North
>>> Korea will soon disappear. The Chinese communist regime which is
>>> already "dated" will disappear, because no one really cares anyway.
>>
>> Oh, I see, you dismiss china, the nation with the highest population, as
>> outdated, so you don't care about it. Got it, if Frank disagrees, they
>> other country must be dated and thus irrelevant. Noted.
>>
>>> Meanwhile, America will continue to add multitudes of statues on the
>>> books to deny social and economic liberty. The tables are turning,
>>> and I knew that was occurring at least two decades ago! I am not
>>
>> And damn the facts, Frank must be right!
>>
>>> surprised. In this scheme of things, likely Iraq won't really matter
>>> too much down the road, because I doubt seriously that Iraq poses any
>>> military challenge against the US, Europe, and certain NOT China for
>>> multiple decades to come!
>>>
>>> Can I prove any of this? Yea, in some ways I can. History is own my
>>> side, and it shows tangible evidence to support everything I say. Am
>>
>> No, it does not. Only the arrogant one asserts that history supports
>> EVERYTHING he says. Oh, wait ... never mind, I almost forgot who I was
>> conversing with for a moment.
>>
>>> I noticed also, that Lowell Savage didn't even care to buy the book,
>>> because it today costs around $100. It is still the definitive effort
>>> to look at East Asia history. I own the book. But Savage, if he
>>> cared to do so, could have easily checked it out for free at his local
>>> library! That's hardly an excuse!
>>
>> Yeah, and I notice you have still not joined the organizations that
>> devote their life to studying in great detail the events on the world
>> stage, and have much data that stands in contradiction to your claims.
>>
>>
>>> Unfortunately, the real excuse is that there are a lot of people who
>>> don't even care at all to examine much of anything, even when it is
>>
>> And there are a lot of people who believe they hold the keys and
>> answers, and get pretty pissed off when ANYONE doubts them. News flash
>> Frank: In case you've missed it over the years, I doubt everything, and
>> everyone. yeah, I'd probably question "the Almighty" too, given the
>> chance. ("Excuse me, what does God need with a starship?" *ZOT*!)
>>
>> I have noticed a trend. You refusing to give citations and evidence to
>> support your position. "It is obvious" is not a valid piece of evidence.
>> I've noticed over the last year that whenever someone agrees with you
>> regarding Bush, the U.S., foreign policy, you cal them names, and say
>> they are anti-liberty. You assign statements to them that were never
>> made, and when called or pressed for details, you call them names again,
>> and try to deflect the question by calling it mousemilking. You go into
>> an "I am omniscient" mode, and quite Frankly, I find it saddening and
>> annoying. I'm not the only one who has noted that, either.
>>
>> JQS used to make statements that look just like yours "I CAN post loads
>> of ..." and never did. Sad to see you are moving in that trend. maybe it
>> is time for a break? Yeah, a break sounds good.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Anderson
>> Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
>> Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
>> Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>>
>> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>>
>> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LIABILITY AND MISANTHROPISM....
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 22:24:12 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

UMMM, GROUP,

BORE YA WITH MY PROBLEMS:

i lost my parrot about a month ago.

i found her, a few times, but she was too freaked to fly to me.

i'd been callling to her, with her doing her love dance, responding with
"lovya" for hours. the control freak mormons were real peed that i was
calling to her from the sidewalk, but they knew they couldn't call the cops.

finally i begged them to let me onto their roof. nope!!!!!!, they said -
liability. "would ya let officals, there"? ya, if they have uniforms.
unfortunately, toby hates uniforms. she flew when the fire dept. showed up.

i know where she is right now, and i don't. nobody will give me the
address. not the bon marche lingere department, not the animal control
folks, not the chubbuck police department, not the pocky police departement.

nope, none of 'em! why?? potential liabilty. the woman who knows where
toby is has left town for a week for her grandfather's funeral.

if i'd lost a kid, or $800. it'd have been easy. but i only just lost the
love of my life.

the wtc didn't teach us humans squat!!!!!!!!! first thing is, don't get
sued. fend for your selfish self!!

misanthropically, though i'm no misognist,

larry

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: US vs. the world
Date: 07 Sep 2002 03:26:47 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 09:39, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> > Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. Frank, I was responding to Roberts question, not yours.
>
> How sanctimonious of you Bill, and how presumptuous, that you write on
> a public list and not entertain any public commentary. Nice. Since
> this is my list, I feel compelled to call your presumption to order.

What presumption? It was fact that Robert asked a question, and I was
responding to it. You asked a DIFFERENT question, and went on about a
DIFFERENT question. It is not condescending, nor declaring something
private to point out a fact such as that.

If someone says asks what color the sky is, and someone answers that,
and then another person rants on about the soil content of the local
dump, it is not irrational, nor unexpected, for the first or second
person to point out that the question being answered was not the soil
content of the local "sanitary" landfill.

> Whatever your write on THIS list is open to public commentary and
> debate. Do you have a problem with that? If you do son, then you
> presume too much. It doesn't work that way here, and it never has.

Frank, take your sanctimonious strawmen and burn them yourself Either
show me where I even implied I expected a PRIVATE discussion. Put up or
shut the hell up, man.

>
> So, now, nevertheless, having said such, you want to contribute
> anyway... interesting...
>
> > How presumptuous ... again. And another strawman. Where in that did I
> > mention an Islamic country? Last I knew the US and China were not
> > Islamic countries. Then again, maybe you know something the rest of the
> > world doesn't?
>
> What is YOUR problem? First, you claim I butted into your private
> conversation, one that, by the way, was by your own choice, made

A lie, or at best a misunderstanding of it on your part.

> public, right here on Liberty Northwest. Now, you want to claim I am
> being presumptuous. Yes, Bill, I can play the same games, and I can
> probably do that even better than you can yourself! So what's the
> point? Bill, you don't post shit here publicly and expect no response

No, I WANt response, but all I get form you is assetions, and lack of
evidence. For example, can you say where in that thread I said anything
about an ISLAMIC country. Nope, because it didn't happen.
>
> > > One question you need to ask here, is who TAXES the most! Yea, sure.
>
> I know. I'm wondering if YOU do? Your question appears to be in the
> same category of listening carefully to "the sound one hand clapping",
> so to speak. What's your point.

Frank, the above quote, is not a quote of my question. I didn't ask it.
I believe you or Robert asked it. I certainly did not. And frank, it was
clearly marked. I just looked. Robert posted:
"Frank wrote in part:

>One question you need to ask here, is who TAXES the most!

It's sure not the USA. Of course, some other countries live largely off
income from gov't enterprises such as mineral sales.
"""

So guess what, I didn't ask that question. I asked in response:
"Is the question highest total tax rate? Highest per-capita revenue?"

The poster of "One question you need to ask here is who TAXES most!". is
you, not I. If you don't like the question, look in the mirror and talk
to that person.

Specifically, Robert asked about how one measures/weighs the differing
countries. I responded with an answer to that questions, and you came
back with saying the question was a different one.

>
> In practical terms, the one doing the most taxing is the government
> that extracts the most in terms of private property. Get real! "Yea,
> sure", what? Which governments extract the greatest percentage of
> income, wealth, revenue, whatever, what belong to you?
>
> Bill, I guess I just don't understand your hostility. What point am I

Maybe because you are assigning hostility where there is none. You
_presume_ hostility.

> rubbing on that you choose to make here? Does this have to do with
> your ego, or what?

>
> > How do you define most?
>
> I don't know anymore. This is lost on me. Do I hear the "sound of one
> hand clapping?" Be more specific and just tell me why I pissed you
> off. What did I say?

Allow me to put it on other words.

Country A collects 250 Billion Dollars in tax revenue.
Country B Collects 100 Billions Dollars in Tax revenue.

Which country the most taxes? Depends on what you think of. The data is
incomplete. Here is the rest of the picture:

Country A has 10 times the tax base of Country B, people make more in
Country A, and there are more people. The percentage of the average
taxpayer's income that goes into taxes in Country A is 45%; in Country B
it is 85%.

Country A's tax revenue is 15% of it's GDP; for Country B it is 70%.

Who taxes more? Country A collects more net revenues, but is it a fair
comparison? After all, Country B's citizens have a higher percentage of
their income taken. The government in Country B is a much higher portion
of the economy than in A. In Country A, the one collecting more gross
revenue, there is less impact on the people being taxed.

I'm not pissed off, I am irritated. And I have stated in simple, plain
English exactly why. you make assertions, refuse to provide anything
other than your opinion, and seem to expect us all to just agree with
you. In short, the very same things that irritate me about certain other
people. Especially since you bitch about them for doing exactly what you
do.

>
> > Genuine questions, and to
> > hell with you, your mouse and it's teats.
>
> This conversation is entirely left up to you, your arrogance, and your
> ego. I don't have a clue, nor do I particularly want to know, not
> really.
>
> > Taxes in Russia are divided into three categories:
> > * Federal taxes
> > * Taxes for constituent republics of the Russian Federation, taxes of
> > territories, provinces, autonomous provinces and autonomous districts
> > * Local taxes
>
> Sounds a lot like the conditions forced upon Americans, doesn't it?
> So, again, what's your point in all of this? I never said, did I,
> that I support such a scheme? What does this have to do with
> liberty?
>
> > Legal entities doing business in Russia are subject to a corporate
> > profit tax, assets tax and road fund tax.
>
> Good. This sounds a lot like what goes on each and every day, anywhere
> within the US. However, you failed to define how the rate of taxation
> is declining, the one point that I mentioned previously that relevant
> to any of this!

You failed to read that the rates of actual confiscation is increasing.

>
> > Capital gains are included in
> > the corporate profit tax base. A value added tax (VAT) is applied to the
> > sale, exchange, transfer or import of most goods and services.
>
> Again, what is the cumulative rate of taxation, based entirely upon
> comparison with US taxation, let's say, tobacco products for starters,

It depends. As noted, in Russia there are several import taxes levied,
there is sales tax, local taxes, non-essentials tax, etc..

I've given the figure as of the 2002 tax rates for the U.S. for
cigarettes. Tobacco has to be split up, due to the differing rates on
"smokeless" tobacco. In fact, many of the tax increases on cigarettes
are pushed by the smokeless tobacco industry. It helps them get an edge.

I've even offered the source.

> and "cigarettes" to be more specific. Yea, Bill. You don't like to
> talk about cigarettes. I never used to either, but since I know now

No, Frank I don't mind talking about them. I just don't like you
spreading bullshit about them.

> you probably don't smoke them, you could care less, right? Let's go
> back to cigarettes, since likely in Russia, most people, or the
> majority smoke 'em!

And you evidence for this claim is ...

>
> > Employers
> > must pay payroll taxes to the Pension Fund, the Social Insurance Fund,
> > the State Employment Fund and the Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund
>
> Fuck! Don't get me started on this one.
>
> The US is just the inter varsity in getting into this. The former
> Soviet republics are moving rapidly in the opposite direction. The
> life and conditions were entirely socialist, 100% taxation. Your job
> was to the state. That was the point in my previous post, and you know
> it. You don't want to talk about declining tax rates do you, not
> really? You're throwing in motherhood, apple pie, and increasing US
> socialism to try and justify how things are changing. I am suggesting

What are you smoking Frank? It sure doesn't sound like tobacco. I didn't
rank the US at all other than to say that the figures and system being
put in place are very near to ours. If you dislike ours, you must
dislike theirs.

> that tax rates are decreasing and liberty is increasing! There's a
> humongous difference here. I am not saying that liberty will finally,
> ultimately win in the final blow. I'm saying it is now possible. It
> is not likely that liberty will prevail in the US, Canada, western
> Europe or Japan.

And providing no evidence for your assertion. Still. Just like stand,
Mark, and Ryan.

>
> > plus a transportation tax and an education tax that are also based on
> > wages. Withholding taxes are imposed on dividends, interest on
> > debentures and payments to nonresidents for services.
>
> Sounds like the good 'ol USA doesn't it? Difference is, tax rates are

Yes, Frank, THAT IS MY POINT!

> declining. Stick with that for a while Bill. Liberty is also

Russian tax revenues are up, Frank, That is a fact, and was their goal.
So, you see, the question of "Who taxes the most" is, as I said, not a
clear cut as you think it is. previously, their rates were higher, but
they didn't get much "buy-in" so to speak. Now, they are getting more.
So, as a result of the (sometimes) lower rates, MORE people are actually
paying taxes (which means their net taxes when up), and the government
of Russian takes more revenue in.

> increasing. Deal with that anyway that you can find a way to conjure
> up some specifics that may deviate from the obvious.

More often than not, the obvious answer is the wrong one. The obvious
response is quite often the incorrect one.

It was "obvious" at one time that the world was flat.
It was "obvious" at one time that Earth was the center of the solar
system.
It was "obvious" at one time that man could not travel faster than
sound.
For you, it is "obvious" that tax rates in the U.S for cigarettes are
"5,000%" (or 300 as you said elsewhere), and that the average price is
over/around $5.00/pack.

All of those "obvious" statements share one thing in common. They are
all wrong.

The national average retail price/pack including excise and state taxes
is: 3.85. under four bucks.

Only one state breaks 5 bucks, and that happens to be NY. Only 17 other
states broke the $4/pack marker. So nearly two-thirds of the states in
the US have a total per pack price of under four dollars, and you
somehow think it is an accurate comparison to ask about five dollars per
pack in Russia. Idaho's average is $3.33/pack.

Earlier on this list, you said:
"But in America, to have that choice, you first have to shovel out a
300 percent markup in pure government taxation for the privilege of
lighting up! Thanks, but no thanks."

Which is, still, untrue. The facts are that the federal excise tax in
cigarettes is 39 cents per pack. State levels very from a few pennies to
a buck fifty, with the average being 59 cents (technically 58.8). So, we
have an average level of 99 cents/pack. If we add in the average state
sales tax per pack, we come to a grand whopping total of $1.16/pack,
national average including state sales tax. factoring that in, the
average price of a pack of cigarettes in the US without taxes is $2.69.

Yet, the average price is three times higher. If you want to single out
taxes specifically applied to tobacco, the ratio is nearly four to one.
Mathematically, your assertion is baseless. Those are facts, Frank, not
opinion.

And again, since 1998, the "brand name" players in cigarettes have
raised their prices by over $1.20. Why do that? because the price is not
high enough to cause them a net profit loss. With wholesale prices for
last year being in the 12 cents/pack range, I can see why not.

>
> > Other local and regional taxes such as housing, advertising and militia
> > taxes, are also imposed. These taxes may use a basis other than profits,
> > such as sales, turnover, or the amount of payroll or advertising
> > expenses.
>
> Sounds a lot like an inter varsity rendention of what the IRS and
> clones have been doing to rape and pillage US taxpayers for decades,
> only likely decreasing. So what's your point?

THAT IS MY POINT! That is why I said it looks "awfully familiar".

>
> > Russian import duties change frequently.
>
> Yea, so what's so different with frequent and sudden changes in such
> things as steel import duties? The reason I mention that one, is
> because it directly affects Russia, and other steel producers. In
> case you haven't noticed recently, US exports subsidies are finally
> becoming under attack by the rest of the world as we speak. Wake up
> and smell the coffee Bill.
>
> A lot of things change constantly. So, again, what's your point? Is
> liberty declining in the west, and rising elsewhere, or not? You're
> the one who wanted to start this tirad. I'm only asking why you

No, Frank, a list of facts is not a tirade. As to the question, the
answer must logically be no, due to the fact that is is increase in in
some aspects in all areas, as well as decreasing in some aspects in all
areas.

> believe liberty is growing in western civilization, and declining
> elsewhere? It's a fair question. If you want to continue to blow
> smoke, I can likely do that as well, or better, than you can, despite
> your ego.

blah-blah-blah-posturing-blah-blah-blah

>
> Let's continue:
>
> > Rates of 15-20% per cent are
> > imposed on most goods considered nonessential for economic development,
> > and rates of 25-30 per cent are applied on a range of consumer goods.
> > The highest duties are levied on such goods as alcoholic beverages,
> > cigarettes (ok, now we know why Frank hasn't moved to Russia! :)
> > entertainment goods, precious metals and stones, and watches.
>
> Nice try. Ya want to bet a cost for a pack of cigarettes in Russia is
> around $5.00 a pack? I haven't been there, but I can promise you,
> that isn't the case! Russians, as I do, smoke cigarettes. They aren't
> going to pay anywhere even close to what Americans, Canadian, western
> Europeans pay for and you know it! The duties you are talking about
> are all about imports, imported cigarettes!

And you point? Again, you make an assertion without providing evidence.

Want to know why they won't pay as much? simple: they don't MAKE as
much!
If the people selling the cigarettes anywhere want to make "more
money", and believe the people will pay more for them they will charge
more for them. We call that part of supply and demand.

> So, what is your fucking point Bill? Russians have every right to
> impose duties on US steel, since the us slapped a huge tariff on

So, two wrongs make a right? Since when does the rights of one nation
(which I seem to recall you bitching about like crazy whenever anyone
other than yourself mentions "state rights") become extant because
another did that thing? I don't recall steel being in the list of
extra-taxed imports, though may be under a different category.

> Russian steel! They can impose likewise duties on US manufactured
> cigarettes. Your arguments are nothing much than "applies and
> oranges", again. You forget the origin of this; it was the US that
> first imposed unilaterally, tariffs on steel products. I don't
> believe this has very much to do with cigarettes in Russia, except
> those imported from the US!

Some of the taxes listed do, some do not. In either case, what the hell
does Steel have to do with it?!?!?

>
> > Commodities imported into the customs territory of Russia are also
> > subject to a 20 per cent VAT.
>
> Imports again. Right? I thought so. Thank you.

Does this change the fact that these taxes are indeed there? Nope. Oh,
that's right, you don't want *all* the taxes there, because it belies
the fact that you have not done much actual research, instead preferring
your belief and gut feeling as opposed to facts.

>
> > Duties are applied to imports and exports. When goods cross the customs
> > border, they must be placed under a customs regime. Goods brought into
> > Russia by foreign companies usually fall under two regimes:
>
> Ah, fuck it. You really do want to twist this discussion into
> something of non-relevance to anything at all that I originally
> wrote. We can discuss all of this forever. Point is, plainly I don't
> believe it is relevant to the fact that liberty is increasing in the
> former Soviet republics, and it is decreasing in the US, Canada,
> western Europe and presumably elsewhere.

Of course you don't, the facts disagree with your beliefs. So to hell
with them, right JQS, err I mean Frank?

>
> This is all a giant smokescreen. Show me why taxation is NOT
> decreasing, and liberty is not increasing in the former Soviet Union?
> You can't do that, can you? I am not about to get into this kind of
> dialogue with you. Mainly because you skirt entirely everything I

No, you avoid it because you simply lack the data, and refuse to get it.
Some of these taxes in Russia are new, some are increasing, and some are
decreasing. same situation here in the U.S. (insert flag waving, mom and
apple pie I suppose). Some taxes are going up, some are being
eliminated, some are decreasing, and some are being created.

> wrote, and seek to bring it all into some kind of semblance to what
> goes on everywhere. Every region or political unit on the entire
> planet does the same thing. The only real questions that are relevant
> is where taxation is declining, and liberty is increasing. You
> haven't yet demonstrated your case, now have you?
>
> There is NO question at all, in my mind, that liberty is decreasing
> markedly in the US. You can pretend if you want that this is okay, but

And to hell with any facts that show you may be wrong, Got it. I don't
pretend anything about the US is OK, so take your strawmen and shovell
them.

> you have to, as a libertarian, say something! For starters, you have

As a libertarian I do not HAVE to do anything, which means I don't have
to listen to you tell me what to do, or listen to unfounded assertions.
I have, at this point, little reason more to listen to your rantings
than I do JQS'. Neither one of you provide anything other than yourself
as authority and evidence.

> to say, "This is unacceptable". You have to recognize too that some
> nations, regions, or political boundaries are getting a lot more
> freedom than they once had.

And you, Frank, are ignoring the FACT that this takes place within the
U.S every single day.

>
> You sir, are playing silly games with me. I know. You know, that
> times are changing rapidly. Liberty is not a dead issue. Liberty is
> increasing in certain places, as I've laid out. Liberty is DECREASING
> in the United States, western Europe, and other areas. Point is we
> need to find a way to reinforce and defend liberty where it can be
> defended. I am NOT convinced that the US is a really great place to
> start doing that. I'll do that only because I am an American. I
> however at this stage, don't believe this is the most productive place
> to begin.

So why are you trying to get here?

> > > Robert wrote:
> > > > > Right now I can't think of any other category in which most of the
world's
> > > > > better than the USA for its people. For most facets of freedom
the USA's
> > > > > usually better than all but a few places. You can always find a
country
> > > > > here and there where you get a special break in some narrow way --
like
> > > > > tax-free income for poets in Ireland.
> > >
> > > You replied:
> > > > Naturally.
> > >
> > > Well, isn't this really special? You agree with that? That's up to
> >
> > Do you disagree with this statement (it is a yes or no question):
> > "You can always find a country here and there where you get a special
> > break in some narrow way -- like tax-free income for poets in Ireland."

I notice you avoided this. Do what you will, I've shown the falseness of
your claims, the hollowness of your assertions, and your reliance in
your personal beliefs about the world that are not only unsupported by
the facts, but are proved incorrect by them. Do what you will, I'm outta
here for awhile. I've got enough of your type of behavior to deal with
on other lists.

Bill

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: TJ Rodgers' take on new GAAP Accounting rules.
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 22:12:38 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

I know this may seem esoteric to some of you, but take a look at this
(warning, it's a PDF so you'll need to have Acrobat Reader to see
it.) There are some things that touch on several of the topics we've been
talking about recently. It's also rather long--which shouldn't stop some,
like Frank, who seem to think that one must read some huge tome on East
Asian history before having any opinion on how things work in East Asia.

First, TJ is saying that the rules of accounting for corporate acquisitions
are terribly punitive to the acquiring corporation and that the proposed
rules for expensing stock options amount to a double whammy against the
corporation's books.

Interestingly, he also discusses why he thinks Japan did so well for a
while and is now in a ten-year-old recession. I'm not entirely certain
that he's correct. But his analysis fits the facts as I know them and I
certainly don't have any refutation or alternative hypothesis for what
happened in Japan that does a better job of fitting the facts. Also, you
might note that he is making a very good case for freedom and reduced
government regulation. :-) A summary of this part of his argument is
that, in Japan, most ordinary citizens must put their retirement money into
accounts at the Post Office(!!!) to earn 0.25% annually! Then, "the right
people" decide who gets that money (at a similarly low interest rate) to
build new factories and innovate. So, in the '80s companies were able to
build very efficient factories that didn't need to make a good return on
the investment (because the cost of the money to make the investment was so
low). This worked great until the company had built up a pile of debt to
create non-performing assets (which weren't paying off the debt) and then
the banks had no more money to lend. At that point, the American
companies, who had to perform (or they got "fired" by the investors or
boards of directors) had the advantage because their assets had been forced
to perform, so they had the money to invest in the next level of
technology. There's a lot more and my summary doesn't quite do it justice.

Of course, it's all stuff that I would expect of him. He's one of the
"good guys."

Here it is:

http://www.cypress.com/pub/gaapaccounting.pdf

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: why "Rubinomics" doesn't work.
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 23:10:43 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Here's another one. It's relationship to economic freedom is only
implied. Tax cuts create growth which means that capital (i.e. investment
money) moves to where investors think their money is safest (and most
likely to grow). So, the moves toward lower tax rates have caused more
money to move to US treasury bonds (instead of German, or Indonesian, or
Japanese bonds) which, in turn lowered the price of those US bonds.

Again, I'm not sure that Bower has totally made his case (probably had some
word limits to deal with) or that he's told the full story. But he does
make a pretty compelling case.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/comment-bowyer090402.asp

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 05:18:32 -0400
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Lowell:

Well, I think that was a back handed compliment, but I am not sure ;-p
Well certainly a mushroom cloud over one of our cities would qualify as
cause enough to attack Iraq (presuming we could show a nexus), but even
something much smaller would do; anything would be better than simply
stating "Iraq didn't cooperate with the international inspectors" or "Iraq
send it fighter planes over the non-fly zone' or 'Iraq is a nasty nation
with nasty people at the helm', or some other inherently non-aggressive act
or state of being.
Some reliable proof that they actually did orchestrate a recent terrorist
act upon us, or are definitely in the operational planning stages, or
SOMETHING.
To say we want to bomb them, to install a different regime, or otherwise
undermine their sovereignty spontaneously cause we don't like them and their
existence annoys us truly leads to a slippery slope. That same justification
could be used against ANY nation to just up and bomb them because their
presence offends us. How about the idea of reciprocity here? What if another
country decides, based on the same justifications, that the United States,
by its sheer existing the way it is, should have regime change? Obviously
not only would we oppose it in fact, but we would be outraged by the
unmitigated gall of whatever other country decided this to be true and to
effect such a change. We would shout "What about our sovereignty! Who are
they to tell us what we can and cannot do in our country!"

I think you would think different, if the shoe was in the other hand.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>

Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.

> Gary Triest wrote:
> >Frank:
> >
> >Well I don't know how vocal I am, but I am viscerally against the attack
of
> >Iraq. We simply do not have enough evidence to support a unprovoked
attack
> >on that country; the reasons I have seen look very custom fabricated and
> >remind me of the reasons Germany came up with for initiating an attack on
> >Poland.
>
> Let me see...1) Poland had lost an earlier war with Germany and was in
> violation of the terms that ended the conflict. 2) Poland was preparing
> WMD. 3) Poland was funding terrorists. 4) Poland had used WMD on its own
> people. 5) Poland was a dictatorship run by a power-mad fellow oppressing
> his people.
>
> Yeah, yeah, that's it! Dirty, nasty ol' Poland. England and France and
> the US should never have gotten involved in WWII.
>
> >Let them bomb us, or lets get some uncontrovertable proof of an impending
> >planned attack on us, or something first.
>
> Well, well, well. Gary gets credit for honesty. He wants the mushroom
> cloud (or equivalent) over a major US city before we go to war. Most of
us
> who favor of attacking Iraq do so because we would like to *avoid* that
> mushroom cloud. What's interesting about Gary's admission is that it this
> both (1) confirms his earlier statement about being "viscerally against
the
> attack of Iraq" (i.e. his emotions are clouding his judgement--another bit
> of honest for which I applaud him) and (2) contradicts his very next
> sentence that we "do not have enough evidence to support a unprovoked
> attack" on Iraq. (Of course, there's been plenty of provocation, but Gary
> probably just thinks that the enforcement of the agreements signed by
> Iraq--and the provocations against them--are just more "bullying" on the
> part of the western nations.)
>
> But, nobody's perfect. Gary committed a little bit of truth
(accidentally,
> perhaps, but done all the same) so he gets some major kudos from this side
> of the peanut gallery....
>
> Lowell C. Savage
> It's the freedom, stupid!
> Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:42:30 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Gary!

Gary Triest wrote to Lowell C. Savage...

> To say we want to bomb them, to install a different regime, or otherwise
> undermine their sovereignty spontaneously cause we don't like them and
their
> existence annoys us truly leads to a slippery slope.

Yes, it does Gary, thank you!

In fact, I would go beyond this, and say that it might not be a slope
at all, but an giant abrupt cleft. And the fall could conceivable be
fatal.

Before anyone gets hyper here, let me explain:

1. We cannot afford to prop up and support another puppet regime,
particularly when doing so in Iraq would be far more costly in terms
of military and "peace-keeping" personnel, equipment, and intelligence
gathering. As we've just seen, even in Afghanistan, Hamil Karzei was
nearly assassinated two days ago, after his Vice-Prime Minister (or
whatever his position) had been assassinated. We almost *DIDN'T* save
Karzei's life.

I was listening to Fox News last night to insider guests from the
Shrub Regime(tm) who admitted that with Karzei gone, no one is left in
the line of succession to succeed him! Which would presumably mean
that outside forces, the US in particular, would likely have to find a
way to bring in a new head of state for Afghanistan. The Shrub
Regime<tm> is now admitting that US military and security forces will
likely be in Afghanistan for decades! Most Afghans likely recognize
the Karzei government as a mere puppet regime, and an illegitimate
government.

We might be able to continue to prop up the puppet Afghan government
(but the Soviet's COULDN'T) for decades, but it will be very, very
costly.

2. The US military is currently not nearly large enough to both prop
up numerous regimes at the insane will of a fickle US regime drumming
the beats of war against everyone who doesn't agree with current US
foreign policy, and at the same time fight a REAL legitimate war if
the US is really attacked down the line at a future time. Imagine
tying down US military personnel for several decades in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Iran, North Korea and God know's where else? If we embarked on
such an insane course it will decrease America's real defensive
presence and reduce our capability to respond on numerous legitimate
theatres if we ARE REALLY attacked or seriously threatened!

3. US foreign policy, already at all-time lows, will be reduced to
zilch throughout the Islamic world. Not only the Islamic world, but
just about everywhere in the Third and developing world as well. Just
as the Soviets before us, and western Europe before that, we will be
seen as imperialistic colonizers and aggressors -- and, I might add,
rightly so!

4. World trade, and international agreements will be affected, and
world economies everywhere would suffer as a result. Such a
unilateral action, NOT supported anywhere within the Islamic world
(accept a few states dependent upon the US for their own survival,
e.g. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, et al, would place those governments
in serious jeopardy of being overthrown, unless the US military takes
that on as well to defend them. The likelihood of a serious
disruption in world petroleum production, distribution and sales would
always be a critical danger.

> That same justification
> could be used against ANY nation to just up and bomb them because their
> presence offends us.

Thanks again, Gary. Wisely stated. And, it holds. And that is EXACTLY
what the Shrub Regime's<tm> agenda REALLY is all about. The Shrub's
own words: "Your either with us, or you are with the terrorists!"
Well, obviously in this instance with Iraq, almost NO ONE is with us,
which by the Shrub's own definition means those not supporting us are
our enemies and "with the terrorists"! Even Saddam Hussein isn't THIS
arrogant for crying out loud!

What I am saying here is that any unilateral US attack on Iraq by the
US government is insanity at its worst! Even in the very best case,
assuming that The Shrub Regime<tm> has 100 percent of the American
people's support for such arrogant aggression, it is STILL wrong, and
we will still LOSE! There's no way to win when you declare war, or at
least threaten to, on anyone who might disagree with the current
"aggression-driven" focus of US foreign policy. We will lose when our
economy goes into the shitter, and drags the world economy down with
it. Who's going to get the blame and disdain for that happening? You
guessed it -- America. And again, we'll have deserved it.

This will be the case even if the puppet Tony Blair manages to pull
off the fiction of dragging the British government into this "war".
The British people will likely make short coarse of the Blair
administration as merely dragging Britain into a hopeless conflict
that shouldn't happen. A few other national leaders may reluctantly
follow, but this will too only demonstrate the long term historical
folly of this attempt at imperialistic "gun boat" diplomacy.

Let me just ask this question: What has Saddam Hussein done, since
the 1991 annexation of Kuwait that is particularly threatening to the
US government, or for that matter, any other nation in his own
region? So what if he has acquired chemical or biological weapons,
and may be on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons? The US has them
all! Russia has them as well. China no doubt also probably qualifies
in all three categories.

Well, let me move on with yet another question: Can we prove that
Iraq, or the Saddam Hussein regime has sponsored terrorism directed at
the US government, or even indirectly by funding the AlQaeda network
of terrorists? If we can prove such allegations, then that would
certainly be necessary before even considering such a primitive attack
upon a sovereign government. But the sheer hypocrisy in this is we DO
know that other nations, or a nation's nationals, have been hugely
funding AlQaeda, and at the top of that list is Saudi Arabia, even
members of the ruling Saudi Royal family!

In other words: we have no moral justification at all for targeting
Iraq as a major source for funding or supporting terrorists, when the
majority of that support comes from regimes, or relatives within that
regime, that we still call our "allies"! In the case of Saudi Arabia,
it can be argued that in many cases it is even MORE dictatorial than
the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein. And if members the Saud royal
family are supporting alQaida, even covertly, and the Saudi government
is protecting, or hiding, this support, then the Saudi government is
defacto aiding and supporting terrorism on a tremendous scale!

> How about the idea of reciprocity here? What if another
> country decides, based on the same justifications, that the United States,
> by its sheer existing the way it is, should have regime change? Obviously
> not only would we oppose it in fact, but we would be outraged by the
> unmitigated gall of whatever other country decided this to be true and to
> effect such a change. We would shout "What about our sovereignty! Who are
> they to tell us what we can and cannot do in our country!"

I agree with you completely here. But that is how the US government
acts. We stop and board foreign flag vessels in international waters
all the time. We've done it under the pretext of looking for
terrorists. We done it under the pretext of searching for drugs being
smuggled. We justify all of this arrogance because under US laws,
such things are prohibited. But let me tell you this, if a US flag
vessel was commandeered in international waters, bordered, inspected,
and arrests made, this would be called an "act of war"! The US
government gets by with all kinds of arrogant and blatant aggression
all the time, and it is because we seem to have the greatest force
capable of doing so, and then justifying it all under US law.

What are we going to do when the time comes, and it will unless we
stop this arrogant aggression and wrongful use of force, that we
become completely isolated? I submit to you that we are building a
rogue state on our own soil. I don't know what definition of a "rogue
state" you have. But in my mind, a "rogue" state is one that initiates
tremendous aggressive military force against those who probably
disagree with its definition of what constitutes religious, moral,
social or economic goals. According to any and all libertarian
arguments I have ever heard, this NOT acceptable, and neither is the
Shrub Regime<tm>.

> I think you would think different, if the shoe was in the other hand.

Again, I agree. And that may be quickly changing as we speak.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 21:51:31 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Gary Triest wrote, in part:
>Lowell:
>
>Well, I think that was a back handed compliment, but I am not sure ;-p
>Well certainly a mushroom cloud over one of our cities would qualify as
>cause enough to attack Iraq (presuming we could show a nexus), but even
>something much smaller would do;

Well Gary, the compliment about honesty was sincere. Whenever someone
takes a position which they know is likely to be unpopular, I give them a
lot of credit for honesty--even if I might disagree with the postion. You
originally said: "Let them bomb us, or lets get some uncontrovertable proof
of an impending planned attack on us, or something first." Your second
condition is tantamount to the first. We probably won't have
"uncontrovertable proof" of anything until after the fact. And your third
condition ("or something first") is a throwaway catch-all which means
nothing, given your other statements. So, in essence, you want to wait for
the mushroom cloud before acting. Fine. That's an honest opinion and I
respect honest opinions, even when I disagree with them.

> anything would be better than simply
>stating "Iraq didn't cooperate with the international inspectors" or "Iraq
>send it fighter planes over the non-fly zone' or 'Iraq is a nasty nation
>with nasty people at the helm', or some other inherently non-aggressive act
>or state of being.
>Some reliable proof that they actually did orchestrate a recent terrorist
>act upon us, or are definitely in the operational planning stages, or
>SOMETHING.

Now, I'm disappointed. After that attack of honesty, you've become
dishonest with a strawman argument. *AS IF* the *ONLY* reasons we have for
attacking Iraq are that "Iraq is a nasty nation with nasty people at the
helm", etc. Um. There are these little details of Iraq signing an
*AGREEMENT* to allow inspectors and an *AGREEMENT* that there would be
"no-fly zones", and an *AGREEMENT* to not build WMD. But then dishonest
people (like you've now become with the above) come along and basically say
that you don't care about the stupid agreements or you pretend that they
don't exist. (Apparently the only nation that needs to abide by its
agreements is the USA. Everyone else is free to break their agreements any
time keeping them becomes "inconvenient" and no other nation should should
have any recourse against them.)

>To say we want to bomb them, to install a different regime, or otherwise
>undermine their sovereignty spontaneously cause we don't like them and
their
>existence annoys us truly leads to a slippery slope. That same
justification
>could be used against ANY nation to just up and bomb them because their
>presence offends us. How about the idea of reciprocity here? What if
another
>country decides, based on the same justifications, that the United States,
>by its sheer existing the way it is, should have regime change? Obviously
>not only would we oppose it in fact, but we would be outraged by the
>unmitigated gall of whatever other country decided this to be true and to
>effect such a change. We would shout "What about our sovereignty! Who are
>they to tell us what we can and cannot do in our country!"

You know, I've got to say that I really don't care much about the
"sovereignty" of dictatorships. It amounts to a free pass for the dictator
to do whatever he wants with his people. In the case of Saddam, he
deserves less "sovereignty" than he seemed to think that Emir of Kuwait
deserved.

>I think you would think different, if the shoe was in the other hand.

Your mixing of metaphors is perfect here. Your attempt to make the
comparison between the US and Iraq is about like trying to wear a shoe on
your head. But I'll settle for "hand".

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

> > Gary Triest wrote:
> > >Frank:
> > >
> > >Well I don't know how vocal I am, but I am viscerally against the
attack
>of
> > >Iraq. We simply do not have enough evidence to support a unprovoked
>attack
> > >on that country; the reasons I have seen look very custom fabricated
and
> > >remind me of the reasons Germany came up with for initiating an attack
on
> > >Poland.
> >
> > Let me see...1) Poland had lost an earlier war with Germany and was in
> > violation of the terms that ended the conflict. 2) Poland was preparing
> > WMD. 3) Poland was funding terrorists. 4) Poland had used WMD on its
own
> > people. 5) Poland was a dictatorship run by a power-mad fellow
oppressing
> > his people.
> >
> > Yeah, yeah, that's it! Dirty, nasty ol' Poland. England and France
and
> > the US should never have gotten involved in WWII.
> >
> > >Let them bomb us, or lets get some uncontrovertable proof of an
impending
> > >planned attack on us, or something first.
> >
> > Well, well, well. Gary gets credit for honesty. He wants the mushroom
> > cloud (or equivalent) over a major US city before we go to war. Most of
>us
> > who favor of attacking Iraq do so because we would like to *avoid* that
> > mushroom cloud. What's interesting about Gary's admission is that it
this
> > both (1) confirms his earlier statement about being "viscerally against
>the
> > attack of Iraq" (i.e. his emotions are clouding his judgement--another
bit
> > of honest for which I applaud him) and (2) contradicts his very next
> > sentence that we "do not have enough evidence to support a unprovoked
> > attack" on Iraq. (Of course, there's been plenty of provocation, but
Gary
> > probably just thinks that the enforcement of the agreements signed by
> > Iraq--and the provocations against them--are just more "bullying" on the
> > part of the western nations.)
> >
> > But, nobody's perfect. Gary committed a little bit of truth
>(accidentally,
> > perhaps, but done all the same) so he gets some major kudos from this
side
> > of the peanut gallery....
> >

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 15:38:52 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote Gary Triest...

> Now, I'm disappointed. After that attack of honesty, you've become
> dishonest with a strawman argument. *AS IF* the *ONLY* reasons we have
for
> attacking Iraq are that "Iraq is a nasty nation with nasty people at the
> helm", etc. Um.

Then it might be said that MOST of the arguments the Shrub Regime<tm>
is making are themselves largely built upon "strawman" arguments.
"Iraq supports terrorism because he has chemical, biological weapons,
and "maybe" acquiring nuclear weapons for the purpose of targeting
America, or even American interests abroad." Truth is, about the ONLY
nation so far that has even hinted of using selective nuclear weapons
in a possible first strike is the U.S. government under the Shrub
Regime<tm>. It wasn't very long ago that we observed Heir Rumsfeld
showing how a first strike with limited nuclear capabilities really
aren't "all that bad" if targets are wisely taken. He even suggested
that in some of Iraq's deep bunkers, such weapons might be the best
means for taking them out!

So, all I am saying is it is rather easy to make "what if" judgements
in forming arguments as to what Saddam Hussein "might" be up to,
however such argumentation can never be conclusive, and as such, such
arguments are built upon a largely theoretical (strawman) assumptions
since we really don't know what the Iraqi government is "thinking",
regardless of what weapons the country might have.

> There are these little details of Iraq signing an
> *AGREEMENT* to allow inspectors and an *AGREEMENT* that there would be
> "no-fly zones", and an *AGREEMENT* to not build WMD.

What agreement was made that you can claim was a "binding" or
legitimate contract"? I'm curious. I believe it is fair to say that
most libertarians believe contracts are NOT binding when they are made
under duress, or force. You sound a lot like the sanctimonious
politicians, policy makers, and bureaucrats who argue for "implied
consent" legislation. As you well know, laws are then made that forces
individual to "consent" to certain things before a government will
allow them a license to conduct certain activities, such as driving a
car or truck.

So, under implied consent theory, an individual must permitted the
gestapo to administer breathalyser tests, or even search your vehicle
without a warrant for doing so. By refusal, again under implied
consent", some "administrative action" such as revoking your license
to drive will be taken. That's correct, under the law such things are
called punishment, but administrative actions. You consented as such
at the time you chose to accept the driver's license.

The problem with that is, in many cases there is no public
transportation for you to travel anywhere, such as to go to work, buy
food at a grocery store, or visit the hardware store to make repairs
on your home. So, there is essentially no to travel, as that can be
taken away from you, even though categorically such "non-punishment"
isn't even classified as a crime. But under such licensing laws it is
difficult for me to accept that individuals have made a legally
binding agreement with government in the first place. People agree to
all sorts of things, from maintaining "adequate" insurance, to
allowing government to revoke your diving "privileges" for not
performing various parts of that agreement. The point is that any such
agreement was made under duress, and force.

In the same way, any treaty made under duress or force should not be
considered binding. Would you as a citizen really submit yourself to
obey Iraqi laws should Iraq win a military conflict with the US
government, then impose a treaty upon the US to set up an islamic
style government under the oversight of the Saddam Hussein regime?
What if Iraq were given the same authority to inspect all US military
installations, armouries, and weapons stockpiles?

I know if such were the case, many Americans might be hiding behind
rocks or trees to take pot shots at Iraqi military occupation
personnel , peace keepers, or weapons inspectors.

> But then dishonest
> people (like you've now become with the above) come along and basically
say
> that you don't care about the stupid agreements or you pretend that they
> don't exist.

The treaties certainly exist. But governments and citizens pushed into
such invalid contracts should NOT have a duty to perform them, and
perhaps even the sovereign right to resist them if given an
opportunity.

> (Apparently the only nation that needs to abide by its
> agreements is the USA.

Yea, right. Like the USA upholding the Geneva Conventions, even when
all other signatories say we are in wanton violation of them!

> Everyone else is free to break their agreements any
> time keeping them becomes "inconvenient" and no other nation should should
> have any recourse against them.)

Sometimes, if they can get by with it, as the Third Reich in Germany
did with the treaties ending the First World War. Germany was "right"
to break such treaties, particularly those forcing Germany to pay war
reparations, or limit the size of weapons systems, number of ships, or
aircraft etc. I am not about to support the Third Reich at all, but
the German government was right to break any such treaties made under
duress and force. The people thought so too at the time, and wildly
believe that The Third Reich had liberated them from such audacious
plunder.

> You know, I've got to say that I really don't care much about the
> "sovereignty" of dictatorships. It amounts to a free pass for the
dictator
> to do whatever he wants with his people. In the case of Saddam, he
> deserves less "sovereignty" than he seemed to think that Emir of Kuwait
> deserved.

Not a very good example. There are many other closed societies and
dictatorships, such a Saudi Arabia, that have placed such constraints
on its own people. Probably why now there is a growing number of
Saudis who are opposed to the House of Saud's rule and support people
such as Osama bin Laden, and even send financial support to terrorist
organizations.

I'm troubled a little bit about your cavalier use of the word
"dictatorships" as well. Could you even fathom that the more
democratic a nation becomes, the more dictatorial it becomes against
individual free choice? I certainly have no problem at all showing
such a pattern. In a pure democratic model, assuming one could exist,
it would be pure dictatorship of the majority over a minority, even
though the minority might make up a considerable percentage of the
overall population. I guess I don't have a problem with the majority
signing on to a compact, or laws, that in essence they surrender their
own choices and agree to abide by a written code of their own
choosing. My real real problem is that same enforcement would be
required even against the "minority" whether they liked it or not.
And force often takes brutal and violent forms, such as what occurred
at Waco, Texas or Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

You seem to have signed on to the axiom that it is somehow wrong for
Saddam Hussein, a dictator, to use force against minorities in his own
country, but if a "democracy" does essentially the same thing, it is
okay.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 07:54:52 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Frank!
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote Gary Triest...
>
> > Now, I'm disappointed. After that attack of honesty, you've become
> > dishonest with a strawman argument. *AS IF* the *ONLY* reasons we have
for
> > attacking Iraq are that "Iraq is a nasty nation with nasty people at the
> > helm", etc. Um.
>
>Then it might be said that MOST of the arguments the Shrub Regime<tm>
>is making are themselves largely built upon "strawman" arguments.
>"Iraq supports terrorism because he has chemical, biological weapons,
>and "maybe" acquiring nuclear weapons for the purpose of targeting
>America, or even American interests abroad."

And where or when has the administration said that "Iraq supports terrorism
*because* Iraq has WMD?" The administration has claimed that "Iraq
supports terrorism" *and* "Iraq has or is in the process of acquiring
WMD." If you're going to claim a "strawman" argument on the part of the
administration, you ought to at least get their claims right (or provide
the backup). You might not agree that they've presented sufficient
evidence to support their assertions, but their argument is that if we
don't take out Iraq now, we are likely to be cleaning up a WMD mess in the
US in the near future. That's hardly a "strawman."

> Truth is, about the ONLY
>nation so far that has even hinted of using selective nuclear weapons
>in a possible first strike is the U.S. government under the Shrub
>Regime<tm>.

And the US under the "Bubba regime", and the "Shrub 1 regime" and the
"Ronald Cowboy regime", and the "Peanut regime", and the Ford
administration, and the Nixon administration, and the Johnson
administration and the Kennedy administration and probably the Eisenhower
and Truman administrations. And that's just the US.

> It wasn't very long ago that we observed Heir Rumsfeld
>showing how a first strike with limited nuclear capabilities really
>aren't "all that bad" if targets are wisely taken. He even suggested
>that in some of Iraq's deep bunkers, such weapons might be the best
>means for taking them out!

So?

>So, all I am saying is it is rather easy to make "what if" judgements
>in forming arguments as to what Saddam Hussein "might" be up to,
>however such argumentation can never be conclusive, and as such, such
>arguments are built upon a largely theoretical (strawman) assumptions
>since we really don't know what the Iraqi government is "thinking",
>regardless of what weapons the country might have.

Boy, you really like that "strawman" word. Never mind that you can't make
it apply. And you are correct, nothing is ever going to be
"conclusive"--well, except, maybe a mushroom cloud growing over NYC or DC,
although even that wouldn't necessarily be "conclusive" either, would
it? After all, it could have been done by "anybody", right? So, are you
ready for Gary Triest-style honesty? In other words, are you ready to
admit that you want a mushroom cloud (or the equivalent) before you'll
accept that Iraq is a clear and present danger to the US?

> > There are these little details of Iraq signing an
> > *AGREEMENT* to allow inspectors and an *AGREEMENT* that there would be
> > "no-fly zones", and an *AGREEMENT* to not build WMD.
>
>What agreement was made that you can claim was a "binding" or
>legitimate contract"?

That would be the cease-fire agreement.

> I'm curious. I believe it is fair to say that
>most libertarians believe contracts are NOT binding when they are made
>under duress, or force.

Let me see if I understand this. Saddam invades Kuwait. We kick his ass
out and sign a cease-fire agreement which includes inspectors, etc. And
Frank Reichert says that since it was signed under duress, it's not a valid
agreement???!!!! Do I really have that right???!! So if someone tries to
break into my house and I kick his rear out and get the police, the
agreement he makes to pay restitution is invalid because it was made under
duress???!! And this is a "libertarian" position? BS.

> You sound a lot like the sanctimonious
>politicians, policy makers, and bureaucrats who argue for "implied
>consent" legislation. As you well know, laws are then made that forces
>individual to "consent" to certain things before a government will
>allow them a license to conduct certain activities, such as driving a
>car or truck. [Rest of inapplicable analogy elided.]

A better analogy would be a parole agreement (I.e., we let you out of jail
early, but in return, you agree to waive certain privacy and other rights
so we can check on you). That would be a better analogy, but then it would
sort of demonstrate the opposite of what you are trying to argue.

>In the same way, any treaty made under duress or force should not be
>considered binding. Would you as a citizen really submit yourself to
>obey Iraqi laws should Iraq win a military conflict with the US
>government, then impose a treaty upon the US to set up an islamic
>style government under the oversight of the Saddam Hussein regime?
>What if Iraq were given the same authority to inspect all US military
>installations, armouries, and weapons stockpiles?

Frank, think about what you are saying!! You are claiming that no nation
needs to abide by any treaty they sign when they are on the losing side of
a war! If that's the case, then the winning side has no reason to sign a
treaty--they need to totally defeat the loser and impose their rule on the
loser! I can't believe you really want that result, Frank!!

It just so happens that the US signed a treaty with the Soviet Union to
have similar type of inspections. I don't remember anyone kicking about
that. Of course, all the US facilities were thoroughly inspected while the
Soviets kept us out of some of their facilities. But any suggestion that
we do any sort of "tit-for-tat" of keeping the Soviets out of our
facilities was called a violation of the treaty. (Another case of the US
being the only party that needed to abide by the treaty.)

>I know if such were the case, many Americans might be hiding behind
>rocks or trees to take pot shots at Iraqi military occupation
>personnel , peace keepers, or weapons inspectors.

Could be...if a large number of people felt that the US government had
exceeded its authority by surrendering. On the other hand, if it were the
price of ending a losing war, it might be tolerated peacefully.

> > But then dishonest
> > people (like you've now become with the above) come along and basically
say
> > that you don't care about the stupid agreements or you pretend that they
> > don't exist.
>
>The treaties certainly exist. But governments and citizens pushed into
>such invalid contracts should NOT have a duty to perform them, and
>perhaps even the sovereign right to resist them if given an
>opportunity.

So you *ARE* arguing that a nation that loses a war has no obligation to
abide by the agreement that ends the war. Which means that Bush senior
really should have sent our troops all the way to the Turkish and Iranian
borders--and to heck with the coalition--because Frank Reichert sez that
any agreement or treaty they sign is invalid.

> > (Apparently the only nation that needs to abide by its
> > agreements is the USA.
>
>Yea, right. Like the USA upholding the Geneva Conventions, even when
>all other signatories say we are in wanton violation of them!

Oh, and which piddly, supposed violation of the Geneva Convention are "all"
these other signatories claiming we're in violation of?

> > Everyone else is free to break their agreements any
> > time keeping them becomes "inconvenient" and no other nation should
should
> > have any recourse against them.)
>
>Sometimes, if they can get by with it, as the Third Reich in Germany
>did with the treaties ending the First World War. Germany was "right"
>to break such treaties, particularly those forcing Germany to pay war
>reparations, or limit the size of weapons systems, number of ships, or
>aircraft etc. I am not about to support the Third Reich at all, but
>the German government was right to break any such treaties made under
>duress and force. The people thought so too at the time, and wildly
>believe that The Third Reich had liberated them from such audacious
>plunder.

I'll agree that the reparations provisions were part of the problem that
brought WWII. However, that specific case doesn't generalize into the
principle that treaties forced on the loser in a war are invalid. If your
principle were to be accepted, then there wouldn't have been an armistice
because the allies wouldn't have had any reason to believe Germany would
follow it's provisions.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 08:03:25 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

> > You know, I've got to say that I really don't care much about the
> > "sovereignty" of dictatorships. It amounts to a free pass for the
dictator
> > to do whatever he wants with his people. In the case of Saddam, he
> > deserves less "sovereignty" than he seemed to think that Emir of Kuwait
> > deserved.
>
> Not a very good example.

I don't know why not--since this is the specific case we are discussing.

> There are many other closed societies and
> dictatorships, such a Saudi Arabia, that have placed such constraints
> on its own people. Probably why now there is a growing number of
> Saudis who are opposed to the House of Saud's rule and support people
> such as Osama bin Laden, and even send financial support to terrorist
> organizations.

And your point is?

> I'm troubled a little bit about your cavalier use of the word
> "dictatorships" as well. Could you even fathom that the more
> democratic a nation becomes, the more dictatorial it becomes against
> individual free choice? I certainly have no problem at all showing
> such a pattern. In a pure democratic model, assuming one could exist,
> it would be pure dictatorship of the majority over a minority, even
> though the minority might make up a considerable percentage of the
> overall population. I guess I don't have a problem with the majority
> signing on to a compact, or laws, that in essence they surrender their
> own choices and agree to abide by a written code of their own
> choosing. My real real problem is that same enforcement would be
> required even against the "minority" whether they liked it or not.
> And force often takes brutal and violent forms, such as what occurred
> at Waco, Texas or Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

Well, to some degree, I'm more willing to let a democracy or a democratic
republic sort things out than I am a country that some guy runs as his
personal fiefdom. But the primary concern is individual
rights. Meanwhile, I'm surprised that you'd bring that up anyway with
respect to my statement that at least partially supports that idea. After
all, you've been the one arguing on this thread that sovereignty was so
important--and arguing against those who've been arguing that individual
rights should be supreme.

> You seem to have signed on to the axiom that it is somehow wrong for
> Saddam Hussein, a dictator, to use force against minorities in his own
> country, but if a "democracy" does essentially the same thing, it is
> okay.

And you get idea I've signed onto this "axiom" from...?

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 00:55:49 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

I'll start this discussion here, because at least, in my judgement,
this is where the rubber meets the road.

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> > You seem to have signed on to the axiom that it is somehow wrong for
> > Saddam Hussein, a dictator, to use force against minorities in his own
> > country, but if a "democracy" does essentially the same thing, it is
> > okay.

You replied:
> And you get idea I've signed onto this "axiom" from...?

I have no idea at all where you decided that it is morally right to
initiate force against recognized international law, a foreign state
that is NOT threatening you. Maybe you can enlighten me on that,
because you didn't take the time to explain why the US government has
any moral obligation or right to initiate a war against anyone that is
not an aggressor against YOUR life, liberty or property.

Until you can do that, then you're going to find me on the opposite
side in this discussion. You sir, have no right to confiscate my tax
dollars to support any war of aggression, unless you can demonstrate
clearly that such an aggression exists at all. Saddam Hussein is not
my personal, and probably not my national enemy. He may be an
asshole. Too bad. Does he threaten me, my property, my country? If
he does, then ask why that is the case, since we supported him
ourselves for a good many years even looking the other way in his war
against Iran.

Frankly, I don't know where your "axiom" is. I raised the question,
and you failed to answer it. It's not my axiom, it is yours, and as
such, it is your obligation to define it, not mine. I haven't seen
one piece of rationale from you or anyone else, that tells me it is in
my defensive interest, against aggression, to invest one dime, to
defeat Saddam Hussein.

Think about it. Do YOU really believe that he is a threat to YOU? Is
he about to take away your right tomorrow, to make your own
decisions? I DIDN'T THINK SO!

We have a lot more to lose with the Shrub Regime<tm> by far than we
ever have to worry about with Iraq, unless we continue to make this
issue a central point of US foreign and military policy. Who exactly
is the greatest danger to your liberties, Saddam Hussein, or George W.
Bush?

If you can answer that question, I'll be pleased as punch.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 14:44:13 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank asked re Saddam Hussein:

>Do YOU really believe that he is a threat to YOU?
>Is he about to take away your right tomorrow, to make your own
>decisions?

If he kills me, obviously! But this being a discussion list for people
concerned about affairs of the world, why is the personal aspect relevant?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 00:46:19 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

I wrote:
> >Do YOU really believe that he is a threat to YOU?
> >Is he about to take away your right tomorrow, to make your own
> >decisions?

You replied:
> If he kills me, obviously! But this being a discussion list for people
> concerned about affairs of the world, why is the personal aspect relevant?

It isn't usually. But the "Shrub" has made it his choice, for using
force to make my own choices as such, invalid. And, he still has the
power to do so.

Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:26:00 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...

> So you *ARE* arguing that a nation that loses a war has no obligation to
> abide by the agreement that ends the war.

Lowell, in many cases, YES I AM!

The problem is here it is about midnight, and I've just read your
entire post. I think I can answer this best tomorrow when I'll have
more time to deal with it in "daylight" hours. I have serious
problems with what you just wrote. But let's deal with that tomorrow,
after all, we're about 18 time zones away from timely communication
right now, and I have to get some sleep tonight.

I'll take up what you wrote tomorrow, and boy will I!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 22:35:02 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Frank!
>Greetings Lowell!
> > So you *ARE* arguing that a nation that loses a war has no obligation to
> > abide by the agreement that ends the war.
>
>Lowell, in many cases, YES I AM!
>...
>I'll take up what you wrote tomorrow, and boy will I!

Well, I haven't seen what you had to say. I hope it addresses the issues I
raised against your argument. I also hope it addresses what, in your mind,
separates the two types of cases. That is: in what cases does a nation
that loses a war have an obligation to abide by the terms of the peace
treaty and in what cases does it not. You seem to argue that in Iraq's
case, it does not. In what cases does the nation have the obligation? And
what principle do you apply to make the decision?

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 23:42:02 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Frank!

This is another long one. For those who might like to skip my responses to
the ridiculous parts of Frank's diatribe and see something worthwhile,
there are a couple of links in the paragraph that begins with a "2)". And
my last long paragraph also has a slightly new take on the relationship
between Saddam and our rights. (At least I think it's new. I don't recall
seeing it anywhere else.) It begins: "No. Saddam is not a direct threat
to my rights."

At 00:55 09/10/02 +0800, you wrote:
>Greetings again Lowell!
>I [Frank] previously wrote [to Lowell]:
> > > You seem to have signed on to the axiom that it is somehow wrong for
> > > Saddam Hussein, a dictator, to use force against minorities in his
own
> > > country, but if a "democracy" does essentially the same thing, it is
> > > okay.
>
>You [Lowell] replied:
> > And you get idea I've signed onto this "axiom" from...?

Frank has accused me of believing that "it is okay" if a "democracy" should
"use force against minorities in [their] own country." I asked him where
he got the idea that I believed this. The following is his
(non-responsive) response--switching from accusing me of believing in
initiating force against individuals to believing in initiating force
against governments. So Frank, do you have some reason to believe that I
think "using force against minorities in a democracy" is "okay"?

>I have no idea at all where you decided that it is morally right to
>initiate force against recognized international law, a foreign state
>that is NOT threatening you.

Again, I don't know where you get the idea that I think the scenario you've
laid out would be morally right. I thought that my disagreement with you
over Iraq was that I don't believe those conditions apply.

1) I believe that we are not initiating force (Saddam did that when he
invaded Kuwait),
2) we are not going against "international law" (see the White House's
White Paper, "A Decade of Deception and Deciept" at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912.html, or if 23
pages is too much for you, for the short version you can read his speech to
the UN at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html
(you can even start with the ninth paragraph, below the photo of Bush with
the three UN bigwigs sitting behind him to skip to the stuff on Iraq.)
3) Iraq is a foreign state, yes. I disagree with you and think that it is
threatening the US. And like Robert, I don't think I have to be entirely
selfish and demand evidence that Saddam Hussein is targeting Lowell C.
Savage in Spokane, WA, in order to think that he is a threat to the US.

> Maybe you can enlighten me on that,
>because you didn't take the time to explain why the US government has
>any moral obligation or right to initiate a war against anyone that is
>not an aggressor against YOUR life, liberty or property.

The US government has a moral obligation to protect the US from an
aggressor. Our difference is that you seem to think Iraq is not an
aggressor while I think it is. So Frank, how about you deal with our real
differences, rather than lob these rhetorical grenades that pretend I have
rejected libertarian principles.

>Until you can do that, then you're going to find me on the opposite
>side in this discussion. You sir, have no right to confiscate my tax
>dollars to support any war of aggression, unless you can demonstrate
>clearly that such an aggression exists at all. Saddam Hussein is not
>my personal, and probably not my national enemy. He may be an
>asshole. Too bad. Does he threaten me, my property, my country? If
>he does, then ask why that is the case, since we supported him
>ourselves for a good many years even looking the other way in his war
>against Iran.

Oh darn. I forgot. Our government made some mistakes, what 14 or 15 years
ago. So, because of that, we should cover ourselves with ashes and wear
sackcloth and *certainly should NOT do anything to correct those
mistakes!* PUULEEEEASE!

>Frankly, I don't know where your "axiom" is. I raised the question,
>and you failed to answer it.

No. Frank, you can't even get your facts straight regarding your own
posts. You accused me of having some axiom. I asked you why you thought I
subscribed to it. Now you claim I have some "axiom" which you can't even
describe (your next sentence tells me it's my "obligation to define
it!). How about you read your previous post through and check it for
overall logical consistency?

> It's not my axiom, it is yours, and as
>such, it is your obligation to define it, not mine. I haven't seen
>one piece of rationale from you or anyone else, that tells me it is in
>my defensive interest, against aggression, to invest one dime, to
>defeat Saddam Hussein.

Frank, I don't want to go through the nuclear phase "Cold War" again if we
can possibly help it. Of course this time, it's with someone who is likely
pass nukes or biologicals off to terrorists to plant in our cities and blow
off ASAP. It has been reported that the Soviets "pre-positioned" some
man-portable nukes in the US so that their SF teams could plant them at
critical infrastructure (dams, bridges, military bases, perhaps) to set off
in case of a war. However, even that was something that could be deterred
by MAD. The way I figure it, once Saddam gets his hands on one, the only
reason he might hold off on using it is that he thinks he might be able to
get a second one before he gets clobbered and using two would be better
than using just one.

>Think about it. Do YOU really believe that he is a threat to YOU? Is
>he about to take away your right tomorrow, to make your own
>decisions? I DIDN'T THINK SO!

No. Saddam is not a direct threat to my rights. However, his remaining in
power will provide the rational for further threats to my rights. Look, a
vast majority of the public is either convinced that Saddam is a threat or
can easily be convinced. Suppose we find out (relatively reliably) that he
has nukes. Then, there are two logical policy choices to keep a mushroom
cloud from appearing over a US city. 1) Take out Saddam and grab his nuke
(a much more dangerous proposition than it is now). or 2) set up what
amounts to a totalitarian regime to prevent that nuke from slipping into
the country (and to be able to find it if it slips through the net). For a
big-government authoritarian, having Saddam get a nuke would create the
"great fearsome bogyman" that is the rationale for increasing government
power--all that needs to be done is to make sure we don't do option
1. Now, option 2 won't work, but in that situation, if our government
rejected option 1, about 75-90% of the US population clamoring loudly for
option 2 and you and I would be voices in the wilderness. Compared to all
that, Bush is a great force for freedom, even if he's is as bad as *you*
think he is,

>We have a lot more to lose with the Shrub Regime<tm> by far than we
>ever have to worry about with Iraq, unless we continue to make this
>issue a central point of US foreign and military policy. Who exactly
>is the greatest danger to your liberties, Saddam Hussein, or George W.
>Bush?

See above.

>If you can answer that question, I'll be pleased as punch.

If you can understand and honestly deal with my answer (even if you
disagree), I'll be pleased as punch.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 23:07:38 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> >Then it might be said that MOST of the arguments the Shrub Regime<tm>
> >is making are themselves largely built upon "strawman" arguments.
> >"Iraq supports terrorism because he has chemical, biological weapons,
> >and "maybe" acquiring nuclear weapons for the purpose of targeting
> >America, or even American interests abroad."

You replied:
> And where or when has the administration said that "Iraq supports
terrorism
> *because* Iraq has WMD?"

The usual strawman arguments emanating from the Shrub Regime<tm> these
indicate, as you say, make two fallacious, or at best unsubstantiated
arguments, and assume they go together hand in glove. If it's ONLY
WMD, then the US has far greater stockpiles of such weapons than Iraq
ever will. If it's "terrorism", then the Regime hasn't made its case
sufficiently to convince most of the world, including most of our
allies.

You can't justify a pre-emptive aggressive strike against Iraq BECAUSE
of the WMD issue, as their isn't a justifiable case to be made that
that necessitates such an attack. Both India and Pakistan have both
acquired and tested such weapons, and the US is threatening them!

So obviously The Shrug Regime<tm> is making its case that "weapons of
mass destruction, combined with threats of terrorism (which as of this
time is unproved), equals and justifies a US pre-emptive strike.

> The administration has claimed that "Iraq
> supports terrorism" *and* "Iraq has or is in the process of acquiring
> WMD." If you're going to claim a "strawman" argument on the part of the
> administration, you ought to at least get their claims right (or provide
> the backup). You might not agree that they've presented sufficient
> evidence to support their assertions, but their argument is that if we
> don't take out Iraq now, we are likely to be cleaning up a WMD mess in the
> US in the near future. That's hardly a "strawman."

It's conjecture anyway however, since prior to 1991, Iraq NEVER was a
threat to the US. If it is today, then whose fault is that? It was
Bush Sr's international military "adventurism" in 1991 and following
that even set up the "possibility" that Iraq may be considering
targeting the US today. The WMD issue is a farce, since during the
Iraq/Iran war, the US knew damn well Iraq not only had such a
capability, but was using it against Iran, and nevertheless backed the
Hussein regime as an ally, and looked the other way!

I previously wrote:
> > Truth is, about the ONLY
> >nation so far that has even hinted of using selective nuclear weapons
> >in a possible first strike is the U.S. government under the Shrub
> >Regime<tm>.

You, confuse pure history by suggesting:
> And the US under the "Bubba regime", and the "Shrub 1 regime" and the
> "Ronald Cowboy regime", and the "Peanut regime", and the Ford
> administration, and the Nixon administration, and the Johnson
> administration and the Kennedy administration and probably the Eisenhower
> and Truman administrations. And that's just the US.

And, where have YOU been since the late 1980s anyway? You are talking
about an era that no longer even exists, and you apparently look at
the planet as it existed during the height of the cold war, just as
Heir Rumsfeld and a number of the Shrub Regime's<tm> key advisors and
cabinet appointments do. You fail to look at the present context that
Iraq could NEVER even come close to matching the awesome nuclear
arsenals that the former Soviet Union maintained, aimed at key cities
and military targets in the U.S. itself. Hardly a comparison in my
judgement to the Shrub's delusions of paranoia over Iraq.

I wrote:
> > It wasn't very long ago that we observed Heir Rumsfeld
> >showing how a first strike with limited nuclear capabilities really
> >aren't "all that bad" if targets are wisely taken. He even suggested
> >that in some of Iraq's deep bunkers, such weapons might be the best
> >means for taking them out!

You replied:
> So?

If that's really your answer, then I suggest we no longer have
anything to talk about in this regard. The only thing I will say
here, is that the US government had better, from this moment onward,
stop fucking with Indian and Pakistan's border disputes and the
possibility of just such a war using nuclear weapons. It's
hypocritical and arrogant to say otherwise. The next time the border
dispute flares up again, and I see Rumsfeld's or Bush's mug on the
tube, and listen to their despicable one-liners of admonition, I'll
remember what you just wrote, and how much you deserve exactly what
you've got by supporting this arrogant and despicable foreign policy
and administration!

> Boy, you really like that "strawman" word. Never mind that you can't make
> it apply.

No, Lowell. YOU were the one that first used it here, in reference to
Gary Triest's post. And, in my case (in my reply, to again, YOUR
post), I have made it apply, at least to my satisfaction. If you don't
agree, then that's YOUR'RE problem, not mine.

> And you are correct, nothing is ever going to be
> "conclusive"--well, except, maybe a mushroom cloud growing over NYC or DC,
> although even that wouldn't necessarily be "conclusive" either, would
> it? After all, it could have been done by "anybody", right? So, are you
> ready for Gary Triest-style honesty? In other words, are you ready to
> admit that you want a mushroom cloud (or the equivalent) before you'll
> accept that Iraq is a clear and present danger to the US?

I don't believe Gary said any such thing at all. He did made it clear
however that a threat needed to exist in some way, a verifiable
threat. We have NOT established that, and if Saddam hates us so much,
he has absolutely good reasons for doing so. We stuck our nose into
an affair that was none of our business, and would have likely been
settled by the players more immediate in the region over time anyway,
just as in the Iraq/Iran war. If Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are OUR
allies, boy to do have our security interests hosed up! What do you
really believe this is all about? Oil maybe? Well, if it is, then
the oil doesn't belong to us anyway now does it? Israel? Maybe
again, but US taxpayers should not be forced to side with one nation
over another when creating friends and making enemies when NO threat
exists against the United States!

I previously wrote:
> >What agreement was made that you can claim was a "binding" or
> >legitimate contract"?

You replied:
> That would be the cease-fire agreement.

The so-called "cease fire" agreement entailed a lot more than simply
ending hostilities. I'll get into that momentarily in the following,
where I first wrote:

> > I'm curious. I believe it is fair to say that
> >most libertarians believe contracts are NOT binding when they are made
> >under duress, or force.

And, you again replied:
> Let me see if I understand this. Saddam invades Kuwait. We kick his ass
> out and sign a cease-fire agreement which includes inspectors, etc. And
> Frank Reichert says that since it was signed under duress, it's not a
valid
> agreement???!!!! Do I really have that right???!! So if someone tries to
> break into my house and I kick his rear out and get the police, the
> agreement he makes to pay restitution is invalid because it was made under
> duress???!! And this is a "libertarian" position? BS.

It's not "restitution" and you know it. It is making demands on the
limitations of what a sovereign country has a right to do in its own
defence, such as the treaties ending WWI, and German's restraints upon
military hardware, and all kinds of associated degrees in which every
sovereign nation has a right to conduct for its own self-defence.
Your arguments might have been more understandable if Kuwait, or an
alliance of regional allies such as Saudi Arabia kicked Iraq's ass,
for reparations to be made to compensate the victims. The US has no
standing in such matters, and certainly the UN doesn't either, since
the fighting should have been confined within the victims of
aggression, against the one party that was initiating the aggression.
If anything at all can be said about the original Persian Gulf War, is
that the US likely made it 1000 times worse than it would have been
had the parties themselves settled the disputes amongst themselves.

I previously wrote:
> > You sound a lot like the sanctimonious
> >politicians, policy makers, and bureaucrats who argue for "implied
> >consent" legislation. As you well know, laws are then made that forces
> >individual to "consent" to certain things before a government will
> >allow them a license to conduct certain activities, such as driving a
> >car or truck. [Rest of inapplicable analogy elided.]

And you muttered:
> A better analogy would be a parole agreement (I.e., we let you out of jail
> early, but in return, you agree to waive certain privacy and other rights
> so we can check on you). That would be a better analogy, but then it
would
> sort of demonstrate the opposite of what you are trying to argue.

So, the US government IS the world policeman after all? That's about
the ONLY way I can think of it, to make such an analogy even meagrely
valid. As you may recall, my argument flows from the fact that the US
government has no moral authority, and certainly no given right, to
assert itself aggressively at all, and any use of military force
should be confined to validated threats of aggression, or acts of
aggression, against the US, our assets, and the lives of its citizens.

> Frank, think about what you are saying!! You are claiming that no nation
> needs to abide by any treaty they sign when they are on the losing side of
> a war! If that's the case, then the winning side has no reason to sign a
> treaty--they need to totally defeat the loser and impose their rule on the
> loser! I can't believe you really want that result, Frank!!

It happens anyway, for good or ill. We occupy Afghanistan today,
place a puppet regime in power, and then provide all of the meaningful
security and police operations, just as we did in post-war Germany and
Japan. So, what's your point? If you believe Afghani's aren't subject
to the US government's "figure head" regime in Kabul, you're seeing
something very different than I can attest to. If we attack, (AND
WIN) in Iraq, we'll be forced to come up with even greater power to
maintain our will upon that country. Ibid, Iran. Ibid, N. Korea and
so forth.

Iraq will prove to be a very different piece of cake. The Iraqis will
fight the aggressor, simply because they are fiercely loyal to their
own country, even if most hate the Hussein regime, just as you would
likely fight against the Mexican aggressors, should Mexico invade the
USA promising a freer society. I don't have much love or respect for
the Shrub Regime<tm> either, but I would fight any external force that
seeks to impose its rule upon America, even if that meant the Shrub
Regime<tm> might be defeated.

> It just so happens that the US signed a treaty with the Soviet Union to
> have similar type of inspections.

GOD! This isn't even remotely close to what you are suggesting we did
to Iraq. This was a mutually agreed upon arrangement, and YES, they
also, inspect our compliance with mutually agreed upon inspection
treaties. You just got to understand, WE didn't defeat the Soviet
Union. What we are really seeing today is that we have allies in
Russia and several of the former republics that used to make up the
Soviet Union. We are NOT forcing such inspections upon Russia.
Lowell, I'd call this yet another one of your "strawman" arguments.

> I don't remember anyone kicking about
> that.

Why kick? Both sides wanted it, and freely subscribed without force or
aggression of any kind at all!

> Of course, all the US facilities were thoroughly inspected while the
> Soviets kept us out of some of their facilities. But any suggestion that
> we do any sort of "tit-for-tat" of keeping the Soviets out of our
> facilities was called a violation of the treaty. (Another case of the US
> being the only party that needed to abide by the treaty.)

That's not exactly the same thing as the victors of a war "imposing
such an arrangement" upon the other one, now is it?

This ought not to surprise you, but I believe that any treaty is
limited in duration only to the point that both sides agree to it
freely. As with the UN, I believe it would be the right thing to do,
as Ron Paul has attempted in Congress, for the US government to
unilaterally dissolve any association with the UN, abrogate all
treaties, and boot them off of US soil, and end US involvement with
any and all UN "treaties" or "obligations".

I previously wrote:
> >I know if such were the case, many Americans might be hiding behind
> >rocks or trees to take pot shots at Iraqi military occupation
> >personnel , peace keepers, or weapons inspectors.

You replied:
> Could be...if a large number of people felt that the US government had
> exceeded its authority by surrendering. On the other hand, if it were the
> price of ending a losing war, it might be tolerated peacefully.

The point I'm making here, and apparently you missed it -- it doesn't
fucking matter! If a treaty was entered into by force and aggression,
anyone with the power to do so has a moral right to end any
participation in any such treaty, period. Americans would be right to
take pot shots, whenever the opportunity arises, against any
aggressor, or against any foreign power, including the United Nations,
imposing its will against the citizens of this country. We did it to
England, now didn't we, even after hundreds of years of "legal"
occupation? Americans even served in the British military until that
time at such times as the French and Indian War.

Treaties only matter when both sides still agree with them, and are
willing to abide by them. Think in terms of history here. Are all
treaties that have historically been made still considered valid
today? Of course not. Treaties of any kind are never permanent, even
if the wording, by force, might suggest that some are. Look at what
the Shrub Regime<tm> has done with the ABM treaty? The Kyoto
protocols? We can even argue, the Geneva Conventions have been
wilfully violated by this regime. At least the rest of the signatories
seem to suggest they have been violated.

I previously wrote:
> >The treaties certainly exist. But governments and citizens pushed into
> >such invalid contracts should NOT have a duty to perform them, and
> >perhaps even the sovereign right to resist them if given an
> >opportunity.

And, you replied:
> So you *ARE* arguing that a nation that loses a war has no obligation to
> abide by the agreement that ends the war.

Yes, I am, and almost in all such cases, and usually they all are over
time anyway.

Let's look for example at America just following independence. We had
a Constitution in place that did not end slavery, nor even give women
the right to vote. Anyone today, suggesting that such a "treaty" or
"contract" cannot be abrogated by the people over time, would never
have allowed for the possibility for equality under law, nor certain
rights to access social and political rights as human beings. I know
this doesn't really fit exactly within the context of international
treaties, per se, but it is still relevant since treaties always
eventually exist and continue based upon mutual acceptance between the
parties involved.

Japan today, still exists under the treaty prohibiting the formatting
of a military force. It is a farce, and has long ago been abandoned,
even though technically the same treaty is still in force today, but
both sides recognize the necessity that the treaty is no longer
enforceable, and both sides accept the reality that it should NOT be
enforceable. The US doesn't want a militarily weak Japan. We
recognized that during the 1950s and 60s in the case of the Korean
conflict, and later on in Vietnam, and as a counterweight against
communist China.

The US today couldn't care less if Japan abrogates the treaties ending
World War II. That treaty is ONLY valid in Japan today because in
local politics it is important, not international politics. The
Japanese people don't want to be militarized, nor do they particularly
want to engage in international military adventures, and only do so
under pressure from their former adversary, the United States! The
Japanese don't want THEIR government armed with nuclear weapons. They
want the US to provide such protection in the event they might be
attacked. That still holds today. So, this is one-sided. Only the
Japanese don't want to abrogate the treaties that ended the Second
World War. Others, perhaps North Korea and China would like it
either, but the US wouldn't be so concerned if they did.

> Which means that Bush senior
> really should have sent our troops all the way to the Turkish and Iranian
> borders--and to heck with the coalition--because Frank Reichert sez that
> any agreement or treaty they sign is invalid.

Oh shit. You wish. Frank Reichert says Bush Sr should have left the
entire Gulf War in the hands of those occupying the region, and
concerned with the aggression. Oh how you love to put words in my
mouth! I believe the "coalition", such as it was, was aggression pure
and simple, and immoral, and any international treaties as such,
invalid.

I previously wrote:
> >Yea, right. Like the USA upholding the Geneva Conventions, even when
> >all other signatories say we are in wanton violation of them!

You replied:
> Oh, and which piddly, supposed violation of the Geneva Convention are
"all"
> these other signatories claiming we're in violation of?

Lowell. I won't even bother, because unless you live on a mountain top
somewhere not accessible at all from hearing about the forced
incarcerations of individuals without charges, some forever, and the
so-called newly defined definition of "unlawful combatants", then
there isn't very much I can add to this. You're showing your abject
ignorance here, or your inability to discern and assimilate what you
already ought to know is true. Do you even know Camp X-Ray exists? Do
you know that such prisons by everyone else have rights under the
Geneva Conventions?

I can picture you in my mind as one of those mindless drones out there
who mindlessly without question raise their arm snappily to attention
as the Shrub Regime<tm> walks by, "Heil Shrub"... "Heil Shrub"...
"Heil Shrub"...

Going back to the WWI treaties, you finally conceded, of sorts:
> I'll agree that the reparations provisions were part of the problem that
> brought WWII. However, that specific case doesn't generalize into the
> principle that treaties forced on the loser in a war are invalid. If your
> principle were to be accepted, then there wouldn't have been an armistice
> because the allies wouldn't have had any reason to believe Germany would
> follow it's provisions.

Treaties are valid only insofar as the winning side has the power to
enforce them, and that in the other case, one side chooses to dispense
with the terms of the treaties themselves. It seems to me you can't
justify the rogue Shrub Regime's<tm> dispensing with the ABM treaty,
the Kyoto protocols, and other such treaties otherwise. Are you
trying to tell me that every other signatory of such treaties that
find the US in violation today are all wrong? I say in a sense they
are, because any such treaty only exists at all insofar as interested
parties accept them, or have the power to opt out. Obviously we have
the power to opt out. That doesn't mean that opting out is always
morally right. Sometimes it is, as I suggested above with US
affiliation with the United Nations and all of its treaties,
protocols, and resolutions.

But you seemed to suggest above that treaties, even those imposed by
force, are forever sketched in international law. History does not
support that has ever been the case. Often when it appears to be the
case, reality says otherwise, as in the case of modern Japan today.
Germany is also playing a much larger role on the international stage
in terms of how it participates in military operations. I'm not
supporting that either, only pointing out that treaties are not
permanent even when supposedly intending them to be as such.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 23:37:14 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> >I'll take up what you wrote tomorrow, and boy will I!

And, you replied:
> Well, I haven't seen what you had to say. I hope it addresses the issues
I
> raised against your argument.

I finally got around to it tonight. I've been under the weather
lately, and have largely been absent from many discussions, including
this one. I hope what I wrote addresses some of your issues, although
I questioned many of your motivations for addressing them as you did.

> I also hope it addresses what, in your mind,
> separates the two types of cases. That is: in what cases does a nation
> that loses a war have an obligation to abide by the terms of the peace
> treaty and in what cases does it not.

And, as I said, in almost all cases that I can think of. I'd be hard
pressed to historically find even ONE treaty that was set in stone
forever. The ABM Treaty, the Kyoto Protocols, have been abrogated by
the US government, including the Geneva Contentions as signed and
ratified by the US government, at least in terms of all of the rest of
the signatories. Please refer to what I wrote just previous to this,
as I don't want to repeat myself.

As human history changes, treaties have less and less significance and
meaning. And when such treaties are imposed by force, and aggression,
I don't consider them ever valid except over a short period of time,
when the winning force has the will and power to enforce them. When
treaties are NOT a result of aggression and force, or merely a
convention between two agreeing powers, even then they are hardly
written in stone over a period in time. As we have seen most recently
even the ABM treaty can be abrogated by just ONE party, although many
parties signed on.

> You seem to argue that in Iraq's
> case, it does not. In what cases does the nation have the obligation?
And
> what principle do you apply to make the decision?

It's quite simple really. Iraq has NO obligation to perform if they
have the power to abrogate or otherwise resist them. The US government
does that all the time, as I've shown from a couple examples in my
previous post.

I think the issue here is NOT about treaties, as such, but rather
about the moral use (or abuse) of power, and how such power ought to
be applied in the context of self-determination and free choice. As
an historian, it's really interesting when looking at "treaties". Even
such treaties that are cast in stone, perpetually, seem to be overcome
by events in history and no longer have any meaning in the context of
current events. As such they are generally ignored as irrelevant
anyway. I can cite quite a few of those, as I have in the case of a
few here, and in my previous post, including the greatest one of all
for the United States, the creation of the United Nations, and US
participation and involvement in each and every one of such treaties
or conventions.

I suggest in the later case it could really be quite simple. One
session of Congress could terminate the whole can of worms and
unilaterally dissolve all such affiliation immediately, that is, if
the President wouldn't veto it, or if the veto could be overridden by
Congress. Would that be "considered" legal? I don't know how you can
define it as such. It is simply the matter of having the power to
protect such a choice. And, in the case of forced treaties, that's
pretty much what constitutes them anyway. You can probably say the
same thing with just about all such treaties, forced or not. Treaties
exist only when the will exists, or the force behind such are
significant enough to enforce them.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 00:31:02 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to everyone...

> For those who might like to skip my responses to
> the ridiculous parts of Frank's diatribe and see something worthwhile

Thanks Lowell. I want you to know I appreciate your "shit doesn't
stink", and arrogant flip at anyone who might find a way to disagree
with your royal highness. Yea, you got all the right answers. Just
keep up that mindset, that the entire planet is going to bow down and
kowtow to your vision of reality forever. That's you delusion son.
You'll likely find yourself, and others like you, burning at the
stake, before you realize that you have failed miserably, and when you
no longer have the power to exercise the force to bring your world
into force for everyone else to accept.

I can't judge you, accept that is, from the words you choose to write
here yourself. You advocate the use of unilateral force and
aggression on probabilities. That's all you've got, and the entire
Shrub Regime<tm> has yet to prove to the rest of the world otherwise.

I would suspect with the EU organizing and NOT support US aggression
very much any longer, and the islamic world hating us with fierce
passion, and the US no longer finding very many friends on the rest of
the plant, that you'll use even more force and aggression to settle
some differences. It won't be much longer before the US economy
collapses entirely under its own weight, and you'll be left looking
around for those who might agree with you.

As this conversation goes on, one thing I've noticed from you. It's
all linked pretty much to all of your arguments. You don't care very
much about liberty. You don't care about anything you can't control by
using tremendous force to make it happen. It's your way or the
highway. You, sir, promote the use of force, the initiation of force,
to get your way regardless of whether or not anyone might agree with
with. This is hardly a libertarian ideal. You could care less about
self-determination, about whether nations have a right to even defend
themselves against external aggression. Surprise! Then it follows,
the US government doesn't either! You profess to be a mere barbarian,
one who has the power to force his will upon others by brute force.
I'm sure in the scheme of things, you're going to get a lot of takers.

So now, you allude to my "diatribes" as "ridiculous".

Well, I don't have any idea how long the rest of the world is going to
tolerate your arrogance, and abuse of power to settle for themselves
what they already know they want for themselves and simply kill and
dispense with you. They will, when they have the power, and the
resolve to do so. And, as such, you'll have finally created the very
world of your own making and design. A world ruled by abject power and
ruthless aggression, and you probably won't even be a part of that.
You'll likely end up as another victim in a world you believed you
could control for your own interests.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:22:46 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Frank!

I'm sorry to hear you were under the weather and I hope you are feeling
better.

>Greetings Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to everyone...
>
> > For those who might like to skip my responses to
> > the ridiculous parts of Frank's diatribe and see something worthwhile
>
>Thanks Lowell. I want you to know I appreciate your "shit doesn't
>stink", and arrogant flip at anyone who might find a way to disagree
>with your royal highness.

You're welcome, Frank. You made accusations about me believing something.
When I challenged you to explain why you thought I believed those things,
you responded with more accusations which also didn't have any basis and
supplemented them by being logically inconsistent, all within a single
post. I pointed all that out within my response, and since it was so long,
I put the short message (that you quoted part of) at the top. Of course,
your response had even more inflamatory accusations about what you think I
believe. There really isn't much point in responding to any of it since
you don't seem to be willing or able to follow logic or be logical.

For everyone else: I *won't* be signing off the list, at least, not without
a goodbye message. I don't think that Frank is small enough to kick me off
just because we disagree. But then I didn't think that Frank would make
the kinds of unsupported allegations he made either.

Lowell C. Savage
Its' the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 04:15:12 -0400
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

To Frank and Lowell:

I venture to ask, of the treaties that Iraq signed, albeit under a surrender
context, did the the terms of these treaties explicitly state that if Iraq
violated the terms of that treaty, that Iraq (and the US) agreed that the US
had the right to initiate war upon it?
I could be wrong, but somehow I doubt it.
If it is lacking some clause to that effect, then Lowells argument fails.

Lowell, doncha see that if what Iraq does today, as of the knowledge we have
of it, warrants and effective unilataral initiation of war upon it, then the
same justification could be use against just about any regime we don't like.
And contrarily, any regime should feel just as qualified to make the same
assessment of the US.
I sense in your argument, the undercurrent of Aesop's observation that
"Might makes Right". Sure it does, if you have no consistent objective
procedural standards or the respect for reciprocity.

Frank, I don't fully agree with your assessment of the malibility of
treaties effectiveness. I fully respect your observation that in practice
such things happen, but I don't think that such practice should seep into an
axiomatic assessment that "it is understood" that treaties are expected to
be bent or broken under the right circumstances.
This heretisizes the whole thrust of making treaties to begin with. I find
it comprehensive to keep the legal theory of a contracts/treaties pure and
pristine, and unmarred by the (effectively illegal) practices that undermine
their vitality.
Iraq should suffer some consequences for breaking its treaty, I don't
believe that its signing it under duress is justification for its getting
away with violations of the treaty with impunity. Neither do I believe that
it warrants war.
Defeated countries suing for peace invariably sign under "legal" duress. It
is an agreement that seeks to sustain the better of two evils for it,
providing concessions to the victor in exchange for not being razed to the
ground at point in time.

Just my three cents, to keep the juices flowing ;-)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Reichert" <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.

> Greetings again Lowell!
>
> "Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> I previously wrote:
> > >I'll take up what you wrote tomorrow, and boy will I!
>
> And, you replied:
> > Well, I haven't seen what you had to say. I hope it addresses the
issues I
> > raised against your argument.
>
> I finally got around to it tonight. I've been under the weather
> lately, and have largely been absent from many discussions, including
> this one. I hope what I wrote addresses some of your issues, although
> I questioned many of your motivations for addressing them as you did.
>
> > I also hope it addresses what, in your mind,
> > separates the two types of cases. That is: in what cases does a nation
> > that loses a war have an obligation to abide by the terms of the peace
> > treaty and in what cases does it not.
>
> And, as I said, in almost all cases that I can think of. I'd be hard
> pressed to historically find even ONE treaty that was set in stone
> forever. The ABM Treaty, the Kyoto Protocols, have been abrogated by
> the US government, including the Geneva Contentions as signed and
> ratified by the US government, at least in terms of all of the rest of
> the signatories. Please refer to what I wrote just previous to this,
> as I don't want to repeat myself.
>
> As human history changes, treaties have less and less significance and
> meaning. And when such treaties are imposed by force, and aggression,
> I don't consider them ever valid except over a short period of time,
> when the winning force has the will and power to enforce them. When
> treaties are NOT a result of aggression and force, or merely a
> convention between two agreeing powers, even then they are hardly
> written in stone over a period in time. As we have seen most recently
> even the ABM treaty can be abrogated by just ONE party, although many
> parties signed on.
>
> > You seem to argue that in Iraq's
> > case, it does not. In what cases does the nation have the obligation?
And
> > what principle do you apply to make the decision?
>
> It's quite simple really. Iraq has NO obligation to perform if they
> have the power to abrogate or otherwise resist them. The US government
> does that all the time, as I've shown from a couple examples in my
> previous post.
>
> I think the issue here is NOT about treaties, as such, but rather
> about the moral use (or abuse) of power, and how such power ought to
> be applied in the context of self-determination and free choice. As
> an historian, it's really interesting when looking at "treaties". Even
> such treaties that are cast in stone, perpetually, seem to be overcome
> by events in history and no longer have any meaning in the context of
> current events. As such they are generally ignored as irrelevant
> anyway. I can cite quite a few of those, as I have in the case of a
> few here, and in my previous post, including the greatest one of all
> for the United States, the creation of the United Nations, and US
> participation and involvement in each and every one of such treaties
> or conventions.
>
> I suggest in the later case it could really be quite simple. One
> session of Congress could terminate the whole can of worms and
> unilaterally dissolve all such affiliation immediately, that is, if
> the President wouldn't veto it, or if the veto could be overridden by
> Congress. Would that be "considered" legal? I don't know how you can
> define it as such. It is simply the matter of having the power to
> protect such a choice. And, in the case of forced treaties, that's
> pretty much what constitutes them anyway. You can probably say the
> same thing with just about all such treaties, forced or not. Treaties
> exist only when the will exists, or the force behind such are
> significant enough to enforce them.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 03:01:52 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Gary Triest wrote, in part:
>To Frank and Lowell:
>
>I venture to ask, of the treaties that Iraq signed, albeit under a
surrender
>context, did the the terms of these treaties explicitly state that if Iraq
>violated the terms of that treaty, that Iraq (and the US) agreed that the
US
>had the right to initiate war upon it?
>I could be wrong, but somehow I doubt it.
>If it is lacking some clause to that effect, then Lowells argument fails.

No. The logic goes this way. The agreement is that: U agrees to stop
blowing up I and I agrees to yada, yada. Then, when I stops allowing yada,
yada, the agreement has been breached, so U goes back to blowing up I.

>Lowell, doncha see that if what Iraq does today, as of the knowledge we
have
>of it, warrants and effective unilataral initiation of war upon it, then
the
>same justification could be use against just about any regime we don't
like.
>And contrarily, any regime should feel just as qualified to make the same
>assessment of the US.

Only if you deliberately ignore several of the things that apply to
Iraq. Iraq has and is making WMD and the means to deliver them (including
terrorist teams). Iraq has shown every intention to use WMD against
civilian populations. Iraq has this stuff in violation of agreements and
UN resolutions. Iraq has recently invaded one of its neighbors and there's
no reason to believe they wouldn't do so again if they thought they could
get away with it. Iraq is run by a despot who has shown no regard for the
lives of his people.

1. What other regimes meet all of these criteria?

2. Other than the possession of WMD which we haven't used in 47
years--including some time when we were sole possessor, which of these
apply to the US? (And our two uses arguably saved more lives than they
took.)

Of course (-: there is usually a *reason* that we don't like some
regime. :-) That still doesn't mean we're going to invade Burma or
Zimbabwe.

>I sense in your argument, the undercurrent of Aesop's observation that
>"Might makes Right". Sure it does, if you have no consistent objective
>procedural standards or the respect for reciprocity.

Actually, that seems to be one of Frank's arguments. "Might makes Right"
when you want to break a treaty. I'm not sure what I've said (other than
perhaps facetiously, in response to Frank) that could be interpreted as
supporting a "Might makes Right" position.

>Frank, I don't fully agree with your assessment of the malibility of
>treaties effectiveness. I fully respect your observation that in practice
>such things happen, but I don't think that such practice should seep into
an
>axiomatic assessment that "it is understood" that treaties are expected to
>be bent or broken under the right circumstances.
>This heretisizes the whole thrust of making treaties to begin with. I find
>it comprehensive to keep the legal theory of a contracts/treaties pure and
>pristine, and unmarred by the (effectively illegal) practices that
undermine
>their vitality.
>Iraq should suffer some consequences for breaking its treaty, I don't
>believe that its signing it under duress is justification for its getting
>away with violations of the treaty with impunity. Neither do I believe that
>it warrants war.

Well, what does it warrant? We've done the sanctions, the no-fly zones,
etc.? This isn't simply a matter of "well, if we don't go to war, he gets
away with it." It's more of a matter of "if we don't go to war, the war
will come to us--in the form of a mushroom cloud somewhere."

>Defeated countries suing for peace invariably sign under "legal" duress. It
>is an agreement that seeks to sustain the better of two evils for it,
>providing concessions to the victor in exchange for not being razed to the
>ground at point in time.

Thank you. And if the victor can't count on a certain amount of
reliability or moral suasion in keeping the treaty, then the victor is
better off simply razing the conquered.

>Just my three cents, to keep the juices flowing ;-)

Lowell C. Savage
Give War A Chance!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 05:29:46 -0400
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Lowell:

In recapping an excerpt in the last post you made:

>Iraq should suffer some consequences for breaking its treaty, I don't
>believe that its signing it under duress is justification for its getting
>away with violations of the treaty with impunity. Neither do I believe that
>it warrants war.

Well, what does it warrant? We've done the sanctions, the no-fly zones,
etc.? This isn't simply a matter of "well, if we don't go to war, he gets
away with it." It's more of a matter of "if we don't go to war, the war
will come to us--in the form of a mushroom cloud somewhere."
_______________________________________________________________________

I don't know enough about what other sanctions are available, I do believe
there are quite a few left short of absolute war.
And even if there weren't, it appears that the violations that Iraq is
guilty of are all passive ones, actions that the treaties demanded Iraq to
perform, not violations of what the treaty prohibited Iraq from doing.
You are conjecturing that Iraq is busy making WMD, and/or plotting to
destroy us all, you just don't know that for a fact, but you are willing to
war upon a conjecture.
Before you believe I am a mamby pamby anti-war, tree hugging, peace
activist, let me tell you I did agree on the war on Afghanistan (now was it
really classified a war? or a police action?), and I would agree with war on
any nation that could be shown to be involved in an affirmative plot or act
of violence in our nation. When I talk to real tree huggers, they think I am
a total hawk. I just try to play it down the middle, wherever rational
standards may point me.

As far as what I would do with Iraq, I believe the most serious violation of
Iraq's observance of the treaties is that they are denying international
inspectors institutional permission to view their facilities, pursuant to
their agreement in the treaty.
As the US or UN, I would simply declare "We are now coming to inspect your
facilities, as you have agreed in our treaty"; then march right in, under
the assumption that what we are doing is in no way an act of war, since we
were give permission by the leader of Iraq, and performing the inspections
they agreed to.
Of course if along the way of this purely legal and civil action, we get
fired upon, well then we would have all the justification in the world to
shoot back to what ever extent necessary to complete the inspections.
You want a war Lowell?, well then that is the non-hypocritical , due
processional, way to accomplish what we have been granted by treaty. If they
decide at that point to fire upon us, I believe you would have your war.
Plus, if you are right about the WMD mfr, then we would have discovered that
as well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 01:51:20 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to everyone...

> For everyone else: I *won't* be signing off the list, at least, not
without
> a goodbye message. I don't think that Frank is small enough to kick me
off
> just because we disagree. But then I didn't think that Frank would make
> the kinds of unsupported allegations he made either.

Why on earth would you EVER say such a thing? When I communicate
here, I am exactly like everyone else who communicates here, just like
yourself. It's been that way for more than a decade. I've NEVER
kicked anyone off who disagrees with me, in fact, I've always and at
all times encouraged discussion from anyone, and everyone who doesn't
agree with me.

If you read the policies, there are only a very few exceptions to
that, and those usually centre around attacks based upon ethnic,
common sense, attacks upon others for who they are, not what they
believe. I'm really surprised you even asked. No one, except a few
White Supremacists, have been barred from any discussions here.

I don't care really if YOU agree with me on anything or not, not
really. You are always, free do so. That's what we've done here for a
decade or more. But I do have a problem in that you want to make this
list "my list", as if I am a fascist dictator that will kick you off
if you disagree with me.

Let me tell you something. This is NOT really my list. I contribute
here, as I've always done, and in the very same way as you do. I
wouldn't even consider removing you on the basis of any discussion,
opinions, or anything else that you make unless and until such time as
you start attacking dignity of anyone else from exercise their own
rights and expression.

Believe me, I know where the difference lies. The difference lies in
which you slam black Americans, Jewish people, or anyone else because
they are who they are, and believe you are superior in some way to
anyone else based upon such differences. We've had that happen here
on Liberty Northwest, and they are NO longer around here anymore. That
was, admittedly, my choice because it doesn't further any discussion
on what we are here to do, and that is to promote Liberty. The last
case in which that happened, as I remember it anyway, was many years
ago. Please, don't make me out as such a tyrant, at least as you just
did.

I'll gladly debate with you on any and all issues, and present my own
choices, but I will also respect your choices, and heatedly debate my
differences with them, as such they are, as I encourage you and
everyone else will do.

But let me respectfully say, I believe here you are using yet another
stawman argument, to wit: Frank owns the list, I disagree with Frank,
therefore, he'll probably kick me off! I've never even hinted on
doing any such thing, and I won't, and I never did, nor will I. You
seem to suggest that Liberty Northwest exists entirely because
everyone believes as I do. You know damn well that isn't the case at
all.

At the same time, I will speak in the same way as you do, to try and
defend my arguments. So why make this "so personal" as to suggest
that I might just kick you out for disagreeing with me? I just had to
ask.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: 15 Sep 2002 12:16:54 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sun, 2002-09-15 at 03:29, G Triest wrote:
> Lowell:
>
> In recapping an excerpt in the last post you made:
>
> >Iraq should suffer some consequences for breaking its treaty, I don't
> >believe that its signing it under duress is justification for its getting
> >away with violations of the treaty with impunity. Neither do I believe
that
> >it warrants war.
>
> Well, what does it warrant? We've done the sanctions, the no-fly zones,
> etc.? This isn't simply a matter of "well, if we don't go to war, he gets
> away with it." It's more of a matter of "if we don't go to war, the war
> will come to us--in the form of a mushroom cloud somewhere."
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> I don't know enough about what other sanctions are available, I do believe
> there are quite a few left short of absolute war.

Sanctions have one, nasty problem. They do not work. Especially against
a military regime that does not care about the lives of it's citizens.

> And even if there weren't, it appears that the violations that Iraq is
> guilty of are all passive ones, actions that the treaties demanded Iraq to
> perform, not violations of what the treaty prohibited Iraq from doing.
> You are conjecturing that Iraq is busy making WMD, and/or plotting to
> destroy us all, you just don't know that for a fact, but you are willing
to
> war upon a conjecture.

None of us on this list, to my knowledge, possess the knowledge of what
is really going on over there. We do know for a fact that he has had
them in the past, has used them in the past, was attempting to
acquire/build them in the past. We also know that he has publicly stated
he would use them against us. There is nothing to evidence a change in
this behavior. Given these, the likelihood he is still trying to obtain
these items, and that he would use them, still remains a threat to
consider.

Is historical data enough? Nope. It is, however, enough to make the
assertion that he is doing so, and would do so, much more than simple
conjecture. It seems to me that the argument that he is not trying to
obtain WMD, and that he would not use them, is a fairly weak argument,
and none have bothered to support it, merely use it.

> As the US or UN, I would simply declare "We are now coming to inspect your
> facilities, as you have agreed in our treaty"; then march right in, under
> the assumption that what we are doing is in no way an act of war, since we
> were give permission by the leader of Iraq, and performing the inspections
> they agreed to.
> Of course if along the way of this purely legal and civil action, we get
> fired upon, well then we would have all the justification in the world to
> shoot back to what ever extent necessary to complete the inspections.

I agree with this. It would make quite a statement, and force an actual
showdown, instead of the political game-playing of "oh wait give us time
and we'll let you back in to some". Unfortunately, there are other
consequences to this action. The least of which is that it would be
considered no different than a unilateral military action by the rest of
the world. The only possible chance it has, is that from a legal
standpoint, it is fully justifiable, given our understanding of the
treaty. I doubt very much, however, that that would change the hearts or
minds of anyone except the legalists.

There will always be people that cry "sanctions", when history shows
sanctions are ineffective at achieving the stated the goal. Sanctions
have shown to be not only ineffectual, but harmful to achieving the
goal. Yet people who claim to "care" will continue to argue for them as
long as they breathe.

> You want a war Lowell?, well then that is the non-hypocritical , due
> processional, way to accomplish what we have been granted by treaty. If
they
> decide at that point to fire upon us, I believe you would have your war.
> Plus, if you are right about the WMD mfr, then we would have discovered
that
> as well.

Only after the war. Hussein would argue that the facility(ies) we were
attempting to inspect were not valid sites, and therefore we shouldn't
be "granted" access. Only after the following war wold we be able to
show the evidence. Of course that would not convince everyone, since we
could have "planted" that.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 15:26:45 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Frank!

Fair enough. And I apologize for even suggesting that it might be a
possibility. As I said, I didn't think you were small enough to do
something like that. But I apologize for even thinking it would be enough
of a possibility to be worth stating publicly.

Lowell C. Savage
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to everyone...
>
> > For everyone else: I *won't* be signing off the list, at least, not
without
> > a goodbye message. I don't think that Frank is small enough to kick me
off
> > just because we disagree. But then I didn't think that Frank would make
> > the kinds of unsupported allegations he made either.
>
>Why on earth would you EVER say such a thing? When I communicate
>here, I am exactly like everyone else who communicates here, just like
>yourself. It's been that way for more than a decade. I've NEVER
>kicked anyone off who disagrees with me, in fact, I've always and at
>all times encouraged discussion from anyone, and everyone who doesn't
>agree with me.
>
>If you read the policies, there are only a very few exceptions to
>that, and those usually centre around attacks based upon ethnic,
>common sense, attacks upon others for who they are, not what they
>believe. I'm really surprised you even asked. No one, except a few
>White Supremacists, have been barred from any discussions here.
>
>I don't care really if YOU agree with me on anything or not, not
>really. You are always, free do so. That's what we've done here for a
>decade or more. But I do have a problem in that you want to make this
>list "my list", as if I am a fascist dictator that will kick you off
>if you disagree with me.
>
>Let me tell you something. This is NOT really my list. I contribute
>here, as I've always done, and in the very same way as you do. I
>wouldn't even consider removing you on the basis of any discussion,
>opinions, or anything else that you make unless and until such time as
>you start attacking dignity of anyone else from exercise their own
>rights and expression.
>
>Believe me, I know where the difference lies. The difference lies in
>which you slam black Americans, Jewish people, or anyone else because
>they are who they are, and believe you are superior in some way to
>anyone else based upon such differences. We've had that happen here
>on Liberty Northwest, and they are NO longer around here anymore. That
>was, admittedly, my choice because it doesn't further any discussion
>on what we are here to do, and that is to promote Liberty. The last
>case in which that happened, as I remember it anyway, was many years
>ago. Please, don't make me out as such a tyrant, at least as you just
>did.
>
>I'll gladly debate with you on any and all issues, and present my own
>choices, but I will also respect your choices, and heatedly debate my
>differences with them, as such they are, as I encourage you and
>everyone else will do.
>
>But let me respectfully say, I believe here you are using yet another
>stawman argument, to wit: Frank owns the list, I disagree with Frank,
>therefore, he'll probably kick me off! I've never even hinted on
>doing any such thing, and I won't, and I never did, nor will I. You
>seem to suggest that Liberty Northwest exists entirely because
>everyone believes as I do. You know damn well that isn't the case at
>all.
>
>At the same time, I will speak in the same way as you do, to try and
>defend my arguments. So why make this "so personal" as to suggest
>that I might just kick you out for disagreeing with me? I just had to
>ask.
>
>Kindest regards,
>Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 00:03:55 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...

> Fair enough. And I apologize for even suggesting that it might be a
> possibility. As I said, I didn't think you were small enough to do
> something like that. But I apologize for even thinking it would be enough
> of a possibility to be worth stating publicly.

I accept that. And, I want you to know that whatever your opinions
are, are perfectly acceptable here, even when such is regretfully
given my way. I would be an absolute hypocrite if I denied you, or
even tried to, you right to express your own views and opinions. You
are as welcome here as anyone can ever be, even though we might
disagree, including myself.

But I also want to make sure everyone else knows that. Everyone here
is entirely free to express their own opinions on any subject under
discussion without being targeted for censure or removal.

Actually, about the ONLY thing I will engage, is when individuals
target others for who they are, their ethnic background, religion, or
whatever, to deny their own rights to express their own opinions.
That's about as fair as I can make this playing field. And, it doesn't
really go very far beyond that in any case.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 06:06:06 -0400
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

To Lowel and Frank:

In recapping an excerpt in a post Lowell made:

>Triest sed:
>Iraq should suffer some consequences for breaking its treaty, I don't
>believe that its signing it under duress is justification for its getting
>away with violations of the treaty with impunity. Neither do I believe that
>it warrants war.

Lowell Replied:
Well, what does it warrant? We've done the sanctions, the no-fly zones,
etc.? This isn't simply a matter of "well, if we don't go to war, he gets
away with it." It's more of a matter of "if we don't go to war, the war
will come to us--in the form of a mushroom cloud somewhere."
_______________________________________________________________________
Triest re-replies:
I don't know enough about what other sanctions are available, I do believe
there are quite a few left short of absolute war.
And even if there weren't, it appears that the violations that Iraq is
guilty of are all passive ones, actions that the treaties demanded Iraq to
perform, not violations of what the treaty prohibited Iraq from doing.
You are conjecturing that Iraq is busy making WMD, and/or plotting to
destroy us all, you just don't know that for a fact, but you are willing to
war upon a conjecture.
Before you believe I am a mamby pamby anti-war, tree hugging, peace
activist, let me tell you I did agree on the war on Afghanistan (now was it
really classified a war? or a police action?), and I would agree with war on
any nation that could be shown to be involved in an affirmative plot or act
of violence in our nation. When I talk to real tree huggers, they think I am
a total hawk. I just try to play it down the middle, wherever rational
standards may point me.

As far as what I would do with Iraq, I believe the most serious violation of
Iraq's observance of the treaties is that they are denying international
inspectors institutional permission to view their facilities, pursuant to
their agreement in the treaty.
As the US or UN, I would simply declare "We are now coming to inspect your
facilities, as you have agreed in our treaty"; then march right in, under
the assumption that what we are doing is in no way an act of war, since we
were give permission by the leader of Iraq, and performing the inspections
they agreed to.
Of course if along the way of this purely legal and civil action, we get
fired upon, well then we would have all the justification in the world to
shoot back to what ever extent necessary to complete the inspections.
You want a war Lowell?, well then that is the non-hypocritical , due
processional, way to accomplish what we have been granted by treaty. If they
decide at that point to fire upon us, I believe you would have your war.
Plus, if you are right about the WMD mfr, then we would have discovered that
as well.

To Frank:

Frank, I don't fully agree with your assessment of the malibility of
treaties effectiveness. I fully respect your observation that in practice
such things happen, but I don't think that such practice should seep into an
axiomatic assessment that "it is understood" that treaties are expected to
be bent or broken under the right circumstances.
This heretisizes the whole thrust of making treaties to begin with. I find
it comprehensive to keep the legal theory of a contracts/treaties pure and
pristine, and unmarred by the (effectively illegal) practices that undermine
their vitality.
Iraq should suffer some consequences for breaking its treaty, I don't
believe that its signing it under duress is justification for its getting
away with violations of the treaty with impunity. Neither do I believe that
it warrants war.
Defeated countries suing for peace invariably sign under "legal" duress. It
is an agreement that seeks to sustain the better of two evils for it,
providing concessions to the victor in exchange for not being razed to the
ground at point in time.

Feel free to comment on these points, as I think they need to be addressed
in these threads.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:46:25 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

At 06:06 09/19/02 -0400, you wrote:
>To Lowel and Frank:
>
>In recapping an excerpt in a post Lowell made:
>
> >Triest sed:
> >Iraq should suffer some consequences for breaking its treaty, I don't
> >believe that its signing it under duress is justification for its getting
> >away with violations of the treaty with impunity. Neither do I believe
that
> >it warrants war.
>
>Lowell Replied:
>Well, what does it warrant? We've done the sanctions, the no-fly zones,
>etc.? This isn't simply a matter of "well, if we don't go to war, he gets
>away with it." It's more of a matter of "if we don't go to war, the war
>will come to us--in the form of a mushroom cloud somewhere."
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Triest re-replies:
>I don't know enough about what other sanctions are available, I do believe
>there are quite a few left short of absolute war.

Well Gary, I'm sorry, but if you can't come up with something, it seems
rather hypocritical to criticize someone else when they say they can't come
up with anything either.

>And even if there weren't, it appears that the violations that Iraq is
>guilty of are all passive ones, actions that the treaties demanded Iraq to
>perform, not violations of what the treaty prohibited Iraq from doing.

Well, the perhaps so. However, most of these "passive violations" are
violations of agreements that were put into place to ensure that there
weren't any "active violations".

>You are conjecturing that Iraq is busy making WMD, and/or plotting to
>destroy us all, you just don't know that for a fact, but you are willing to
>war upon a conjecture.

Consider an analogy. A convicted criminal is released from prison on
parole. One of the conditions of parole is that he allows the police to
search his home at any time to be sure he doesn't have a gun. The police
come to search and he refuses to let them in. When they drag him back
before the judge, he says "Well they were just 'passive violations' and
you're taking away my liberty on a conjecture that I had a weapon." Would
that cut it with Judge Triest? What if he's barricaded in the
house? Should the police dept. risk the lives of it's officers (and of
family members) by doing a dynamic entry to get this guy?

>Before you believe I am a mamby pamby anti-war, tree hugging, peace
>activist,

I don't generally do that label stuff (except in retaliation). I leave
that to Frank and Larry.

> let me tell you I did agree on the war on Afghanistan (now was it
>really classified a war? or a police action?), and I would agree with war
on
>any nation that could be shown to be involved in an affirmative plot or act
>of violence in our nation. When I talk to real tree huggers, they think I
am
>a total hawk. I just try to play it down the middle, wherever rational
>standards may point me.

Two issues here.

1. What level of evidence do you need? (I do remember that you were the
one honest enough to basically say you wanted a mushroom cloud, or the
equivalent, over a US city before we consider Saddam a threat. I would
guess that we'd have about a 25% chance of finding out about it beforehand.)

2. Are you willing to go to war to help other nations (so that we don't
wake up one morning to find the whole world arrayed against us because we
let the rest of the world be swallowed up by the aggressive)? In other
words, would you rather have a little fight "over there" than have a big
one "right here"?

BTW. Weren't you the one that got that "color-coded country" discussion
going a while back?

>As far as what I would do with Iraq, I believe the most serious violation
of
>Iraq's observance of the treaties is that they are denying international
>inspectors institutional permission to view their facilities, pursuant to
>their agreement in the treaty.

Which is probably (not possibly) cover for the *real* serious violation of
creating more WMD.

>As the US or UN, I would simply declare "We are now coming to inspect your
>facilities, as you have agreed in our treaty"; then march right in, under
>the assumption that what we are doing is in no way an act of war, since we
>were give permission by the leader of Iraq, and performing the inspections
>they agreed to.

If they say they will refuse them entry, (or will only allow inspections on
military bases) what's the difference?

Lowell C. Savage
Give War A Chance!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 23:38:40 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Lowell (give war a chance), and gary,

so, lowell, you wanna go to war against saddam. good gawd, man, that would
be like going to war against the shah, when the cia had no more use for him.

it was **your** foreign policy which generated saddam, lowell (kissinger).
and now ya want to turn on him?? what a fair-weather friend!! and now ya
want to pick a fight with ossama, too!!

ya ain't too picky about your friends, eh, lowell?? and damned fair-weather
at that.

as i wrote earlier, i hope somebody takes out saddam, but that is no
profession of support for you, or henry kissinger!!

give perpetual war, for perpetual peace, "a chance", eh, Lowell,

good gawd, on this list??!!

LF


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 22:47:47 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello Larry,
>Lowell (give war a chance), and gary,
>
>so, lowell, you wanna go to war against saddam. good gawd, man, that would
>be like going to war against the shah, when the cia had no more use for
him.

Naw. There wasn't a chance that leaving the Shah around would end up with
a mushroom cloud over NY.

>it was **your** foreign policy which generated saddam, lowell (kissinger).
>and now ya want to turn on him?? what a fair-weather friend!! and now ya
>want to pick a fight with ossama, too!!

Huh!??! You're going to have to explain that one. (Especially that last
sentence.)

>ya ain't too picky about your friends, eh, lowell?? and damned
fair-weather
>at that.

Sometimes you've got to deal with what you've got, the best way you can.

>as i wrote earlier, i hope somebody takes out saddam, but that is no
>profession of support for you, or henry kissinger!!

And now I've professed support for Kissinger? Look, about all I've said
regarding what happened during the '70s (before I could vote, BTW), is that
I'd need more info to really criticize the decisions that were made. It's
not like we can look back and say, "gee, X was really terrible. Why did we
ever have anything to do with putting him in charge?" when the reason that
X got put there was that the likely alternative, Y was far worse.

>give perpetual war, for perpetual peace, "a chance", eh, Lowell,

And where did the "perpetual" part come from? (Yo Frank! There's an
example of a strawman argument!)

>good gawd, on this list??!!

Where else could I use it to annoy so many? :-)

Lowell C. Savage
Give War A Chance.

PS. If you like PJ O'Rourke, his book by that name is apropos.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 17:11:58 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Gary Triest...

Gary Triest wrote:
> >I don't know enough about what other sanctions are available, I do
believe
> >there are quite a few left short of absolute war.

You replied:
> Well Gary, I'm sorry, but if you can't come up with something, it seems
> rather hypocritical to criticize someone else when they say they can't
come
> up with anything either.

Well, *I* can come up with something, however it will never happen,
although it should. The Shrub Regime<tm> should be replaced by
whatever fashion could do the job (and quickly), and replaced by a new
administration who puts value and not merely words, on such things as
self-determination and individual choice. It should be an
administration that confesses the sins of 5 decades of US militaristic
aggression in foreign policy, and withdraw all US military personnel
from foreign bases around the globe. A new foreign policy should
emerge which restricts US military force to self-defence.

And, that's just for starters.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: DEAD ASSHOLES!!
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 21:09:36 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Larry!

larry fullmer wrote to Ken Butler and Frank Reichert...

> TOBBACO IS ONE THING, MARIJUANA IS ANOTHER:
> (FRANK: DEFEND DRUGS NOT OF YOUR CHOICE, OR I'LL SIGN UP WITH KEN):

Well. I thought I've already done that. Tobacco is one of my drugs of
choice, I guess. I never wrote one damn word suggesting that
individuals didn't have a right to pick or choose whatever "drugs" or
absence thereof, choices they may, did I? I'm at a loss here. I even
went on to explain that if I had chosen MJ or something other than
that, that I would likely have even more severe aggression addressed
my way.

Maybe you need to start considering that some of your enemies might
well turn out to be your friends. You've known me long enough to know
that much. I don't particularly care "what" drug of choice you make
for yourself, if any, and I certainly don't advocate the use of
government violence to prohibit anyone from making the choices they
choose.

I've chosen NOT to smoke MJ. Or, do other drugs. I choose to smoke
cigarettes and drink beer. I never said individuals can't make other
free choices, did I? I was really speaking only from the perspective
of what MY choices are, and willing at the same time to support YOUR
choices, whatever they are. That's none of my business, nor is that
the business of what government ought to be involved in.

I disagree with you though. Tobacco is NOT one choice amongst many,
including MJ. The right to choose your own choices is the issue here.
But it goes even much further than this. CHOICE itself is the issue!
Any CHOICE that doesn't aggress or harm anyone, other than perhaps
yourself. And, that is not my right to prohibit any of your choices as
such.

Larry, TOBACCO for me is ONE issue. I wrote on that, and a day or so
ago, you seemed to think I was "right on target". So, why now the
hostility? Sign up with Ken if that is your choice, I don't care. I
sign up with Ken usually myself, and probably in this case, also what
he just wrote.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: BULLSHIT, KEN frank [still] wants to rate the USA vs. the rest of
the world in>> terms of freedom.
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 21:30:53 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Ken!

Ken Butler wrote to Larry Fullmer...

> What's "mj"? You are not the most coherent writer.

I can't really speak for Larry. But the term usually means:
marijuana. Mary Jane, and a lot of other derivatives. Not a problem.

> The Boston tea party was about taxation without
> representation. The current tobacco laws are all from
> officials popularly elected, so if you don't like them
> go bitch at your senator. Actually, never mind. If you
> rant like you do on this list you'll do more harm than
> good.

Well, maybe, and maybe not.

Under the original, and even present, US Constitution, it is NOT so
much about representation as it is about defining inalienable
"rights". We should have learned that a long, long time ago, that
"representatives" don't necessarily protect such rights. G.W. Bush
doesn't, and neither does Tom Daschelle. Did you watch the
blockbuster Mel Gibson, movie, "THE PATRIOT"? THIS is one movie that
is worth watching several times, as some messages take a while to
finally sink in.

In that movie, one of the first messages was when the South Carolina
"legislature" was gathered to debate joining the war against England,
and against King George. In that movie, the character, Benjamin Martin
asked the legislature to consider: "Why should I support a war against
ONE dictator 3,000 miles away, opposed to one only 1 mile away -- a
state legislature can be just as effective in trampling upon
individual rights as a king can?".

Indeed. The current Legislative, Executive and Judiciary bodies of
the US government tramples upon liberty at will. So, what's the
point? I guess the point is, that unless we, as people, as
individuals, value inalienable rights, we have no reason to expect
that any "representative" government can be expected to do so.
ESPECIALLY the one we have in place today.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: BULLSHIT, KEN frank [still] wants to rate the USA vs. the rest of the world in>> terms of freedom.
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ken <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
wrote:
> Greetings again Ken!

> I can't really speak for Larry. But the term
> usually means:
> marijuana. Mary Jane, and a lot of other
> derivatives. Not a problem.

Okay, I hadn't heard the initials "MJ" used in that
sense, though Mary Jane is pretty common. I hear weed
and reefer and stuff, mostly.

I don't understand why weed is illegal, even if you
are a statist who wants to protect people from harming
themselves. I have friends who smoke weed and they
manage to go to college, hold down jobs, and are no
less reliable than anyone else. I'd definitely rather
hang around a stoner than a drunk. Of course, I'm
preaching to the converted here.

> Well, maybe, and maybe not.
>
> Under the original, and even present, US
> Constitution, it is NOT so
> much about representation as it is about defining
> inalienable
> "rights".

I would say that the Bill of Rights is about this, but
that the Constitution was a framework for how the
government would work. It seemed more about
representing the states than the people directly, but
presently that has shifted.

We should have learned that a long, long
> time ago, that
> "representatives" don't necessarily protect such
> rights. G.W. Bush
> doesn't, and neither does Tom Daschelle. Did you
> watch the
> blockbuster Mel Gibson, movie, "THE PATRIOT"? THIS
> is one movie that
> is worth watching several times, as some messages
> take a while to
> finally sink in.
>
I have to see that movie. It keeps coming on HBO but I
always come in towards the end, at which point I
change it so as not to ruin it.

> Indeed. The current Legislative, Executive and
> Judiciary bodies of
> the US government tramples upon liberty at will.
> So, what's the
> point? I guess the point is, that unless we, as
> people, as
> individuals, value inalienable rights, we have no
> reason to expect
> that any "representative" government can be expected
> to do so.
> ESPECIALLY the one we have in place today.

I think you're correct that the nation collectively
does not value individual rights highly enough. I read
in the paper that people want more censorship because
free speech in some way helps terrorists. People back
up the illegal holding of Jose Padilla and other
suspected terrorists because "we're at war". They want
Muslims interrogated and shipped out, and some even
want our government to take on a more "Christian"
stance in response to all this (though something tells
me Jesus would not have approved of their ideals.)

These are not the results of propaganda, but are
conclusions normal people came to on their own. These
are definitely Bush supporters, and it's not
encouraging.

Ken

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [LPNY DISCUSS] Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 11:12:00 -0400
From: Bonnie <rabbit@cownow.com>
To: lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com
CC: libnw@immosys.com

On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 05:18:32AM -0400, G Triest wrote:
> To say we want to bomb them, to install a different regime, or otherwise
> undermine their sovereignty spontaneously cause we don't like them and
their
> existence annoys us truly leads to a slippery slope.

Oh come on, it's not spontaneous. We've been shooting planes down
over the "no fly zone" for ten years straight. Isn't that undermining
their sovereignty?

More seriously, I do support complete sovereignty for the Kurds.
That can't be the official U.S. policy though, because it would
piss off Turkey. This is why we're going to war with Iraq: because
the U.S. doesn't believe in sovereignty for others when it conflicts
with our military-industrial priorities.

This is one set of oil barons going to war with another...or two
sides both wanting a Holy War to finally settle that 4000-year old
sibling rivalry. How can just "we the people" prevent that (I ask
desperately)?

> could be used against ANY nation to just up and bomb them because their
> presence offends us. How about the idea of reciprocity here? What if
another
> country decides, based on the same justifications, that the United States,
> by its sheer existing the way it is,

I mean, my God, the U.S. has *weapons of mass destruction!*
(The justification *we're* going to use to slaughter babies
in Bagdhad, unless public outrage manages to prevent it. I use
the word "we" loosely, obviously.)

> not only would we oppose it in fact, but we would be outraged by the
> unmitigated gall of whatever other country decided this to be true and to
> effect such a change. We would shout "What about our sovereignty! Who are
> they to tell us what we can and cannot do in our country!"

That is true of U.S. policy, whether you're talking about trade
sanctions, un-tampered elections, indigenous rights, "gassing ones
own people" (as Iraqis do to Kurds, or U.S. riot cops do to
protestors), training terrorists (School of the Americas),
imprisoning people without due cause, spying on ones citizens (I
grew up being told that's what the bad Commies in China do), or
even, as you mentioned, reasons to strike first and start a
full-fledged (possibly thermonuclear) war.

We are a nation ruled by hypocrites, and we keep re-electing them.

Why?

Bonnie

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [LPNY DISCUSS] Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 22:43:57 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Bonnie wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 05:18:32AM -0400, G Triest wrote:
> > To say we want to bomb them, to install a different regime, or otherwise
> > undermine their sovereignty spontaneously cause we don't like them and
> their
> > existence annoys us truly leads to a slippery slope.
>
>Oh come on, it's not spontaneous. We've been shooting planes down
>over the "no fly zone" for ten years straight. Isn't that undermining
>their sovereignty?

AaaaaaahCHOOO! There was an *Agreement* that there would be a no-fly
zone--at least until Iraq had been certified as having complied with a
bunch of conditions. Iraq hasn't complied, so the no-fly zone stays. So,
Bonnie, did you forget or not know to begin with, or was it just not
convenient to remember?

>More seriously, I do support complete sovereignty for the Kurds.
>That can't be the official U.S. policy though, because it would
>piss off Turkey.

Agreed. Of course, they've got their own Kurd problem.

> This is why we're going to war with Iraq: because
>the U.S. doesn't believe in sovereignty for others when it conflicts
>with our military-industrial priorities.

AahCHOO! Never mind the priority of protecting the American people from
WMD brought in by terrorists. No, no, let's just talk about that old
bogeyman the "military-industrial complex" and blame everything on him.

>This is one set of oil barons going to war with another...or two
>sides both wanting a Holy War to finally settle that 4000-year old
>sibling rivalry. How can just "we the people" prevent that (I ask
>desperately)?

AahCHOO! Oh sure, let's all pretend that it's only about oil. That makes
it so much fun to argue. "We're spilling the blood of our *children* so we
can save 50 cents on a gallon of gas!" Never mind whether it's true or
not. Oh, and if no one buys that one, lets just call it a "Holy War." No
one will support that! Of course, as we saw on Sept. 11, if we just stay
home from the "Holy War", it will leave us alone.

Honk! Snort! Whew! All that straw coming off all the strawmen being
beaten has my allergies going crazy!

>That is true of U.S. policy, whether you're talking about trade
>sanctions, un-tampered elections, indigenous rights, "gassing ones
>own people" (as Iraqis do to Kurds, or U.S. riot cops do to
>protestors),

Let me get this straight. US riot cops using tear gas (almost 100%
NON-lethal) to disperse protestors is *THE SAME THING* as Iraqis using
poison gas (90%+ lethal)?? Do I have that straight?

> training terrorists (School of the Americas),

BTW. The school of the Americas has always worked to get their students to
follow the rule of law. The fact that some graduates of the school went on
to commit war crimes doesn't tell you whether more of those South American
officers would have done so had they not attended that school. I know that
I'm committing a religious heresy with that statement. But it is still
true.

>imprisoning people without due cause,

What, two or three citizens? Or maybe a thousand non-citizens? Without
"due process" according to an extremely tight understanding of what "due
process" means. But not without "due cause" since they are suspected of
being enemy unlawful combatants. But, of course, that's the same thing as
Saddam imprisoning and torturing people who think that he shouldn't be
leading the country. Or because they didn't want their daughters or nieces
raped by his son. Or because he wanted their property for himself.

>spying on ones citizens (I
>grew up being told that's what the bad Commies in China do),

Yup. Keep an eye out and pass the word if it looks like your neighbor is
planning some sort of terrorist activity. And that's the same as "tell the
authorities" if your neighbor displays any religious tendencies or seems to
believe that the ruling party is wrong in any way.

>or
>even, as you mentioned, reasons to strike first and start a
>full-fledged (possibly thermonuclear) war.
>
>We are a nation ruled by hypocrites, and we keep re-electing them.

No, you seem to have a definition of "hypocrisy" that is stretched so far
that it's broken. You seem to think that the only person who can act,
without being a "hypocrite", against a bad person is someone who has never
done anything bad himself (and perhaps, that their parents, grandparents
and great grandparents are also blameless as well). Never mind that they
are preventing massive death and destruction. If they once said something
mean, why, they have "no moral authority to even condemn evil."

You know, there once was a time when being a "hypocrite" meant that someone
was condemning someone for a *lesser* sin than the sin they themselves were
guilty of. Now, it seems to mean that one is a "hypocrite" if one is
simply guilty of some minor transgression and yet has the "audacity" to
condemn a major transgression.

Of course. There is another take on "hypocracy". If you're a
hypocrite--at least it means you stand for some sort of morality (even if
you don't always abide by it, yourself.) The preacher who leaves his wife
and kids and runs off with the church secretary is a hypocrite because,
presumably, he said that sort of thing was wrong. Meanwhile, the 3-time
convicted sex offender member of NAMBLA who rapes the 8 year-old boy is not
a hypocrite, because, presumably he believes that he hasn't done anything
wrong. So which one should go to jail?

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: "Still struggling with Stalin,"
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 22:57:09 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Perhaps somewhat off-topic, I'm forwarding an article from the
"center-right" list for those who may not be on that list (I highly
recommend it). Although it does imply the question of what, if anything,
anyone outside of Russia should have done if they could have and the
question of whether the current arguments over Saddam are history repeating
itself--of course, this time as farce. :-)

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

>CENTER-RIGHT, a free weeklyish e-newsletter of centrist, conservative, and
>libertarian ideas
>
>Issue 224, September 9, 2002
>
>Over 2600 subscribers
>
>Check out (and link to) our Web site http://www.center-right.org/ PLEASE
FEEL
>FREE TO FORWARD THIS to anyone you think might be interested.
>
>
>
>========================================================
>
>
>
>"Still struggling with Stalin,"
>
>
>
>by Cathy Young, from the Boston Globe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>As we grapple with the problems and perils of the 21st century, the great
>debates of the 20th have not gone away. Some of the most contentious
>questions have to do with the history of Communism, whose unholy ghost
>continues to haunt us more than a decade after the demise of the Soviet
>Union. Was Communism as evil as Nazism? Did the Western left collude in
>its evil?
>
>
>
>These issues are powerfully confronted by the British novelist Martin Amis
>in his new book ''Koba the Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million.'' Koba
>was a nickname for Stalin, and the 20 million are the victims of Soviet
>terror.
>
>
>
>Some of the most stirring pages in this short book chronicle Soviet crimes
>against humanity, many of them preceding Stalin - from catastrophic
>famines (caused by confiscation of grain from peasants) to mass executions
>to labor camps where millions lived, and often died, in hellish
>conditions. Much of this story will be familiar to those who have read
>Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's ''The Gulag Archipelago'' or Robert Conquest's
>''The Great Terror.''
>
>
>
>But one of Amis's main points is that it's not familiar enough. Everybody
>knows of Auschwitz and Belsen, he writes. Nobody knows of Vorkuta and
>Solovetsky.
>
>
>
>Writing in The Atlantic, Christopher Hitchens, who comes under some sharp
>criticism in ''Koba the Dread'' for his own flirtations with the left,
>challenges that statement as an insult to all those, including leftists,
>who have denounced and exposed Stalin's atrocities for at least the last
>50 years. But it should be obvious that nobody, like everybody, is a
>hyperbolic figure of speech. What Amis means is that Soviet terror has
>not entered general consciousness, the consciousness of the average
>literate person, the way the Holocaust has. With a few obscure
>exceptions, it has not been dramatized on film or on TV. The name of
>Stalin does not viscerally evoke evil incarnate the way the name of Hitler
>does.
>
>
>
>Amis concedes that regardless of overall body counts, Nazism's purposeful,
>systematic extermination of human beings based solely on their ethnicity
>was more evil and repugnant than Communism's more haphazard
>slaughter. But this tiny moral differential between the two regimes does
>not justify the vast gap in general awareness of their crimes - or the
>stark double standard in their public judgment.
>
>
>
>Thus, Amis notes that at a 1999 public event in London, Hitchens's joking
>remark about his Communist past was received with affectionate laughter; a
>similar casual reference to one's past as a Nazi sympathizer would be
>unthinkable.
>
>
>
>There is an even more striking example of this double standard that Amis
>does not mention. In 1996, a firestorm erupted over the scheduled
>publication of a biography of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels by British
>Holocaust revisionist David Irving. After vehement protests, the
>publisher, St. Martin's Press, withdrew the book.
>
>
>
>Around the same time, the Yale University Press published ''Life and
>Terror in Stalin's Russia, 1934-1941,'' by Miami (Ohio) University
>professor Robert Thurston, who argued that the death toll of Stalin's
>terror had been greatly exaggerated.
>
>
>
>Thurston also asserted that Stalin never planned to rule by terror, he
>just reacted to events and let things spin out of control - ironically,
>much the same argument Irving makes about the Nazi murder of the Jews.
>
>
>
>While the critical response to ''Life and Terror'' was generally negative,
>it sparked no outcry. In Publisher's Weekly, Irving's book was called
>repellent; Thurston's book, controversial.
>
>
>
>Why the double standard? Unlike Nazism, Communism claimed to champion the
>noble ideals of equality, fairness, and brotherhood. To many well-meaning
>liberals and progressives, it was an _expression of the enduring human
>hope for a good and just society; a nostalgic fondness for that hope, Amis
>argues, endures to this day. That's why, he says, Hitchens can still
>profess admiration for Lenin and Trotsky, who laid the foundations for
>Stalin's brutal police state. (In his essay, Hitchens evades Amis's blunt
>question: Do you admire terror?''
>
>
>
>Today, the issues raised in ''Koba the Dread'' could be seen as purely
>academic; but they are not. The left's reluctance to acknowledge that
>Communism wasn't just a failure but an evil is due to more than
>stubbornness. Such an acknowledgment would amount to (1) validating a
>view of the West, Communism's Cold War adversary, as good (albeit
>imperfect), and (2) admitting that the left spent much of the 20th century
>cozying up to mass murderers and therefore has precious little moral
>authority to criticize the West today. And that's very relevant to
>present-day global conflicts.
>
>
>
>* * *
>
>
>
>Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine. Her column
>appears regularly in the Globe.
>
>===================================
>
>
>
>
>CENTER-RIGHT is edited by Eugene Volokh, who teaches constitutional law,
>copyright law, and a seminar on firearms regulation at UCLA Law School
>(http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh), and is organized with the help
>of Terry Wynn and the Federalist Society (http://www.fed-soc.org/).
>
>Check out (and link to) our Web site, http://www.center-right.org .
>Check out also Eugene's Web log, http://volokh.blogspot.com, for daily
>commentary on law, politics, and other matters.
>Finally, check out Shards: Poems of the War, edited by yours truly,
>http://shards-poems.blogspot.com .
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Powered by List Builder
>To unsubscribe follow the link:
>http://lb.bcentral.com/ex/sp?c=8567&s=BDCA71C2A8BCD215&m=133

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Was the enactment of the USA PATRIOT ACT in violation of due process?
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 05:12:42 -0400
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: "Libertarian Newsgroups Northwest" <libnw@immosys.com>

This point raises a somewhat related question I have had in mind:

It is well known that a majority of Congress did not read (or have an
opportunity to read) the laws they voted to enact in the USA PATRIOT ACT.
Based on this fact, wouldn't its application and existence prima facially be
in violation of due process law?
I think so.

----- Original Message -----
From: Wilbur Streett

Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: Why The Charges Against Current Supreme Court Conservatives May
Apply To Their Jurists, Too

As a question:

If a Grand Jury does not actually bother to intevestigate a charge against
someone, and votes to indict them, despite their gross conflicts in the
grand jury testimony of the officer, versus he police report's statements,
are they liable?

After all, they are not supposed to rubber stamp lies, they are supposed to
investigate and determine if a charge is legitimate enough to prosecute
someone on them.

Wilbur

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Was the enactment of the USA PATRIOT ACT in violation of due
process?
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 22:31:55 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Gary!

Gary Triest wrote to everyone...

> This point raises a somewhat related question I have had in mind:
> It is well known that a majority of Congress did not read (or have
> an
> opportunity to read) the laws they voted to enact in the USA PATRIOT
> ACT.
> Based on this fact, wouldn't its application and existence prima
> facially be
> in violation of due process law?
> I think so.

This really raises an important issue concerning the majority of all
such laws and acts passed by Congress. It is also the same problem in
most state legislatures as well, including Idaho.

A couple of years ago when I was running for the Idaho State Senate
seat, one of my key issues was that the incumbent (GOP) State Senator,
Shawn Keogh was praising her record in view of over 800 pieces of new
legislation that had been presented to the Idaho legislature just
during the calendar year 2000. That's just one small state, so you
can imagine the huge number of pieces of legislation that the US
Congress must consider each year. I don't have the number before me,
but I would suggest it is much higher than this, and very little of
the substance of such legislation is really read by any of our elected
legislators, unfortunately.

The lion's share of such legislation is written by wealthy or
influential private interests who are able to garner the attention of
a legislator's staff, or maybe for some other reason, huge political
campaign contributions and so forth. Most of that is by special
interest groups with a vested interest in say: the environment,
energy, and other sectors. Just in Idaho, during that same year
(2000), some analysts were saying that 90 percent of such legislation
was actually created and written, not by the representative or his/her
staff, but rather special interest groups (many out of state), or by
political connections by influential or wealthy private individuals.

So, just because a Congressman or Senator introduces or sponsors such
a bill, it is most likely very few of his/her colleagues have read it
and in many cases know nothing about it. It's all a matter of
compromise and deal-making to get such legislation passed through
Congress.

It's usually only when the people themselves become very vocal, or
public opinion polls begin to show constituent outrage, that
individual Congressmen will wake up and listen, and then find a tongue
in cheek way to reverse their vote.

Politics is a dirty business, much like the organized crime syndicates
that operate by consensus amongst themselves in back room deals and
payoff arrangements.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Was the enactment of the USA PATRIOT ACT in violation of due
process?
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:53:32 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

Gary Triest wrote:

> This point raises a somewhat related question I have had in mind:
> It is well known that a majority of Congress did not read (or have an
> opportunity to read) the laws they voted to enact in the USA PATRIOT ACT.
> Based on this fact, wouldn't its application and existence prima
> facially be in violation of due process law? I think so.

No. Due process is a term that refers specifically to a judicial-type
proceeding. What would it mean with reference to a legislature's
conduct of its business?

What's more, there is absolutely no requirement for Congresscritters
to read legislation before they vote on it. I think there ought to
be, but there isn't. When they wrote the constitution, they didn't
even dream that someone would vote on a measure without having read
it. I would like to see it amended to require any Member, before
casting any vote, to certify in writing that she has read the measure
and thinks she understands it. (Beside the obvious benefits, an even
more important side effect would be to reduce the volume of legislation,
which could sometimes be a bad thing but on the whole probably wouldn't
be). But until the constitution is amended accordingly, laws like this
one are valid, and the courts must enforce them (unless they're invalid
on other grounds, of course).

--
Zev Sero "If France rearms, there will be peace;
zsero@free-market.net if Germany rearms, there will be war."
Winston Churchill

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Boston Globe Editorial Slams Us
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 21:08:45 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com, liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com

Greetings everyone!

If the demographic statistics are correct (alluded to at around 40
percent), this might be one campaign that you might want to consider
supporting. If we could break ground in Massachusetts of all places,
it would send shock waves across the nation.

Kindest regards,
Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Boston Globe Editorial Slams Us
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 03:07:49 -0400
From: "Small Government News" <sgn@SmallGovernmentAct.org>
To: libnw@hvisions.com

Small Government News*
September 9, 2002
Circulation: 16,691

Official Newsletter of Carla Howell, Libertarian for Governor;
Michael Cloud, Libertarian for U.S. Senate; and Question 1, the
Ballot Initiative to End the Income Tax in Massachusetts

http://www.SmallGovernmentAct.org http://www.CarlaHowell.org
http://www.michaelcloud.org

"Vote Yes on 1"

"If Orwell were writing '1984' now, he would not say, 'Destroy the
information.' He would say, 'Inundate people with information,
they'll think they're free.'"
--Richard Saul Wurman

"Nothing is done. Everything in the world remains to be done -- or
done over. The greatest picture is not yet painted. The greatest
play isn't written. The greatest poem is unsung." Nothing is
perfect, we can add. There's no perfect airline. There's no perfect
government. There's no perfect law. "
--Lincoln Steffens

"Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by
striking."
--William B. Sprague

"It is the follow through that makes the great difference between
ultimate success and failure, because it is so easy to stop."
--Charles F. Kettering

+++ A SIZZLING REPORT FROM CARLA HOWELL & MICHAEL CLOUD +++

Dear Friends,

First they ignored us.

Now they're attacking us.

The Boston Globe Editorial Page launched an assault on us. Saturday,
September 7th.

Why?

We're breaking through.

We're exposing the 1,200,000 readers of the Boston Globe to the
huge benefits of Ending the Income Tax in Massachusetts.

Our full-page ads in the Boston Globe are reaching the hearts and
minds of working class and middle class Taxpayers in Massachusetts.

We're challenging the Big Government policies that have dominated
Massachusetts politics for the last 50 years.

So the Boston Globe Editorial Page fired its first salvo at us.

What triggered this attack?

Two things.

1. Our first full-page ad in the August 27th edition of the Boston
Globe.
2. Our second full-page in the September 4th edition of the Boston
Globe.

How do we know these 2 ads provoked the wrath of the Boston Globe?

What's the evidence?

Our web site traffic.

The first 24 days of August, our web site averaged 107 visitors per
day. (A visitor is someone who reads the web site for at least 3
minutes.)

The last 7 days of August - the week we ran our first Boston Globe
ad - our web site averaged 470 visitors per day. For an average of
6 minutes per visitor!

The first 5 days of September - the week we ran our second Boston
Globe ad - our web site visitors averaged 346 per day. For an
average of 7 minutes per visitor!

Our full-page newspaper ads in the Boston Globe are driving traffic
to our web site so they can see why we must End the Income Tax in
Massachusetts.

Hundreds of them are joining us, signing up, asking for Bumper
Stickers and Yard Signs, and volunteering to help us.

PLUS hundreds and hundreds of the visitors to our End the Income
Tax web site are cruising over to the Carla Howell for Governor
web site - and reading our small government is beautiful* message
for an average of 11 minutes!

What other evidence is there that our full-page Boston Globe ads
are shaking things up?

Personal appearances and bookings are skyrocketing.

Talk Radio bookings for Carla Howell and Michael Cloud are way up
since the ads were run.

Speech requests from colleges and universities are jumping.

Gun clubs and organizations are calling us at an even faster rate
than they normally do.

Email, phone calls, letters, and in-person visits from our
supporters are surging.

We're getting countless reports of families, and friends, and
co-workers favorably commenting about our full-page ads in the
Boston Globe.

One of our volunteers, a blue-collar worker, reported that virtually
everyone at his job site is voting FOR our Libertarian Ballot
Initiative to End the Income Tax in Massachusetts.

It's a union job site.

The buzz is increasing. Support is rising. We're already at 40%
in the polls.

Why the Boston Globe Editorial?

The gnawing fear that their 1,200,000 readers might be swayed by
our evidence and arguments. That the working class and middle class
readers of the Boston Globe might realize their true interests and
vote Yes on Ballot Question 1.

"INCOME TAX EVASIONS" screams the headline of the Boston Globe
Editorial.

The Editorial was in the best tradition of Ellsworth Toohey, a
newspaper columnist, in Ayn Rand's epic novel, "The Fountainhead."

The Editorial admitted that, while our $9 Billion Income Tax cut
divided among 3,000,000 workers will give back an average of $3,000
per person per year low income earners will get less back while
high income earners will get more back. Duh!

Each person will get back exactly what the state government takes
from him or her in personal Income Taxes each year. Neither more
nor less.

Without evidence, the Editorial claimed that Ending the Income Tax
would NOT create 300,000 to 500,000 new jobs in Massachusetts.
Here's what they wrote:

"In fact, the job market in Massachusetts depends on national and
regional forces, few of them under the control of state government."

The Boston Globe Editorial asserts that Massachusetts government
regulation, licensing, fees, mandates and taxes have virtually no
effect on Massachusetts businesses and employment. Facts? Evidence?
Even one reputable economic study? Nah!

The Boston Globe Editorial claimed that the 3,000,000 workers who
get back $3,000 each would NOT give much to charity.

The Globe Editorial says that workers' tax cuts "would be frittered
away on cars, home improvements, and vacations."

"Frittered away"?

Why is the Boston Globe Editorial Department attacking us now?

Because we're already at 40% in the polls.

Because we are breaking through.

We're getting closer and closer to critical mass. To boiling point.
To the tipping point that changes everything.

We're getting through to the 1,200,000 readers of the Boston Globe.
And the people they talk to. Their co-workers, neighbors, friends,
and families.

We're so close.

We must run another full-page ad in this week's Boston Globe. To
turn up the temperature. To get closer to the political boiling
point - where everybody in Massachusetts is discussing and debating
our Libertarian Ballot Initiative to End the Income Tax.

If you donate $150 or more toward running our full-page ad in the
Boston Globe this week, we will give you an original collector's
edition, first printing of our first full-page ad in the Boston
Globe. Autographed and dated. So that everyone will know that you
made a difference.

If you can donate $250 or $500 or $1500 or even $2500 toward the
cost of this full-page ad in the Boston Globe, you will be donating
desperately needed dollars.

If this tough economy limits the amount that you can donate, your
donation is still critical. Your $25 or $40 or $65 donation will
help us put together enough money to run next week's ad.

We only have 72 hours to book and pay for this third full-page
ad in the Boston Globe. Only 72 hours to raise the political
temperature. And get it even closer to boiling point.

Great news! Shrewd planning and testing of our advertising has let
us reduce the cost of our full-page Boston Globe ad from $26,283.41
to $22,854.00. A savings of $3,429. For the same value. The same
1,200,000 Boston Globe readers.

Together, we can bring this to a boil. We can make our Ballot
Initiative to End the Income Tax in Massachusetts the most talked
about and most widely supported tax cut in Massachusetts history.

Your donation is the key.

Please donate now.

Please go to our secure server and make the largest donation you
can by Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover right now:

https://stronghold.your-site.com/muni/sga/sga.php

Or, if you'd prefer, mail your donation to:

The Committee for Small Government
6 Goodman Lane
Wayland, MA 01778

small government is possible,

Carla Howell & Michael Cloud

P.S. We only have 72 hours to book our third full-page ad in the
Boston Globe. 72 hours to buy the ad that brings this to a boil.
Your $150 or more donation for the third Boston Globe ad next week
means that we will send you a collector's edition, original, first
printing of our first full-page ad in the Boston Globe. Autographed
and dated.

Please go to our secure server and make the largest donation you
can by Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover right now:

https://stronghold.your-site.com/muni/sga/sga.php

P.P.S. If you have already donated a $150 or more, we are
autographing, laminating, and shipping you your collector's edition,
Boston Globe ad this week. If you have not already donated $150 or
more, now's your chance. Please help now.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please forward this issue of Small Government News to several people
you know who are concerned about tax cuts and Big Government. Please
ask them to subscribe to this newsletter for a pro-freedom, small
government perspective (and please don't forget to remove the
unsubscribe instructions below which have your email).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

* "small government is possible", "small government is beautiful",
"Personal Responsibility Sets Us Free" and "Small Government News"
are Service Marks (SM) of Carla Howell and Michael Cloud.

To SUBSCRIBE, mail to: subscribe@SmallGovernmentAct.org (no
message or subject is needed)

To unsubscribe, email to: sgn-request@SmallGovernmentAct.org
and write
unsubscribe libnw@hvisions.com
in the BODY of the email.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Frank [still] wants to rate the USA vs. the rest of the world
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 00:32:44 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

> No, trouble is it's bad when gov'ts can't enforce JUST laws -- which is
true
> in many poor countries. Then you get indeterminate real property
boundaries
> & ownership, kidnapping for ransom, plenty of plunder. Basically it works
> to keep people from getting ahead.

I would honestly like to answer this one fairly. But there are other
factors you fail to mention, and some of them are always present here
in the Philippines, which is probably a very good example to the
situation you describe. It doesn't cover everyone however. Some
people get caught outside the loop.

One of the factors here that is present everywhere, is private
security arrangements. Almost all significant businesses employ
24-hour security forces to watch their establishments. You never, for
example, walk up to a bank without seeing a private security guard,
and in many cases, several of them, armed with 12-guage shotguns
loaded. Bank robberies here are rare.

The point I am making is that even with an inefficient government,
there are always other alternatives for the things that really matter,
defence obviously tops the list. The poor, or those in the middle
class, are likely not going to be the victims of kidnapping either. To
give you an idea, I would certainly be considered within the "middle
class" here in the Philippines, and I wouldn't even think of hiring
security forces to watch my house, or protect me. Other than for
perhaps a political assassination, or a matter to make a political
point, to make I don't believe I am in imminent danger of being
targeted here right now. In the southern Philippines where islamic
extremists do have a substantial following, that might not be the
case.

But, Robert. Let's reverse this situation. I'm sure you'll admit that
the US government is far more efficient, and certainly better
organized than here. And, as that is the case, how many middle class
and below people really get fair trials in the US? What would have
happened to Randy Weaver for example, had the situation on Ruby Ridge
not played out the way it did, and had not Gerry Spence taken the high
profile case pro bono? Had Weaver surrendered to authorities, even
though all of the evidence suggested that this was government
entrapment, would a court have set him free? I seriously doubt it.
O.J. Simpson was set free largely because he was able to get the very
best legal council available and at a very high cost.

I am only suggesting that the US legal system is itself outrageously
corrupt. It's just a lot more efficient than the one here in the
Philippines. You can also include in that the military and police
forces. But there are private sector alternatives that don't exist in
such large numbers in the US as they do here. I am not so sure I buy
into your argument that having efficiency is always a good thing.

Is it such a good thing when most libertarians might suggest that 90
percent of the laws are bad, and shouldn't be enforced at all, for the
sake of the 10 percent that are good laws, and protect victims against
aggression? A lot of peaceful, non-violent, people are left in the
lurch when they find themselves a victim of being prosecuted under
such a judicial system. That's all I'm saying. There are other
alternatives to that. In the Philippines, as a result, there are very
few who really are prosecuted for "unjust laws"! Many are, but in
most cases the government will either look the other way, or not
bother with it unless a substantial complaint exists to compel them to
take action. You just don't see the "police state" presence here as
you do in the U.S. In the U.S., the "police" are everywhere,
watching, waiting for you to fuck up, not buckle your seat belt, not
maintaining your vehicle tail lights, or pulling an open trailer
illegally containing a human occupant!

Yes, if experience such many times here. Whole families might throw a
birthday party at the beach, and bring 30 family members with them.
They are crowded riding a small jeep pulling a trailer with additional
family members crowded thereon. No one is "buckled up", and pulling
such a trailer occupied by people is either not against the law, or if
it is, it is rarely if ever enforced!

If you are at home here with friends drinking beer, and you run out of
beer or cigarettes, you can send an 8 or 10 year old kid to the store
to pick up more beer or cigarettes. If you tried that in Idaho, New
York, or California, you'd have the police on your door step in
minutes! You'd find yourself in front of a judge for a multitude of
charges, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, child
endangerment, who know what the hell other charges you would be guilty
of, and for what? For what? Simply sending a kid to the store to buy
more cigarettes and beer! That's the crime Robert! Yea, damn
straight. You deserve to go to jail and serve time.

And, that my friend, is the prostitute US criminal justice system in
full glory!

That's why I hate it so much. In Japan, by contrast, beer is sold on
any street corner by vending machines, much like Coke or Pepsi vending
machines in local malls in America. Anyone at all can walk up to the
vending machine and put in the amount of coins and pull out the beer
in an assortment of sizes. No police thug is waiting around the
corner to watch the machine and nab you, regardless of your age!
Contrast this to America. In many places in America today, you can't
even light up a cigarette anywhere within a specified distance from a
public school.

So, what kind of "laws" do you want your efficient government to
enforce? It's either all, or none! And, I'm telling you there has to
be better, private choice, alternatives rather than the "police state"
solutions sanctioned by you to enforce ALL laws. As I said, only
around 10 percent or so of all laws should be enforced at all. It's a
huge price to pay to lock up the 10 percent who are aggressors.

> Usually there's no favorable discrimination on this issue. Gov'ts too
weak
> to enforce unjust laws are too weak to enforce just laws.

Indeed. But MOST of the laws, are unjust laws. So, you're paying a
huge price for real security over aggression against your life,
liberty and property aren't you?

I previously wrote:
> >I wish Americans could find a way to ignore (and say NO) to about 95
> >percent of the laws on the books and just gaff them all off and
> >refuse to obey them all! But that isn't happening now, is it?

You replied:
> Mostly because the price of disobedience can be pretty high. In a poor
> country, people can't afford to obey. In a rich country, they can't
afford
> not to. You can live very well by obeying, and live very poorly by
> disobeying. Of course there are lots of exceptions; who doesn't cheat on
> taxes or break speed limits?

I see your dilemma here, and I'm glad that you appreciate it as such.
But it doesn't tell the whole story either, because in many countries
there aren't so many unjust laws to begin with. I see a giant
contradiction here with your argument that it's better to enforce all
the laws "efficiently" and your willing acceptance that perhaps a very
high percentage of such enforcement results in placing people under
the "criminal justice system" for non aggressive behaviour!

You've even suggested just above that people in so-called "rich"
countries, although that is obviously not an accurate description (as
I've cited Japan for instance), live in fear and terror over the
prospect of breaking such unjust laws, as other nations who have a
more realistic legal code, and enforcement capabilities. I have a
real problem with your above description of "living very well", and
what that might entail in a so-called "rich" country. People living
in stark terror over the prospect of minding their own business and
being thrown in jail and undergoing "criminal" charges doesn't sound
to me like people are living very well, not really! It sounds more
like people living in a constant state of fear, that their choices
might result in criminal charges being filed against them.

> Part of it is that society segregates partly by propensity to be law
> abiding. The people who routinely break unjust laws are usually the same
> people who break just laws

That, my friend is bull shit. There is a federal law that states
exactly how many gallons of beer you are allowed to make for personal
consumption. I know that I always exceed that limit when I am home.
I usually brew as many gallons of beer as I want, and I never worry
very much whether it exceeds the federal limit, and I don't care,
since they couldn't prove it anyway unless they had a way of
monitoring how many gallons I produce. That doesn't mean I am most
likely to go out and burglarize someone's home, commit rape, murder,
or any other crime of aggression. All I am saying is, that if I know
I can get by with it, I'll gladly break the law anytime, when my own
choices have nothing to do with aggression against another human
being. So maybe, just maybe, "society" segregates it as such, but
that doesn't make it so. Everyone does it Robert. And that doesn't
mean that the majority of those that do, have any propensity to
aggress upon their neighbours in anyway whatsoever.

> so if you're honest you'd better avoid them.

Why? Can't you be honest first by defending your own liberty at all
times and in all places to make your own non aggressive free choices?

> It's a sorting machine. The less law abiding places tend to be poor
> neighborhoods.

I'm not so sure. Not in the balance of things anyway. Most of the
official laws on the books, including tax laws, tend to make "poor
individuals" more targets of committing non-violent crime. I know
you're going to hate this like hell, but what about cigarette
taxation? Are the poor more likely to pay much higher rates of
taxation for choosing to smoke, than say someone who makes $50,000 a
year and is willing to abide by the law? Because 90 percent of the
laws have nothing very much to do with aggression, naturally those who
can't live under such constraints will likely fall into the category
of criminal.

> Would you prefer to live in a neighborhood known for prostitution and
> narcotics trade? Probably not. However, if those activities were legal
you
> wouldn't mind living in such a neighborhood, because the people doing
those
> things wouldn't be crooks.

Now you are getting the picture. Thank you.

I previously wrote:
> >So, again, where, in your opinion, is the best place for "liberty"
> >to emerge?

You replied:
> What, like I have a crystal ball? Who could predict these things? Peru
> looked like they were in for major advances in that regard until from out
of
> nowhere this foreigner Fujimori showed up and overtook the guy whose name
> now I can't even remember who showed so much progress. Who coulda known?

Crystal balls notwithstanding, where does liberty "usually" have the
best chance to succeed? It is usually in my opinion those places
where people have been deprived of liberty, and it again becomes an
option to pursue. South, or latin America is a poor example. They've
had a lot of choices, and for at least two centuries to make such
choices. The two that come to mind are Brazil and Argentina. During
the early 20th century, it was even speculated that Argentina might
surpass the United States in terms of economic growth and a
pluralistic freedom, that was also reinforced by tremendous migration
from central European countries. We know now that didn't pan out so
well. But the choices were always there.

My inference was on totalitarian regions, such as the former Soviet
Union, China today, and eastern Europe, probably most of central and
southern Africa. All of which were principally dominated by
totalitarianism, some going back hundreds of years. It's not really
synonymous with "nationalism" either, which in my way of thinking is
why latin America, and most of Africa never really had very much of an
appreciation for "liberty" over tyranny. "Liberty" and "nationalism"
aren't the same thing.

In contrast to that, Russia, and particularly China, eastern Europe
certainly, have historical cultural and social identity. In such an
environment, it is rather a much clearer choice. Most such nations
had already achieved a nationalist identity, and it is no longer
relevant to the other choices not central to that, that are available.

Nationalism, per se, isn't always good, and often it is not. Sometimes
it is counterproductive to "liberty". In most of central Europe, and
in the former Soviet republics, there is this option to choose
liberty, rather than simply to define a sense of nationalism. Japan,
China, and the aforementioned civilizations never really had to deal
with "nationalism" in the course of even the 20th century, and
particularly not now.

To regress here a moment, most of central and southern Africa, under
colonial rule, never really, and until this day, have much of any
identity with nationalism. It was much more a situation of tribal
identity, than national borders. This is in a way also part and
parcel of Spanish colonialism in most of latin America, with rather
artificial borders being mandated over external colonial interests.

> Movements get hijacked, sidetracked, blunted. Revolutions spring up with
> little warning.

Yes, but there is a reason for that. See my above. The opportunities
to at least choose "liberty" is much greater today in Russia than it
might be in the Congo, or Brazil. You might not like this at all, but
I conclude that some way of unification must take place to resolve the
matter of nationalization must occur before people even begin to
consider "liberty" over alternatives. I say this for good historical
reasons, and I believe this is verified by history. Even the
Philippines never achieved national unity prior to the Spanish
occupation and colonial rule, so it was mainly external and arbitrary
boundaries that still exist today, that is the main problem to even
bringing about a qualitative choice to choose "liberty" over tyranny.

I previously asked you:
> >Isn't it much better to have a
> >government that is inefficient, with a much lower tax base, and
> >even corrupt enforcing laws that shouldn't even be on the books at
> >all?

You replied:
> No, because "much lower tax base" means much less productive people

NOW, this is really interesting. You seem to assume that the more you
make, the more government has the "right" to take away from you! This
certainly raises my eyebrows! I don't believe even you would support
that and still claim that government shouldn't raise the rate of
taxation. Maybe that's what I need to do here, substitute "tax base"
for "tax rate", the "rate" of taxation. I'll concede here, that even
here in the Philippines that GDP is a much lower base to collect
taxes, but at the same time, the percentage of taxation is much lower
than in the US. Even though the Philippines has a graduated income
tax, it is NOT so graduated to such an extent the milk the same
percentage as the US government does.

And if you factor in such things as evasive taxes, such as taxes on
cigarettes, the tax rate is far, far below what the US and State
governments are currently doing in the US.

Tax rates, in any case, really depend upon the size and scope of what
any government is "allowed" to do. With less government, you have
less taxation. That doesn't mean that individuals won't have to spend
the money for such things as defence and protection against
aggression, such as private security arrangements that take place here
and almost everywhere else. But your conclusion that a lower rate of
taxation necessarily means that people are less productive doesn't
follow.

> inefficient and corrupt gets in the way of enforcing laws that SHOULD be
on
> the books. Corruption usually means they plunder every bit as much, but
not
> as predictably.

Not at all, and I have to object. Less government means that there is
far less ability to lock you up, for making personal choice of your
own choosing, since there is either less laws on the books, or less
government to enforce such laws. But with a lot less taxation, you do
have other alternatives to protect yourself against aggression. In
most cases of such aggression, poor people really have a lot less to
worry about anyway, since they are not normally subject to such things
as burglary, or kidnappings, except for maybe political reasons.

> It's not like the cops & tax men take less of your money in
> Mexico, far from it; it's just that the money gets diverted into informal
> channels. And because the operation is informal, you're more likely to
get
> killed in the process!

Well then, doesn't it make more sense to simply deny them the money?

I guess that's perhaps one of my chief points. You live in a place
where the government doesn't confiscate your money, or at least as
much of it, as they do in other places. In Libertarian Idealism, we
usually come down hard against extracting money for the purpose of
prohibiting or recognizing your "choices". You have a "choice", that
is, if you want to pay for the protection of making such a choice. In
other words, a "license" of sorts to make such a choice, but without
which you have no right to do so.

It would be very hard for you to convince me I would have less of a
choice in the US today to smoke cigarettes. I'd have to pay likely
$50.00 to the state to make such a choice for every carton of
cigarettes I choose to buy! So, to enjoy my "free" choice, I would
have to pay off the gestapo first.

To answer your question above, I doubt very seriously I'm about to be
killed here for choosing to buy a pack of Winston cigarettes on the
free market. Truth is Robert, in America, if I tried to arrange a way
to buy the same pack of cigarettes at the REAL price, I might get
myself killed, because to do that, I would have to contribute
something into the black market to make that happen. And, even that
would come at a price to even if I managed somehow to skirt the
government's tax on my free choices.

"Government" is just as much a racketeering effort as organized
crime. It also includes tremendous violence, but it's just as lethal,
but entirely legal. That's why you have no real free choices to make,
you'll still, according to your own words, "get killed in the
process". So, what's the real difference?

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 15:56:41 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automated. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 15:56:54 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automated. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Was the enactment of the USA PATRIOT ACT in violation of due
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 14:44:09 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in part:

>A couple of years ago when I was running for the Idaho State Senate
>seat, one of my key issues was that the incumbent (GOP) State
>Senator, Shawn Keogh was praising her record in view of over 800
>pieces of new legislation that had been presented to the Idaho
>legislature just during the calendar year 2000. That's just one
>small state, so you can imagine the huge number of pieces of
>legislation that the US Congress must consider each year. I don't
>have the number before me, but I would suggest it is much higher
>than this,

What makes you think so? It's not the size of the jurisdiction, but the
size of its legislature that would be the limiting factor.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Loyalties...
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:55:08 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

You hate Saddam Hussein.

Certainly a very large percentage of the Iraqi population feels the
same way.

I don't like the Shrub Regime very much either. In fact I don't like
the Tom Daschelle alternative to that, nor do I believe that either
the GOP, nor the Democrat alternative to anti-liberty policies fits my
idea of what I can accept.

But, I am an American. And when push comes to shove, what will *I*
do? After all, I do love my country, regardless of whoever is in
charge of the government, whether that happens to be George W. Bush,
or Tom Daschelle. I may even hate their ideologies equally as
reprehensible to my own.

What am *I* going to do if a foreign islamic force enters my country
with humongous force and sets up a puppet regime that has the effect
of taking all of my choices away from me as a citizen of the United
States? They even tell me they are offering my liberty, freedom, the
right to choose! Particularly when I know it is a fake and a fraud, I
will try and join with any of my compatriots, to kill them, and defeat
such designs.

We may not like Tom Daschelle, nor George W. Bush, but as Americans we
simply don't need "others" to make such choices for us, or for me. So
we will do whatever is necessary to kill those external to us that
wish to force such external choices upon us. Personalities such as
Bush, Daschelle, or even Harry Browne for crying out loud, isn't the
issue.

Doesn't anyone around here understand that that is exactly the current
policy of the US government with regards to foreign states such as
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lord knows who others may follow? Including
Iran, North Korea, or anyone else targeted as the "Axis of Evil"?

Normally, people fight for their "homeland", not ideology. And I
fear, we will find that out just as soon as we make the disastrous
decision to make a unilateral pre-emptive strike against Iraq, even if
we have the sheer arrogance of installing another puppet regime to
rule the country that ostensibly promises more freedom!

As a libertarian, I would suggest it is much more effective to simply
"live" what we believe, rather than using force to install what we
believe. Others may take notice of our example, rather than our use of
force, which I believe will be counterproductive to what really works.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: love ya, frank - Re: DEAD ASSHOLES!!
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 02:45:36 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hiya, frank,

i shoulda used a 'grin' in relation to 'defend drugs not of your choice'.

i figure ya gotta admit that with you spending so much time on tobbaco, with
the war against humans who use drugs paleing, according to you, in relation
to economics and foreign policy, you're sort of caught in a policy
contradiction.

no biggie, i git caught all the time.

i want you to know, frank, since inflections and such are hard to
communicate on the net - i love ya for what you have done for us.

if i ever tell ya to f------, it's amoung friends, okay?

not news for this group, but still i'll say, things are bigtime on the
upswing in idaho, see it as i.

"smoke 'em if ya gotta 'em", choice all around,

truly, frank **thank you**!!, (hostility is *never* intended, even if i use
the "f" word).

larry

on 9/8/02 6:09 AM, Frank Reichert at admin@liberty-northwest.org wrote:

> Greetings again Larry!
>
> larry fullmer wrote to Ken Butler and Frank Reichert...
>
>> TOBBACO IS ONE THING, MARIJUANA IS ANOTHER:
>> (FRANK: DEFEND DRUGS NOT OF YOUR CHOICE, OR I'LL SIGN UP WITH KEN):
>
> Well. I thought I've already done that. Tobacco is one of my drugs of
> choice, I guess. I never wrote one damn word suggesting that
> individuals didn't have a right to pick or choose whatever "drugs" or
> absence thereof, choices they may, did I? I'm at a loss here. I even
> went on to explain that if I had chosen MJ or something other than
> that, that I would likely have even more severe aggression addressed
> my way.
>
> Maybe you need to start considering that some of your enemies might
> well turn out to be your friends. You've known me long enough to know
> that much. I don't particularly care "what" drug of choice you make
> for yourself, if any, and I certainly don't advocate the use of
> government violence to prohibit anyone from making the choices they
> choose.
>
> I've chosen NOT to smoke MJ. Or, do other drugs. I choose to smoke
> cigarettes and drink beer. I never said individuals can't make other
> free choices, did I? I was really speaking only from the perspective
> of what MY choices are, and willing at the same time to support YOUR
> choices, whatever they are. That's none of my business, nor is that
> the business of what government ought to be involved in.
>
> I disagree with you though. Tobacco is NOT one choice amongst many,
> including MJ. The right to choose your own choices is the issue here.
> But it goes even much further than this. CHOICE itself is the issue!
> Any CHOICE that doesn't aggress or harm anyone, other than perhaps
> yourself. And, that is not my right to prohibit any of your choices as
> such.
>
> Larry, TOBACCO for me is ONE issue. I wrote on that, and a day or so
> ago, you seemed to think I was "right on target". So, why now the
> hostility? Sign up with Ken if that is your choice, I don't care. I
> sign up with Ken usually myself, and probably in this case, also what
> he just wrote.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: 9/11 anniversary
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 10:35:30 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: LP RELEASE: 9/11 anniversary
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:42:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Libertarian Party Announcements <owner-announce@lp.org>
Reply-To: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To: announce@hq.lp.org

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: September 10, 2002
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Pay tribute to victims of 9/11 attacks
by restoring Americans' freedom, Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC -- As the nation commemorates the victims of the 9/11
terrorist attacks, Libertarians are urging the government to pay
tribute to them by restoring the full constitutional rights that
Americans enjoyed before that tragic event.

"September 11 is a day for Americans to proclaim, 'We will never
surrender,' " said Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party executive
director.
"We will never surrender to the terrorists who threaten our safety,
nor
will we surrender our fundamental liberties to the government."

On the one-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York and
Washington that claimed nearly 3,000 lives, Americans are reliving the
shock and brutality of the event, sharing in the anguish of the
victims
and struggling to come to grips with the "day that changed
everything."

And as the nation participates in various displays of patriotism,
Libertarians are urging the government to restore the freedoms that
were taken away in the aftermath of the attacks so Americans can
reclaim the liberty that is their birthright.

"In the trauma following the 9/11 attacks, an anxious public was
clamoring for politicians to 'do something,' " said Dasbach.
"Unfortunately, they did the wrong thing, by passing laws restricting
the freedom of innocent people."

Just six weeks after the event, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which
expands the government's power to tap phones, monitor the Internet,
conduct 'sneak-and-peak' searches and even gives the FBI power to
force
librarians and bookstores to reveal the names of customers.

And that was just the beginning of a misguided government power grab,
Dasbach said.

"President Bush now asserts that he has the power to proclaim -
without
showing evidence - that American citizens are 'enemy combatants,' and
then to order them jailed indefinitely without charges, without access
to a lawyer and without the right to appeal.

"Attorney General John Ashcroft, according to a Wall Street Journal
article, plans to set up camps for more such enemy combatants who will
be jailed without charges, and a cowardly Congress declines to speak
out against these police-state tactics."

Now Congress and the president should admit that mistakes were made in
the post-9/11 rush to legislate, Libertarians say.

"It's time to repeal the Patriot Act and to renounce Bush's
breathtaking presidential power grab before any more damage is done to
American freedom," Dasbach said.

Another thing the government should do to commemorate 9/11,
Libertarians say, is to reform U.S. foreign policy to reduce the
chance
of more terror attacks.

"Bush seems oblivious to one of the lessons of 9/11, which is that
meddling in hostile foreign nations doesn't solve problems; it causes
them," Dasbach said. "Now the president is poised to invade Iraq - a
nation that poses no imminent threat to the United States - in a move
that could prompt terrorists to execute more barbarous attacks on our
shores.

"The only thing that could be worse than the tragedy of September 11
would be to have another such massacre, and another one after
that.
"The best way to honor those who perished on September 11 is by
ensuring that more Americans - and more American freedoms - don't
perish as well."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: good stuff from ron paul - FW: Lessons of 9-11
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 22:02:04 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>,
<libnw@immosys.com>

group,

i understand it's not real good netetiquette to forward stuff from others to
a group, but things have been a little slow, discussion wise, and ron paul
is really worth reading below. the excerpting was done by a friend of mine
in san deigo. the link for ron's full text is at the bottom.

lf

ps it has long been my opinion, and it still is, that the installation of
the shan of iran into power by the cia is what kicked of the whole middle
east fiasco for the u.s. since then, it has been little but 'cover your
ass' with every attempt to do so resulting in a deeper dug hole. how
deep can you dig, u.s., before you dig a hole no one can get out of??
if it had a bit to do with liberty, that would be one thing, but it
doesn't.

Hi all, (from wes in san deigo),

Some choice excerpts from the link to his excellent speech below. Mr. "No"
(Congressman Ron Paul) knows his stuff:

>Thomas Jefferson spoke for the founders and all our early presidents when
he stated: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations,
entangling alliances with none..." which is, "one of the essential
principles of our government". The question is: Whatever happened to this
principle and should it be restored?<

[...]

>In the 1950s, the CIA installed the Shah in Iran. It was not until the
hostage crisis of the late 1970s that the unintended consequences of this
became apparent. This generated Iranian hatred of America and led to the
takeover by the reactionary Khoumini and the Islamic fundamentalists. It
caused greater regional instability than we anticipated. Our meddling in the
internal affairs of Iran was of no benefit to us and set the stage for our
failed policy in dealing with Iraq.

We allied ourselves in the 1980s with Iraq in its war with Iran, and
assisted Saddam Hussein in his rise to power. As recent reports reconfirm,
we did nothing to stop Hussein's development of chemical and biological
weapons and at least indirectly assisted in their development. Now, as a
consequence of that needless intervention, we=re planning a risky war to
remove him from power. And as usual, the probable result of such an effort
will be something our government does not anticipate- like a takeover by
someone much worse. As bad as Hussein is, he's an enemy of the Al Qaeda, and
someone new may well be a close ally of the Islamic radicals.

Although our puppet dictatorship in Saudi Arabia has lasted for many
decades, it's becoming shakier every day. The Saudi people are not exactly
friendly toward us, and our military presence on their holy soil is greatly
resented. This contributes to the radical fundamentalist hatred directed
toward us. Another unfavorable consequence to America, such as a regime
change not to our liking, could soon occur in Saudi Arabia. It is not merely
a coincidence that 15 of the 9/11 terrorists are Saudis.

The Persian Gulf War, fought without a declaration of war, is in reality
still going on. It looks now like 9/11 may well have been a battle in that
war, perpetrated by fanatical guerillas. It indicates how seriously flawed
our foreign policy is. In the 1980s, we got involved in the Soviet/Afghan
war and actually sided with the forces of Osama bin Laden, helping him gain
power. This obviously was an alliance of no benefit to the United States,
and it has now come back to haunt us. Our policy for years was to encourage
Saudi Arabia to oppose communism by financing and promoting Islamic
fundamentalism. Surely the shortcomings of that policy are now evident to
everyone.

Clinton's bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan on the eve of his indictment over
Monica Lewinsky shattered a Taliban plan to expel Osama bin Laden from
Afghanistan. Clinton's bombing of Baghdad on the eve of his impeachment
hardly won any converts to our cause or reassured Muslim people in the
Middle East of a balanced American policy.

The continued bombing of Iraq over these past 12 years, along with the
deadly sanctions resulting in hundreds of thousands of needless Iraqi
civilian deaths, has not been beneficial to our security. And it has been
used as one of the excuses for recruiting fanatics ready to sacrifice their
lives in demonstrating their hatred toward us.<

[...]

>And now, the debate rages over whether our national security requires that
we, for the first time, escalate this policy of intervention to include
"anticipatory self-defense and preemptive war." If our interventions of the
20th century led to needless deaths, unwinnable wars, and continuous
unintended consequences, imagine what this new doctrine is about to unleash
on the world.

Our policy has prompted us to announce that our CIA will assassinate Saddam
Hussein whenever it gets the chance and that the government of Iraq is to be
replaced. Evidence now has surfaced that the United Nations inspection teams
in the 1990s definitely included American CIA agents who were collecting
information on how to undermine the Iraqi government and continue with the
routine bombing missions. Why should there be a question of why Saddam
Hussein might not readily accept UN inspectors without some type of
assurances? Does anybody doubt that control of Iraqi oil supplies, second
only to Saudi Arabia, is the reason U.S. policy is belligerent toward Saddam
Hussein? If our goal is honestly to remove dictators around the world, then
this is the beginning of an endless task.<

[...]

>Unilateralism within a globalist approach to government is the worst of all
choices. It ignores national sovereignty, dignifies one-world government,
and places us in the position of demanding dictatorial powers over the world
community. Demanding the right to set all policy and exclude ourselves from
jurisdictional restraints sows the seeds of future discontent and hostility.

The downside is we get all the bills, risk the lives of our people without
cause, and make ourselves the target for every event that goes badly. We get
blamed for the unintended, unforeseen consequences and become the target of
terrorists that evolve from the radicalized fringes.<

[...]

>What Would a Foreign Policy For Peace Look Like?

Our troops would be brought home, systematically but soon. Being in Europe
and Japan for over 50 years is long enough. The failure in Vietnam resulted
in no occupation and a more westernized country now doing business with the
United States. There=s no evidence that the military approach in Vietnam was
superior to that of trade and friendship. The lack of trade and the
imposition of sanctions have not served us well in Cuba or in the Middle
East. The mission for our Coast Guard would change if our foreign policy
became non-interventionist. They, too, would come home, protect our coast,
and stop being the enforcers of bureaucratic laws that either should not
exist or should be a state function.

All foreign aid would be discontinued. Most evidence shows that this money
rarely helps the poor, but instead solidifies power in the hands of
dictators. There's no moral argument that can justify taxing poor people in
this country to help rich people in poor countries. Much of the foreign aid,
when spent, is channeled back to weapons manufacturers and other special
interests in the United States who are the strong promoters of these
foreign-aid expenditures. Yet it's all done in the name of humanitarian
causes.

A foreign policy of freedom and peace would prompt us to give ample notice
before permanently withdrawing from international organizations that have
entangled us for over a half a century. US membership in world government
was hardly what the founders envisioned when writing the Constitution. The
principle of Marque and Reprisal would be revived and specific problems such
as terrorist threats would be dealt with on a contract basis incorporating
private resources to more accurately target our enemies and reduce the
chances of needless and endless war. This would help prevent a continual
expansion of conflicts into areas not relating to any immediate threat. By
narrowing the target, there's less opportunity for special interests to
manipulate our foreign policy to serve the financial needs of the oil and
military-weapon industries.

The Logan Act would be repealed, thus allowing maximum freedom of our
citizens to volunteer to support their war of choice. This would help
diminish the enthusiasm for wars the proponents have used to justify our
world policies and diminish the perceived need for a military draft.<

-----Original Message-----
From: LibertyWire@AmericanLibertyFoundation.net
[mailto:LibertyWire@AmericanLibertyFoundation.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 1:01 PM
To: distribution@americanlibertyfoundation.org
Subject: Lessons of 9-11

L i b e r t y W i r e

|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|

In memory of the victims

On this day of remembrance for the 9-11 victims,
our thoughts and prayers go out to all those who
have suffered at the hands of people who used
coercive (destructive) force to get their way.

But thoughts are not enough -- effective action is
also needed. I want to bring to your attention a
recent speech by Congressman Ron Paul in the House
of Representatives. It eloquently states the case
for the best (and most comprehensive) approach to
ensuring that such tragedies are not repeated in
the future.

I hope you think as highly of Congressman Paul's
speech as I do.

http://www.house.gov/paul/cr090502.htm

Sincerely,

Jim Babka, President
American Liberty Foundation

MAILING ADDRESS: American Liberty Foundation
6718 Lenclair St
Alexandria, VA 22306

|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|

L i b e r t y W i r e
is the official email list of the
American Liberty Foundation -- a non-profit
educational organization promoting the ideas of
individual liberty and personal responsibility.

VISIT the Foundation's web site at
http://www.AmericanLibertyFoundation.org

CONTRIBUTE to the Foundation at
http://www.AmericanLibertyFoundation.org/gateway.htm

UNSUBSCRIBE from this list by sending an email to
distribution-request@AmericanLibertyFoundation.org
with the word
unsubscribe
on the first line of the body of the message.
Please leave the rest of the message blank.

SUBSCRIBE to this list by sending an email to
distribution-request@AmericanLibertyFoundation.org
with the word
subscribe
on the first line of the body of the message.
Please leave the rest of the message blank.

CHANGE your subscription address by subscribing your
new address and unsubscribing your old address.

You are encouraged to forward this message to
friends and business associates, and permission is
hereby granted to reproduce any items herein as
long as attribution is provided for articles and
the subscription instructions above are included.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: good stuff from ron paul - FW: Lessons of 9-11
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 00:14:38 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Some good stuff. Thanks for forwarding it. I kind of like the idea of
repealing the Logan Act (although I'd still be open to arguments for why it
should remain. For instance, what would we think of the Mexican government
if it allowed its citizens to join and support "revolutionary" groups
trying to "return" the US Southwest to Mexico? There *are* possible
consequences of such actions that we ought to at least consider.)

The interesting thing about a lot of these problems we've run into around
the world have come about because our policy-makers don't seem to believe
in our own system of government. What the heck was our government doing
putting kings and dictators in place rather than trying to set up
democratically elected representative governments (even if the kings and
dictators were "our guys"). But on the other hand, this *is* a rather
simplistic read of history. The practical alternative to the Shah in the
1950's may have been a communist government. (In other words, if we didn't
put the Shah in there, then the Sovs would have gotten a "People's
Republic" going.) If that'd happened, I shudder to think of what the next
40 years would have been like. I mean, imagine Iran with its huge
population, its oil, and its ability to block the Strait of Hormuz as a
communist nation. I doubt that the Iranians would have been (or would be)
better off and I'm almost certain that we would not be. (In fact, there
still might be cold war going on right now!!--that is, if we hadn't lost
it.)

Bush seems to be doing a little bit better in Afghanistan. He seems to be
trying to encourage the traditional democratic processes they had in place
and pushing them from there in the direction of more democratic
processes--although we would have probably benefited from more of an
emphasis on a written constitution and from doing some more
"nation-building" in the sense of setting up the government to be
democratically elected. But then again, what do I know? I'm almost
*exactly* on the other side of the world and the people "on the ground" may
be doing a lot more than the news media is reporting. Of course, the other
problem is that "nation-building" in general has a bad name in the US when
the bad rap really should go to the bad kind of nation-building we did in
the past where we set some "strongman" up and left him there.

My other problem with Ron Paul's assessment is this. I don't think our
"policies" in the Middle East are as much of a problem as the lack of
capitalism and democratic institutions. That means that they get left
further behind economically without understanding why, so they blame
us. The other thing is that our culture pervades and is taking over
theirs--not because we are forcing it to, but because it is what ordinary
people want. So the only way to prevent our culture from taking over
theirs is do something to get us to stop our own culture.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: Noelle Bush's drug problem
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 23:29:43 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: LP RELEASE: Noelle Bush's drug problem
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:39:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Libertarian Party Announcements <owner-announce@lp.org>
Reply-To: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To: announce@hq.lp.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: September 11, 2002
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has moral obligation
to pardon every drug offender, Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC -- Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has a moral obligation to
pardon every nonviolent drug offender, Libertarians say, after
insisting on Tuesday that his daughter's latest drug episode should be
treated as a "family matter" rather than as a criminal matter.

"Why is Noelle Bush sitting in a rehab center while other drug-law
violators are rotting in prison?" asked Ron Crickenberger, Libertarian
Party political director. "The answer is obvious: Because her father
happens to be a hypocritical governor who believes in one standard of
justice for his family and another standard for yours."

Police were called to the Center for Drug Free Living on Monday after
employees reported finding a "white, rocklike substance" believed to
be crack cocaine in Noelle Bush's shoe. The 25-year-old daughter of
the
Republican governor wasn't immediately arrested, police say, because
clinic supervisors refused to cooperate with police and wanted the
matter handled "in house."

Gov. Bush, whose daughter has had previous drug violations, told the
Associated Press: "This is a private issue as it relates to my
daughter and myself and my wife. The road to recovery is a rocky one
for a lot of people that have this kind of problem."

But the question Libertarians are asking is: Why shouldn't every
American get the Noelle Bush treatment?

"Gov. Bush is exactly right that drug abuse should be treated as a
private, medical problem rather than as a criminal problem,"
Crickenberger said. "Unfortunately, Bush is an ardent drug warrior who
believes in throwing ordinary individuals in jail for committing the
same 'crime' as his daughter - which makes him a despicable Drug War
hypocrite as well.

"Why does Bush believe that other young men and women should be locked
inside steel cages for years for doing exactly what his daughter has
done?

"Why should other Americans have their lives ruined and their careers
destroyed by a drug conviction while he hands his daughter a get-out-
of-jail-free card?

"And why must other families be torn apart when a loved one is dragged
off to prison while he visits his daughter in a cozy rehab center?

"The fact is that individuals with drug problems harm only themselves,
and perhaps their families. But a politician with a hypocrisy problem
has the power to tear everyone's family apart."

But there's a way that the governor can redeem himself, Libertarians
say:

"Gov. Bush should grant every nonviolent drug offender in the Florida
state prison system a full and immediate pardon," Crickenberger said.
"Then let them join his daughter on the road to recovery."


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBPX6bSdCSe1KnQG7RAQFMswP7BacxxYATTpCwCxhFQQUVW+QgrYtPZAtA
y1aXk01CD3qiRDq0gWdz1m9uKjDSzQKHFJVhucDO3Iyc201/4SGEsZ2ApdRBjZT+
hbwTcvXWdNsrbSPfjpbobZwkQRpK7TtyNde9ID84C4zS16v59C/1RKQAfE7PfsFB
Hrw9gxuV+3k=
=eFKF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/JdSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: tonight (thursday) on pbs
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:25:25 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>,
<libnw@immosys.com>

group,

tonight on pbs-tv, on the program 'wide angle', they take a look at the
horrors which can happen when government takes over the media. the case
study is "media by milosevic". it's on 9:00 - 10.00 mtn.

lf

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Link to Slate's "A Real War on Terrorism"
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 00:38:08 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

I'm not even going to try to summarize this one. It's loooong, in fact
each of the 8 (of 9) installments I've seen are long. But he does have
some good points (and his bad ones are probably ones that you should think
about--and be ready to argue with.) Probably, like me, everyone on the
list will find stuff they agree with and stuff they disagree with and we'll
probably disagree over what parts we agree with and what parts we disagree
with. We'd probably also have some disagreement about what parts are
"libertarian" and what parts aren't.

It's at:

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2070210

He does have one real blooper. He claims that "each dollar in foreign aid
increases a dictator's chance of staying in power for one more year by
4%." (I'm going from memory, so I might not have gotten it quite
right.) If that's true, then all a dictator needs to do is get $25 each
year and he's doubled (increased by 100%) his chance of staying in
power. Somehow that's a bit much to believe.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: The Nature of Treaties. Was: Ataq on Iraq
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 19:26:45 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again, Frank!

I'm sorry to hear you were under the weather. Hope all is better today.

>I hope what I wrote addresses some of your issues, although
>I questioned many of your motivations for addressing them as you did.

Well, usually my motivation is to post the truth as I see it. I generally
grant those I disagree with the dignity of assuming that they have the same
motivation. As for your addressing the issues I raised, I'm afraid you'll
need to try again. For details, read on.

> > I also hope it addresses what, in your mind,
> > separates the two types of cases. That is: in what cases does a nation
> > that loses a war have an obligation to abide by the terms of the peace
> > treaty and in what cases does it not.
>
>And, as I said, in almost all cases that I can think of. I'd be hard
>pressed to historically find even ONE treaty that was set in stone
>forever.

Well, since we are talking about a treaty that was basically between the US
and Iraq, how about we look at previous treaties made by the US after wars
with sovereign nations? There was the Revoltionary War which ended when
the US and Britain signed a treaty that recognized the US as a new
country. Britain didn't even challenge our existence as a country in the
War of 1812--they just thought their naval ships had the "right" to stop
our ships on the high seas and determine which sailors on them were
actually British Naval seaman and yank those men onto their ships. We
disagreed and signed a treaty that defined the border between the US and
Canada. Before that, we (Jefferson administration!!!) went to Tripoli and
kicked some pirate ass and signed a treaty. The "Bey of Algiers" broke the
treaty so we went back and kicked ass again. No more trouble with pirates
from that region since. We signed a treaty with France in which we gave up
some money in return for the Louisiana Territory. We signed several
treaties with Mexico in which they gave up land (either through war or
purchase). We signed treaties with Russia to get Alaska and to secure our
claim to the Pacific Northwest. We signed another treaty with Britain to
peacefully set the borders between western US and Canada. We signed
treaties with Spain that caused them to give up Cuba, the Philippines, Guam
and a few other territories. We signed treaties with Germany and Japan to
end WWII.

And you couldn't think of *ONE*??!!

> The ABM Treaty, the Kyoto Protocols, have been abrogated by
>the US government, including the Geneva Contentions as signed and
>ratified by the US government, at least in terms of all of the rest of
>the signatories. Please refer to what I wrote just previous to this,
>as I don't want to repeat myself.

We didn't "abrogate" any ot them! Sheesh! We got out of the ABM treaty
under one of its provisions that allowed either side to leave it with 6
month's notice. Of course we could have simply declared that the Russians
had violated it (for decades!) and that it therefore no longer
applied. The *Vice President* signed Kyoto. Congress *never* ratified
it. That being the case, a subsequent President has the power to "unsign"
it. As for the Geneva Convention (on prisoners of war, as I'm sure you, a
former Navy man, knows is distinguished from the Hague Convention on the
conduct of war.) the European idiots are complaining about unlawful
combatants who are being kept warm and dry and fed--but in conditions that
are somewhat unusual. Hardly a violation.

>As human history changes, treaties have less and less significance and
>meaning. And when such treaties are imposed by force, and aggression,
>I don't consider them ever valid except over a short period of time,
>when the winning force has the will and power to enforce them. When
>treaties are NOT a result of aggression and force, or merely a
>convention between two agreeing powers, even then they are hardly
>written in stone over a period in time.

I see. So treaties now have some sort of time limit? Since we were
originally talking about Iraq, that time limit is apparently less than 10
years. And I'm really confused by your phrase "when the winning force as
the will and power to enforce them." Are you saying that a treaty is only
valid if there is some willingness to enforce it? Heck, by that logic,
it's all done. The US is willing to enforce the treaty Iraq signed 10
years ago. Therefore, the US has the "right" to do what it needs to
do! Is that really what you meant?

Of course, now with this "time limit" idea. Perhaps the US should revisit
the issue of annexing our fine neighbors to the north to save them from
their silly socialist government.

Now Frank, before you accuse me of actually harboring this idea: I'm being
facetious. I don't want any Canadian provinces joining the US--unless they
do so by a peaceful, non-coerced, majority vote--and even then I'd really
only be interested in the western provinces where they seem to have decent,
hard-working, intelligent people who are likely to pull their weight
instead of want a handout from the rest of the US. But I brought that up
because it's the logical conclusion that one would draw from your idea that
you "don't consider them [treaties] ever valid except over a short period
of time". (Did you notice, Frank that I didn't claim you supported
something without an actual quote from you to indicate why I thought you
supported it? Also, did you notice that I've also kind of left you an out
by sort of saying "did you really mean this?")

> As we have seen most recently
>even the ABM treaty can be abrogated by just ONE party, although many
>parties signed on.

Sorry. There were only two parties. One violated its provisions, no
longer even existed as a legal, recognized entity and the "successor party"
continued the violation. Other threats had arisen since the signing of the
treaty which made the treaty obsolete. The other party (which hadn't
violated its provisions) used a valid "opt-out" provision of the treaty to
leave the treaty--AND FRANK THINKS THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE OTHER
PARTY!!! If this isn't an absolute case of "the US is *wrong* no matter
what, I don't know what is."

> > You seem to argue that in Iraq's
> > case, it does not. In what cases does the nation have the obligation?
And
> > what principle do you apply to make the decision?
>
>It's quite simple really. Iraq has NO obligation to perform if they
>have the power to abrogate or otherwise resist them. The US government
>does that all the time, as I've shown from a couple examples in my
>previous post.

Well, if "Iraq has NO obligation to perform if they have the power to
abrogate or otherwise resist", then, by implication, the US should have "NO
obligation to perform" on its side and should feel free to attack Iraq
whether Iraq has performed or not--as long as the US has the power to do
so, of course. Frank, this is the "might makes right" argument. If you
really believe what you just said, then I really don't see why you have a
problem with the US using it as well!!

>I think the issue here is NOT about treaties, as such, but rather
>about the moral use (or abuse) of power, and how such power ought to
>be applied in the context of self-determination and free choice.

Fine. In fact, I can agree with your statement of the issue--even as I
disagree with the side of the issue you are taking. But treaties are
simply a type of agreement. And as such, they are part of the framework of
facts that help determine what is right and moral and what is wrong and
abusive. The facts include that Iraq signed a series of agreements and has
not abided by any of them. You don't get to simply throw those facts away
and say they are irrelevant!

> As
>an historian, it's really interesting when looking at "treaties". Even
>such treaties that are cast in stone, perpetually, seem to be overcome
>by events in history and no longer have any meaning in the context of
>current events.

You keep using this "cast in stone" phrase. Do you mean it literally? Are
there any treaties you are aware of that have actually been cast in cement
or cut into stone? Sure, there are a lot of treaties that no longer have
any meaning. The treaty made by Joshua with the Gibeonites no longer
matters. So what?

...
>I suggest in the later case it could really be quite simple. One
>session of Congress could terminate the whole [UN] can of worms and
>unilaterally dissolve all such affiliation immediately, that is, if
>the President wouldn't veto it, or if the veto could be overridden by
>Congress. Would that be "considered" legal?

Yes. As long as the exit provisions for the properly signed and ratified
treaties were properly followed. If not, then the UN could sue in Federal
Court and win. And if there aren't exit provisions, we're stuck. Of
course, the UN is pretty much a toothless entity anyway.

Actually, the president could probably get rid of the worst of it all by
himself. He could simply declare all the UN personnel on diplomatic status
as "persona non-grata" and give them a week (or a month) to leave the
country.

> I don't know how you can
>define it as such. It is simply the matter of having the power to
>protect such a choice. And, in the case of forced treaties, that's
>pretty much what constitutes them anyway. You can probably say the
>same thing with just about all such treaties, forced or not. Treaties
>exist only when the will exists, or the force behind such are
>significant enough to enforce them.

Well, there's "that might makes right" thing again. I thought you were
against going into Iraq. If might makes right in the enforcement of
treaties, then all the US has to do is say "We've got the treaty here that
we have the might to enforce." That alone should be enough for you to say
it is "right".

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: The Nature of Treaties. Was: Ataq on Iraq
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 23:53:34 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again, Frank!

This one's really long.... So, I've got maybe 30 lines of summary followed
by the rest of it.

Here's a short cut from where we get to the nub of the issue:

Frank wrote:
>Going back to the WWI treaties, you [Lowell] finally conceded, of sorts:
> > I'll agree that the reparations provisions were part of the problem that
> > brought WWII. However, that specific case doesn't generalize into the
> > principle that treaties forced on the loser in a war are invalid. If
your
> > principle were to be accepted, then there wouldn't have been an
armistice
> > because the allies wouldn't have had any reason to believe Germany would
> > follow it's provisions.
>
>Treaties are valid only insofar as the winning side has the power to
>enforce them, and that in the other case, one side chooses to dispense
>with the terms of the treaties themselves.

OK. Cool! Bush has the military power and the will to enforce the treaty
against Iraq. So what's your problem? Why are you saying it's immoral or
a violation of international law or something for him to do so?

Now, for those who want the total "blow-by-blow" read on, as Frank
apparently argues (among other things) first that "might makes right" (as
above), then, that "because so-and-so did it, so can Iraq", that "any
nation can get out of a treaty whenever it feels like it", and finally,
that "because we let so-and-so off the hook after it became a respectable
nation, Iraq is morally off the hook, too." It's quite a ride. I've set
off the various "Frank" positions with summaries beginning with three
asterisks (***) I tried to keep them to one liners, so they obviously
don't quite catch all the "nuances" of a position.

>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...

***Iraq isn't the only one with WMD.***
>I[Frank] previously wrote:
> > >Then it might be said that MOST of the arguments the Shrub Regime<tm>
> > >is making are themselves largely built upon "strawman" arguments.
> > >"Iraq supports terrorism because he has chemical, biological weapons,
> > >and "maybe" acquiring nuclear weapons for the purpose of targeting
> > >America, or even American interests abroad."
>
>You [Lowell] replied:
> > And where or when has the administration said that "Iraq supports
terrorism
> > *because* Iraq has WMD?"
>
>The usual strawman arguments emanating from the Shrub Regime<tm> these
>indicate, as you say, make two fallacious, or at best unsubstantiated
>arguments, and assume they go together hand in glove. If it's ONLY
>WMD, then the US has far greater stockpiles of such weapons than Iraq
>ever will. If it's "terrorism", then the Regime hasn't made its case
>sufficiently to convince most of the world, including most of our
>allies.
>
>You can't justify a pre-emptive aggressive strike against Iraq BECAUSE
>of the WMD issue, as their isn't a justifiable case to be made that
>that necessitates such an attack. Both India and Pakistan have both
>acquired and tested such weapons, and the US is threatening them!

Actually, I can (although I disagree that it is a "pre-emptive"
aggression--rather it is a continuation of the war that is only in a
"cease-fire"). Neither Pakistan nor India nor the U.S. nor China nor
Russia nor Britain nor France have signed a treaty agreeing to dismantle
their WMD and agreeing to not build more and agreeing to inspectors to
insure that they abided by the agreement. Look, the deal was this: we stop
attacking you and you agree to a bunch of stuff. At this point, Saddam has
broken his part, so we're perfectly in our rights to start the attacks
again. Does this mean we are going to do the same to Russia or China next?
Of course not!

***And, a sudden swerve into reality!***
>So obviously The Shrug Regime<tm> is making its case that "weapons of
>mass destruction, combined with threats of terrorism (which as of this
>time is unproved), equals and justifies a US pre-emptive strike.

Finally! After all that, Frank is willing to actually articulate a Bush
administration position and start dealing with a real issue rather than
some strawman.

***The Sins of the Fathers***
[Lowell]
> > The administration has claimed that "Iraq
> > supports terrorism" *and* "Iraq has or is in the process of acquiring
> > WMD." If you're going to claim a "strawman" argument on the part of the
> > administration, you ought to at least get their claims right (or provide
> > the backup). You might not agree that they've presented sufficient
> > evidence to support their assertions, but their argument is that if we
> > don't take out Iraq now, we are likely to be cleaning up a WMD mess in
the
> > US in the near future. That's hardly a "strawman."
>[Frank]
>It's conjecture anyway however, since prior to 1991, Iraq NEVER was a
>threat to the US. If it is today, then whose fault is that? It was
>Bush Sr's international military "adventurism" in 1991 and following
>that even set up the "possibility" that Iraq may be considering
>targeting the US today. The WMD issue is a farce, since during the
>Iraq/Iran war, the US knew damn well Iraq not only had such a
>capability, but was using it against Iran, and nevertheless backed the
>Hussein regime as an ally, and looked the other way!

Here's that "sins of the fathers" thing again. Since prior presidents in
years past did something wrong, the current president is supposed to don
sackcloth and ashes and wail and gnash his teeth and do nothing. In other
words, because the US government made mistakes in the past, we aren't
supposed to correct them now.

If I remember correctly, we helped arm Iraq in the 70s and 80s as a
counterweight to Iran. If we hadn't, Iran likely would have tried to
export its "revolution" to its neighbors. Then we would have had a
religious war (on top of the cold war we already had). No thanks. Saddam
got stupid and attacked Iran. At that point, we slowed or even stopped
supplying him. Then, when Iran was able to start winning and pushing back
into Iraq, we started helping Saddam because we didn't want Iran to take
over Iraq. (Better to have two despots at each other's throats or warily
watching each other, than have one that's now able to start going after his
neighbors.) I think that in '91, the US government figured that Saddam had
learned that he wasn't going to be allowed to expand his borders through
war. The US government was wrong. Now, you are calling that war
"adventurism" when we actually got !Japan! (some "non-combat supplies" and
money) to sign on? Sheesh, Frank! And as for the WMD: rightly or wrongly,
terrorist use of WMD (with the support of states like Iraq) was not
considered as much of a problem 15-20 years ago.

***US is ONLY nation to suggest first nuke use.***
>I [Frank] previously wrote:
> > > Truth is, about the ONLY
> > >nation so far that has even hinted of using selective nuclear weapons
> > >in a possible first strike is the U.S. government under the Shrub
> > >Regime<tm>.
>
>You [Lowell], confuse pure history by suggesting:
> > And the US under the "Bubba regime", and the "Shrub 1 regime" and the
> > "Ronald Cowboy regime", and the "Peanut regime", and the Ford
> > administration, and the Nixon administration, and the Johnson
> > administration and the Kennedy administration and probably the
Eisenhower
> > and Truman administrations. And that's just the US.
>
>And, where have YOU been since the late 1980s anyway? You are talking
>about an era that no longer even exists, and you apparently look at
>the planet as it existed during the height of the cold war, just as
>Heir Rumsfeld and a number of the Shrub Regime's<tm> key advisors and
>cabinet appointments do.

Then, perhaps you should have clarified your original statement. But
wait! There's more! How about Tony Blair's Labor government? For an
article that says the Blair government has abandoned any "no-first-use"
pledge, see:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRU112A.html

> You fail to look at the present context that
>Iraq could NEVER even come close to matching the awesome nuclear
>arsenals that the former Soviet Union maintained, aimed at key cities
>and military targets in the U.S. itself. Hardly a comparison in my
>judgement to the Shrub's delusions of paranoia over Iraq.

Actually, it's a response to a serious problem. Iraq has deep bunkers (not
just 20 or 50 feet deep, but in some cases 200 or more feet deep.) If we
say we aren't going to use weapons that are capable of going after those
bunkers, then we are, in essence unilaterally disarming. Then, Saddam (or
any other despot) can go to his bunker and direct missiles at whoever with
impunity.

>I[Frank] wrote:
> > > It wasn't very long ago that we observed Heir Rumsfeld
> > >showing how a first strike with limited nuclear capabilities really
> > >aren't "all that bad" if targets are wisely taken. He even suggested
> > >that in some of Iraq's deep bunkers, such weapons might be the best
> > >means for taking them out!
>
>You[Lowell] replied:
> > So?
>
>If that's really your answer, then I suggest we no longer have
>anything to talk about in this regard. The only thing I will say
>here, is that the US government had better, from this moment onward,
>stop fucking with Indian and Pakistan's border disputes and the
>possibility of just such a war using nuclear weapons. It's
>hypocritical and arrogant to say otherwise. The next time the border
>dispute flares up again, and I see Rumsfeld's or Bush's mug on the
>tube, and listen to their despicable one-liners of admonition, I'll
>remember what you just wrote, and how much you deserve exactly what
>you've got by supporting this arrogant and despicable foreign policy
>and administration!

And our use of tac-nukes to bust bunkers in Iraq relates to the
Indian/Pakistan border dispute in what way? You mean, like, if we use a
nuke to dig Saddam out of a bunker northwest of Bagdad, that Musharref in
Pakistan will suddenly have an irresistible urge to put one on a bomber
headed for New Dehli?

***A side-bar about how "verifiable" the Iraq threat should be***
> > And you are correct, nothing is ever going to be
> > "conclusive"--well, except, maybe a mushroom cloud growing over NYC or
DC,
> > although even that wouldn't necessarily be "conclusive" either, would
> > it? After all, it could have been done by "anybody", right? So, are
you
> > ready for Gary Triest-style honesty? In other words, are you ready to
> > admit that you want a mushroom cloud (or the equivalent) before you'll
> > accept that Iraq is a clear and present danger to the US?
>
>I don't believe Gary said any such thing at all. He did made it clear
>however that a threat needed to exist in some way, a verifiable
>threat.

He was close enough. And what's more, IIRC, he confirmed it in a later
post.

***Sticking our nose where it doesn't belong?***
> We have NOT established that, and if Saddam hates us so much,
>he has absolutely good reasons for doing so.

Yeah. When he stole toys from his playmate we made him give them back.

> We stuck our nose into
>an affair that was none of our business, and would have likely been
>settled by the players more immediate in the region over time anyway,
>just as in the Iraq/Iran war.

The Iraq/Iran war ended as a draw. And it did so *because* we stuck our
nose into it--just not as obviously. If it had looked like it wasn't going
to end as a draw, we would have "stuck our nose" in further. The Kuwait
war ended as approximately a draw and then we made sure it stayed that way.

> If Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are OUR
>allies, boy to do have our security interests hosed up! What do you
>really believe this is all about? Oil maybe? Well, if it is, then
>the oil doesn't belong to us anyway now does it? Israel? Maybe
>again, but US taxpayers should not be forced to side with one nation
>over another when creating friends and making enemies when NO threat
>exists against the United States!

Well, like I have said before--several times in this forum and off this
forum, dating back to 1991:

It's about *power* and not allowing Saddam to acquire any more of it. Oil
happens to be the vehicle by which he is attempting to gain power. If
suddenly someone found huge deposits of gold or precious stones in eastern
Syria, then he'd be interested in that, and for the same reason. And for
the same reason, we'd act to stop him--even if though it would mean helping
one of the worst regimes in the world. If we stayed out of that mess
entirely, we'd soon enough be dealing with it anyway: nukes funded by
petrodollars, carried by Islamic radicals cynically used by Saddam for his
own personal purposes.

***OK, back to agreements, starting with the Iraq cease-fire***
>I[Frank] previously wrote:
> > >What agreement was made that you can claim was a "binding" or
> > >legitimate contract"?
>
>You[Lowell] replied:
> > That would be the cease-fire agreement.
>
>The so-called "cease fire" agreement entailed a lot more than simply
>ending hostilities. I'll get into that momentarily in the following,
>where I first wrote:

Yup. But that was the "quid" for which Saddam was supposed to provide the
"quo pro".

***Frank dodges the issue***
[Frank]
> > > I'm curious. I believe it is fair to say that
> > >most libertarians believe contracts are NOT binding when they are made
> > >under duress, or force.
>
>And, you[Lowell] again replied:
> > Let me see if I understand this. Saddam invades Kuwait. We kick his
ass
> > out and sign a cease-fire agreement which includes inspectors, etc. And
> > Frank Reichert says that since it was signed under duress, it's not a
valid
> > agreement???!!!! Do I really have that right???!! So if someone tries
to
> > break into my house and I kick his rear out and get the police, the
> > agreement he makes to pay restitution is invalid because it was made
under
> > duress???!! And this is a "libertarian" position? BS.
>
>It's not "restitution" and you know it.

OK Dodge the issue. Fine! Suppose, I wasn't able to fight him off, but
was able to run away and call the police--who came and kicked his ass. And
the burglar agrees that he won't obtain weapons (like the ones he misused
while breaking into my house, or the more deadly weapons that he was trying
to steal money from me to purchase.) He also agrees to periodic
inspections by the police (not me) to insure he has gotten rid of his
weapons and isn't acquiring any more. Is that a better analogy? And you
are claiming that it is the "libertarian" position that he doesn't need to
abide by the agreement because it was "made under duress"???

***Frank claims no obligation due to lack of enforcement***
> It is making demands on the
>limitations of what a sovereign country has a right to do in its own
>defence, such as the treaties ending WWI, and German's restraints upon
>military hardware, and all kinds of associated degrees in which every
>sovereign nation has a right to conduct for its own self-defence.

Yeah, Germany certainly needed to defend itself in 1938. Those nasty
Czechs, especially in Sudetenland. And those Austrians, and those Poles.

Look, the fact that the British and the French were such wimps in 1930s
that they didn't bother to enforce the treaty doesn't mean that Germany had
the right to abrogate it.

***Only "locals" have right to deal with a bad neighbor***
>Your arguments might have been more understandable if Kuwait, or an
>alliance of regional allies such as Saudi Arabia kicked Iraq's ass,
>for reparations to be made to compensate the victims. The US has no
>standing in such matters, and certainly the UN doesn't either, since
>the fighting should have been confined within the victims of
>aggression, against the one party that was initiating the aggression.
>If anything at all can be said about the original Persian Gulf War, is
>that the US likely made it 1000 times worse than it would have been
>had the parties themselves settled the disputes amongst themselves.

Ridiculous! That's like saying that only my immediate neighbors can come
help me kick the burglar out of my house. And "had the parties settled the
disputes amongst themselves", we probably would have had a mushroom cloud
over Tel Aviv by now--if not over NY or DC or London as well.

***The World Policeman! Ooooh!***
>I [Frank] previously wrote:
> > > You sound a lot like the sanctimonious
> > >politicians, policy makers, and bureaucrats who argue for "implied
> > >consent" legislation. As you well know, laws are then made that forces
> > >individual to "consent" to certain things before a government will
> > >allow them a license to conduct certain activities, such as driving a
> > >car or truck. [Rest of inapplicable analogy elided.]
>
>And you [Lowell] muttered:
> > A better analogy would be a parole agreement (I.e., we let you out of
jail
> > early, but in return, you agree to waive certain privacy and other
rights
> > so we can check on you). That would be a better analogy, but then it
would
> > sort of demonstrate the opposite of what you are trying to argue.
>
>So, the US government IS the world policeman after all? That's about
>the ONLY way I can think of it, to make such an analogy even meagrely
>valid. As you may recall, my argument flows from the fact that the US
>government has no moral authority, and certainly no given right, to
>assert itself aggressively at all, and any use of military force
>should be confined to validated threats of aggression, or acts of
>aggression, against the US, our assets, and the lives of its citizens.

Naw. We're not the world's policeman. We still only get involved when it
threatens us. Look, I really don't care if Congo takes over Rwanda. It's
not going to give whoever runs Congo any more power to do something against
the US interests. But when Iraq takes over Kuwait, that gives Saddam a
multi-billion dollar yearly cash flow to spend on WMD and delivery systems
(which he was clearly working toward in 1991.) That is clearly a
threat. Like the burglar or robber who's misused weapons against innocent
people once, I say we have the right to say he can't have them--and enforce
that. So, instead of being the world's policeman, I'd say we're the
world's "neighborhood big guy" who will intervene on behalf of our
"neighbors" when we have a right to and when it is in our interests.

***Dodge the issue.***
> > Frank, think about what you are saying!! You are claiming that no
nation
> > needs to abide by any treaty they sign when they are on the losing side
of
> > a war! If that's the case, then the winning side has no reason to sign
a
> > treaty--they need to totally defeat the loser and impose their rule on
the
> > loser! I can't believe you really want that result, Frank!!
>
>It happens anyway, for good or ill. We occupy Afghanistan today,
>place a puppet regime in power, and then provide all of the meaningful
>security and police operations, just as we did in post-war Germany and
>Japan. So, what's your point? If you believe Afghani's aren't subject
>to the US government's "figure head" regime in Kabul, you're seeing
>something very different than I can attest to. If we attack, (AND
>WIN) in Iraq, we'll be forced to come up with even greater power to
>maintain our will upon that country. Ibid, Iran. Ibid, N. Korea and
>so forth.

Dodging the issue again, I see. Afghanistan and Japan and Germany were
places where we replaced the government. There was no treaty in
Afghanistan. And the treaty in Japan and Germany was little more than
those two countries saying "uncle." My point was that if a peace treaty
has no moral authority, then there's no point in the winning side signing
one--unless it has taken the war to the point where the other side is ready
to say "uncle." In other words, you are saying that the Allies in the Iraq
war were stupid for not simply going all the way to the Iranian and Turkish
borders because any peace treaty they signed would be worthless. If your
view were accepted, the cost in lives is horrific!

***Oh, never mind all that, Iraq is going to be TOUGH!***
>Iraq will prove to be a very different piece of cake. The Iraqis will
>fight the aggressor, simply because they are fiercely loyal to their
>own country, even if most hate the Hussein regime,

So? As long as we get rid of Hussein, and his WMD programs, it's still a
positive step. At least then, the next guy knows to stay away from that
stuff. But, I also think you're wrong about how "fiercely loyal" the
Iraqis are. The Kurds in the north are practically running their own
country. The Turkomans immediately to the south of the Kurds are somewhat
autonomous and most of them hate Saddam and would welcome any change that
gives them more of a voice. Ditto the Shiites in the south.

> just as you would
>likely fight against the Mexican aggressors, should Mexico invade the
>USA promising a freer society. I don't have much love or respect for
>the Shrub Regime<tm> either, but I would fight any external force that
>seeks to impose its rule upon America, even if that meant the Shrub
>Regime<tm> might be defeated.

Which comes back to Robert's question on another thread. What other
country is freer than the US? Who cares what the Mexican aggressors
promise--you *know* they won't be delivering!

***Frank engages in some creative clipping.***
> > It just so happens that the US signed a treaty with the Soviet Union to
> > have similar type of inspections.
>
>GOD! This isn't even remotely close to what you are suggesting we did
>to Iraq.

I'm not even going to bother to resend the whole of what I said and what I
was responding to of Frank's message.

***Inspections are OK if mutually agreed, but not if force by war.***
> > Of course, all the US facilities were thoroughly inspected while the
> > Soviets kept us out of some of their facilities. But any suggestion
that
> > we do any sort of "tit-for-tat" of keeping the Soviets out of our
> > facilities was called a violation of the treaty. (Another case of the
US
> > being the only party that needed to abide by the treaty.)
>
>That's not exactly the same thing as the victors of a war "imposing
>such an arrangement" upon the other one, now is it?

Nope. But then, no one suggested we go to war with the Soviet Union over
it either. Because, as you said IT WAS DIFFERENT. No, my point was that
the US was supposed to abide by this treaty regardless of what the Sovs
did, while you think that Iraq doesn't have any obligation to abide by the
treaty they made (which allowed them to keep their military functioning.)

***Treaties are only good as long as both parties agree.***
>This ought not to surprise you, but I believe that any treaty is
>limited in duration only to the point that both sides agree to it
>freely. As with the UN, I believe it would be the right thing to do,
>as Ron Paul has attempted in Congress, for the US government to
>unilaterally dissolve any association with the UN, abrogate all
>treaties, and boot them off of US soil, and end US involvement with
>any and all UN "treaties" or "obligations".

Yeah, yeah. "No treaty has any meaning beyond the convenience of the
parties." No one has any moral obligation to abide by any international
agreement.

>I[Frank] previously wrote:
> > >I know if such were the case, many Americans might be hiding behind
> > >rocks or trees to take pot shots at Iraqi military occupation
> > >personnel , peace keepers, or weapons inspectors.
>
>You[Lowell] replied:
> > Could be...if a large number of people felt that the US government had
> > exceeded its authority by surrendering. On the other hand, if it were
the
> > price of ending a losing war, it might be tolerated peacefully.
>
>The point I'm making here, and apparently you missed it -- it doesn't
>fucking matter! If a treaty was entered into by force and aggression,
>anyone with the power to do so has a moral right to end any
>participation in any such treaty, period. Americans would be right to
>take pot shots, whenever the opportunity arises, against any
>aggressor, or against any foreign power, including the United Nations,
>imposing its will against the citizens of this country.

The point I'm making here, and apparently you missed it -- it DOES
matter. If an agreement is made, legitimately, then there is a moral
obligation to abide by it. It doesn't matter that people in the past have
abrogated their moral responsibility. That doesn't give someone the right
to do the same in the future.

***American Revolutionaries are Saddam's moral equivalent***
> We did it to
>England, now didn't we, even after hundreds of years of "legal"
>occupation? Americans even served in the British military until that
>time at such times as the French and Indian War.

Now you're comparing Saddam Hussein to the American
Revolutionaries? Wow! What a stretch!

***Countries have broken treaties in past, so it's ok to do so now.***
>Treaties only matter when both sides still agree with them, and are
>willing to abide by them. Think in terms of history here. Are all
>treaties that have historically been made still considered valid
>today? Of course not. Treaties of any kind are never permanent, even
>if the wording, by force, might suggest that some are.

So, now Frank's saying that when one side decides it is no longer willing
to abide by the treaty, it no longer has the obligation?

Or is Frank saying that because previous nations have not abided by their
treaty obligations, current nations do not need to either. So, by analogy,
because there are people who have robbed and burgled in the past, it's ok
for me to rob and burgle??? Or, because there are people who have broken
agreements in the past, it's ok for me to stop making payments on my car
(assuming I can park it where the repo man can't get at it.)????

Or is it just the US that has a moral obligation to abide by the treaties,
while all other nations don't?

***A war-losing nation has no obligation to keep the peace treaty.***
>I[Frank] previously wrote:
> > >The treaties certainly exist. But governments and citizens pushed into
> > >such invalid contracts should NOT have a duty to perform them, and
> > >perhaps even the sovereign right to resist them if given an
> > >opportunity.
>
>And, you[Lowell] replied:
> > So you *ARE* arguing that a nation that loses a war has no obligation to
> > abide by the agreement that ends the war.
>
>Yes, I am, and almost in all such cases, and usually they all are over
>time anyway.
>
>Let's look for example at America just following independence. We had
>a Constitution in place that did not end slavery, nor even give women
>the right to vote. Anyone today, suggesting that such a "treaty" or
>"contract" cannot be abrogated by the people over time, would never
>have allowed for the possibility for equality under law, nor certain
>rights to access social and political rights as human beings. I know
>this doesn't really fit exactly within the context of international
>treaties, per se, but it is still relevant since treaties always
>eventually exist and continue based upon mutual acceptance between the
>parties involved.

And, like the Constitution, they usually get re-written if necessary as the
situation and needs and etc. change.

***Japan does it (50 years later), why can't Iraq (10 years later)?***
>Japan today, still exists under the treaty prohibiting the formatting
>of a military force. It is a farce, and has long ago been abandoned,
>even though technically the same treaty is still in force today, but
>both sides recognize the necessity that the treaty is no longer
>enforceable, and both sides accept the reality that it should NOT be
>enforceable. The US doesn't want a militarily weak Japan. We
>recognized that during the 1950s and 60s in the case of the Korean
>conflict, and later on in Vietnam, and as a counterweight against
>communist China.

In the case of Japan, the only constraint I've heard of is their
constitution. If there are two parties to an agreement and one says, "Ahh,
go ahead and do this thing that the agreement prohibits." then the other
party is no longer bound. The agreement (or at least that part of it) has
now been superceded by another agreement. Of course, that's not the case
with Iraq.

***Frank confronts the logical consequences...and cries foul***
> > Which means that Bush senior
> > really should have sent our troops all the way to the Turkish and
Iranian
> > borders--and to heck with the coalition--because Frank Reichert sez that
> > any agreement or treaty they sign is invalid.
>
>Oh shit. You wish. Frank Reichert says Bush Sr should have left the
>entire Gulf War in the hands of those occupying the region, and
>concerned with the aggression. Oh how you love to put words in my
>mouth! I believe the "coalition", such as it was, was aggression pure
>and simple, and immoral, and any international treaties as such,
>invalid.

I was not "putting words in your mouth," Frank. I was simply stating the
logical conclusion which should be drawn from your position on
treaties. Now, we may disagree about whether the Iraq war was Iraqi
aggression or US aggression or both or whether the US should have involved
itself, even if it had the "right" to do so. But under the theory of
treaties that you've articulated, once the battle is engaged, then the only
choice is to completely defeat the enemy. That's because any half-measures
that involve a treaty aren't worth the paper they're printed on. There
*are* consequences to breaking agreements, even if they don't accrue to the
original "breaker."

***Frank regurgitates some supposed US violations of POWs***
>I[Frank] previously wrote:
> > >Yea, right. Like the USA upholding the Geneva Conventions, even when
> > >all other signatories say we are in wanton violation of them!
>
>You[Lowell] replied:
> > Oh, and which piddly, supposed violation of the Geneva Convention are
"all"
> > these other signatories claiming we're in violation of?
>
>Lowell. I won't even bother, because unless you live on a mountain top
>somewhere not accessible at all from hearing about the forced
>incarcerations of individuals without charges, some forever, and the
>so-called newly defined definition of "unlawful combatants", then
>there isn't very much I can add to this. You're showing your abject
>ignorance here, or your inability to discern and assimilate what you
>already ought to know is true. Do you even know Camp X-Ray exists? Do
>you know that such prisons by everyone else have rights under the
>Geneva Conventions?

Yes I know that Camp X-Ray exists. And "unlawful combatants" have been
defined since well before the Geneva convention. (IIRC, it had something
to do with the Spanish "Guerreyeros" (from which we derive our term
"guerrillas") who resisted Napolean's soldiers.) And the Taliban/Al Qaida
meet that definition. And yes, such prisoners have rights. To sufficient
shelter, clothing, bedding, and food. They got it.

***The MAIN EVENT***
***Frank swerves into a principle that gives Bush the authority he needs!***
>Going back to the WWI treaties, you finally conceded, of sorts:
> > I'll agree that the reparations provisions were part of the problem that
> > brought WWII. However, that specific case doesn't generalize into the
> > principle that treaties forced on the loser in a war are invalid. If
your
> > principle were to be accepted, then there wouldn't have been an
armistice
> > because the allies wouldn't have had any reason to believe Germany would
> > follow it's provisions.
>
>Treaties are valid only insofar as the winning side has the power to
>enforce them, and that in the other case, one side chooses to dispense
>with the terms of the treaties themselves.

OK. Cool! Bush has the military power and the will to enforce the treaty
against Iraq. So what's your problem? Why are you saying it's immoral or
a violation of international law or something for him to do so?

As for the "concession", I don't concede that the Germans had a "right" to
abrogate the treaty. The world might have been a better place had the
Weimar republic abrogated the reparations part of the treaty or refused to
make some payments or something. But the nearest thing to a "right" to do
so would have been along the lines of the "doctrine of competing harms"
where they would claim that making the reparations while in such dire
economic straits would have given rise to a resentment in the body politic
that would lead to another war--a worse effect than any caused by a delay
in reparations.

***A bogus comparison with unsigned and properly opted-out treaties***
> It seems to me you can't
>justify the rogue Shrub Regime's<tm> dispensing with the ABM treaty,
>the Kyoto protocols, and other such treaties otherwise. Are you
>trying to tell me that every other signatory of such treaties that
>find the US in violation today are all wrong? I say in a sense they
>are, because any such treaty only exists at all insofar as interested
>parties accept them, or have the power to opt out. Obviously we have
>the power to opt out. That doesn't mean that opting out is always
>morally right. Sometimes it is, as I suggested above with US
>affiliation with the United Nations and all of its treaties,
>protocols, and resolutions.

Frank. It seems to me that you've provided far more rationale for getting
out of treaties than I've ever advocated. You seem to have suggested that
"might makes right" and so if no one can force us to abide by any of these
treaties, we can simply stop abiding by them. Even beyond that, you also
seem to have suggested that we can stop abiding by them as soon as we no
longer want to. Earlier you were saying that there was no moral obligation
to stay in a treaty, now you're saying that "opting out" isn't always
"morally right". Now I'm confused again about what sort of moral
obligations you think treaties place on their participants.

But, one more time:

Kyoto was not ratified.

ABM had valid opt-out clause which we used.

***A reprise of rehabilitated countries compared to Iraq.***
>But you seemed to suggest above that treaties, even those imposed by
>force, are forever sketched in international law. History does not
>support that has ever been the case. Often when it appears to be the
>case, reality says otherwise, as in the case of modern Japan today.
>Germany is also playing a much larger role on the international stage
>in terms of how it participates in military operations. I'm not
>supporting that either, only pointing out that treaties are not
>permanent even when supposedly intending them to be as such.

For a self-proclaimed "historian", that's a rather wild misreading of the
historical record. Japan and Germany have both been encouraged by the
other parties to the treaties to do the things that would "break" the
treaty. Think of it this way. Suppose that after some years, the burglar
who caused me so much trouble has gotten their life straightened around and
become a solid member of the community. And at that point, I and the
police and the other people who imposed the "no weapons" agreement on him
all agree that he should re-arm to help in the defense of the
community. You're saying that when he does so, it gives another burglar
(caught a few weeks back) the right to refuse entry to the police when the
come around for an inspection???

Lowell C. Savage
Give War a Chance!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Strawman
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 21:06:14 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Frank!

> > Boy, you really like that "strawman" word. Never mind that you can't
make
> > it apply.
>
>No, Lowell. YOU were the one that first used it here, in reference to
>Gary Triest's post. And, in my case (in my reply, to again, YOUR
>post), I have made it apply, at least to my satisfaction. If you don't
>agree, then that's YOUR'RE problem, not mine.

What...ev....er.

Look. A strawman argument is one where you misrepresent someone else's (or
your opponents) argument in such a way that it becomes extremely weak. (In
other words, you set up a strawman.) Then, you have fun beating it to
pieces. Gary had put up a strawman and I demonstrated why it was a
strawman. I hadn't--or if I had, you certainly didn't demonstrate how I
had done so.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Strawman
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 01:22:06 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...

> Look. A strawman argument is one where you misrepresent someone else's
(or
> your opponents) argument in such a way that it becomes extremely weak.
(In
> other words, you set up a strawman.)

Why won't you consider the "stawman" arguments that YOU seem to
support that the Shrub Regime<tm> entertains as the axiom for a
unilateral attack upon Iraq? If YOU support them, then it follows,
you are using the same strawman arguments as used by Heir AssCroft to
justify unilateral US aggression, against a nation that has
historically NOT been an aggressor against the US government, our
people, property, etc. It is YOU sir, and people like you, who have
made that government OUR enemy. Now you are dealing with the
consequences. So now, you want a unilateral war against Iraq? You'll
likely have that. But you won't like the consequences, and they'll
likely come home in spades, and you'll deserve the results of your
choices. One thing you won't do, under current realities. You won't
win. That's no longer a strawman. That's reality

> Then, you have fun beating it to
> pieces. Gary had put up a strawman and I demonstrated why it was a
> strawman. I hadn't--or if I had, you certainly didn't demonstrate how I
> had done so.

I've done so. You just find a convenient way to skirt it all, and not
deal with it at all. In fact, I've been doing this now for over one
year, since Sept. 11, 2001. All I have suggested, is that YOU support
the same strawman arguments as the Shrub Regime<tm> has been using,
which defacto makes your arguments, as such, a result of strawman
argumentation.

I don't want to drag this to death. But YOU represent the Shrub
Regime's<tm> argumentation, although the chief US allies don't believe
you, not to mention about 1/3 or the planet that represents the
islamic world, and YOU have become their enemy by your own choice, and
using your own arguments.

You don't have to lecture me on what constitutes a "strawman"
argument. I have no idea why you feel you have the literary
superiority to try and do so, especially when you seem to support all
of your own arguments on the basis of the Shurb Regime's<tm> arguments
which are not compelling and highly bent upon such argumentation to
represent their case? Let the Shrub make his case. If the rest of
the planet doesn't agree, then that ought to tell you something. I
don't have to write one single word here to tell you that so far, it
is NOT convincing.

If you want to talk about "strawman" arguments, it seems to me you
need to start healing with the ones you own yourself, and those you
might support.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Strawman
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 03:04:04 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

At 01:22 09/16/02 +0800, you wrote:
>Greetings Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> > Look. A strawman argument is one where you misrepresent someone else's
(or
> > your opponents) argument in such a way that it becomes extremely weak.
(In
> > other words, you set up a strawman.)
>
>Why won't you consider the "stawman" arguments that YOU seem to
>support that the Shrub Regime<tm> entertains as the axiom for a
>unilateral attack upon Iraq?

If the "Shrub Regime" is employing a strawman argument, as you seem to be
suggesting it is, then that would mean they are misrepresenting what
someone else is saying about why we should not attack Iraq and then having
fun "pummeling" it. Can you give me one example of them doing this? Just
one. That's all I want.

Now, they still may be using illogical arguments or arguments not supported
by the evidence they've presented or there may be other problems with their
arguments. BUT, if they are not doing what I outline in the first sentence
of the previous paragraph, THEN, they are not employing a strawman argument.

[Skipped stuff irrelevant to what a strawman argument is or isn't.]
>You don't have to lecture me on what constitutes a "strawman"
>argument. I have no idea why you feel you have the literary
>superiority to try and do so, [continued]

Well, first of all, it is a logician's term, not a "literary" one. And
second of all, I felt the need to do so because you had demonstrated that
you did not understand the definition. If anything, you've only confirmed
this.

>especially when you seem to support all
>of your own arguments on the basis of the Shurb Regime's<tm> arguments
>which are not compelling and highly bent upon such argumentation to
>represent their case?

Well, they are rather compelling to me--but then I'm not the one
misrepresenting them into a strawman that's easy to pummel.

> Let the Shrub make his case.

Well, Bush is doing that--and rather well, I might add. His speech to the
UN added considerably to the reasons for action. In reality, about all I'm
doing in my arguments with you is repackaging what he's said to address
your arguments and to correct your factual errors.

> If the rest of
>the planet doesn't agree, then that ought to tell you something. I
>don't have to write one single word here to tell you that so far, it
>is NOT convincing.

I see. That would explain why Turkey is preparing to send in troops and is
letting us fly our planes out of their bases. Why Britain is on
board. Canada, Spain and Italy are on board. Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain
are letting us use their bases. The 'Stans are pretty much on board, and
most likely Germany will be on board once their election is over (and the
current premier doesn't have to worry about his base constituency) and most
likely before too long, France will be on board and Russia will be on
record as not opposing us.

So tell me Frank, if pretty much everyone joins up with us (or at least
gives us the "go-ahead") will that change your mind? If so, we're
practically there, now. If not, why should I care if they all think we
shouldn't do it?

(BTW. Frank. Your last comment is an example of the logical fallacy known
as the "democratic appeal." The reason it is called a fallacy is that just
because "most people" happen to believe something does not make that
something true. It is similar to--but not the same as--the "appeal to
authority" fallacy which takes the basic form of "so-and-so sez
such-and-such so such-and-such is true" (usually the "so-and-so" is someone
who is respected). For example "Ron Paul said X so X must be true." And,
of course, the "appeal to authority" fallacy is the opposite of the "ad
hominem" (Latin, meaning roughly "against the man") argument which take the
form of "so-and-so said such-and-such so such-and-such must be false"
(where usually the "so-and-so" is someone who is despised.) For example
"The Shrub Regime said Y so Y must be false."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Strawman
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 22:28:40 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> >Why won't you consider the "stawman" arguments that YOU seem to
> >support that the Shrub Regime<tm> entertains as the axiom for a
> >unilateral attack upon Iraq?

And, you replied:
> If the "Shrub Regime" is employing a strawman argument, as you seem to be
> suggesting it is, then that would mean they are misrepresenting what
> someone else is saying about why we should not attack Iraq and then having
> fun "pummeling" it. Can you give me one example of them doing this? Just
> one. That's all I want.

You seem to be a novice in terms of politics, Lowell. I don't believe
you really are such a notice, but nevertheless, you claim a rather
naive capacity to see the big picture. Politics, unfortunately is ALL
about strawman arguments. You want to garner political support, so
you set up all kinds of arguments and then kick the shit out of them,
as the Shrub Regime<tm> is currently doing in an effort to galvanize
support in America for his unilateral attack upon Iraq.

In any such environment, Bush is fighting for his political life, and
he probably knows it. The economy is going to hell in a handbasket,
and don't try and feed me this shit about housing and auto sales as an
indicator of the opposite. We all know the airline industry is going
tilts up, the technological sector is in the meat locker,
telecommunications and even banking and financial stocks are plunging
to record lows.

Why not play the 'war drum' card and stir up emotions for national
security to get everyone's mind off of the obvious? Continental
Airlines and Southwest Airlines were actually showing a profit prior
to September 11, 2001. You can now buy Continental Airlines at around
$8 a share, and Southwest at around $13. You got it, they are now
heavily haemorrhaging in the red, even after the government bailout.
That's only one sector of the economy to be sure, but it is a big one.
The private residential housing market will finally cap out and the
bubble will burst, and auto sales will likely tumble along with that
as consumers become concerned over the declining overall confidence in
the economy.

That will be largely offset should the Shrub Regime<tm> succeed in
generating this hysteria over national security, and the "possibility"
of an attack possibly coming from Saddam Hussein!

So, Lowell, you want examples? We'll, I believe I've already given
you a great many of them in terms of what we know that the Shrub
Regime<tm> has already said for justification for a unilateral attack
upon Iraq. In fact, if you discount entirely what happened on 9/11,
my best guess is that we would not now even be discussing any attacks
at all upon Iraq. And since 9/11, and our failure to really nail down
those responsible for those attacks, the Shrub is shifting gears and
trying to widen the war without even proving at all that Iraq had
anything to do with 9/11.

Last night I wrote out for you exactly what the major strawman
arguments were. These are all political arguments, not necessarily
directed at particular individuals, per se, but rather the political
adversary (those Americans and other world leaders) that do not want
to go to war for various and obvious reasons. One of the chief chords
the Shrub has used, is that you are either 'with us' or your support
the terrorists! If this isn't a strawman of giant proportions, I
don't know what is! With such rhetoric, it's rather easy to bash the
hell out of anyone who opposes US foreign policy for example, as I do
for instance. We're dealing in politics here Lowell, not a one-on-one
debate between you and myself, or any two other such individuals.

Well, what can I say? I don't want one dime of my confiscated tax
dollars going to a war effort to attack Iraq. I don't support this
nonsense, and as such, then by Bush's own rhetoric, I support
terrorism! I find such strawman baiting terribly obscene.

> Now, they still may be using illogical arguments or arguments not
supported
> by the evidence they've presented or there may be other problems with
their
> arguments. BUT, if they are not doing what I outline in the first
sentence
> of the previous paragraph, THEN, they are not employing a strawman
argument.

Okay, right. You say so, so be it. But then you haven't been
implicated in the rhetoric as a supporter of terrorism, have you?
After all, you support the Shrub Regime<tm> and I do not. So you are
in great standing with the powers that be as a "true patriot". If you
want to go into word games, and ask me if my name has ever appeared,
that is specifically, Frank Reichert, as supporting terrorism, then
you're correct, I haven't been specifically targeted as such. But
Bush never made that statement in reference to specific individuals,
or for that matter, nations such as Iraq either. He simply said, you
are either "with us" or you are with (and supporting) the terrorists.
That's a rather wide net.

And, since the majority of European Union leaders don't support the
Shrub's position, that seems to indicate that they too support the
terrorists if they don't play along. As I said, this is political,
rather than an argument to trash one individual in a debate. It's an
effort to trash anyone who won't go along with you, and that's why it
is a strawman argument, and not only one argument either, but the
whole damn enchilada of arguments the Shrub Regime<tm> has offered so
far.

> [Skipped stuff irrelevant to what a strawman argument is or isn't.]

Now I'm starting to get pissed. You are purposely narrowing this
debate and discussion to your own parochial definitions of what
constitutes a strawman argument. Don't try to snip very much else,
because I've already given several examples you chose to conveniently
"snip" here. I don't like repeating myself, and I've been accused of
that. One of the reasons I seem to repeat myself, is that a lot of
what I have already said, seems to conveniently be snipped. Which says
something to me: YOU really don't want to deal with it at all.

I previously wrote:
> >You don't have to lecture me on what constitutes a "strawman"
> >argument. I have no idea why you feel you have the literary
> >superiority to try and do so, [continued]

You replied:
> Well, first of all, it is a logician's term, not a "literary" one. And
> second of all, I felt the need to do so because you had demonstrated that
> you did not understand the definition. If anything, you've only confirmed
> this.

Thank you for your condescending attitude. I appreciate Your Majesty's
superior judgements on my mental faculties and ability to acknowledge
your limited definitions. You must be a mental giant, at least in
your own mind, and I guess you can sleep well tonight appreciating
yourself for your capacity to discern clearly the debate process. Oh
well, from my perspective anyway, you can't even differentiate at all
the difference between a one-on-one debate (with real names) and the
usual political debates over ideology (usually with no well-defined
names)!

A LOT of debates, and in this case it surely is, political! It is not
directed toward specific individuals, unless that is, toward the
President of the United States, and he is trying to trash his
adversaries with strawman arguments. I find this ironic in fact,
since some of such adversaries are members of his own political
party! He obviously won't go so far as to include members of his own
party as "supporting the terrorists", but the veiled threat is still
there isn't it?

You wrote, concerning the "Shrub's" arguments:
> Well, they are rather compelling to me--but then I'm not the one
> misrepresenting them into a strawman that's easy to pummel.

What you just wrote is rather unclear, at least to me. Are you trying
to suggest that I have misrepresented what the Shrub has already said
over the last 12 months or so? Look Lowell, I've stated for many
years, decades really, that US foreign policy sucks, and it will lead
to nothing but disaster. Now we have this leader supporting virtually
everything that US foreign policy has long embraced, and calling those
who oppose such policies "aiding the terrorists!"!!! Talk about
stawman arguments! For five decades we have been doing everything
possible to invite terrorist attacks, then I am (indirectly) accused,
because I disagree, as aiding the terrorists! I find this ludicrous!

I previously wrote:
> > Let the Shrub make his case.

You replied:
> Well, Bush is doing that--and rather well, I might add.

Yea, he sure has. But continue, please...

> His speech to the
> UN added considerably to the reasons for action. In reality, about all
I'm
> doing in my arguments with you is repackaging what he's said to address
> your arguments and to correct your factual errors.

Is it really all about reason, or rather strong arm tactics? Why is
Iraq anyway a target for such aggression? Aren't there a plethora of
other regimes who are infinitely worse? Is Saddam Hussein going to
try and launch a war to take over the world? Even though I'll readily
admit the man is insane, I doubt he has visions of defeating other
powers such as the United States, the European Union, China, or anyone
else outside of his own region. This is a regional conflict in which
the United States government has no moral right to interfere. The
real insanity here is emanating out of Washington, D.C., hardly from
Baghdad.

[Small snip of irrelevant carping...]

> So tell me Frank, if pretty much everyone joins up with us (or at least
> gives us the "go-ahead") will that change your mind?

No, it will not. It will most likely confirm my objections.

> If so, we're
> practically there, now. If not, why should I care if they all think we
> shouldn't do it?

Maybe because we will end up paying for it all, and paying the
tremendous price as a result in even more hatred and terrorism
directed our way. I know I don't want to contribute, but that's not
my choice now is it?

> (BTW. Frank. Your last comment is an example of the logical fallacy known
> as the "democratic appeal." The reason it is called a fallacy is that
just
> because "most people" happen to believe something does not make that
> something true. It is similar to--but not the same as--the "appeal to
> authority" fallacy which takes the basic form of "so-and-so sez
> such-and-such so such-and-such is true" (usually the "so-and-so" is
someone
> who is respected).

I love it so much when you exercise your tremendous abilities to teach
me semantics. I'm using such words mainly to show that the Shrub
Regime<tm>, e.g.: US taxpayers will be paying for it all. We can buy
votes, and influence people to go along or come along, mainly because
the world economic order suggests there is no other way, at least for
the moment.

However Lowell, a new balance in power appears to be emerging, and the
US will likely be left out in the cold. It's pretty obvious the EU is
no longer willing to go along with any government in place located in
Washington, D.C. If they do that now, today, it may very well be a
last 'swan song' to glory.

This too is ironic, because Russia and some kind of political/economic
synthesis within a European Union is most likely going to occur. The
US government now has a giant invitation to be a part of that process,
particularly with Russia, because Russia enjoys a rather common border
with the US via Alaska. If we don't find a way to elect a government
that refuses to shoot unilaterally from the hip, we may soon be left
out in the cold to weather everything ourselves.

I keep thinking about this all the time. How much can the American
people afford to spend to prop up this notion of moral superiority and
hegemony? Remember, this attitude only really began less than 100
years ago! It didn't really take hold either until about 50 years
ago, in the aftermath of the second World War. This absolute arrogance
and abuse of power was NEVER a part of the US mindset at all until
this time. We never send US taxpayer's funds to prop up and support
any governments anywhere, since we had no interventionist foreign
policy.

This may very well be our ultimate downfall. And, if this latest
military adventure fails, it may be our last resort to morality, or
immorality as you may choose to define it. We have never been so
arrogant as to postulate such a moral superiority upon the rest of
mankind as we have done in the last five decades. It was simply none
of our business, and we rightly chose to leave it all alone and
largely assume respectful neutrality.

> For example "Ron Paul said X so X must be true." And,
> of course, the "appeal to authority" fallacy is the opposite of the "ad
> hominem" (Latin, meaning roughly "against the man")

Teach me again, son! I'm, of course, your novice and I must necessary
listen to everything you say because I am your disciple. How could it
be any other way? Well, I can think of a lot of reasons why I don't
agree! It is mainly because you choose to use the same "strawman"
arguments that the Shrub Regime<tm> chooses to employ to justify
aggression.

> argument which take the
> form of "so-and-so said such-and-such so such-and-such must be false"
> (where usually the "so-and-so" is someone who is despised.) For example
> "The Shrub Regime said Y so Y must be false."

I "coined" the term "Shrub Regime<tm> to make a point. Obviously you
may have missed why I did that. Maybe a clue might be that even
during the arrogance of the Clinton regime, such absolute devotion and
adherence to abject nationalism (as defined by the current regime)
wasn't necessary, or required to enslave liberty, diverse ideas, and
even political descent as it is today.

At any rate, I've already made my case here already. I've defined
clearly why the Shrub Regime<tm> is most guilty of using strawman
arguments, and for political purposes and support for an agenda that I
DO NOT support. Surprise! Most of the rest of the world doesn't
either. And, since YOU were the one principally that brought up the
notion of using "strawman" arguments was deceitful, I just wanted to
remind you that the entire argument of the regime you chose to follow
is the best case for objecting to such fallacious argumentation.

This matter is not so much about debate, as it is about philosophy. I
do not believe that anyone, or any nation, has the right to initiate
force to achieve political, social, or economic ends. You sir, clearly
advocate a first strike, or use of force without provocation to
achieve what you believe are your ends. Libertarians do not support
such a philosophy. And that's why you have chosen to dredge up all
kinds of arguments to deflect the reality of a philosophy that I
happen to believe is morally correct. In short, this is an
ideological battle between the wrongful use of force, and a matter of
rightfully used power for self-defence.

As with the Shrub Regime<tm>, I don't believe you have made any
convincing arguments in favour of using force to unilaterally attack
Iraq as a matter of self-defence. You can talk about the "wrongful"
use of strawman arguments until hell freezes over, but you haven't
made a case to persuade me that such a war is necessary or morally
right.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Strawman
Date: 16 Sep 2002 12:22:44 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2002-09-16 at 08:28, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Lowell!
>
> "Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> I previously wrote:
> > >Why won't you consider the "stawman" arguments that YOU seem to
> > >support that the Shrub Regime<tm> entertains as the axiom for a
> > >unilateral attack upon Iraq?
>
> And, you replied:
> > If the "Shrub Regime" is employing a strawman argument, as you seem to
be
> > suggesting it is, then that would mean they are misrepresenting what
> > someone else is saying about why we should not attack Iraq and then
having
> > fun "pummeling" it. Can you give me one example of them doing this?
Just
> > one. That's all I want.
>
> You seem to be a novice in terms of politics, Lowell. I don't believe
> you really are such a notice, but nevertheless, you claim a rather
> naive capacity to see the big picture. Politics, unfortunately is ALL
> about strawman arguments. You want to garner political support, so

No, Frank, it is not.
Lowell is correct, the Bush administration is not making strawman
arguments. Want to know why? They don't have to, the Democrats aren't
arguing against them! The democrats are just saying "Well, let us wait
and see what evidence they have". They are not arguing about anything.
His political opponents are saying that we should get UN approval, and
that we should see what evidence Bush says he has. Bush argues against
the multilateral argument, and says the evidence will be provided in
time, therefore, not a straw man.

There is no discussion on philosophical levels between Bush and anyone
else that I am aware of. You and I are not his political opponents, so
our little academic discussion here do not constitute him avoiding them.

You assertion that Bush is using a strawman to justify an attack on Iraq
is simply false. Bush *may* be lying, or exaggerating, but he is not
making a strawman argument. Period.

Here is an example of a political strawman:
Side A wants to pass a bill. This bill increases the funding for the
EPA. Side B wants instead to pass a bill that changes the EPA, not
increasing funding. Side A then says that side B is "against clean water
and air", then proceeds to argue that clean air and water are a good
thing. Then, when side B says yes, clean air and water are good things,
side A jumps up and declares victory. That is a strawman. (Of course,
it is usually followed with a false dichotomy, saying that only their
bill will produce these things.)

That is not what the Bush administration is doing. The Bush
administration is claiming that Iraq is attempting/has/is/ acquiring WMD
and training terrorists, and will use these two together.
They do not then follow with saying how it is untrue! They could be
lying, exaggerating, or misrepresenting the data, but they are not
making a straw man argument.

> you set up all kinds of arguments and then kick the shit out of them,
> as the Shrub Regime<tm> is currently doing in an effort to galvanize
> support in America for his unilateral attack upon Iraq.
>
> In any such environment, Bush is fighting for his political life, and
> he probably knows it. The economy is going to hell in a handbasket,
> and don't try and feed me this shit about housing and auto sales as an

Why, do you prefer a bad economy?

> indicator of the opposite. We all know the airline industry is going
> tilts up, the technological sector is in the meat locker,

Oh please, the tech sector is doing fine. Better than most sectors. Of
course, you have to get past MSNBC's "chosen" reports to get past that.
The tech sector consists of more than just dot-coms and PCs, Frank.
Capital spending has not decreased during the "downturn". Rate of growth
slowed, yes, but decreased no.

> So, Lowell, you want examples? We'll, I believe I've already given
> you a great many of them in terms of what we know that the Shrub

You have given zero examples of a strawman.

> to go to war for various and obvious reasons. One of the chief chords
> the Shrub has used, is that you are either 'with us' or your support
> the terrorists! If this isn't a strawman of giant proportions, I
> don't know what is! With such rhetoric, it's rather easy to bash the

Then you are right, you don't know what a strawman is. The argument
could be false, but that does not constitute a strawman. A single
statement does not, can not constitute a strawman argument.

In fact, Bush's assertion is a "False Dichotomy", not a Straw Man.

> > [Skipped stuff irrelevant to what a strawman argument is or isn't.]
>
> Now I'm starting to get pissed. You are purposely narrowing this
> debate and discussion to your own parochial definitions of what
> constitutes a strawman argument. Don't try to snip very much else,

Frank, you are incorrect again here. It is not "his" definition, it is
*the* definition. If I look up and say the sky is cloudy, it is because
there are clouds in the sky, not because I say so.

> I previously wrote:
> > >You don't have to lecture me on what constitutes a "strawman"
> > >argument. I have no idea why you feel you have the literary
> > >superiority to try and do so, [continued]
>
> You replied:
> > Well, first of all, it is a logician's term, not a "literary" one. And
> > second of all, I felt the need to do so because you had demonstrated
that
> > you did not understand the definition. If anything, you've only
confirmed
> > this.
>
> Thank you for your condescending attitude. I appreciate Your Majesty's
> superior judgements on my mental faculties and ability to acknowledge
> your limited definitions. You must be a mental giant, at least in
> your own mind, and I guess you can sleep well tonight appreciating
> yourself for your capacity to discern clearly the debate process. Oh
> well, from my perspective anyway, you can't even differentiate at all
> the difference between a one-on-one debate (with real names) and the
> usual political debates over ideology (usually with no well-defined
> names)!

Talk about a condescending attitude! Frank, you have indeed demonstrated
you have no idea what a strawman is. Logic is logic, whether one on one
or mass on mass. Fallacies do not change because it is a political
debate, logic doe snot alter because there are multiple parties
involved.

>
> A LOT of debates, and in this case it surely is, political! It is not
> directed toward specific individuals, unless that is, toward the
> President of the United States, and he is trying to trash his
> adversaries with strawman arguments. I find this ironic in fact,

One does not trash adversaries with straw men, one trashes them with ad
hominems, and "poisoning the well".

> since some of such adversaries are members of his own political
> party! He obviously won't go so far as to include members of his own
> party as "supporting the terrorists", but the veiled threat is still
> there isn't it?
>
> You wrote, concerning the "Shrub's" arguments:
> > Well, they are rather compelling to me--but then I'm not the one
> > misrepresenting them into a strawman that's easy to pummel.
>
> What you just wrote is rather unclear, at least to me. Are you trying
> to suggest that I have misrepresented what the Shrub has already said
> over the last 12 months or so? Look Lowell, I've stated for many
> years, decades really, that US foreign policy sucks, and it will lead
> to nothing but disaster. Now we have this leader supporting virtually
> everything that US foreign policy has long embraced, and calling those
> who oppose such policies "aiding the terrorists!"!!! Talk about
> stawman arguments! For five decades we have been doing everything

Nope, false dichotomy, not straw men.

Grab a logic book, Frank. OR, failing that, check the web. Here are some
links to get you started.

http://www.theology.edu/logic/logic23.htm
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm
http://www.omegapage.com/foundations/Studies/logical_falacies.htm

You could also look back in your archives, since these were posted to
the list during the time of the Technocrat Invasion. You lauded them at
that time.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Strawman
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:27:32 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Frank!

Since Bill Anderson answered you better than I could have (thanks Bill!)
I'll refer you to his post. (It's probably worth a second read.) But I do
have a few general comments at the end of this post as well.

At 22:28 09/16/02 +0800, you wrote:
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
>I previously wrote:
> > >Why won't you consider the "stawman" arguments that YOU seem to
> > >support that the Shrub Regime<tm> entertains as the axiom for a
> > >unilateral attack upon Iraq?
>
>And, you replied:
> > If the "Shrub Regime" is employing a strawman argument, as you seem to
be
> > suggesting it is, then that would mean they are misrepresenting what
> > someone else is saying about why we should not attack Iraq and then
having
> > fun "pummeling" it. Can you give me one example of them doing this?
Just
> > one. That's all I want.
>
>You seem to be a novice in terms of politics, Lowell. I don't believe
>you really are such a notice, but nevertheless, you claim a rather
>naive capacity to see the big picture. Politics, unfortunately is ALL
>about strawman arguments. You want to garner political support, so
>you set up all kinds of arguments and then kick the shit out of them,
>as the Shrub Regime<tm> is currently doing in an effort to galvanize
>support in America for his unilateral attack upon Iraq.

Actually, politics is all about all kinds of arguments. Some of them are
valid and some are invalid. Some of the invalid ones are strawman
arguments and some are other kinds of arguments. As Bill pointed out, you
still didn't identify a single "strawman argument" put up by the Bush
administration.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Strawman
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 00:18:37 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings to both Lowell and Bill!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to everyone...

> Since Bill Anderson answered you better than I could have (thanks Bill!)
> I'll refer you to his post. (It's probably worth a second read.) But I
do
> have a few general comments at the end of this post as well.

Now, we have the infamous "gang of two (and likely others)", but the
infamous duo, using wishing to make some points in arguments relating
to the initial use of force, nice. But hardly libertarian. You've
managed basically to embrace the extreme right wing of the Republican
Party, so why don't you just join 'em, and dispense with the
rhetoric? Just had to ask.

You've both missed the entire philosophical argument, and you are
stuck with what you have got, entirely! Nice going, again, I applaud
you! But you are also stuck entirely with the consequences, whatever
they may be. And, I am glad you have to suffer such contradictions and
consequences, because you BOTH deserve them so richly.

Sometimes, listening to your band-width here, I wonder if you REALLY
represent libertarian principles at all, and nether of you qualify
right now. You're both making a lot of noise, and I wonder why? I
wonder why you seem to embrace the Shrub's gestapo, even you know very
well that this is pure fascism? You'll both have to decide why you
do. I don't.

At least now it is clearly evident, you totally embrace the initiation
of force, for force your police, moral, ethnic, or whatever values
upon the entire human race. Sorry Lowell, Bill, you are NOT
historians, nor do any of you have any clue at all how the rest of the
planet perceives you. You are both arrogant and proud, just as your
Heir Leader, the Shrub is so proud to have all the moral answers.
This is a ridiculous and total illusion. Live it while you can!

> Actually, politics is all about all kinds of arguments. Some of them are
> valid and some are invalid. Some of the invalid ones are strawman
> arguments and some are other kinds of arguments. As Bill pointed out, you
> still didn't identify a single "strawman argument" put up by the Bush
> administration.

And, you sir, are fucking ridiculous, as is Mr. Anderson, in which I
expected a lot better since I've known him much longer than yourself.
Arguments don't have ANYTHING at all to do with this. Individuals
choosing their own methods for dealing with their own contingencies
and choices have everything to do with this.

So don't start on me. Don't use your strawman arguments suggesting
I'm about to kick you the fuck off this discussion group. That was
absurd, and you know it. That never entered my mind at all. It was
all in YOUR head. If you want to leave, fine, that's your choice, not
mine.

Politics, sir, is power. It has nothing so much to do with
"arguments" as it does with who has the funding and power to control
the arguments and choices individuals still have available to make on
their on behalf. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to differentiate
between the two.

Your "strawman" arguments are very real, since you support the current
gestapo, and all of the same arguments that are really political
arguments, as the case may be. Just because we have the
Anderson/Savage axis doesn't really attest to how valid your arguments
may be. In the end, you'll both still finding yourselves the victim
of your own personal choices, and enshrining the use of force to bring
them about. If you both don't like "libertarianism", find another
political force that best suits your expression, and don't blame me
when you have to pay the piper for such choices as you make.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Strawman
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 23:12:37 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Frank!

There was a reason that I changed the "Subject:" line to "Strawman". That
was because I wanted to discuss what is and is not a "strawman
argument"--independent of whether an attack on Iraq was a good idea or what
the nature of treaties might or might not be.

You wrote:

> You've both missed the entire philosophical argument, ...

Actually, Frank. You missed it. The "philosophical argument" would be the
one about what a "strawman argument" is and is not. The political argument
would be the one about Iraq and the nature of treaties.

I'm sure that Bill understands that you are against attacking Iraq and that
you think it would be a disaster for the US--particularly in its
relationships with other nations. (Notice that I can even partially
summarize your position, which means that I understand what you were
getting at.) However, even after reading his post a second and third time,
he does not say whether he shares your opinion of those things or disagrees
with them. His post on this topic was solely disagreeing with you on the
basis of the definition of what a strawman argument is (well, he did quote
a few economic statistics to set you straight on a few facts).

The following are a few example of logical fallacies...

>Greetings to both Lowell and Bill!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to everyone...
>
> > Since Bill Anderson answered you better than I could have (thanks Bill!)
> > I'll refer you to his post. (It's probably worth a second read.) But I
do
> > have a few general comments at the end of this post as well.
>
>Now, we have the infamous "gang of two (and likely others)", but the
>infamous duo, using wishing to make some points in arguments relating
>to the initial use of force, nice. But hardly libertarian. You've
>managed basically to embrace the extreme right wing of the Republican
>Party, so why don't you just join 'em, and dispense with the
>rhetoric? Just had to ask.

Well, that's not a "strawman" argument. Instead it is the "abusive" form
of the "ad hominem" argument at the beginning ("the 'gang of two'") and the
"circumstantial" form of the "ad hominem" argument at the end ("the extreme
right wing of the RP").

>You've both missed the entire philosophical argument, and you are
>stuck with what you have got, entirely! Nice going, again, I applaud
>you! But you are also stuck entirely with the consequences, whatever
>they may be. And, I am glad you have to suffer such contradictions and
>consequences, because you BOTH deserve them so richly.

Well perhaps if you could explain what these consequences and
contradictions are, we could avoid them.

>Sometimes, listening to your band-width here, I wonder if you REALLY
>represent libertarian principles at all, and nether of you qualify
>right now. You're both making a lot of noise, and I wonder why? I
>wonder why you seem to embrace the Shrub's gestapo, even you know very
>well that this is pure fascism? You'll both have to decide why you
>do. I don't.

Well, there's that "ad hominem" argument again.

>At least now it is clearly evident, you totally embrace the initiation
>of force, for force your police, moral, ethnic, or whatever values
>upon the entire human race.

Whew! The "sweeping generalization".

> Sorry Lowell, Bill, you are NOT
>historians, nor do any of you have any clue at all how the rest of the
>planet perceives you. You are both arrogant and proud, just as your
>Heir Leader, the Shrub is so proud to have all the moral answers.
>This is a ridiculous and total illusion. Live it while you can!

The "appeal to authority."

> > Actually, politics is all about all kinds of arguments. Some of them
are
> > valid and some are invalid. Some of the invalid ones are strawman
> > arguments and some are other kinds of arguments. As Bill pointed out,
you
> > still didn't identify a single "strawman argument" put up by the Bush
> > administration.
>
>And, you sir, are fucking ridiculous, as is Mr. Anderson, in which I
>expected a lot better since I've known him much longer than yourself.
>Arguments don't have ANYTHING at all to do with this.

Arguments have everything to do with it since arguments are what we (and
politicians) use to convince others that the government is doing the right
(or wrong) thing.

>Individuals
>choosing their own methods for dealing with their own contingencies
>and choices have everything to do with this.

I have no idea how this relates to anything.

>Politics, sir, is power. It has nothing so much to do with
>"arguments" as it does with who has the funding and power to control
>the arguments and choices individuals still have available to make on
>their on behalf. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to differentiate
>between the two.

Power, sir, in a representative republic, comes from making effective
arguments to get elected.

>Your "strawman" arguments are very real, since you support the current
>gestapo, and all of the same arguments that are really political
>arguments, as the case may be.

The "ad hominem" argument again.

> Just because we have the
>Anderson/Savage axis doesn't really attest to how valid your arguments
>may be.

And now, another example of a "strawman". Neither Bill nor I claimed that
we must be more correct because the other supported us. After all, both of
us know full well that such a claim would be either an "Appeal to
Authority" or an "Argumentum ad populum" an appeal to the popularity of the
idea (which would really be absurd since there's only two of us.)

> In the end, you'll both still finding yourselves the victim
>of your own personal choices, and enshrining the use of force to bring
>them about. If you both don't like "libertarianism", find another
>political force that best suits your expression, and don't blame me
>when you have to pay the piper for such choices as you make.

Ah, the "Argumentum ad baculum", the argument by threat.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Nature of Treaties (short)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 00:08:14 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Frank,

After that long one, I think I'd like to ask you a few simple questions.

1. Do you really believe that a country has no moral obligation to abide by
a treaty? Or, if you don't want to answer it as a blanket Yes/No: What
conditions separate those countries (and/or treaties and/or situations)
with a moral obligation to abide by treaties from those without an
obligation?

2. If it is generally conceded that a nation that loses a war has no moral
obligation to abide by a treaty, do you understand that there are going to
be (possibly unintended) consequences in the next war? That there will now
be an incentive for the winning nation to continue the war until all
resistance is crushed?

3. If you do not see a treaty as being analogous to an agreement between
two individuals in a community (where said community does not have a police
force), how do you see treaties? Are they anything more than pieces of
paper with meaningless marks on them?

Lowell C. Savage
Give War A Chance!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Nature of Treaties (short)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 01:01:46 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...

> After that long one, I think I'd like to ask you a few simple questions.
> 1. Do you really believe that a country has no moral obligation to abide
by
> a treaty? Or, if you don't want to answer it as a blanket Yes/No: What
> conditions separate those countries (and/or treaties and/or situations)
> with a moral obligation to abide by treaties from those without an
obligation?

There are several moral conditions when a country might be obliged to
either ignore a treaty, or take whatever steps might be necessary to
abrogate a treaty entirely, as Bush did with the ABM treaty, and
ignoring the Kyoto Protocols, and probably the Geneva Conventions
supporting the treatment of prisoners. Usually in the case where
treaties are freely entered into, particularly when two or more world
governments have chosen such conditions, it is best to try to remain
within the confines of the treaty arrangements, but even in that case
I can find reasons why treaties should not be considered eternally
binding.

Probably the greatest case could be made for abrogating all treaties
with the United Nations, including membership in that body itself, as
a surrender of US sovereignty to a foreign body. I believe that
Congressman Ron Paul's continued effort in making that happen is
morally right.

THE HIGHEST MORAL GROUND:

Any government's chief moral character is to defend its own citizens
against aggression, whether that might be external aggression, or
providing a just framework for the protection against internal
aggression, such as a court and judicial system, and a police
apparatus that can be used to enforce moral law in strictly defined
capacity. Any such treaty, that has the effect of limiting such
protection for defence, so signed, particularly under force or duress,
does not meet that critical test of a government's highest end.

Second, many treaties are simply overcome by events and no longer
serve the best purpose for one, or sometimes both parties as
signatories to a treaty. Several examples exist, such as when the
Berlin Wall finally broke down, any such treaties between the former
East and West Germanys became irrelevant. After the dissolution of the
Soviet Empire, most of the treaties between the USSR and former
eastern Soviet Block, such as Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and
other nations were simply severed since they had become irrelevant.

On the other hand: Although Russia (after the break-up of the USSR)
could have argued that any such treaties signed between the former
USSR and the rest of the world, particularly military treaties, did
NOT pertain to Russia, Russia rightly assumed that it would be best if
they assumed most of those treaties, especially those concerning
nuclear treaties etc. After many former Soviet Republics opted for
independence, most still agreed that the original treaties should be
inclusive and binding since any questions would likely NOT serve in
the best interest for their own people, or for bringing some sense of
order out of the impending chaos that resulted from the disintegration
of the USSR.

In the case of much smaller nations, and obviously Iraq fits here,
there is a good case to be made that:

1. Forced treaties that violate a nation's self-defence obligations to
its own people are certainly NOT in the best national interest. It is
likely that it is in the best interest for Iraq, and other nations, to
largely ignore such forced compliance if they can get by with it in
the face of much larger nations. Any such treaty, previously made
under hostile threat, is best viewed as a treaty imposed by one side
upon another. There was/is no freely entered, contractual agreement.
If the side with the most power has the ability to enforce the treaty
anyway, then the treaty itself can be viewed as a self-imposed
document that only exists by the use of a self-imposed force by the
winning side. Usually such treaties are dispensed with when the state
with the greatest force loses the ability to impose such enforcement.

2. MOST, if not all of the former colonial agreements between European
nations governing the subsequent decolonialization of Africa, Asia,
etc., are only recognized by the newly independent states as
arbitrary. States such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, wisely
chose to maintain such boundaries that were previously the result of
treaty arrangements, but some did NOT, such as the division of India
and Pakistan, and finally even Bangladesh. There are still lingering
territorial boundary treaties being called into question between
Malaysia and the Philippines over the inclusion of Sabah province's
jurisdiction to this day. In fact, there was tremendous external
pressure by Britain to form a Federation, which including the
territories of British north Borneo, Malaysia, and Singapore. Finally
Singapore opted out of the federation eventually, even though there
was a legally binding treaty to form the confederation, and as I just
wrote, Sabah (formerly British North Borneo) is still a point under
contention.

I guess all I am saying is that you can argue, if you want to, that
the division between Pakistan and India was morally wrong, and a
breach of treaty arrangements made; but the use of force for
self-determination by Pakistan, and again in the case of Bangladesh's
independence from even Pakistan through force, in my judgement anyway,
was morally right, and can be justified along the lines of
self-determination.

To bring this closer to home now. When the South decided to succeed
from the Union, I believe it had a moral right to do so, even though
all of the states had some contractual agreements for a union based
largely on the US Constitution, but that too was not set in stone.
They only reason that the pre-existing union still existed after 1865
is because the union forces won the war, imposed their will upon the
south, and the south only reluctantly went along under a treaty of
surrender. It took about another 100 years before the people in the
south finally saw some benefits in the union, but times had changed,
and even those who might have supported succession originally, now saw
most of those events changed over a long a period of time.

Ya know, all I'm saying here is that treaties should NOT be considered
eternal, nor should they "sometimes" be considered as moral. Very
few, at least in percentage, treaties have really gone on legally over
a great period of time without challenge, or change. Sometimes those
changes come as a result of revolution and force.

> 2. If it is generally conceded that a nation that loses a war has no moral
> obligation to abide by a treaty, do you understand that there are going to
> be (possibly unintended) consequences in the next war? That there will
now
> be an incentive for the winning nation to continue the war until all
> resistance is crushed?

That's a huge question, and there is no easy answer either. If you
examine the treaties ending the first World War, then you can see that
because of the implantation of a one-sided treaty resulted in a second
war being fought. Much worse that the first one. Certainly that
occurred in the second World War. It might be said also, as many
historians have claimed, that there was really one ONE world war. The
second one was a result of the immorality of the first one in imposing
the draconian reparations against Germany and the Axis powers. I
don't necessary subscribe entirely to that of course, but there are
some merits to that argument. Namely, Hitler and the Third Reich used
that emotional resentment to make their case before the German people
who were suffering as a result of an immoral treaty, and also a
world-wide depression. At the same time, Germany (in my judgement, in
some form anyway) had a right to try and oppose such treaty
arrangements.

It's not so much, at least in this case, that the winning side had an
incentive to continue the war, the incentive was on the Axis side (or
Germany's side) to continue the war against the victors of the first
segment (1914-1918). Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, had no
incentive to continue the war. Germany certainly did, and the form in
which that took was catastrophic.

Let me ask YOU some questions. Were the treaties that ended WWI
morally right? Should Germany NOT have opposed the treaties in some
form, even through the use of force? I'm not suggesting here that
such force should be the result of fascism, although at least in this
case, it certainly was. But didn't Germany have a fundamental moral
right to oppose such treaties? If not, then what recourse, if any,
did they have available, that is, short of war?

> 3. If you do not see a treaty as being analogous to an agreement between
> two individuals in a community (where said community does not have a
police
> force), how do you see treaties? Are they anything more than pieces of
> paper with meaningless marks on them?

Not at all. Treaties rightly and freely entered do have consequences,
and in many cases, they are morally right and mutually acceptable. But
as time goes on, many of them either become obsolete, or are no longer
acceptable to one side. A morally acceptable treaty is only one when
BOTH sides still accept its validity and consequences. Sometimes, as
in the case of most of history during the last 50 years, some sides
change, or no longer even exist at all, at least in their previous
form.

Treaties don't mean anything unless there is some enforcement body
able to see that they are carried out. Some people today believe some
international body ought to arbitrate all such tries to validate
them. In the case of the US vs Iraq, no one seems to want to come
onboard, including the United Nations. But there is NOTHING new in
this either. Many centuries ago, an international body of sorts, the
Vatican, arbitrated the demarcation lines for the boundaries of
Portugal and Spain in defining colonial rule in South America, between
Brazil, and the Spanish colonies. That quickly ended up in disrepute
sometime later when Brazil broke from Portugal, and the Spanish
colonies began to follow the US example of declaring independence.

A lot of territorial wars broke out subsequent to that, and then it
became a matter of mutual agreement between various nations. Both
Brazil and Argentina fought territorial wars against Paraguay. So any
treaties made subsequently WERE called into question, and settled
eventually on the bases of both force and mutual consensus.

But to try and argue that the "Vatican treaties" were and still are
valid is nonsense. At best, they established only a temporary
condition upon which the then current realities could be decided.
They were probably meant to be set in stone, but history clearly shows
they were not.

Before I wrap this up, one thing I might want to include here is
probably "Libertarians" should never accept any treaty as binding in
the final sense.

Robert Goodman and I often disagree on various things. But one of the
arguments he did make, really it was a statement of personal resolve,
was concerning the nature of personal liberty. And, since "treaties"
may, or may not, improve individual liberty, they should always be
considered suspect, and certainly not personally validated. I asked
Robert, and this has been about a year or so ago, about what you can
do in this present climate of anti-libertarian enthusiasm? His answer
was that first, you try and persuade others to grant you the personal
freedom to run your own life, and secondly, if they won't, you kill
them!

Well, that's a strong statement to make. And, sense I can't speak for
Robert, I'll give him the opportunity here to make what he intended
more clear. But it seems to me that libertarians ought to call ALL
treaties into question. If such treaties were made under force or
duress, then they are, as such, invalid for libertarians to accept in
any case, particularly when they have the effect of taking away our
personal choices and liberties.

Were I might disagree here with Robert is that I would bring this
question upon a much wider scale. I would suggest that any treaty
that any nation makes under such force, ought to have the right to
morally disagree, particularly when such a forced agreement reduces
the self-determination, and right of people to make their own choices
over how they will be governed.

Whether they have the POWER to disagree is another matter. Sometimes
they do, often they don't. I only suggest they have a "RIGHT" to
disagree. History shows they sometimes don't prevail either. And, if
you believe in liberty, then it seems to me that YOU need to concede
something here. Often treaties, particularly those coming from the
use of force, often have the propensity to reduce YOUR freedom to
conduct, manage and exercise your rights. All UN treaties that I can
think of have that as their end result.

And that, Lowell, is the problem with the accumulation of tremendous
power such as the US holds today, and the UN may hold tomorrow. And,
the later is significantly worse, since YOU will even have less
choices that you are "allowed" to make for yourself. I have no
respect at all for recognizes any such treaties, as such. Nor, as a
libertarian, do I consider any of them particularly to be valid, that
is, insofar, as my own liberty to make my own choices might be
diminished by upholding to them.

This is NOT a giant leap, as you might suggest. I believe that the
people of Iraq will fight any external aggression upon their country,
and do so because it is external aggression, not because they support
Saddam Hussein. They may hate the Hussein regime, but the prospect of
"foreigners" invading their country is most likely what you and I (I
hope) would do, if an external forced invaded THIS country and imposed
their will upon all of us. That's what is going on right now in
Afghanistan, despite what the BBC, CBS, CNN and other "westernized"
news agencies may be telling you.

To close now, and I am, Treaties don't mean very much in the long
term, at least not usually. Forced treaties particularly. And, for
libertarians, I suggest ALL treaties are suspect, and therefore are
not necessarily supportable either, at least on face value. And,
should they be respected as cut in stone? Of course NOT!

Are you suggesting any MORAL high ground to suggest that anyone and
everyone is bound by all treaties once made, particularly those
treaties that are the result of forceful victory? I can't imagine
myself going along with that. I don't and won't even support the
present US government in most cases, regardless of the legalities in
which it appears to exist.

Goodnight. Cicero didn't either. And I believe he had it mostly
right.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Invitation: Liberty 2002 - Libertarian International European Conference, London, 9-10 November
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 12:14:27 +0100
From: "Chris R. Tame" <Chris@rand.demon.co.uk>
To: libnw@immosys.com

LIBERTY 2002: THE EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF
THE LIBERTARIAN INTERNATIONAL AND LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE

Saturday 9 November - Sunday 10 November, 2002

10.00am-6.00pm

The National Liberal Club
Whitehall Place
London
SW1A 2HE
England

Speakers:

*Professor Antony Flew - A Critique of Welfare Rights
*Alan Forester - Why Libertarians Should Take Children Seriously
*Professor John Burton - Why Libertarianism Is Losing Out
*Dr Eamon Butler - "Third Way" Interventionism in the UK and Its Lessons
*Professor Terence Kealey - Science Is Not a Public Good - And Requires
No Public Support
*Stefan Blankertz - Nature or Nurture: A Libertarian Perspective on the
Debate on Intelligence
*Francois-Rene Rideau - Government is the Rule of "Black Magic": On
Human Sacrifice and Other Modern Superstitions
*Sarah Lawrence - The Semblance of Consent: How Tyrants Use the Illusion
of Freedom
*Professor Norman Barry - Business Ethics and Regulation: A Libertarian
View
*Robin Ramsay - In Defence of Paranoia: Myths and Realities of
"Conspiracy Theory"
*Professor Tibor Machan - Are Political Principles Stable?
*Richard Miniter - The Reality of the Middle East and Libertarian Policy
Dilemmas
*Dr. Ken Minogue - The Chameleon Servility and Its Contemporary
Camouflage
*Panel Discussion: LI and LA Representatives - Liberty and Strategy in
International Context
Chaired by Hubert Jongen, Chairman of the Libertarian International.
*Panel Discussion: Mark Littlewood, Dr. Sean Gabb & Dr. Chris R. Tame -
The Destruction of Civil Liberties in the UK and Its Lessons

Other Features:

*Special Banquet: Including distinguished Guest Speakers and the
presentation of the Libertarian Alliance's "Liberty Awards" for 2002

*The "Think Tank Room": Displays and sale of publications by major
British think tanks and political journals: Adam Smith Institute;
Institute of Economic Affairs; CIVITAS; FOREST; Social Affairs Unit;
Independent Healthcare Association; Social Market Foundation;
Spiked; Demos; The Fabian Society; The European Foundation; LIBERTY;
Salisbury Review; Lobster and others.

About The Speakers:

*Professor Norman Barry is Professor of Politics at the University of
Buckingham. His many books and monographs include 'Hayek's Social and
Economic Philosophy', 'An Introduction to Modern Political Theory', 'The
Morality of Business Enterprise', 'Classical Liberalism in an Age of
Post-Communism', 'Business Ethics', 'On Classical Liberalism and
Libertarianism', 'Welfare', 'The New Right', 'The Invisible Hand in
Economics and Politics: A Study in Two Conflicting Explanations of
Society, End-States and Processes', and, for the LA, 'An Individualist's
View of Marriage and the Family'. The University of Buckingham website
is: http://www.buckingham.ac.uk

*Dr. Stefan Blankwertz is one of Germany's leading libertarian thinkers
and activists. The German representative of the Libertarian
International, he is the author of many books, pamphlets and papers (in
German and English), including 'Courts, Judges and the Law in the Free
City', 'Has the State Always Been There?', 'Gestalt Therapy: A
Libertarian Approach to the Social Psychology of Unhappiness' and (for
the LA) 'Towards A Libertarian Theory of Fascism'.

*Professor John Burton is currently Professor of Economics at the
University of Westminster. He has published extensively in such journals
as 'Economic Journal', 'International Journal of Social Economics',
'Scottish Journal of Political Economy', 'Journal of Industrial
Affairs', 'Journal of Labour Research', 'Economic Affairs', 'Research in
Labour Economics', 'British Journal of Industrial Relations',
'Manchester School', 'Three Banks Review', and 'Government Union
Review'. His books and monographs include 'Wage Inflation', 'The
Consequences of Mr. Keynes', 'The Job-Support Machine', 'Employment
Policy, Trade Unions and Society', and 'Picking Losers: The Political
Economy of Industrial Policy' and he has edited such works as 'Hayek's
'Serfdom' Revisited', 'Keynes's General Theory: Fifty Years On', and
'Industrial Policy'. He is a member of the Academic Advisory Council of
the Institute of Economic Affairs, a member of the Editorial Board of a
number of academic journals, Executive Co-Editor of 'Business Studies',
and on the Advisory Council of the LA.

*Dr Eamon Butler is Director of the Adam Smith Institute, the UK's
leading free market think tank. He is the author of many books including
'Hayek: His Contribution to the Economic and Political Thought of Our
Time', 'Milton Friedman: A Guide to His Thought', 'Ludwig Von Mises:
Fountainhead of the Modern Microeconomics Revolution' and 'Forty
Centuries of Wage and Price Controls'. He has also edited and
contributed to countless ASI reports on many policy issues, appears on
TV regularly, and contributes frequently to the press. The ASI website
is: http://www.adamsmith.org

*Professor Antony Flew is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the
University of Reading, and one of Britain's leading philosophers. He is
the author of countless books and essay, including 'Thinking
About Thinking', 'Thinking About Social Thinking', 'Sociology, Equality
and Education', 'A Rational Animal?', and 'Crime or Disease?', 'David
Hume: Philosopher of Social Science', 'An Introduction to Western
Philosophy', 'Death With Dignity', Atheistic Humanism', 'Does God
Exist?', 'The Presumption of Atheism', 'The Politics of Procrustes:
Contradictions of Enforced Equality', 'God and Philosophy', 'Darwinian
Evolution', 'The Philosophy of Poverty', and 'Equality in Liberty and
Justice'

*Alan Forester is an activist in the "Taking Children Seriously"
movement. A former socialist and a graduate in physics he now describes
himself as a "Hayekian, Popperian, anarcho-capitalist".

*Dr. Sean Gabb is Editor of the Libertarian Alliance journal 'Free Life'
and 'Free Life Commentary'. He is author of countless articles,
monographs and the book 'Despatches From a Dying Country', and also
appears regularly in the British media. He is also the founder of the
successful euro-sceptic campaigning website "Candidlist" which created
havoc for unprincipled Conservative Party candidates and enabled
constituencies to exercise informed democratic choice of candidates.
His websites are: http://www.seangabb.co.uk and http://www.candidlist.d
emon.co.uk

*Hubert Jongen is a successful Dutch businessman and the founder and
Chairman of the Libertarian International. He has received many
international awards for his libertarian activism, including the
Libertarian Alliance's "Liberty in Action" International Award for 1999.

*Professor Terence Kealey is former Wellcome Senior Research Fellow in
Clinical Biochemistry at the University of Oxford, former lecturer in
Clinical Biochemistry at Cambridge University and is now Vice-Chancellor
of the University of Buckingham. He is also author of 'Science Fiction -
And the True Way to Save British Science' and 'The Economic Laws of
Scientific Research'. The University of Buckingham website is:
http://www.buckingham.ac.uk

*Sarah Lawrence is a single mother and the founder of the worldwide
libertarian parenting "Taking Children Seriously" movement, devoted to
liberty, autonomy and respect for children. She edits the journal Taking
Children Seriously and operates the internet discussion lists "Taking
Children Seriously" and "The Autonomy-Respecting Relationships List".
She is the author of a number of papers and pamphlets, including
'European Union: Liberty or Leviathan', 'Appearance, Reality and
Education Law', 'Children's Rights and the Law', 'Against Sharing
Equally' and speaks regularly at libertarian conferences throughout the
world. Her websites are: http://www.sarahlawrence.org/ and
http://www.tcs.ac.

*Mark Littlewood is a supporter of the Libertarian Alliance, former Head
of Regional Campaigning of The European Movement, and currently
Campaigns Director of LIBERTY (The National Council for Civil
Liberties). His essays have appeared in such journals as 'New
Federalist', 'European Campaigner' and 'Britain in Europe' and
as LA monographs.

*Tibor Machan is Professor of Philosophy at Chapman University,
California,
and is the world’s leading libertarian philosopher. His essays have
appeared
in such journals as ‘The Monist’, ‘Social Philosophy and Policy’,
‘Reason
Papers’ and ‘The Pacific Journal of Philosophy’, amongst others and he
is
the author of numerous books, including ‘Capitalism and Individualism’,
'Classical Individualism: The Supreme Importance of Each Human Being’,
‘Human
Rights and Human Liberties’, ‘Individuals and Their Rights’,
‘Liberty
and
Culture’, ‘The Moral Case for the Free Market Economy’, ‘Private
Rights
and
Public Illusions’, ‘The Pseudo-Science of B. F. Skinner’, ‘A Primer
on
Ethics’,
‘The Virtue of Liberty’, ‘Introduction to Philosophical Inquiries’.
He has also edited such works as ‘Commerce and Morality’, ‘Individual
Rights
Reconsidered’, ‘Ayn Rand’, ‘Business Ethics in the Global Market’,
‘Education
in a Free Society’, ‘The Libertarian Reader’, ‘Liberty and
Democracy’,
‘Rights
and Regulation’, ‘Political Philosophy’, ;Recent Work in
Philosophy’,
‘Liberty
for the 21st Century’, and ‘The Main Debate: Communism Versus
Capitalism’.
His website is: http://tibormachan.com

*Richard Miniter is an American award-winning investigative reporter. He
has written for 'The Wall Street Journal', 'The New York Times', 'The
Washington Post', and 'The Christian Science Monitor' as well as 'The
Atlantic Monthly', 'The New Republic', 'National Review' and 'Readers
Digest'. He has been an editorial page writer at 'The Wall Street
Journal Europe' and also wrote a weekly column, "The Visible Hand," for
'The Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com. Currently, he is a
Senior Fellow at the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based think
tank. He is also the author of 'The Myth of Market Share' (Random
House/Crown Business, 2002) and of the forthcoming investigative work
'The Duel: Clinton's Secret War on Bin Laden'.

*Ken Minogue is Professor of Politics at the London School of Economics.
He was the narrator of the noted TV series 'The New Enlightenment'. His
many books and monographs include 'Alien Powers: The Pure Theory of
Ideology', 'The Egalitarian Conceit: False and True Equalities', 'The
Constitutional Mania', 'The Concept of a University', 'The Liberal
Mind', 'Nationalism', 'Ideas About Freedom: A Discussion', 'How Much
Justice Does a Society Need?', 'Silencing of Society: The True Cost of
the Lust For News', 'Democracy and the Welfare State', 'Citizenship and
Monarchy: A Hidden Fault Line In Our Civilisation' and 'Politics: A Very
Short Introduction'. He is also the editor of 'Conservative Realism: New
Essays on Conservatism', 'Thatcherism: Personality and Politics' and
'Contemporary Political Philosophers'.

*Robin Ramsay is the founder and editor of 'Lobster', the respected
journal of "conspiracy" and para-political research. He is also the
author of 'Smear!: Wilson and the Secret State', 'Prawn Cocktail Party:
The Hidden Power of New Labour', 'Conspiracy Theories', and, for the LA,
'On Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories: The Truth Buried by the
Fantasies'. His website is: http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk

*Francois-Rene Rideau, of Vietnamese-French extraction, is a computer
programmer and and co-ordinator of the TUNES project, which strives to
design and implement a computing system based upon the paradigm of total
computing freedom. He is also the author of a number of papers,
including the 'Manifesto for Free Information' and 'Patents Are An
Economic Absurdity". He is also a member of the Committee to Preserve
the Works of Frederick Bastiat. His website is: http://fare.tunes.org

*Dr. Chris R. Tame is the Founder and Director of the Libertarian
Alliance and on the Board of Directors of the Libertarian International.
He is author of numerous academic and political essays and monographs,
and has contributed to such academic and political journals as 'The
Jewish Journal of Sociology', 'Il Politico', 'Economic Affairs', 'The
Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies', 'Wetrtfei', 'The
Journal of Libertarian Studies', 'The Freethinker', 'Libertarian Forum',
and 'Science and Public Policy'. He has also contributed to such books
as 'The Case For Private Enterprise', 'The 'New Right' Enlightenment',
and 'The Politics of Crime Control'. He has addressed many academic and
scholarly conferences throughout the world and appears frequently on
British television and radio.

************************************************************************

The Conference fee covers conference attendance, morning and afternoon
tea and coffee, and the closing Banquet (but not accommodation - see
below for our suggestion on this).

HOW TO BOOK

Please print out complete and return the booking form below.

Accommodation

The cost of accommodation is NOT included in the price of this
conference. We recommend Central Conference Reservations who offer
discounted booking for a wide price-range of hotel accommodation in
London. They can be contacted at: Central Conference Reservations, 10
Dudley Court, Upper Berkeley Street, London, W1H 7PH;
Tel: 020 7724 4470
Fax: 020 7706 4244
Email: centralreserve@aol.com

Alternatively, you are free to make your own bookings directly or via a
travel agency.

BOOKING FORM

I/We wish to book ..... places at the Liberty 2002 Conference at £75.00
($111 US) (115 Euros) per place.

Name: ...............................................................
Address: ............................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
Country: ............................................................
Tel: ................................................................
Fax: ................................................................
Email: ..............................................................

I enclose a cheque, payable to "The Libertarian Alliance", in pounds
sterling for ..... or in US dollars for ...

Please note that the Libertarian Alliance can accept only cheques in
pounds sterling or in US dollars.

Return to: Dr. Chris R. Tame, Director, The Libertarian Alliance, 25
Chapter Chambers, Esterbrooke Street, London, SW1P 4NN
Tel: 020 7821 5502
Fax: 020 7834 2031
Email: admin@libertarian.co.uk

ALTERNATIVELY, if you wish to pay by cheques in Euros or in any other
European currency, you may send your currency's equivalent of £75,
payable to "The Libertarian International", to:

The Libertarian International
P.O.Box 21,
B-2910,
Essen,
Belgium.
Fax:+31-165-348035
Email: Info@libertarian.to

BANK: RaboBank acc. 17.43.35.350.
E-GOLD account nr. 102265 (Libertarian International)

If you chose to pay in this latter manner you must send a copy of this
booking form to BOTH the Libertarian Alliance and to the Libertarian
International.

ENDS

--
Dr. Chris R. Tame, Director
Libertarian Alliance | "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, |
25 Chapter Chambers | and the secret of Freedom is Courage" |
Esterbrooke Street | Thucydides, Pericles' Funeral Oration |
London SW1P 4NN
England
Tel: 020 7821 5502
Fax: 020 7834 2031
Personal Email: chris@rand.demon.co.uk
LA Email: admin@libertarian.co.uk
LA Web Site: http://www.libertarian.co.uk
Free Life Web Site: http://www.btinternet.com/~old.whig/freelife/fl.htm
The Hampden Press Website: http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk
LA Forum: groups.yahoo.com/group/libertarian-alliance-forum

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Invitation: Liberty 2002 - Libertarian International European
Conference, London, 9-10 November
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 00:06:47 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Chris!

"Chris R. Tame" wrote to everyone!
>
> LIBERTY 2002: THE EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF
> THE LIBERTARIAN INTERNATIONAL AND LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE

I wish I had an opportunity right now to join in! This is one
conference that I sadly won't be able to attend. I wish that I could.
It looks like a great one!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Nature of Treaties (no longer short)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 03:41:23 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again, Frank!

I'm going to have to respond to your answers one at a time.
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> > After that long one, I think I'd like to ask you a few simple questions.
> > 1. Do you really believe that a country has no moral obligation to abide
by
> > a treaty? Or, if you don't want to answer it as a blanket Yes/No: What
> > conditions separate those countries (and/or treaties and/or situations)
> > with a moral obligation to abide by treaties from those without an
> obligation?
>
>There are several moral conditions when a country might be obliged to
>either ignore a treaty, or take whatever steps might be necessary to
>abrogate a treaty entirely,

Fair enough statement of the beginnings of a general principle. (You still
need to specify what sort of moral conditions might be necessary.)

In the following stuff, I found only the barest discussion of what sort of
moral principle might "obligate a country to ignore or abrogate a
treaty." I found what appear to be these principles:

1. When a treaty "violates a nation's self-defense obligations to its own
people" or creates a serious danger of internal turmoil that could turn the
nation into a danger to its neighbors--ala Hitler.

2. When a treaty becomes moot or irrelevant. (Although, this hardly is in
the category of an "ignored" or "abrogated" treaty. And it would hardly
fit the Iraq situation.)

3. When a country has the military strength to abrogate the
treaty. (Although this hardly seems to be a moral justification for doing
so--never mind an "obligation" to do so! And we *are* talking about
*moral* conditions, not just "the way the cookie crumbles" type of
conditions, right?)

4. When a treaty forces a nation to infringe on the rights of its citizens,
then the nation has a duty to abrogate the treaty as soon as it is capable
of doing so. (I found this way down in the post and had to read a lot into
what was said to come up with this statement. This is one that I could
actually agree with. Of course, it is also one that would hardly apply to
Iraq, although I'm sure that Frank will try.)

Frank, can you rewrite these statements or add similar statements to them
so that they properly represent your point of view on what moral conditions
would obligate a country to abrogate a treaty?

> as Bush did with the ABM treaty, and
>ignoring the Kyoto Protocols, and probably the Geneva Conventions
>supporting the treatment of prisoners.

Not one of these three applies to the issue at hand. (Abrogating
treaties.) Not one of these treaties was abrogated or even temporarily
ignored.

We didn't ratify Kyoto and so the world knows we have no legal or moral
obligation of any kind to abide by it. In other words, we never AGREED TO
IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. (An analogy would be the married man who signs the
papers to buy a house but the wife refuses. Then the man withdraws his
signature. No agreement, it never existed.) So, Kyoto was not "abrogated."

Here's an analogy for the ABM treaty. Two neighbors sign an agreement
creating a rifle range on parts of their two properties. One neighbor's
property contains the firing points and the other contains the target
points and the impact berm. One paragraph of the agreement says that
either can give 6 months notice to the other that they are withdrawing from
the agreement. When one gives notice to the other and the 6 months
expires, the agreement is over, done, it no longer exists. The neighbor
who owns the firing points can go there and sit, but he can't fire into the
targets on the other property. The other neighbor can put up targets if he
wants, but he can't go to the firing points. In other words, Bush did not
"break" the ABM treaty any more than one of my fictional neighbors would
"break" the range agreement. He got out of it legally--no "might makes
right", no "moral condition obligating him to ignore or abrogate"--just "we
are exercising the 6-month-out clause." So, ABM was not "abrogated."

The Geneva Convention issue is a disagreement over whether the treatment of
the Camp X-Ray prisoners is "humane" or not. It's almost an "angels
dancing on the head of a pin" sort of argument. No one denies that they
are being fed, clothed, sheltered, allowed to worship as they wish, allowed
to talk with each other, allowed to sanitarily dispose of waste and clean
themselves, exercise, given appropriate medical treatment, etc. The only
complaint is that they are living in "cages" where they can be viewed at
all times (except for trips to the head or the shower) and are supposedly
"exposed to the elements". Of course, if all of this were inside a
climate-controlled building that was kept at the temperatures that Gitmo
is, there wouldn't be a complaint. But since they are "outside", it is
supposed to be some horrible thing. It's a bunch of malarky. The analogy
would be that some agreement was signed with an ambiguous provision or
two. One party says it is abiding by it and another party says it's
not. Frankly, if a court were to examine Camp X-Ray, it's a tossup whether
it would be ruled as compliant or not--and the facts would probably have
less to do with that than how badly the judge wanted to "stick it to the
US". So, at least until you can explain what provisions we are violating
at Camp X-Ray, as far as I'm concerned, we are still abiding by the Geneva
Convention.

> Usually in the case where
>treaties are freely entered into, particularly when two or more world
>governments have chosen such conditions, it is best to try to remain
>within the confines of the treaty arrangements, but even in that case
>I can find reasons why treaties should not be considered eternally
>binding.

Most such treaties where we ought to withdraw have some sort of "out
clause" (like the ABM treaty). But it's a Very Bad Thing(tm) to start
throwing around the idea of abrogating treaties just because one feels like
it or because one can gain some temporary advantage by doing so. It makes
it much more difficult to make and keep treaties in the future. Think of
it this way. If it becomes known that "Frank thinks that he should be free
to abrogate any agreement he makes", how many people are going to enter
into agreements of any kind with "Frank"? Because of that, since "Frank"
knows he may want to enter into various kinds of agreements for various
reasons, he is careful to protect his reputation by keeping his
agreements. On the other hand, suppose it becomes known that "Frank is a
pushover, he'll make an agreement with you, but you don't have to keep your
part of the bargain." Then, "Frank" can figure that any agreement that he
enters into
won't be kept by the other party, so he's probably better off not entering
any agreement at all.

>Probably the greatest case could be made for abrogating all treaties
>with the United Nations, including membership in that body itself, as
>a surrender of US sovereignty to a foreign body. I believe that
>Congressman Ron Paul's continued effort in making that happen is
>morally right.

My *guess*, not knowing for certain, is that almost all of these have "out
clauses" of one kind or another. There is no reason to "abrogate" anything
if we can exercise our agreed rights under an "out clause". Then, for
those treaties that do not have "out clauses", we had better VERY carefully
weigh the disadvantages of the treaty itself against the very serious
consequences of abrogating any treaty. If we can abrogate any treaty that
we don't like (however good our reasons might be) then there's no reason,
morally, to hold someone else to a treaty that we enjoy the benefits of
(however trivial their reasons might be).

So, if the "greatest case could be made for abrogating all treaties with
the United Nations", then you ought to make it. (Rather than simply
asserting that it is so.) I agree that getting out of the UN would be a
good thing to do, but I disagree that the way to do so is to abrogate
treaties. It would be much better (if it turned out to be necessary) to
*buy* our way out (pay the other countries enough that they vote to agree
to let us out). Yes, the taxpayer takes a hit, but that preserves our
moral integrity by abiding by the treaties (a principal which is probably
much more valuable in the long run than the money we would spend) and
presumably you would agree that getting out is so much in our interest that
paying good money to get out would be worth it.

Here, I'm not sure if this is your writing or if you are quoting Ron Paul.

> Any government's chief moral character is to defend its own citizens
> against aggression, whether that might be external aggression, or
> providing a just framework for the protection against internal
> aggression, such as a court and judicial system, and a police
> apparatus that can be used to enforce moral law in strictly defined
> capacity. Any such treaty, that has the effect of limiting such
> protection for defence, so signed, particularly under force or duress,
> does not meet that critical test of a government's highest end.

This might apply to a society that actually protects its citizens more than
it oppresses them. But it still does not answer the issue of why the
stronger force shouldn't simply crush the weaker if it cannot count on
compliance with a treaty.

> Second, many treaties are simply overcome by events and no longer
> serve the best purpose for one, or sometimes both parties as
> signatories to a treaty....

Most of the examples given are of treaties that became irrelevant. Kind of
like my if my fictional firing-range neighbors both sold out to a
developer. Now the developer needs to wait 6 months to tear down the
range? Hardly. He can call the dozer operator the moment the last
signature is on the last dotted line and that range is history. The fact
that some agreements become moot has no bearing on the question of whether
other (non-mooted) agreements should be kept. (After all, if one of the
other neighbors (not bought out by the developer) still has a mortgage,
that person still has an obligation to pay it off--even though the range
agreement is now moot.)

Then there is the example where Russia "rightly assumed that it would be
best if they assumed most of those [USSR] treaties." Yes, Russia could
have wriggled out of them. It didn't. Does that mean that the US can now
"wriggle out" itself if Bush decides they are more of an impediment than a
help? You (or Ron Paul) don't say. But the implication is that the US
cannot--otherwise, what point would there be for Russia to "assume the USSR
treaties?" (And in case it is necessary, for the nth time, Bush DID NOT
"wriggle out" of the ABM treaty. He activated the "out clause", something
that any President since the one who signed it (was it Kennedy or Johnson,
or even Eisenhower?) could have done.)

Then, you say (or is it still Ron Paul?)

> 1. Forced treaties that violate a nation's self-defence obligations to
> its own people are certainly NOT in the best national interest. It is
> likely that it is in the best interest for Iraq, and other nations, to
> largely ignore such forced compliance if they can get by with it in
> the face of much larger nations. Any such treaty, previously made
> under hostile threat, is best viewed as a treaty imposed by one side
> upon another. There was/is no freely entered, contractual agreement.
> If the side with the most power has the ability to enforce the treaty
> anyway, then the treaty itself can be viewed as a self-imposed
> document that only exists by the use of a self-imposed force by the
> winning side. Usually such treaties are dispensed with when the state
> with the greatest force loses the ability to impose such enforcement.

OK, suppose I buy into this. Since the US ("the side with the most power"
to use your terminology) is willing to enforce the treaty, why do you have
a problem with it?

Of course, your description here doesn't do justice to the history. Iraq
wasn't just some nation sitting around minding its own business when it was
attacked and was then forced to sign some treaty to stop the war. Rather,
it was a rogue nation which had attacked another one (which was sitting
around minding its own business). It's kind of like saying that everyone
has a right to privacy and pretending that this right extends to the
convicted robber who is out on parole.

The remainder of your argument again seems to be a mix of "might makes
right" and "Jimmy did it so Johnny can too."

Tomorrow perhaps, Questions 2 and 3.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Nature of Treaties (no longer short)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 23:30:30 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert, and everyone else...

> Frank, can you rewrite these statements or add similar statements to them
> so that they properly represent your point of view on what moral
conditions
> would obligate a country to abrogate a treaty?

No, I won't. I've already rather clearing referenced each category as
I have anticipated them. I think this is one area that is open to
those who really read the dialogue.

But I did write, previously:
> > as Bush did with the ABM treaty, and
> >ignoring the Kyoto Protocols, and probably the Geneva Conventions
> >supporting the treatment of prisoners.

> Not one of these three applies to the issue at hand. (Abrogating
> treaties.) Not one of these treaties was abrogated or even temporarily
> ignored.

The ABM treaty wasn't abrogated!? It clearly was. At least everyone
else saw it as such, even it YOU didn't. The Geneva Conventions?
Give me a break! Nice try, but it doesn't wash! Neither does your
arguments, and there are several of them apparently all couched within
your framework of sponsoring aggression. You seem to want to ignore
them all, don't you? We DID sign on to BOTH the ABM treaty and the
Geneva Conventions, all of them!

> We didn't ratify Kyoto and so the world knows we have no legal or moral
> obligation of any kind to abide by it. In other words, we never AGREED TO
> IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Agreed. But you fail to recount how we DID sign on to the ABM treaty
(since at the time it was the cornerstone of such agreements) and
Geneva Contentions. You are making a mockery in this discussion!

> (An analogy would be the married man who signs the
> papers to buy a house but the wife refuses. Then the man withdraws his
> signature. No agreement, it never existed.) So, Kyoto was not
"abrogated."

Not relevant, but nice try.

> Here's an analogy for the ABM treaty. Two neighbors sign an agreement
> creating a rifle range on parts of their two properties. One neighbor's
> property contains the firing points and the other contains the target
> points and the impact berm. One paragraph of the agreement says that
> either can give 6 months notice to the other that they are withdrawing
from
> the agreement.

Bull shit. This is sheer arrogance, and it is also aggression of
sorts, because the rest of the planet seemed to depend upon such
treaties as binding. I have no idea how long you believe such
arrogant policies will be "allowed" to stand. There will come a time,
when YOUR arrogance suffocates you entirely, and you are left hanging
on your own, and so be it!

> The Geneva Convention issue is a disagreement over whether the treatment
of
> the Camp X-Ray prisoners is "humane" or not. It's almost an "angels
> dancing on the head of a pin" sort of argument.

Well, not really. It is rather a repudiation of everything the US
government has claimed to support, now isn't it! How hypocritical of
you, and the Shrub Regime<tm> to claim the rest of the planet ought to
abide by such rights, and you claim a moral high ground for denying
them! You're really special. Of course, the Geneva Conventions
didn't talk about "unlawful combatants", who have no such rights!
This is a special term invented by the "Shrub Regime<tm> in which you
support and claim allegiance!

> No one denies that they
> are being fed, clothed, sheltered, allowed to worship as they wish,
allowed
> to talk with each other, allowed to sanitarily dispose of waste and clean
> themselves, exercise, given appropriate medical treatment, etc.

Have you read, "l984"? I doubt it. You claim a propensity to teach
me on such things as literary english grammar, or else, the use of
such debate skills, but you have no clue at all on what exactly the US
government is currently drudging up to deny even American citizens
their constitutional rights! You haven't read very much have you?
You're a real pistol! A special case, and probably a legend of your
own mind.

> The only
> complaint is that they are living in "cages" where they can be viewed at
> all times (except for trips to the head or the shower) and are supposedly
> "exposed to the elements".

Oh, isn't this really wonderful? What about unlawful detentions, and
NOTHING whatsoever dealing with "rights" of defence? Are any charges
being filed? Is it really lawful for the US government to even arrest
them at all? Much less spirit them away to unlawful detention
facilities outside of US jurisdiction. This really pisses me off!
Even American citizens are being denied their own constitutional
rights, and you seem to have no problem with that! Wait until YOUR
rights are violated!

[I'm sniping all of this, because it is fucking ridiculous!...]

RE: Concerning "treaties", you wrote:
> Most of the examples given are of treaties that became irrelevant. Kind
of
> like my if my fictional firing-range neighbors both sold out to a
> developer. Now the developer needs to wait 6 months to tear down the
> range? Hardly. He can call the dozer operator the moment the last
> signature is on the last dotted line and that range is history.

How any of this happens to fit into world history, I have no idea?
I've already made my case. If you really believe in aggression, or
the initial use of force, then that's really the issue. So, make it
clear and plain to all, you believe in aggression! I want to
challenge YOU, to make a case for liberty! You haven't done very well
in my opinion anyway.

> Then there is the example where Russia "rightly assumed that it would be
> best if they assumed most of those [USSR] treaties." Yes, Russia could
> have wriggled out of them. It didn't. Does that mean that the US can now
> "wriggle out" itself if Bush decides they are more of an impediment than a
> help? You (or Ron Paul) don't say.

What is this? As far as I know, the US government hasn't disintegrated
as did the USSR. We knew exactly what treaties we signed on to, but
in the case of Russia we weren't so sure. Russia assumed such a
responsibility. Russia should be, and most likely want's to be OUR
Friend AND ALLY! We haven't treated Russia accordingly now have we?
I'll gladly debate this one with you, because I have been following it
intently.

> But the implication is that the US
> cannot--otherwise, what point would there be for Russia to "assume the
USSR
> treaties?" (And in case it is necessary, for the nth time, Bush DID NOT
> "wriggle out" of the ABM treaty. He activated the "out clause", something
> that any President since the one who signed it (was it Kennedy or Johnson,
> or even Eisenhower?) could have done.)

The ABM Treaty was much more than what you suppose. China, and every
other nuclear power accepted the treaties as binding. Bush chose, in
this case, to be the Lone Ranger, in rejecting the treaties. He put
the US government in a position of ostrocization, if nothing else.

> Then, you say (or is it still Ron Paul?)

I don't know, let take a look at it first. No, on a second look, I
wrote it, and as such I'll take ownership over what I wrote. Ron Paul
had nothing to do with it. Is this another "strawman" argument?

And YOU wrote:
> OK, suppose I buy into this. Since the US ("the side with the most power"
> to use your terminology) is willing to enforce the treaty, why do you have
> a problem with it?

Several reasons: because it might be arbitrary, then no validity for
any treaty, and secondly since treaties as such, become ultimately
irrelevant through the abuse of power.

> Of course, your description here doesn't do justice to the history. Iraq
> wasn't just some nation sitting around minding its own business when it
was
> attacked and was then forced to sign some treaty to stop the war. Rather,
> it was a rogue nation which had attacked another one (which was sitting
> around minding its own business). It's kind of like saying that everyone
> has a right to privacy and pretending that this right extends to the
> convicted robber who is out on parole.

I'm really speechless. I'm so glad you brought this up. Is the US
government, or should it rather be called a "rogue state"? After all,
when you consider all of your own arguments, you seem to support
unilateral disregard for international law, and the use of military
aggression. Remember I said the "use" of military aggression rather
than the threat of military aggression! There's a huge difference
here! Which nation really has a history for doing such things? The US
in invading Panama, Granada, Somalia, "the Gulf War" (under almost
complete US supervision), Vietnam, and the list goes on and on!

I can't believe for one moment that your selective memory so much
fails you! What government on earth acts as a rogue state
militarily? Show me some examples, any examples, and for the last
five decades I'll show you countless more examples that don't add up
or even compare to what other nations have done, particularly Iraq of
all states!

> The remainder of your argument again seems to be a mix of "might makes
> right" and "Jimmy did it so Johnny can too."

Lowell, I believe you have all of this twisted pretty badly. You
might wish to quite and give up before you make a mockery over reason.

> Tomorrow perhaps, Questions 2 and 3.

Whatever.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Nature of Treaties (no longer short)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 19:53:23 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

At 23:30 09/16/02 +0800, you wrote:
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert, and everyone else...
>
> > Frank, can you rewrite these statements or add similar statements to
them
> > so that they properly represent your point of view on what moral
conditions
> > would obligate a country to abrogate a treaty?
>
>No, I won't. I've already rather clearing referenced each category as
>I have anticipated them. I think this is one area that is open to
>those who really read the dialogue.
>
>But I did write, previously:
> > > as Bush did with the ABM treaty, and
> > >ignoring the Kyoto Protocols, and probably the Geneva Conventions
> > >supporting the treatment of prisoners.
>
> > Not one of these three applies to the issue at hand. (Abrogating
> > treaties.) Not one of these treaties was abrogated or even temporarily
> > ignored.
>
>The ABM treaty wasn't abrogated!? It clearly was. At least everyone
>else saw it as such, even it YOU didn't. The Geneva Conventions?
>Give me a break! Nice try, but it doesn't wash! Neither does your
>arguments, and there are several of them apparently all couched within
>your framework of sponsoring aggression. You seem to want to ignore
>them all, don't you? We DID sign on to BOTH the ABM treaty and the
>Geneva Conventions, all of them!
>
> > We didn't ratify Kyoto and so the world knows we have no legal or moral
> > obligation of any kind to abide by it. In other words, we never AGREED
TO
> > IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
>
>Agreed. But you fail to recount how we DID sign on to the ABM treaty
>(since at the time it was the cornerstone of such agreements) and
>Geneva Contentions. You are making a mockery in this discussion!
>
> > (An analogy would be the married man who signs the
> > papers to buy a house but the wife refuses. Then the man withdraws his
> > signature. No agreement, it never existed.) So, Kyoto was not
> "abrogated."
>
>Not relevant, but nice try.
>
> > Here's an analogy for the ABM treaty. Two neighbors sign an agreement
> > creating a rifle range on parts of their two properties. One neighbor's
> > property contains the firing points and the other contains the target
> > points and the impact berm. One paragraph of the agreement says that
> > either can give 6 months notice to the other that they are withdrawing
from
> > the agreement.
>
>Bull shit. This is sheer arrogance, and it is also aggression of
>sorts, because the rest of the planet seemed to depend upon such
>treaties as binding. I have no idea how long you believe such
>arrogant policies will be "allowed" to stand. There will come a time,
>when YOUR arrogance suffocates you entirely, and you are left hanging
>on your own, and so be it!
>
> > The Geneva Convention issue is a disagreement over whether the treatment
of
> > the Camp X-Ray prisoners is "humane" or not. It's almost an "angels
> > dancing on the head of a pin" sort of argument.
>
>Well, not really. It is rather a repudiation of everything the US
>government has claimed to support, now isn't it! How hypocritical of
>you, and the Shrub Regime<tm> to claim the rest of the planet ought to
>abide by such rights, and you claim a moral high ground for denying
>them! You're really special. Of course, the Geneva Conventions
>didn't talk about "unlawful combatants", who have no such rights!
>This is a special term invented by the "Shrub Regime<tm> in which you
>support and claim allegiance!
>
> > No one denies that they
> > are being fed, clothed, sheltered, allowed to worship as they wish,
allowed
> > to talk with each other, allowed to sanitarily dispose of waste and
clean
> > themselves, exercise, given appropriate medical treatment, etc.
>
>Have you read, "l984"? I doubt it. You claim a propensity to teach
>me on such things as literary english grammar, or else, the use of
>such debate skills, but you have no clue at all on what exactly the US
>government is currently drudging up to deny even American citizens
>their constitutional rights! You haven't read very much have you?
>You're a real pistol! A special case, and probably a legend of your
>own mind.
>
>
> > The only
> > complaint is that they are living in "cages" where they can be viewed at
> > all times (except for trips to the head or the shower) and are
supposedly
> > "exposed to the elements".
>
>Oh, isn't this really wonderful? What about unlawful detentions, and
>NOTHING whatsoever dealing with "rights" of defence? Are any charges
>being filed? Is it really lawful for the US government to even arrest
>them at all? Much less spirit them away to unlawful detention
>facilities outside of US jurisdiction. This really pisses me off!
>Even American citizens are being denied their own constitutional
>rights, and you seem to have no problem with that! Wait until YOUR
>rights are violated!
>
>[I'm sniping all of this, because it is fucking ridiculous!...]
>
>RE: Concerning "treaties", you wrote:
> > Most of the examples given are of treaties that became irrelevant. Kind
of
> > like my if my fictional firing-range neighbors both sold out to a
> > developer. Now the developer needs to wait 6 months to tear down the
> > range? Hardly. He can call the dozer operator the moment the last
> > signature is on the last dotted line and that range is history.
>
>How any of this happens to fit into world history, I have no idea?
>I've already made my case. If you really believe in aggression, or
>the initial use of force, then that's really the issue. So, make it
>clear and plain to all, you believe in aggression! I want to
>challenge YOU, to make a case for liberty! You haven't done very well
>in my opinion anyway.
>
> > Then there is the example where Russia "rightly assumed that it would be
> > best if they assumed most of those [USSR] treaties." Yes, Russia could
> > have wriggled out of them. It didn't. Does that mean that the US can
now
> > "wriggle out" itself if Bush decides they are more of an impediment than
a
> > help? You (or Ron Paul) don't say.
>
>What is this? As far as I know, the US government hasn't disintegrated
>as did the USSR. We knew exactly what treaties we signed on to, but
>in the case of Russia we weren't so sure. Russia assumed such a
>responsibility. Russia should be, and most likely want's to be OUR
>Friend AND ALLY! We haven't treated Russia accordingly now have we?
>I'll gladly debate this one with you, because I have been following it
>intently.
>
> > But the implication is that the US
> > cannot--otherwise, what point would there be for Russia to "assume the
USSR
> > treaties?" (And in case it is necessary, for the nth time, Bush DID NOT
> > "wriggle out" of the ABM treaty. He activated the "out clause",
something
> > that any President since the one who signed it (was it Kennedy or
Johnson,
> > or even Eisenhower?) could have done.)
>
>The ABM Treaty was much more than what you suppose. China, and every
>other nuclear power accepted the treaties as binding. Bush chose, in
>this case, to be the Lone Ranger, in rejecting the treaties. He put
>the US government in a position of ostrocization, if nothing else.
>
> > Then, you say (or is it still Ron Paul?)
>
>I don't know, let take a look at it first. No, on a second look, I
>wrote it, and as such I'll take ownership over what I wrote. Ron Paul
>had nothing to do with it. Is this another "strawman" argument?
>
>And YOU wrote:
> > OK, suppose I buy into this. Since the US ("the side with the most
power"
> > to use your terminology) is willing to enforce the treaty, why do you
have
> > a problem with it?
>
>Several reasons: because it might be arbitrary, then no validity for
>any treaty, and secondly since treaties as such, become ultimately
>irrelevant through the abuse of power.
>
> > Of course, your description here doesn't do justice to the history.
Iraq
> > wasn't just some nation sitting around minding its own business when it
was
> > attacked and was then forced to sign some treaty to stop the war.
Rather,
> > it was a rogue nation which had attacked another one (which was sitting
> > around minding its own business). It's kind of like saying that
everyone
> > has a right to privacy and pretending that this right extends to the
> > convicted robber who is out on parole.
>
>I'm really speechless. I'm so glad you brought this up. Is the US
>government, or should it rather be called a "rogue state"? After all,
>when you consider all of your own arguments, you seem to support
>unilateral disregard for international law, and the use of military
>aggression. Remember I said the "use" of military aggression rather
>than the threat of military aggression! There's a huge difference
>here! Which nation really has a history for doing such things? The US
>in invading Panama, Granada, Somalia, "the Gulf War" (under almost
>complete US supervision), Vietnam, and the list goes on and on!
>
>I can't believe for one moment that your selective memory so much
>fails you! What government on earth acts as a rogue state
>militarily? Show me some examples, any examples, and for the last
>five decades I'll show you countless more examples that don't add up
>or even compare to what other nations have done, particularly Iraq of
>all states!
>
> > The remainder of your argument again seems to be a mix of "might makes
> > right" and "Jimmy did it so Johnny can too."
>
>Lowell, I believe you have all of this twisted pretty badly. You
>might wish to quite and give up before you make a mockery over reason.
>
> > Tomorrow perhaps, Questions 2 and 3.
>
>Whatever.
>
>Kindest regards,
>Frank
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
>To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
>URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Nature of Treaties (no longer short)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 20:16:21 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings, Frank. (And sorry, everyone about the extra bandwidth--I hit
the wrong button.)
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert, and everyone else...
>
> > Frank, can you rewrite these statements or add similar statements to
them
> > so that they properly represent your point of view on what moral
conditions
> > would obligate a country to abrogate a treaty?
>
>No, I won't. I've already rather clearing referenced each category as
>I have anticipated them. I think this is one area that is open to
>those who really read the dialogue.

I should have guessed. Frank either has no principles or they are so
confused and contradictory that he doesn't want to see them written down
anywhere because then he'd have to defend the indefensible.

Previously, when trying to nail down exactly what conditions Frank believes
would "obligate a country to abrogate a treaty" (which I believe is a quote
from one of his previous posts), I wrote the following list of
conditions. I'm posting them again to refresh the memories of the other
list members (without my comments on those "conditions" which were in the
original):

1. When a treaty "violates a nation's self-defense obligations to its own
people" or creates a serious danger of internal turmoil that could turn the
nation into a danger to its neighbors--ala Hitler.

2. When a treaty becomes moot or irrelevant.

3. When a country has the military strength to abrogate the treaty.

4. When a treaty forces a nation to infringe on the rights of its citizens,
then the nation has a duty to abrogate the treaty as soon as it is capable
of doing so.

Note: I tried to state them in the way that made them the strongest for
what I understand Frank's position to be. (A strawman argument on my part
would be to state them in the weakest possible way and then have fun
pounding them. However, I have done my best to state them in the strongest
possible way and to allow Frank the opportunity to correct them to make
them even stronger. He has declined that opportunity.)

Note that the only one of these which could apply to Iraq is #3 since the
nothing has become moot (#2) and Iraq is hardly a protector of the rights
of any of its citizens (other than, perhaps, Saddam's family) so #1 and #4
are pretty much off the table.

If #3 applies to Iraq, then it would also imply that the US now has the
power to abrogate any treaty that Bush happens to feel like
abrogating. Somehow, after reading all of Frank's posts, I don't think
that he would support such a thing.

So, what does Frank really believe about the nature of treaties? After all
that verbiage, he's gone off in so many different, weird directions that
I'm not sure what he believes--except that the US was wrong to dump
treaties that said could be dumped (ABM) and not agree to treaties it had
every right to not sign on to, while at the same time, Iraq has every right
to dump a treaty that it agreed to and that didn't say could be dumped.

Lowell C. Savage
Give War a Chance!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Nature of Treaties (no longer short)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 22:53:20 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings, Frank

>But I did write, previously:
> > > as Bush did with the ABM treaty, and
> > >ignoring the Kyoto Protocols, and probably the Geneva Conventions
> > >supporting the treatment of prisoners.
>
> > Not one of these three applies to the issue at hand. (Abrogating
> > treaties.) Not one of these treaties was abrogated or even temporarily
> > ignored.
>
>The ABM treaty wasn't abrogated!? It clearly was. At least everyone
>else saw it as such, even it YOU didn't.

Can you cite a single government who claimed it was abrogated? Or
politician? even a columnist? I suppose there are a few feverish "liberal"
and maybe even one or two "libertarian" columnists who said it had been
"abrogated", but generally, they acknowledged that Bush had the authority
to do what he did. Now, they were terribly angry that he had done so and
were full of dire warnings (all wrong) about what would happen, but they
did not claim he had "abrogated" it. (And like I said, there may have been
a few idiots or liars who said "abrogated" or the equivalent, but that is
hardly "everyone"!)

Of course, on this one, I'm afraid I'm guilty of "piling on", since Bill
Anderson did such a magnificent job of showing how many ways the ABM treaty
was defunct as it was (even though we obeyed it!!!).

>The Geneva Conventions?
>Give me a break! Nice try, but it doesn't wash! Neither does your
>arguments, and there are several of them apparently all couched within
>your framework of sponsoring aggression.

Fine, if we've broken the Geneva Convention, please explain to me how we've
done so. You haven't done that yet. You've claimed that others think
we've done so, but you haven't even quoted the specific charges of the acts
our government has done which constitute violations of the Convention
(saying "you haven't heard of Camp X-Ray" does not tell me how Camp X-Ray
violates the Geneva Convention). Nor have you tried to refute my
statements about what is going on down there.

>You seem to want to ignore
>them all, don't you? We DID sign on to BOTH the ABM treaty and the
>Geneva Conventions, all of them!

Yes we did sign on to them both. We also have broken neither--or if we
have, you haven't presented a shred of evidence (other than "Frank sez")
that we've broken either. You also seem to have ignored repeated offerings
of information about them which would show that we have obeyed them.

> > We didn't ratify Kyoto and so the world knows we have no legal or moral
> > obligation of any kind to abide by it. In other words, we never AGREED
TO
> > IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
>
>Agreed. But you fail to recount how we DID sign on to the ABM treaty
>(since at the time it was the cornerstone of such agreements) and
>Geneva Contentions. You are making a mockery in this discussion!

So why did you bring up Kyoto? Especially in the context of "if Bush can
ignore Kyoto, why then Saddam has the right to ignore the treaties that he
signed on to."

> > (An analogy would be the married man who signs the
> > papers to buy a house but the wife refuses. Then the man withdraws his
> > signature. No agreement, it never existed.) So, Kyoto was not
> "abrogated."
>
>Not relevant, but nice try.

Why not relevant? What's not relevant? That Kyoto was not "abrogated" or
do you think my analogy isn't relevant? Actually, the better analogy would
be the couple sends their 16 year-old kid to sign the papers, then both
parents refuse to sign (since the VP doesn't have *any* signature
authority).

> > Here's an analogy for the ABM treaty. Two neighbors sign an agreement
> > creating a rifle range on parts of their two properties. One neighbor's
> > property contains the firing points and the other contains the target
> > points and the impact berm. One paragraph of the agreement says that
> > either can give 6 months notice to the other that they are withdrawing
from
> > the agreement.
>
>Bull shit. This is sheer arrogance, and it is also aggression of
>sorts, because the rest of the planet seemed to depend upon such
>treaties as binding. I have no idea how long you believe such
>arrogant policies will be "allowed" to stand. There will come a time,
>when YOUR arrogance suffocates you entirely, and you are left hanging
>on your own, and so be it!

Huh?! The "rest of the planet" was depending on the US keeping a treaty
which had a 6 month out clause? The "rest of the planet" is that
DUMB?! And pointing out the provisions of a treaty is "arrogance"?

Here's a little bit more arrogance comin' atcha, Frank. Take a look at
Article XV of the treaty, go to
http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/abm/abm2.html and scroll to
the bottom. To shove even more arrogance down your craw, take a look at
the White House's press release about the ABM treaty withdrawal:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011213-2.html

> > The Geneva Convention issue is a disagreement over whether the treatment
of
> > the Camp X-Ray prisoners is "humane" or not. It's almost an "angels
> > dancing on the head of a pin" sort of argument.
>
>Well, not really. It is rather a repudiation of everything the US
>government has claimed to support, now isn't it!

Please explain how that is so. Please explain what it is that the US
government is doing which is a "repudiation".

> How hypocritical of
>you, and the Shrub Regime<tm> to claim the rest of the planet ought to
>abide by such rights, and you claim a moral high ground for denying
>them!

What rights are being denied in Camp X-Ray?

> You're really special. Of course, the Geneva Conventions
>didn't talk about "unlawful combatants", who have no such rights!

I guess that would have been the Hague Convention, then? It defined
"unlawful combatants" because of the awful experience that Napolean's
troops had in Spain fighting the guerrillas there.

>This is a special term invented by the "Shrub Regime<tm> in which you
>support and claim allegiance!

No, it is in the Hague Convention.

> > No one denies that they
> > are being fed, clothed, sheltered, allowed to worship as they wish,
allowed
> > to talk with each other, allowed to sanitarily dispose of waste and
clean
> > themselves, exercise, given appropriate medical treatment, etc.
>
>Have you read, "l984"? I doubt it. You claim a propensity to teach
>me on such things as literary english grammar, or else, the use of
>such debate skills, but you have no clue at all on what exactly the US
>government is currently drudging up to deny even American citizens
>their constitutional rights! You haven't read very much have you?

Hmm. I thought we were talking about the (supposed) violations of the
Geneva Convention. Since you're such an expert on the Geneva Convention,
perhaps you can tell me what the Geneva Convention has to say about a
country's treatment of its own citizens when those citizens take up arms
against it. Note: I may be willing to concede that these citizens have
been denied their constitutional rights, but even if so, what does the
Geneva Convention have to say about it?

[Skipped more stuff about whether some detention violates the constitution.]

>RE: Concerning "treaties", you wrote:
> > Most of the examples given are of treaties that became irrelevant. Kind
of
> > like my if my fictional firing-range neighbors both sold out to a
> > developer. Now the developer needs to wait 6 months to tear down the
> > range? Hardly. He can call the dozer operator the moment the last
> > signature is on the last dotted line and that range is history.
>
>How any of this happens to fit into world history, I have no idea?
>I've already made my case.

And (to quote part of your post that was snipped) your case is ridiculous.

> If you really believe in aggression, or
>the initial use of force, then that's really the issue. So, make it
>clear and plain to all, you believe in aggression! I want to
>challenge YOU, to make a case for liberty! You haven't done very well
>in my opinion anyway.

At this point, your opinion of whether I've "done well" carries zero
weight. You obviously don't understand logic. Your arguments go all over
the place. You bring in irrelevant issues (well, irrelevant, except that
they seem to be reasons you hate Bush). And then you make baseless charges
like "you believe in aggression!"

> > Then there is the example where Russia "rightly assumed that it would be
> > best if they assumed most of those [USSR] treaties." Yes, Russia could
> > have wriggled out of them. It didn't. Does that mean that the US can
now
> > "wriggle out" itself if Bush decides they are more of an impediment than
a
> > help? You (or Ron Paul) don't say.
>
>What is this? As far as I know, the US government hasn't disintegrated
>as did the USSR. We knew exactly what treaties we signed on to, but
>in the case of Russia we weren't so sure. Russia assumed such a
>responsibility. Russia should be, and most likely want's to be OUR
>Friend AND ALLY! We haven't treated Russia accordingly now have we?
>I'll gladly debate this one with you, because I have been following it
>intently.

You brought up Russia as an example of "treaties" that no longer
applied. This was in the context of arguing that Iraq should not be held
to its treaties. So, if Iraq shouldn't be held to its treaties, then US
has even more reason to not be held to the treaties it signed with a now
non-existent partner.

> > But the implication is that the US
> > cannot--otherwise, what point would there be for Russia to "assume the
USSR
> > treaties?" (And in case it is necessary, for the nth time, Bush DID NOT
> > "wriggle out" of the ABM treaty. He activated the "out clause",
something
> > that any President since the one who signed it (was it Kennedy or
Johnson,
> > or even Eisenhower?) could have done.)
>
>The ABM Treaty was much more than what you suppose. China, and every
>other nuclear power accepted the treaties as binding.

Really?! When and how did China sign on to the ABM treaty? And please
explain how China's opinion of the ABM treaty as "binding" makes any
difference in whether Article XV has any effect?

> Bush chose, in
>this case, to be the Lone Ranger, in rejecting the treaties. He put
>the US government in a position of ostrocization, if nothing else.

Let me guess. If the US were to get out of the UN (I believe you actually
advocated "abrogating" our UN treaties) you think this would *NOT* "put the
US government in a position of ostrocization [sic]."

> > Then, you say (or is it still Ron Paul?)
>
>I don't know, let take a look at it first. No, on a second look, I
>wrote it, and as such I'll take ownership over what I wrote. Ron Paul
>had nothing to do with it. Is this another "strawman" argument?

OK. You mentioned Ron Paul and there was an all-caps heading which led me
to believe that you might be quoting an article by Ron Paul. Even if it
hadn't been an honest mistake, it still would not have been a strawman
argument. It might have turned into an "ad hominem" argument if I had
happened to be someone who always disagrees with Ron Paul and had then said
something like "Well, that's just Ron Paul, so you *know* it's got to be
wrong." It might have been a strawman argument if I had paraphrased it in
such a way that it was much weaker. But since I dealt with what you
actually wrote, it's not a strawman argument--even if it happens to be
wrong for some other reason. And in that last case, it would be up to you
to show why it is wrong.

>And YOU wrote:
> > OK, suppose I buy into this. Since the US ("the side with the most
power"
> > to use your terminology) is willing to enforce the treaty, why do you
have
> > a problem with it?
>
>Several reasons: because it might be arbitrary, then no validity for
>any treaty, and secondly since treaties as such, become ultimately
>irrelevant through the abuse of power.

Because it *might* be arbitrary? How about you decide whether it is or
isn't and come back when you've decided. Of course, if you decide that it
*is* arbitrary, please explain to me why you think so.

> > Of course, your description here doesn't do justice to the history.
Iraq
> > wasn't just some nation sitting around minding its own business when it
was
> > attacked and was then forced to sign some treaty to stop the war.
Rather,
> > it was a rogue nation which had attacked another one (which was sitting
> > around minding its own business). It's kind of like saying that
everyone
> > has a right to privacy and pretending that this right extends to the
> > convicted robber who is out on parole.
>
>I'm really speechless. I'm so glad you brought this up. Is the US
>government, or should it rather be called a "rogue state"? After all,
>when you consider all of your own arguments, you seem to support
>unilateral disregard for international law, and the use of military
>aggression. Remember I said the "use" of military aggression rather
>than the threat of military aggression! There's a huge difference
>here!

Oh really? So you are saying that Iraq did not "use" military aggression
to invade Kuwait? How ridiculous.

>Which nation really has a history for doing such things? The US
>in invading Panama, Granada, Somalia, "the Gulf War" (under almost
>complete US supervision), Vietnam, and the list goes on and on!

Oh, is this another of your "principles"? That since the US (supposedly)
"attacked" all these other countries, it has no moral standing to enforce a
treaty against Iraq? It's that sackcloth and ashes thing again.

>I can't believe for one moment that your selective memory so much
>fails you! What government on earth acts as a rogue state
>militarily? Show me some examples, any examples, and for the last
>five decades I'll show you countless more examples that don't add up
>or even compare to what other nations have done, particularly Iraq of
>all states!

Iraq invaded Kuwait. Took it over. Looted it. Rounded up and killed
civilians. Kept more civilians in custody--perhaps even to this day. Has
not accounted for soldiers (and civilians) captured. What's more "rogue"
than that? The US "invasion" of Panama or Grenada that took down dictators
and left democratically-elected governments? The US "invasion" of Somalia
that attempted to restore sufficient order to allow starving people to be
able to eat? The US "invasion" in the Gulf war that restored Kuwait to its
previous (albeit less-than-democratic) government?

> > Tomorrow perhaps, Questions 2 and 3.
>
>Whatever.

Naw. I can see it's not worth the bother.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: libnw@immosys.comre: nature of treaties
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 18:12:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@monet.bestweb.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Frank wrote:

"I asked Robert, and this has been about a year or so ago, about what you
can
do in this present climate of anti-libertarian enthusiasm? His answer
was that first, you try and persuade others to grant you the personal
freedom to run your own life, and secondly, if they won't, you kill
them! Well, that's a strong statement to make. And, sense I can't speak for
Robert, I'll give him the opportunity here to make what he intended
more clear."

I don't think I can make it clearer than that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Nature of Treaties
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 18:13:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@monet.bestweb.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Frank, can't you see that if the ABM treaty itself had a clause allowing a
party to leave it after giving notice, then putting that clause into effect
is NOT breaking the treaty?

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Nature of Treaties
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 19:47:21 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

> Frank, can't you see that if the ABM treaty itself had a clause allowing a
> party to leave it after giving notice, then putting that clause into
effect
> is NOT breaking the treaty?

Well, that's easy. On the other hand, what would you say if such a
provision didn't exist? I mean, do you believe that one side might
the right (if not the power) to terminate or abrogate such a treaty?

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: nature of treaties
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 20:02:19 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> "I asked Robert, and this has been about a year or so ago, about what you
can
> do in this present climate of anti-libertarian enthusiasm? His answer
> was that first, you try and persuade others to grant you the personal
> freedom to run your own life, and secondly, if they won't, you kill
> them! Well, that's a strong statement to make. And, sense I can't speak
for
> Robert, I'll give him the opportunity here to make what he intended
> more clear."

You replied:
> I don't think I can make it clearer than that.

Sorry I couldn't give the context of your remarks more clarity.
Problem is, as I wrote, you mentioned it several months ago, if not a
year or so, but I'll never forget a statement like that. I've even
found myself re-thinking some of my previous reservations about the
context of such, however that seems to be what a lot of revolutions
were really all about.

I'm wondering how workable it is as well in the context of say, US
society, or any police state society where the idea of regulatory
tyranny is considered "good" in most cases.

In keeping with current realities, it would be difficult to imagine
how such defence against aggressors could ultimately gain any freedom,
that is, unless it garnered large support. You might kill of a few of
the bastards that prohibited your freedom, but at the same time you
would likely be caught in due course, and tried and executed. In such
a case, your freedom doesn't mean very much it seems to me.

In principle, I believe that it is morally right for individuals to
defend themselves against aggression. There may be other, more
practical and effective ways of defending yourself without resorting
to the ultimate defence.

I watched and witnessed a lot of what was going on when the federal
storm troopers came onto Ruby Ridge, kicked all the local residents
out, and then shot up the Weaver family finally leading to Randy
Weaver and Kevin Harris's apprehension. True, Randy Weaver was
finally acquitted of all charges (except for not showing up for a
court appearance), and you might suggest that subsequently he finally
had more freedom than before -- but even that is questionable. At any
rate, if Gerry Spence had not volunteered his free legal services, I
doubt Weaver would have been acquitted. Likely he would still be
serving a very long sentence, if not a life sentence.

When you are trying to defend yourself against government aggression,
usually at least, you end up at the wrong end of government force.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Nature of Treaties
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 10:13:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@monet.bestweb.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Frank Reichert wrote:

> Greetings again Robert!
>
> Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> > Frank, can't you see that if the ABM treaty itself had a clause allowing
a
> > party to leave it after giving notice, then putting that clause into
effect
> > is NOT breaking the treaty?
>
> Well, that's easy. On the other hand, what would you say if such a
> provision didn't exist? I mean, do you believe that one side might
> the right (if not the power) to terminate or abrogate such a treaty?

If so, then what's the point of treaties?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Nature of Treaties
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:36:01 +0100
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Robert Goodman

> If so, then what's the point of treaties?

If we think of a treaty as like as legal contract,
then you would terminate it only in extreme circumstances.

If a treaty is little more than a letter of intent,
why not just call it a letter of intent in the first
place?

Regards
Tim

The Long Road
Galen: If we're planning to appeal to the better
angels of their nature, we'd better have a backup plan
in case reason is not sufficient to the cause

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: ABM and strategic defense issues
Date: 16 Sep 2002 17:32:44 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

SDI, the ABM, etc. were a particular study point for me over a decade
ago. So I suppose I should weigh in now. Unfortunately, the data that is
available now with the fall of the curtain, is much better than it was
in the late eighties. Interestingly, the data confirms the research done
before.

On Mon, 2002-09-16 at 16:13, Robert Goodman wrote:
> Frank, can't you see that if the ABM treaty itself had a clause allowing a
> party to leave it after giving notice, then putting that clause into
effect
> is NOT breaking the treaty?

Apparently not. Most unfortunate, that is.

Of course, in a way, it was moot. The Soviets/Russians had abrogated the
treaty years ago (and were in violation of it right up unto the U.S.
withdrawal). They did this by building 10,000-12,000 dual purpose
surface-to-air missile (SAM) / anti-ballistic missile (ABM) interceptors
and 19 battle management radars (radars that provide tracking data on
hostile missile warheads to a SAM/ABM complex for intercept) in
violation of the 1972 ABM Treaty.

"""
Two generations of Soviet NMD were developed and deployed: first, the
SA-5 and Hen House battle management radars dating from the mid-1960s;
second, the SA-l0 SAMs/ABMs and Large Perimeter Acquisition (phased
array) Radars (LPARs), dating from the early 1980s. According to the
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and Western conventional wisdom, the
SA-5 and SA-l0 were only anti-aircraft "SAMs" rather than SAM/ABMs, and
the huge battle management radars were only for early warning (and space
track).

Documentation for the Soviet NMD system has accumulated since 1992 and
more has turned up recently. On 14 March 1997, Belarus President A.
Lukashenka stated that "the main military installations that protect not
only Belarus but the western part of the Russian Federation are located
on Belorusian territory. It is in Belarus, above all, that anti-missile
defense systems are deployed" (emphasis added). Since none of the Soviet
NMD battle management radars were located in Belarus, Lukashenka could
only have referred to the numerous SA-5/10 SAM/ABM units located there.

Two weeks later Gen. Col. V. Smirnov, current Commander of Russian ABM
and space defense forces, stated that Soviet aerospace defenses not only
provided the leadership with reliable warning of ballistic missile
attack and tracking of hostile satellites, but also ensured the
"protection from missile strikes of the targets having the greatest
military-political and economic significance". Gen. Smirnov did not
limit that protection to Moscow.

Aside from saying that the ABM Treaty retarded Soviet ABM in some
unspecified manner, Gen. Smirnov specifically complained that the Treaty
had forced dismantlement of the Krasnoyarsk ABM battle management radar.
He did not acknowledge that the location was a blatant violation of the
ABM Treaty, nor that the late 1970s order to locate it at Krasnoyarsk
rather than at Norilsk, as the military had planned, came from the
Politburo, which was run by the "troika" of D.F. Ustinov (Ministry of
Defense), Yu. V. Andropov (KGB), and A.A. Gromyko (Foreign Minister).
""" -- William T. Lee author of "The ABM Treaty Charade: A Study in
elite Illusion and Delusion.

Soviet and Russian sources, including former Premier Alexei Kosygin and
the Chief Designer of the original Moscow ABM system, confirm that: the
SA-5 and SA-10 were dual purpose antiaircraft/missile systems
(SAM/ABMs), and that the Hen House and LPAR radars provided the
requisite battle management target tracking data. These and other
sources cited in The ABM Treaty Charade are not exhaustive.

This is yet another avenue where research is crucial, rather than
relying on the "media". After realizing the ABM capabilities of
USSR/Russia, once can see why certain "arms control" treaties were
signed, or offered by them. They to this day have a fairly useful ABM
systems (Triad-plus). It is not capable of defeating large numbers of
ICBM launches, but is capable of defeating smaller launch sets.

So, from a strategic and logical standpoint, you either increase your
defenses, or you get the other side to decrease theirs. If your goal is
be able to fight and "win" such an exchange, then you can lower your
overall levels, if the enemy does the same, and has not the level of ABM
defenses you do.

This is the method the Soviets took, and the system and method was
inherited by Russia. This is why they are/were against us developing our
own MDS. Our capability to stop an incoming threat is limited. If we
increase our capability, it lowers the threat of their weapons.

MDs is not measured in percentage of stopped missile,s but in raw
numbers. A given system is capable of defeating X number of missiles. if
the enemy has more than X number of missiles to defeat, missiles will
penetrate your grid. If they have less, odds are you will have no
penetrations.

For all of Franks whining about "first strike", he is incorrect in the
claim that only the US has ever had a policy that included a potential
for nuclear first strike. The Soviets, and their inheritors the
Russians, designed their military structure around the concept of it,
and the concept of winning it.

Their plans involved the ability to eradicate most of, if not nearly all
or all, the incoming ICBMs, and use conventional troops to occupy Europe
to provide them with time to recover. The documents that have come to
light since the fall of the wall and curtain, show this in clear,
uncompromising detail. According to these documents, and sources, the
intent of the ABM treaty was to slow down the advancement rate of the
US, to provide the Soviets time to catch up, and deploy a system as they
did. One aspect of the AB, was to prevent us from even researching
technologies to provide an MDS.

BMD systems devalue the missiles.

Then again, there is the legal issue of the assumption of treaty after
the dissolution of the USSR.

To wit:
"
Our argument is very simply as follows. We believe that the ABM Treaty
became extinct when the Soviet Union dissolved in '91. The reasons for
it, we believe that the treaties are a species of contract that may be
rendered impossible to perform and discharges the matter of law by the
disappearance of one or both of the treaty partners.

Under the applicable rules of international and constitutional law, the
ABM Treaty could have survived the Soviet Union's dissolution only if
one or more of a surviving post-Soviet states both continued the Soviet
Union's sovereignty, which is to say its international legal
personality. And very importantly, the second condition, were capable of
fulfilling the totality of the terms and conditions of the original
treaty unimpaired. No such states survived the Soviet Union's
dissolution....

[T]he ABM Treaty can be revived only with the full participation that
the United States Senate was provided by the Constitution. Moreover, to
ensure that the United States obtain the benefits of its original 1972
bargain, the ABM Treaty would have to be very significantly and
substantially drafted.

In any case, the substitution of one or more former Soviet republics
from the Soviet Union would fundamentally change the original bargain of
1972 to which the Senate consented. In sum, the President cannot, on his
own authority, change the ABM Treaty in so fundamental a manner without
obtaining the Senate's advice and consent again." -- David Rivkin, Jr.,
Partner, Hunton and Williams

AND

"[O]ur legal analysis of the status of the ABM Treaty of 1972 concludes
that following the Soviet Union's extinction, the ABM Treaty did not
become a treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation....

[T]he fundamental question is, if a treaty has lapsed...then it is not
in purgatory or limbo or in some state from which it can be revived. If
it lapsed, it is dead. Scholars have pointed out, there is no
resurrection in international law....

The President cannot, without Senate approval, bring a lapsed treaty
back to life by declaring that a given foreign state is the successor or
continuation of an extinct state.... [Boris Yeltsin] expressed the
willingness of Russia to step into the shoes of the Soviet Union under
the ABM Treaty. And I don't disagree that the United States could...have
entered into an agreement with Russia that had the same essential terms
as the ABM Treaty...taking Yeltsin up on his statement, "I am happy to
assume, you know, the rights and duties of the Soviet Union under the
ABM Treaty."... But under the U.S. constitutional principles...it has to
be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent." -- Douglas Feith,
former Deputy Assistant Secretary, Negotiation Policy, Department of
Defense

Regarding the ABM of 1972, it was defunct in 1991 due to the dissolution
of one of the two signatories, it was violated by the soviets (and still
in violation by the Russians -- at least up until the US withdrawal
become final) since at least 1978. Nonetheless, it contained an "out"
clause, which was utilized.

In this case, the USSR and Russians abrogated ( to treat as nonexistent
<abrogating their responsibilities>) the treaty years ago. The US had an
option to "abrogate" it (i.e. treat as nonexistent) starting in 1991
with the dissolution of the other signatory, yet they chose not to. If
one were to abrogate the ABMT of 1972, they would, by definition, not be
giving required notice of withdrawal.

So, Frank's whining about the "abrogation" of the ABM treaty of 1972 is
off-target to the point of being pointed in the wrong direction. yet
these facts countermand Frank's claims, and are summarily disregarded an
ignored ... in essence, he abrogates them.

Bill

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: [Fwd: Bush Pulls a Grieving Nation Into War]
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:37:23 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

Here's a great essay, showing the Shrub Regime<tm> using America's
grieving one year since the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the
resultant patriotic fervour, to thrust America and in the entire world
into a war of staggering proportions.

Published on VillageVoice.com and sent by the Militia of Montana, I
feel this fine essay is timely and provides a lot of background into
much of what we have been discussing here for some time.

Kindest regards,
Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Bush Pulls a Grieving Nation Into War
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 11:50:33 -0600
From: "M.O.M." <nox2128@blackfoot.net>
Reply-To: militia@montana.com
Organization: Militia of Montana

Bush Pulls a Grieving Nation Into War
I Hear America Sinking
by James Ridgeway | Mondo Washington
VillageVoice.com

September 11 - 17, 2002

Behind the memorial candles and commercial remembrances lies one of
the most astute marketing campaigns in American political history.
This week,
as the nation marks the first anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, the
Bush
administration will twist voters' outpouring of raw emotion and
patriotic fervor into a launching pad for the inevitable invasion of
Iraq.

In a September 12 speech to the United Nations, President Bush will
further showcase his arguments for knocking off Saddam Hussein. Behind
the
scenes, his advisers have been torquing the arms of European leaders,
who rightly
have withheld approval. The White House is making a very bold gamble,
one
that has most of the world scared to death.

Last week the U.S. stepped up its air attacks, sending 100 warplanes
to bomb Iraq, which has been under intermittent siege since the end of
Desert Storm in 1991. The Pentagon has continued to move ships,
planes, and troops into the region. As for any congressional debate,
it's as much for display as the
deliberations of the UN, orchestrated to end in a non-binding
resolution backing Bush.

Bush can hope war will benefit the economy. But it could also hurt.
News early this week that Saudi Arabia would deny U.S. companies
access to its prized natural gas fields is only the first sign of what
could well turn into an economic energy boycott against the U.S.,
driving up prices and torpedoing our markets.

Time was, America appeared strong enough to command more respect.
After World War II, the guiding myths of America had more resonance,
the
empire more pure clout. Now, suddenly, the whole thing seems to be
coming apart,
with the facts of our weakness outweighing any attempts at spin. No
frenzy of
patriotism can hide the cracks in the pillars of our society, at least
not for
long. Consider some of them:

Military: September 11 represents a huge military and intelligence
failure, symbolized by news that air traffic controllers knew a second
plane
had been hijacked and was potentially heading for the World Trade
Center well
before it crashed into the south tower. But our air defenses were
nowhere. The
BBC just last week aired an interview with the Northeast Defense
Sector air
commander saying that there were only four armed fighters patrolling
the
Atlantic coast of the U.S. that day.

To bolster these fighters, the air force diverted other unarmed planes
from training missions. Two of them tried to respond, but just
couldn't get
there in time. This from a Pentagon that has been insisting since the
start of
the Cold War it could respond to a Soviet attack within minutes. This
from a
military that won World War II. This from a military whose budget this
fiscal year will be around $396.1 billion, a military that claims it
can fight at least a two-front war.

Our retaliatory assault in Afghanistan was no more successful. In
attacking the Taliban, our target was Osama bin Laden and Supreme
Leader Mullah
Muhammad Omar. Bush said he wanted the Al Qaeda boss "dead or alive."
Neither
man has been captured, although the military continues to push
speculation
that bin Laden died in its bombing of Tora Bora. And as Debka.com, the
site with the inside scoopon Israeli intelligence, reported, the
Taliban not only managed an orderly retreat but re-infiltrated
Afghanistan to continue a guerrilla war. Last week, they nearly killed
the American-sponsored president, Hamid Karzai.

As for the intelligence failures leading up to 9-11, Congress has
refused to initiate any serious investigation into the workings of the
spy agencies, sparking speculation that lawmakers are afraid of
implicating themselves in an election year. The Independent reported
over the weekend that shortly before 9-11, U.S. officials and the UN
ignored a message from the Taliban foreign minister that bin Laden was
planning a big attack inside the U.S. The friendly Taliban emissary
was ignored by the U.S. because his alert seemed like just another of
the crazy warnings that were exhausting the spies.

Foreign Alliances: Despite Tony Blair's rather odd weekend backing for
Bush ("The only decision that's been taken at this stage is that
inaction is not
an option"), the U.S. remains at odds with much of the world. Last
week German
chancellor Gerhard Schröder bluntly summed up his position on any war
with Iraq.
"The . . . arguments that I have cited against an intervention are so
important
that I would also be against such an intervention if--for whatever
reasons and in
whatever form--the Security Council of the United Nations were to say
'Yes,'
which I cannot imagine happening in the present situation," he told
The New
York Times. French president Jacques Chirac warned the U.S. against
"attempts to
legitimize the unilateral and preemptive use of force." The Chinese
are opposed
to our intervention. So are the Japanese. Turkey opposes it. Saudi
Arabia
opposes it. Pakistan, Egypt, and Jordan all say no.

Russian president Vladimir Putin said he had "deep doubts that there
are grounds for the use of force." The Russians promise to veto such a
move in the Security Council, no idle threat.

Energy: The U.S. imports well over half its oil, with most of it
coming from the Middle East. Iraq in particular sells half its oil
exports to the U.S. Iraq provides about 10 percent of all American
imports. As our intake of foreign fuel has grown, so has the demand
for it, epitomized by gas-guzzling SUVs. To get more oil, we are
trying to turn from the Middle East to the Russians and their
pipelines into the Caspian basin. Even so, we are totally socked into
the Middle East for the near future.

Economy: Even without threats from overseas, the economy remains dead
in the water, with no new jobs, only a slight increase in wages, and
unemployment near 6 percent. At the onset of the Bush presidency, we
were looking at a budget surplus of $405 billion. Halfway through his
term, the surplus had become a $157 billion deficit. Foreign investors
are pulling back. The S&P 500 has fallen 37 percent from its peak in
early 2000. As mutual funds tank, 401(k) pensions have disappeared.

Corporations: The functions of government have steadily been taken
over by corporate robber barons. Over the last decade, we have
re-created the
business structures and atmosphere of J.P. Morgan. Each administration
since
Reagan's has cut away at regulation. The market, not the government,
is left to
sort out the mess.

Personal Freedom: Civil liberties have been steadily reduced under the
rubric of the war on terror. About 1200 people were taken into custody
after
9-11, some 752 of them on immigration charges. Many of these people
never had a
hearing and never had a charge lodged against them. Some were
subjected to secret
trials. Eighty-five percent were deported. Some two dozen men are
still being
held as material witnesses, indefinitely, and in complete secrecy. If
a
prisoner were lucky enough to speak to an attorney, the government
could routinely wiretap those conversations. For any reason at all the
government can now designate people as "enemy combatants" and hold
them in solitary, without the right to counsel.

Meanwhile the government has gained new powers. The FBI can demand
your library records and school transcripts. Agents can meander
through
e-mail accounts at will. As always, the feds infiltrate public
meetings; the
mere taking of a pamphlet has led to arrest and months in prison.

Leadership: Foreigners don't know what to make of America. To an
outsider, Bush looks like a puppet run by VP Dick Cheney, who last
weekend
single-handedly created a new foreign policy concept, the doctrine of
the "preemptive strike," to rationalize an attack on Saddam Hussein.
But what happens if China were to take up the preemptive strike
doctrine and attack us?

And then there are always Bush's cuckoo utterances. "The world must
understand . . . that its credibility is at stake," he said after a
recent Cabinet Room meeting with 18 Democratic and Republican
congressional leaders.
Notwithstanding their guitar-playing cocker spaniel chief, Brits
polled lately held Bush as the third greatest threat to peace,
trailing only Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

American Ideals: These sorts of cracks in American society might be
remedied by opening up debate and changing direction. Instead,
politics has
devolved into a nonstop talk show, paving the way for Bush to
prosecute a war for oil in the name of God.

Muslims act as a "fifth column in this country," says William Lind in
Why Islam Is a Threat to America and the West. Ann Coulter, the
cold-blooded
conservative columnist, has said of Muslims, "We should invade their
countries,
kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." The former head
of the
Southern Baptist Convention, Reverend Jerry Vines, also minced no
words. For
him, Muhammad was "a demon-obsessed pedophile."

The Reverend Franklin Graham, son of the Reverend Billy Graham and an
evangelist preacher in his own right, said: "The God of Islam is not
the same
God. He's not the son of God of the Chris ian or Judeo-Christian
faith. It's a
different God, and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion."

The problem for America is that evil and wicked are exactly what the
world thinks of us.

--
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107,
any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use
without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
educational
purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]

Join the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by writing to MOM,
P.O.Box
1486, Noxon, Montana 59853 and enclosing $15.00 for one year(Feb. 1 to
Jan. 31)

For the latest in great survival, preparedness and politically
incorrect materials visit
our Online Catalog at:

http://www.militiaofmontana.com Some great deals are to be
had! Or, send $2.00 to the address below for a copy of our 44+ page
Prepare
dness Catalog.

Militia of Montana
P.O. Box 1486, Noxon, MT 59853
Tel: 406-847-2735 n Fax: 406-847-2246

Remove yourself from this list by writing to: militia@montana.com and
type
"UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: foriegn policy is sick crap, by definition.....
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 23:59:49 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

good gawd, group,

the bunch of ya, the few still following the crap, are talking about foriegn
policy. that's STATIST CRAP if i ever heard any!!

ain't no fuuurners here. were all humans, every damn one of us.

foreign policy is sick fu---- statist crap. talk to me about liberty, or
don't take up bandwidth.

a fuurrner,

larry

and specifically to you, lowell: you wrote, me hardly paying attention,
what if the CIA had not installed the Shaw in power? What if iran had gone
communist back then. well, lowell, that would have been a damned good thing
for liberty. think about what the muslims woulda did to the commies,
instead of the u. fu---- s. you are sooooo short sighted lowell. you're
still fighitng the cold war!!!!!! sick crap!!!!!!!

i'd have loved to see the muslims taking commie hostages in the USSR's
compound. you are sooooo near sighted, lowell!!!!!!!

on 9/18/02 8:16 PM, Lowell C. Savage at savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Greetings, Frank. (And sorry, everyone about the extra bandwidth--I hit
> the wrong button.)
>> Greetings again Lowell!
>>
>> "Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert, and everyone else...
>>
>>> Frank, can you rewrite these statements or add similar statements to
them
>>> so that they properly represent your point of view on what moral
conditions
>>> would obligate a country to abrogate a treaty?
>>
>> No, I won't. I've already rather clearing referenced each category as
>> I have anticipated them. I think this is one area that is open to
>> those who really read the dialogue.
>
> I should have guessed. Frank either has no principles or they are so
> confused and contradictory that he doesn't want to see them written down
> anywhere because then he'd have to defend the indefensible.
>
> Previously, when trying to nail down exactly what conditions Frank
believes
> would "obligate a country to abrogate a treaty" (which I believe is a
quote
> from one of his previous posts), I wrote the following list of
> conditions. I'm posting them again to refresh the memories of the other
> list members (without my comments on those "conditions" which were in the
> original):
>
> 1. When a treaty "violates a nation's self-defense obligations to its own
> people" or creates a serious danger of internal turmoil that could turn
the
> nation into a danger to its neighbors--ala Hitler.
>
> 2. When a treaty becomes moot or irrelevant.
>
> 3. When a country has the military strength to abrogate the treaty.
>
> 4. When a treaty forces a nation to infringe on the rights of its
citizens,
> then the nation has a duty to abrogate the treaty as soon as it is capable
> of doing so.
>
> Note: I tried to state them in the way that made them the strongest for
> what I understand Frank's position to be. (A strawman argument on my part
> would be to state them in the weakest possible way and then have fun
> pounding them. However, I have done my best to state them in the
strongest
> possible way and to allow Frank the opportunity to correct them to make
> them even stronger. He has declined that opportunity.)
>
> Note that the only one of these which could apply to Iraq is #3 since the
> nothing has become moot (#2) and Iraq is hardly a protector of the rights
> of any of its citizens (other than, perhaps, Saddam's family) so #1 and #4
> are pretty much off the table.
>
> If #3 applies to Iraq, then it would also imply that the US now has the
> power to abrogate any treaty that Bush happens to feel like
> abrogating. Somehow, after reading all of Frank's posts, I don't think
> that he would support such a thing.
>
> So, what does Frank really believe about the nature of treaties? After
all
> that verbiage, he's gone off in so many different, weird directions that
> I'm not sure what he believes--except that the US was wrong to dump
> treaties that said could be dumped (ABM) and not agree to treaties it had
> every right to not sign on to, while at the same time, Iraq has every
right
> to dump a treaty that it agreed to and that didn't say could be dumped.
>
> Lowell C. Savage
> Give War a Chance!
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: foriegn policy is sick crap, by definition.....
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 23:24:54 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello, Larry:
>good gawd, group,
>
>the bunch of ya, the few still following the crap, are talking about
foriegn
>policy. that's STATIST CRAP if i ever heard any!!

You know, to some degree, you're correct. All the talk about "sovereignty"
etc. is basically to protect the guys in power from their people. Which is
why I said I really didn't care too much about the sovereignty of a
non-elected government.

>ain't no fuuurners here. were all humans, every damn one of us.

Yup. But we live in a world full of "fuuurners" and the way we generally
wind up dealing with them is through the government. Question is: should
our government try to stay out of the other government's hair and let them
do whatever they please to their people (including inciting hatred of
America)? or should our government go up against some of these other
governments who are in the process of setting up another 9-11 or worse for
us?

>foreign policy is sick fu---- statist crap. talk to me about liberty, or
>don't take up bandwidth.

Seems to me, foreign policy is one of the few legitimate businesses of the
US Federal Government. I don't agree with it completely, myself. But that
doesn't mean I won't discuss it. It also doesn't mean that I'm not willing
to see the other side of an issue either.

>and specifically to you, lowell: you wrote, me hardly paying attention,
>what if the CIA had not installed the Shaw in power? What if iran had gone
>communist back then. well, lowell, that would have been a damned good
thing
>for liberty. think about what the muslims woulda did to the commies,
>instead of the u. fu---- s. you are sooooo short sighted lowell. you're
>still fighitng the cold war!!!!!! sick crap!!!!!!!
>
>i'd have loved to see the muslims taking commie hostages in the USSR's
>compound. you are sooooo near sighted, lowell!!!!!!!

Oh sure! The commies in the USSR would have allowed their commie buddies
to take a fall like Carter did with the Shah. And if the commies had taken
over in Iran, everything else in the other countries would have been just
the same. And who cares that a whole pile of Iranians who are alive now
would have probably been killed by the commies--they're just "fuuurners"
anyhow. You're right larry, I'm soooo near sighted!

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: good gawd, lowell.......
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 00:20:40 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hey ya, lowell,

if i remember right, not paying too much attention to ya, you,
non-libertarian that you have said you are, wrote with, "what the hay. if
the CIA hadn't installed the Shaw, the sickest fucker since stalin, then
Iran migtha gone commie".

Christ, the history is, first the Shaw, then, that failing, as a buffer,
saddam. and that brings ya up to date. the shaw was a puppet, a real
sikko, with his Savak, and the next ally which benifits from u.s. foriegn
policy was Saddam. yup, the u.s. armed him, non-commie dictator he was, to
provide a buffer 'tween iran and saudia aribia (the sickest dictaroship of
all).

git you head outta you ass, lowell!!!!!!!!!

given the fuuurrener poilicy, saudia is gonna go down some day!!!

that's gonna be fun. as the chineze wrote, millions of years ago, may you
be cursed to live in interesting times.

you are so full of shit, lowell!!!!!! thank gawd you can't kick me out, as
you accused frank of wanting to do to you. frank would never do that.
belive me, i know!!

but, lowell, with your assnitity, you're pushing my limits. frank, i know
ya won't, but still, i'll beg ya. what the f--- is lowell doing in this
group????????

liberty, my only love,

lf

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: good gawd, lowell.......
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 00:03:09 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello Larry,
>hey ya, lowell,
>
>if i remember right, not paying too much attention to ya, you,
>non-libertarian that you have said you are,

No Larry, I'm a libertarian. That means I think there is a role for
government and one of those is national defense. If I recall correctly,
you've said that you're an anarchist which would tend to mean you don't
believe in *any* role for government.

> wrote with, "what the hay. if
>the CIA hadn't installed the Shaw, the sickest fucker since stalin, then
>Iran migtha gone commie".

Really? The "sickest fucker since Stalin"? How many millions or hundreds
of thousands of people did the Shah and the Savak murder in Iran? (What it
was only If he was such a "sick fucker", how come the people were able to
get together enough to kick him out (without getting slaughtered--like
Prague in '57 and Peking in '89)? Didn't Mao, Pol Pot, Honecker,
Ceachescu, Ortega, and Castro all post-date Stalin? Or are some of them
your heros?

The Shah wasn't unadulturated good, but the main reasons he failed were
that he was trying to westernize the country. He *let women vote* (oooh,
that's terrible!), he set up land reform programs so that ordinary citizens
would be able to own land, rather than being forced to "sharecrop" (oooh,
that's also bad). He also instituted reforms that allowed for more trade
which increased the wealth of the ordinary citizens (obscene!). He also
tried to make the government more secular and to get religion out of the
government (blasphemy!). I suspect that a lot of people in our government
thought that the Shah would be someone like Ataturk. In fact, some people
are even now fondly remembering Ataturk and wondering if Musharref in
Pakistan will be like Ataturk. The Shah was not nearly as brutal as
Ataturk (Hitler pointed out Ataturk as an example of "if you kill 1 person
it's a tragedy, but if you kill thousands, it's a statistic.") On the
other hand, Turkey is an up-and-coming democracy that may be able to avoid
a Muslim takeover.

>Christ, the history is, first the Shaw, then, that failing, as a buffer,
>saddam. and that brings ya up to date. the shaw was a puppet, a real
>sikko, with his Savak, and the next ally which benifits from u.s. foriegn
>policy was Saddam. yup, the u.s. armed him, non-commie dictator he was, to
>provide a buffer 'tween iran and saudia aribia (the sickest dictaroship of
>all).

Yup. It'd be so much better to deal with just one sicko over there running
the whole show instead of two or three of them who will always be fighting
and squabbling among themselves. One sicko with the money and the people
and the army he needs to develop WMD. Sure, why not? Let's go through
that whole cold war thing again, only this time, lets do it with a bunch of
people who think they're going to go straight to heaven if they die killing
their enemies. Yeah, sounds cool to me!

>given the fuuurrener poilicy, saudia is gonna go down some day!!!

Don't be shocked if Bush takes them down himself. (Probably not until
after Iraq and Iran, but hey, each in its own time.)

>you are so full of shit, lowell!!!!!! thank gawd you can't kick me out,
as
>you accused frank of wanting to do to you. frank would never do that.
>belive me, i know!!

Aww Larry, I wouldn't want to kick you out anyway. You're too
entertaining. :-)

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: good gawd, lowell.......
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 02:14:59 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

UHH, LOWELL,

DUNNO WHAT TO SAY.

ALL I GOT IS A PICTURE IN MY MIND, FROM A PBS FRONLINES SPECIAL, POST 9/11.

yup. there's the shaw, the cia's buddy. he's wearing white and gold
splendor, in a white and gold carriage, being towed by a eight white horses,
wearing white and gold. white and gold all around, with the splendor of all
dictators and kings. richard nixon, **your** president, tried to duplicate
it, just before he got kicked out, if you remember that sickness of white
and gold presidential guards. puke!!!!!!

in the 20th century, that's the sickest fucking thing i've seen. and, yeah,
he didn't kill as many as pol pot, or stalin, but he had a limited
population. given that it was limited, he did the pain thing real damn
good, with the savak, ELECTRICY ON PENISES AND ALL. WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU
DOING, APOLOGIST FOR THAT???!!!!!

LIKE I SAID, I WOULDN'T BE QUITE SO HOSTILE, BUT FOR THE FACT THAT I HAVE NO
USE FOR APOLOGISTS FOR 'WHITE & GOLD", EVEN IF THEY ARE "AMERICANS".

LF


on 9/19/02 12:03 AM, Lowell C. Savage at savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Hello Larry,
>> hey ya, lowell,
>>
>> if i remember right, not paying too much attention to ya, you,
>> non-libertarian that you have said you are,
>
> No Larry, I'm a libertarian. That means I think there is a role for
> government and one of those is national defense. If I recall correctly,
> you've said that you're an anarchist which would tend to mean you don't
> believe in *any* role for government.
>
>> wrote with, "what the hay. if
>> the CIA hadn't installed the Shaw, the sickest fucker since stalin, then
>> Iran migtha gone commie".
>
> Really? The "sickest fucker since Stalin"? How many millions or hundreds
> of thousands of people did the Shah and the Savak murder in Iran? (What it
> was only If he was such a "sick fucker", how come the people were able to
> get together enough to kick him out (without getting slaughtered--like
> Prague in '57 and Peking in '89)? Didn't Mao, Pol Pot, Honecker,
> Ceachescu, Ortega, and Castro all post-date Stalin? Or are some of them
> your heros?
>
> The Shah wasn't unadulturated good, but the main reasons he failed were
> that he was trying to westernize the country. He *let women vote* (oooh,
> that's terrible!), he set up land reform programs so that ordinary
citizens
> would be able to own land, rather than being forced to "sharecrop" (oooh,
> that's also bad). He also instituted reforms that allowed for more trade
> which increased the wealth of the ordinary citizens (obscene!). He also
> tried to make the government more secular and to get religion out of the
> government (blasphemy!). I suspect that a lot of people in our government
> thought that the Shah would be someone like Ataturk. In fact, some people
> are even now fondly remembering Ataturk and wondering if Musharref in
> Pakistan will be like Ataturk. The Shah was not nearly as brutal as
> Ataturk (Hitler pointed out Ataturk as an example of "if you kill 1 person
> it's a tragedy, but if you kill thousands, it's a statistic.") On the
> other hand, Turkey is an up-and-coming democracy that may be able to avoid
> a Muslim takeover.
>
>> Christ, the history is, first the Shaw, then, that failing, as a buffer,
>> saddam. and that brings ya up to date. the shaw was a puppet, a real
>> sikko, with his Savak, and the next ally which benifits from u.s. foriegn
>> policy was Saddam. yup, the u.s. armed him, non-commie dictator he was,
to
>> provide a buffer 'tween iran and saudia aribia (the sickest dictaroship
of
>> all).
>
> Yup. It'd be so much better to deal with just one sicko over there
running
> the whole show instead of two or three of them who will always be fighting
> and squabbling among themselves. One sicko with the money and the people
> and the army he needs to develop WMD. Sure, why not? Let's go through
> that whole cold war thing again, only this time, lets do it with a bunch
of
> people who think they're going to go straight to heaven if they die
killing
> their enemies. Yeah, sounds cool to me!
>
>> given the fuuurrener poilicy, saudia is gonna go down some day!!!
>
> Don't be shocked if Bush takes them down himself. (Probably not until
> after Iraq and Iran, but hey, each in its own time.)
>
>> you are so full of shit, lowell!!!!!! thank gawd you can't kick me out,
as
>> you accused frank of wanting to do to you. frank would never do that.
>> belive me, i know!!
>
> Aww Larry, I wouldn't want to kick you out anyway. You're too
> entertaining. :-)
>
> Lowell C. Savage
> It's the freedom, stupid!
> Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: good gawd, lowell.......
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 04:24:24 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Like I said, Larry, you're entertaining. You hate the guy because he liked
white and gold? I would have thought that even you would come up with
something more substantive than that. Oh yeah, and he tortured a fair
number of people--so for that, you called him "the sickest fucker since
stalin". C'mon Larry, he's not even close. (In fact, that "Ayatollah" who
replaced him is actually probably a better candidate.)

I never claimed to be an apologist for the torture and the murder and the
other stuff. But there are quite a few people over there that wish he were
back, because things got worse under the mullahs. (A lot of the torturers
kept their jobs.) And he had plenty of people to kill had he chosen to
kill them. The "human wave" attacks sent by the mullahs against Iraq
couldn't have happened otherwise.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

At 02:14 09/19/02 -0700, you wrote:
>UHH, LOWELL,
>
>DUNNO WHAT TO SAY.
>
>ALL I GOT IS A PICTURE IN MY MIND, FROM A PBS FRONLINES SPECIAL, POST 9/11.
>
>yup. there's the shaw, the cia's buddy. he's wearing white and gold
>splendor, in a white and gold carriage, being towed by a eight white
horses,
>wearing white and gold. white and gold all around, with the splendor of
all
>dictators and kings. richard nixon, **your** president, tried to duplicate
>it, just before he got kicked out, if you remember that sickness of white
>and gold presidential guards. puke!!!!!!
>
>in the 20th century, that's the sickest fucking thing i've seen. and,
yeah,
>he didn't kill as many as pol pot, or stalin, but he had a limited
>population. given that it was limited, he did the pain thing real damn
>good, with the savak, ELECTRICY ON PENISES AND ALL. WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU
>DOING, APOLOGIST FOR THAT???!!!!!
>
>LIKE I SAID, I WOULDN'T BE QUITE SO HOSTILE, BUT FOR THE FACT THAT I HAVE
NO
>USE FOR APOLOGISTS FOR 'WHITE & GOLD", EVEN IF THEY ARE "AMERICANS".

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: lowell, frank, tell me you're not on the some side, fighting as
you are......
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 01:08:10 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hey ya, savage,

are you the right-wing nuttso who preaches hatered every damn night on a.m.
radio. didn't think so, though i find ya an understudy.

on 9/18/02 11:24 PM, Lowell C. Savage at savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Yup. But we live in a world full of "fuuurners" and the way we generally
> wind up dealing with them is through the government.

BULLSHIT, FUCKING CRAP!!! WE ARE ALL HUMANS. NO FUUURNERS AMOUNSTS US.
THE FUUUURERNER THINGO IS A CONSTRUCTION OF GOVERNMENT, AND THOSE WHO
BENIFIT FROM THE FICTION!!!!!!

FUURENERS WERE AN INVENTION OF THOSE WHO INVENTED GOVERNMENT, FOR THEIR OWN
PURPOSES. FURRENERS ARE A FULL BLOWN, SICK, SICK INVENTION OF SICK
MINDS!!!!

GENERALLY, WE DEAL WITH FURRNERS THROUGH GOVERNMENT, EH?? CRIMINEE,
LOWELL, DOES IT SUPRISE ME THAT YOU WROTE THAT?? I COULDA PREDICTED THAT.
IN FACT, WANT ME TO, YOU DON'T NEED TO RESPOND TO ME ANY MORE. I FIGURE I
CAN WRITE YOUR RESPONSE FOR YOU. WANNA BET??????

Question is: should
> our government try to stay out of the other government's hair and let them
> do whatever they please to their people (including inciting hatred of
> America)? or should our government go up against some of these other
> governments who are in the process of setting up another 9-11 or worse for
us?

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS "OUR GOVERNMENT" THINGO. DO YOU, LIKE FRANK, HAVE A
MOUSE IN YOU POCKET??!!!!!!!

I HAVE NO GOVERNMENT!!!!!! NONE, TO WHICH I SWEAR ALLIGEANCE!!!!!!!

DON'T FUCKN' TRY JUSTIFYING THE BLOOD ON YOU HANDS, BY CALLING IT
"OURS"!!!!!!!!

I'M A FUCKN' LONER, LOWELL!!!!! MAYBE I WON'T SURVIVE FOR LONG, WITH
GOVERNMENTS AROUND, ARMED TO THE TEETH WITH NUKES, EVEN, BUT I'LL GO IT
ALONE.

DON'T YOU AND FRANK GO USING THAT WORD """"OUR"""" WITH ME ANY DAMNED
MORE!!!!!! I AM NO DAMNED "OUR"!!!!!!!!!!

DUNNO WHAT DAMNED KINDA GROUP YOU AND FRANK THINK YOU ARE RUNNING WITH THE
"OUR" THAT YA LIKE TO TALK ABOUT, BUT I'M ONE ONLY BY CHOICE, NOT BY DRAFT.

GOOD GAWD, WHY THE FUCK DID I EVEN NEED TO WRITE THIS TO THIS GROUP,
DEDICATED TO LIBERTY AS IT CLAIMS.

GUESS I'M A SPACE ALIEN, I CERTAINLY FEEL LIKE ONE,

SINCERELY,

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: lowell, frank, tell me you're not on the some side,
fighting as you are......
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 00:17:40 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

At 01:08 09/19/02 -0700, you wrote:
>hey ya, savage,
>
>are you the right-wing nuttso who preaches hatered every damn night on a.m.
>radio. didn't think so, though i find ya an understudy.

Yeah? So what "hatred" am I preaching?

>on 9/18/02 11:24 PM, Lowell C. Savage at savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > Yup. But we live in a world full of "fuuurners" and the way we
generally
> > wind up dealing with them is through the government.
>
>BULLSHIT, FUCKING CRAP!!! WE ARE ALL HUMANS. NO FUUURNERS AMOUNSTS US.
>THE FUUUURERNER THINGO IS A CONSTRUCTION OF GOVERNMENT, AND THOSE WHO
>BENIFIT FROM THE FICTION!!!!!!

I'll buy that. However....That ignores the fact that most of the world
lives under these sick governments. And if the government tells them to
march, they march. Or do you really think that you get to deal freely with
the average "Jose" in Cuba, "Ravi" in Iran, or "Wang She" in China?

>FUURENERS WERE AN INVENTION OF THOSE WHO INVENTED GOVERNMENT, FOR THEIR OWN
>PURPOSES. FURRENERS ARE A FULL BLOWN, SICK, SICK INVENTION OF SICK
>MINDS!!!!
>
>GENERALLY, WE DEAL WITH FURRNERS THROUGH GOVERNMENT, EH?? CRIMINEE,
>LOWELL, DOES IT SUPRISE ME THAT YOU WROTE THAT?? I COULDA PREDICTED THAT.
>IN FACT, WANT ME TO, YOU DON'T NEED TO RESPOND TO ME ANY MORE. I FIGURE I
>CAN WRITE YOUR RESPONSE FOR YOU. WANNA BET??????

So, did you write what I wrote above?

> Question is: should
> > our government try to stay out of the other government's hair and let
them
> > do whatever they please to their people (including inciting hatred of
> > America)? or should our government go up against some of these other
> > governments who are in the process of setting up another 9-11 or worse
> for us?
>
>
>WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS "OUR GOVERNMENT" THINGO. DO YOU, LIKE FRANK, HAVE A
>MOUSE IN YOU POCKET??!!!!!!!

OK, so you've excluded yourself from the group that I'm including when I
say "our". Fine.

>I HAVE NO GOVERNMENT!!!!!! NONE, TO WHICH I SWEAR ALLIGEANCE!!!!!!!
>
>DON'T FUCKN' TRY JUSTIFYING THE BLOOD ON YOU HANDS, BY CALLING IT
>"OURS"!!!!!!!!
>
>
>I'M A FUCKN' LONER, LOWELL!!!!! MAYBE I WON'T SURVIVE FOR LONG, WITH
>GOVERNMENTS AROUND, ARMED TO THE TEETH WITH NUKES, EVEN, BUT I'LL GO IT
>ALONE.

whatever.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: Inspections in Iraq
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 10:25:47 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: September 17, 2002
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

By rejecting U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq,
Bush undermines his argument for war, Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Bush administration's negative reaction to
Iraq's
offer to readmit U.N. weapons inspectors undermines the president's
argument for invading Iraq, Libertarians say.

"President Bush's approach to Iraq is full of con: confusion,
convolution, and contradiction," said LP Executive Director Steve
Dasbach. "He claims Saddam Hussein must be toppled to protect America
from weapons of mass destruction, then pooh-poohs Iraq's offer to
admit
the inspectors. It's time for the American people to ask: Why does
George Bush really want to invade Iraq?"

For the first time since 1998, the Iraqi government agreed on Monday
to
allow U.N. weapons inspections into the country "without conditions,"
according to Secretary-General Kofi Annan. In response, White House
spokesman Scott McClellan shrugged off the offer as a ploy to avoid
confrontation with the United States, and "a tactic that will fail."

But that contradicts Bush's most frequent rationale for attacking
Iraq,
which is that it has, or soon will have, weapons of mass destruction,
Libertarians say.

"Insisting that the United States should attack before conducting
inspections is the political equivalent of scheduling an execution
before the trial is held," Dasbach said. "How can Bush claim a pre-
emptive strike is the only way to destroy Iraq's weapons before
inspectors have gathered evidence that those weapons exist?"

And there are other indications that Bush doesn't want to let the
facts
get in the way of his opinion that Iraq possesses nuclear, chemical,
or
biological weapons, Dasbach pointed out.

* According to a report in USA Today, CIA sources say Bush persists in
claiming that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction despite
"uncertain and sometimes contradictory" intelligence information, and
that administration officials draw "the most pessimistic conclusions
from ambiguous evidence."

* The chief U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix, says satellite photos
show no evidence that Iraq is rebuilding its arsenal.

* Congressional representatives who received a secret intelligence
briefing on Iraqi arms complained that Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld was "embellishing" his presentation.

* Even senior Bush administration officials concede privately that
they
don't know whether Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, but
insist it's only prudent to assume the worst, according to a USA Today
report.

"The problem is that 'assuming the worst' could lead to the worst-case
scenario for America," Dasbach said. "Thousands of U.S. troops could
lose their lives invading a nation that poses no imminent threat to
the
United States. And launching a strike on an Arab nation could also
trigger more September 11-style terror attacks inside our borders."

Instead of searching for an excuse to invade Iraq, Bush should be
looking for a way to avoid war, Libertarians say. And that means
abiding by Iraq's offer to submit to a weapons inspection.

"Like all Americans, the president is entitled to his opinion on
whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction," Dasbach said. "But with
so much at stake, he is not entitled to his own set of facts.

"What really needs to be inspected is George Bush's case for invading
Iraq."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
---------------------~-->
Sell a Home with Ease!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/JdSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: Inspections in Iraq
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:20:35 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

It's really too bad. The LP is slipping again (or merely playing to an
audience of "true believers"). Here are basically the answers to their
objections--from five days before they were released.

(Except for one big one. And that is the objection that since Iraq has
offered to re-admit inspectors, the president's case goes away. It's a
pretty big condition to say that the inspectors can only inspect military
bases. If the US said that Russia could only inspect our military bases to
ensure our compliance with the NBC pacts we signed with the old Soviet
Union, you can be certain that the LP would be screaming bloody
murder. But it's ok when Iraq does it.)

For more info, go to:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html
and
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912.html

Lowell C. Savage
Give war a chance!

Here are most of the remaining answers (excerpted from the President's
speech):

Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw
groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to
their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the
destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many
nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting
further destruction, and building new bases for their war against
civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut
to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the
technologies to kill on a massive scale.
In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most
lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the
United Nations was born to confront.
Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's
forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and
their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he
would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this
aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of
the United Nations.
To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series
of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to
prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.
He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all
his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his
cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.
In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime
cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic
repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened
international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.
Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to
commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's
repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and
ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment,
summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock,
starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their
husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these
horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.
In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687,
demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's
regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's
high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian,
Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain
unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.
In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that
Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist
organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this
promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues
to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against
Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted
for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a
former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of
September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and
are known to be in Iraq.
In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons
of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it
has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every
aspect of this fundamental pledge.
From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons.
After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this
lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of
anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads,
aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has
produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and
has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that
could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding
and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological
weapons.
United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains
stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is
rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.
And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a
crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it
not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear
weapon no later than 1993.
Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear
program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting
of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs
capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical
infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several
attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a
nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to
build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has
reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear
scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these
weapons.
Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the
150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production
facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can
inflict mass death throughout the region.
In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic
sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel
the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq
was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted
this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and
military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United
Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for
himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his
own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent
Iraqi citizens.
In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to
verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and
long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years
deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing
cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security
Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with
inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The
Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996,
deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council
renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations;
and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable.
And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.
As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N.
inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and
to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.
We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when
inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they
left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam
Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is
to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet
the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And
this is a risk we must not take.
Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've
tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of
coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts
and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may
be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he
uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to
prevent that day from coming.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: Inspections in Iraq
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 01:19:00 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: Inspections in Iraq

> It's really too bad. The LP is slipping again (or merely playing to
an
> audience of "true believers"). Here are basically the answers to
their
> objections--from five days before they were released.
>
> (Except for one big one. And that is the objection that since Iraq
has
> offered to re-admit inspectors, the president's case goes away. It's
a
> pretty big condition to say that the inspectors can only inspect
military
> bases. If the US said that Russia could only inspect our military
bases to
> ensure our compliance with the NBC pacts we signed with the old Soviet
> Union, you can be certain that the LP would be screaming bloody
> murder. But it's ok when Iraq does it.)

No, LP would scream bloody murder if inspection of private homes &
businesses were allowed, which is what the Russians (or maybe a UN
convention) wanted at that time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: Inspections in Iraq
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 22:31:53 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello Robert,
>[Lowell originally wrote, in part]
> > It's really too bad. The LP is slipping again (or merely playing to
> > an audience of "true believers"). Here are basically the answers
> > to their objections--from five days before they were released.
> >
> > (Except for one big one. And that is the objection that since Iraq
> > has offered to re-admit inspectors, the president's case goes
> > away. It's a pretty big condition to say that the inspectors can
> > only inspect military bases. If the US said that Russia could
> > only inspect our military bases to ensure our compliance with
> > the NBC pacts we signed with the old Soviet Union, you can be
> > certain that the LP would be screaming bloody murder. But it's
> > ok when Iraq does it.)
>
>No, LP would scream bloody murder if inspection of private homes &
>businesses were allowed, which is what the Russians (or maybe a UN
>convention) wanted at that time.

True (it was the Sovietskies). However, if Bush were building a January
White House, and a February one, etc. and was wanting to refuse inspection
of these and of national laboratories, the LP wouldn't be cheering them on.

Lowell C. Savage
Give War A Chance!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: good gawd, lowell!!
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 23:20:36 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hey ya, lowell,

interspersed below:

on 9/19/02 4:24 AM, Lowell C. Savage at savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Like I said, Larry, you're entertaining.

yeah, i crack myself up sometimes, too. but i hate i when folks laugh when
i'm being serious.

> You hate the guy because he liked
> white and gold? I would have thought that even you would come up with
> something more substantive than that. Oh yeah, and he tortured a fair
> number of people--so for that, you called him "the sickest fucker since
> stalin". C'mon Larry, he's not even close.

uhhh, lowell, when a head-of-state practices torture as a matter of course,
to keep himself in power, unlike you, i don't make lots of fine
distinctions. they all end up in the catagory in my mind.

> (In fact, that "Ayatollah" who
> replaced him is actually probably a better candidate.)

good gawd, lowell, talk about defending the lesser of two evils!! you'd
make a real damned good consultant for the u.s. defense department. the
helluva it is, defending one evil most often gets ya a worse one in
reaction. if the cia's puppet, the shah, was such a good idea, where did
the "ayaollah" come from, in reaction???? and then, the next puppet,
saddam, not to mention billions given to ossama, when he was a puppet. then
there was diem, in vietnam, and castro's precurser in cuba. the list is
much longer.

if you're gonna defend bullshit like that, lowell, and you have, as the
lesser of two evils, you have blood all over your hands. i guess that makes
you a 'realist', eh, like that war criminal henry kissinger.

no fuckn wonder i got it into my head you didn't consider yourself to be a
lib. i figure you voted for gush or bore in the last election, the "lesser"
driving ya.

i wasn't trying to make ya laugh, lowell, though i figure i have.

larry

oops..........
>
> I never claimed to be an apologist for the torture and the murder and the
> other stuff.

THEN WHY THE HELL HAVE YOU DONE IT IN THIS COMMUNICATION???!!

> But there are quite a few people over there that wish he were
> back, because things got worse under the mullahs. (A lot of the torturers
> kept their jobs.)

YUP, SO WHAT. I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND, TORTURE IS AGAINST MY RELIGION.
NUMBERS DON'T COUNT WHEN IT COMES TO THAT!!

> And he had plenty of people to kill had he chosen to
> kill them. The "human wave" attacks sent by the mullahs against Iraq
> couldn't have happened otherwise.

YUP, AND THANK GAWD THE CIA WAS SUPORTING SADDAM, EH, OTHERWISE THE MULLAHS
MIGHT HAVE WON.

SICKNESS GENERATES SICKNESS, LOWELL.

AS A CHESS PLAYER, KISSINGER LIKE, I DON'T SEE YOU WRITING ABOUT HEALTH, AND
HOW TO GET THERE. NOPE. YOU PLAY THE BIG GAME, EH, JUSTIFYING TORTURE TO
PREVENT TORTURE.

SICK CRAP, FROM A PROFESSED LIBERTARIAN!!!!

IT'S NO WONDER TO ME YOU GOT PARANOID ABOUT FRANK KICKING YOU OUT, THOUGH
THAT IS THE LAST THING HE'D DO.

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: good gawd, lowell!!
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 23:58:05 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Larry,
>hey ya, lowell,
> > Like I said, Larry, you're entertaining.
>
>yeah, i crack myself up sometimes, too. but i hate i when folks laugh when
>i'm being serious.

Bummer ain't it?

> > You hate the guy because he liked
> > white and gold? I would have thought that even you would come up with
> > something more substantive than that. Oh yeah, and he tortured a fair
> > number of people--so for that, you called him "the sickest fucker since
> > stalin". C'mon Larry, he's not even close.
>
>uhhh, lowell, when a head-of-state practices torture as a matter of course,
>to keep himself in power, unlike you, i don't make lots of fine
>distinctions. they all end up in the catagory in my mind.

You know Larry, I guess I understand Hitler's comment a little better,
now. He said something like, "If you kill 1 person, it's a tragedy. If
you kill a million, it's just a statistic."

> > (In fact, that "Ayatollah" who
> > replaced him is actually probably a better candidate.)
>
>good gawd, lowell, talk about defending the lesser of two evils!! you'd
>make a real damned good consultant for the u.s. defense department. the
>helluva it is, defending one evil most often gets ya a worse one in
>reaction. if the cia's puppet, the shah, was such a good idea, where did
>the "ayaollah" come from, in reaction????

Partly from some "goosing" by Carter. Who got paid in return for his
"helpfulness to the people of Iran" with the "hostage crisis".

> and then, the next puppet,
>saddam, not to mention billions given to ossama, when he was a puppet.
then
>there was diem, in vietnam, and castro's precurser in cuba. the list is
>much longer.
>
>if you're gonna defend bullshit like that, lowell, and you have, as the
>lesser of two evils, you have blood all over your hands. i guess that
makes
>you a 'realist', eh, like that war criminal henry kissinger.

And your alternative is what? If you see some guy dragging a screaming
girl off toward his car (knowing that the guy isn't the girl's father) are
you going to stop him? Even if it means killing him? Even if it means
injuring the girl? If so, that's a "lesser of the two evils" choice. You
don't *know* that the guy's going to actually do anything to the girl--much
less rape or murder her. But it's a pretty darn good bet. Are your hands
really "clean" if you let the guy go (having the ability to stop him) and
the girl's body turns up on a riverbank somewhere? Are your hands really
"dirty" if you kill the man? What about if you are unable to stop him
without injuring the girl? Does that "dirty" your hands?

About the only difference between my hypothetical situation and some of
what our government was involved in what that more lives were involved and
there was less information about who the actors were and what they could
and would do. Do I think that maybe we could have worked some of these
guys a little harder to get democracy going? And am I disappointed that we
didn't? Am I disappointed that we didn't stick by some of our friends a
little longer? Absolutely! For all three of them. At the same time, if
I'm going to second-guess those decisions, I want a lot more info than
you've given me.

> > I never claimed to be an apologist for the torture and the murder and
the
> > other stuff.
>
>THEN WHY THE HELL HAVE YOU DONE IT IN THIS COMMUNICATION???!!
>
> > But there are quite a few people over there that wish he were
> > back, because things got worse under the mullahs. (A lot of the
torturers
> > kept their jobs.)
>
>YUP, SO WHAT. I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND, TORTURE IS AGAINST MY RELIGION.
>NUMBERS DON'T COUNT WHEN IT COMES TO THAT!!

Like ol' Adolf said....

> > And he had plenty of people to kill had he chosen to
> > kill them. The "human wave" attacks sent by the mullahs against Iraq
> > couldn't have happened otherwise.
>
>YUP, AND THANK GAWD THE CIA WAS SUPORTING SADDAM, EH, OTHERWISE THE MULLAHS
>MIGHT HAVE WON.

Darn right! And instead of losing 3,000 people on 9/11, we could have had
mushroom clouds over 6 different cities, and then had to fight one Islamic
country coverint what is now Iraq and Iran--if not also Syria, Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen and Jordan and who knows where else. Now
there's some blood for your hands--except that since it wasn't spilt, you
get by on the moral cheap--criticizing the people who saved lives while not
having to deal with the consequences of the actions you advocated.

>AS A CHESS PLAYER, KISSINGER LIKE, I DON'T SEE YOU WRITING ABOUT HEALTH,
AND
>HOW TO GET THERE. NOPE. YOU PLAY THE BIG GAME, EH, JUSTIFYING TORTURE TO
>PREVENT TORTURE.

And you avoid "the game" so that you can bask in your "moral superiority"
from not having to decide or deal with the consequences of any decision you
supported. (Hey, one good gratuitous insult deserves another, right? :-)

Lowell C. Savage
Give War a Chance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: lowell!!! Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 00:46:37 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hey ya, lowell,

if you start out supporting the shah, and condeming ossama and saddam, well,
there's little hope for ya. all of em were creations of the cia, lesser
being better, especially if ya got "control".

so, i read you do profess to be a libertarian. i also read you are a
youngster. i ain't gonna worry about ya much, lowell, with that. i used to
hang out with the john birchers, 'till i got my head outta my ass. you'll
grow up someday, if you keep your eyes open.

ya, i know that's an offensive argument. it's the best one i have. folks
who justify the shah, kissinger geo-politics involved, get no better from
me.

LF

on 9/20/02 10:47 PM, Lowell C. Savage at savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Hello Larry,
>> Lowell (give war a chance), and gary,
>>
>> so, lowell, you wanna go to war against saddam. good gawd, man, that
would
>> be like going to war against the shah, when the cia had no more use for
him.
>
> Naw. There wasn't a chance that leaving the Shah around would end up with
> a mushroom cloud over NY.
>
>> it was **your** foreign policy which generated saddam, lowell
(kissinger).
>> and now ya want to turn on him?? what a fair-weather friend!! and now
ya
>> want to pick a fight with ossama, too!!
>
> Huh!??! You're going to have to explain that one. (Especially that last
> sentence.)
>
>> ya ain't too picky about your friends, eh, lowell?? and damned
fair-weather
>> at that.
>
> Sometimes you've got to deal with what you've got, the best way you can.
>
>> as i wrote earlier, i hope somebody takes out saddam, but that is no
>> profession of support for you, or henry kissinger!!
>
> And now I've professed support for Kissinger? Look, about all I've said
> regarding what happened during the '70s (before I could vote, BTW), is
that
> I'd need more info to really criticize the decisions that were made. It's
> not like we can look back and say, "gee, X was really terrible. Why did
we
> ever have anything to do with putting him in charge?" when the reason that
> X got put there was that the likely alternative, Y was far worse.
>
>> give perpetual war, for perpetual peace, "a chance", eh, Lowell,
>
> And where did the "perpetual" part come from? (Yo Frank! There's an
> example of a strawman argument!)
>
>> good gawd, on this list??!!
>
> Where else could I use it to annoy so many? :-)
>
> Lowell C. Savage
> Give War A Chance.
>
> PS. If you like PJ O'Rourke, his book by that name is apropos.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: lowell!!! Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 01:33:45 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello Larry,
>hey ya, lowell,
>
>if you start out supporting the shah, and condeming ossama and saddam,
well,
>there's little hope for ya. all of em were creations of the cia, lesser
>being better, especially if ya got "control".

Let me see if I understand this. If we support some guy, and he turns on
us or does something he's not supposed to do, we're supposed to keep
supporting him anyway? Does it mean that since the Soviets helped us
defeat Germany that we shouldn't have considered them the enemies of
freedom once they started locking Eastern Europe up? Does this mean that
we shouldn't have fought the Chinese in Korea because they were (sort of)
on our side during WWII? How about the converse: does this mean we need to
start writing invasion plans for Britain since they were our enemies in
1776 and 1812? Does this mean we can't be friends with Spain because of
the Spanish-American War? Or with Germany, Italy and Japan because of WWII?

Look, Carter was a nice guy. An honorable one, even. But he took the view
that you seem to have, namely "I'm not dealing with anyone who isn't 'pure
as the driven snow'." I was in high school in Taiwan when he
"de-recognized" Taiwan and "recognized" China. Americans there probably
got hassled less by the Chinese than Americans did in Europe. Carter
compared Chiang Kai-Shek to Hitler. While Chiang was no angel, he wasn't
any Hitler either--unless you use the criteria of "1 injustice is the same
as a million". Well, between Chiang and his son, Taiwan has navigated to
the point where they've had something like 3 completely free elections for
President (now in the hands of a former opposition party) and now have a
completely, freely elected legislature (I believe it is also in the hands
of a former opposition party). BUT! They've got the threat of a violent
takeover by China and, thanks in large part to Carter, only about half a
promise of the US 7th fleet standing in the way. Do I think the Shah was
the same kind of guy that Chiang was? Not necessarily. Do I think that
Carter shares in the mullah-shed blood for helping boost the Shah out? Yes.

>ya, i know that's an offensive argument. it's the best one i have. folks
>who justify the shah, kissinger geo-politics involved, get no better from
>me.

Facts work better. But then they're also more work.

Lowell C. Savage
Give War A Chance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: well, lowell......
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 01:05:40 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

good gawd, lowell,

response below...

on 9/20/02 10:47 PM, Lowell C. Savage at savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>> it was **your** foreign policy which generated saddam, lowell
(kissinger).
>> and now ya want to turn on him?? what a fair-weather friend!! and now
ya
>> want to pick a fight with ossama, too!!
>
> Huh!??! You're going to have to explain that one. (Especially that last
> sentence.)

criminee, lowell, the taliban recieved over $6 billion from the u.s.
government, mostly via the CIA.

where the hell does the "huh" come from???? "we" had to fight russia,
right, in afganistan. ossma was "our" buddy, then. is your memory that
short?????!!!!! i was just saying that if ya wanna defend the shah, ya
oughta be defending ossama, too, if you were consistent, and saddam, too.

ossama was an ally, my fiend, as was saddam, after the shah got kicked out.
are you tooo young to remember that??!! henry kissinger would understand,
war criminal he is. apparently you're too young!!

like i wrote, lowell, ya ain't real picky about your friends. the shah
still suits ya, but reading you, you would have supported ossama and saddam
all along, as long as the cia did. that makes ya a fair-weather friend, as
i see it.

are you a friend of liberty??? not unless ya give up flirting with
kissinger like geopolitics.

did i make ya laugh, again??

LF


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: rape.....Re: good gawd, lowell!!
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 01:39:57 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

lowell,

with your rape analogy, below, you hit me in the brain. i wanna try to do
the same for you.

i was traveling with michelle, one of my favorite contributers to this
group, a few days ago.

she said to me, "saddam ain't attacked the u.s.", why should "we" worry?

my reply was, "good gawd, 'chelle, if someone was trying to rape you, am i
required to wait 'till they try to rape me before coming to your defense??"

that is my conundrum, lowell, and your's.

i want saddam gone!! but i want u.s. foreign policy gone, too!! saddam was
largely a creation of the u.s., as was ossama, and the shah.

i despise rape, lowell. but you seem to justify it, if it furthers the
geopolitics of power.

quoting hitler won't help ya, lowell. one raped is enough! calling the
rest statistics, as hitler did, and you have, ain't no escape.

grow up, lowell, unless you aspire to power,

LF


on 9/20/02 11:58 PM, Lowell C. Savage at savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Hi Larry,
>> hey ya, lowell,
>>> Like I said, Larry, you're entertaining.
>>
>> yeah, i crack myself up sometimes, too. but i hate i when folks laugh
when
>> i'm being serious.
>
> Bummer ain't it?
>
>>> You hate the guy because he liked
>>> white and gold? I would have thought that even you would come up with
>>> something more substantive than that. Oh yeah, and he tortured a fair
>>> number of people--so for that, you called him "the sickest fucker since
>>> stalin". C'mon Larry, he's not even close.
>>
>> uhhh, lowell, when a head-of-state practices torture as a matter of
course,
>> to keep himself in power, unlike you, i don't make lots of fine
>> distinctions. they all end up in the catagory in my mind.
>
> You know Larry, I guess I understand Hitler's comment a little better,
> now. He said something like, "If you kill 1 person, it's a tragedy. If
> you kill a million, it's just a statistic."
>
>>> (In fact, that "Ayatollah" who
>>> replaced him is actually probably a better candidate.)
>>
>> good gawd, lowell, talk about defending the lesser of two evils!! you'd
>> make a real damned good consultant for the u.s. defense department. the
>> helluva it is, defending one evil most often gets ya a worse one in
>> reaction. if the cia's puppet, the shah, was such a good idea, where did
>> the "ayaollah" come from, in reaction????
>
> Partly from some "goosing" by Carter. Who got paid in return for his
> "helpfulness to the people of Iran" with the "hostage crisis".
>
>> and then, the next puppet,
>> saddam, not to mention billions given to ossama, when he was a puppet.
then
>> there was diem, in vietnam, and castro's precurser in cuba. the list is
>> much longer.
>>
>> if you're gonna defend bullshit like that, lowell, and you have, as the
>> lesser of two evils, you have blood all over your hands. i guess that
makes
>> you a 'realist', eh, like that war criminal henry kissinger.
>
> And your alternative is what? If you see some guy dragging a screaming
> girl off toward his car (knowing that the guy isn't the girl's father) are
> you going to stop him? Even if it means killing him? Even if it means
> injuring the girl? If so, that's a "lesser of the two evils" choice. You
> don't *know* that the guy's going to actually do anything to the
girl--much
> less rape or murder her. But it's a pretty darn good bet. Are your hands
> really "clean" if you let the guy go (having the ability to stop him) and
> the girl's body turns up on a riverbank somewhere? Are your hands really
> "dirty" if you kill the man? What about if you are unable to stop him
> without injuring the girl? Does that "dirty" your hands?
>
> About the only difference between my hypothetical situation and some of
> what our government was involved in what that more lives were involved and
> there was less information about who the actors were and what they could
> and would do. Do I think that maybe we could have worked some of these
> guys a little harder to get democracy going? And am I disappointed that
we
> didn't? Am I disappointed that we didn't stick by some of our friends a
> little longer? Absolutely! For all three of them. At the same time, if
> I'm going to second-guess those decisions, I want a lot more info than
> you've given me.
>
>>> I never claimed to be an apologist for the torture and the murder and
the
>>> other stuff.
>>
>> THEN WHY THE HELL HAVE YOU DONE IT IN THIS COMMUNICATION???!!
>>
>>> But there are quite a few people over there that wish he were
>>> back, because things got worse under the mullahs. (A lot of the
torturers
>>> kept their jobs.)
>>
>> YUP, SO WHAT. I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND, TORTURE IS AGAINST MY RELIGION.
>> NUMBERS DON'T COUNT WHEN IT COMES TO THAT!!
>
> Like ol' Adolf said....
>
>>> And he had plenty of people to kill had he chosen to
>>> kill them. The "human wave" attacks sent by the mullahs against Iraq
>>> couldn't have happened otherwise.
>>
>> YUP, AND THANK GAWD THE CIA WAS SUPORTING SADDAM, EH, OTHERWISE THE
MULLAHS
>> MIGHT HAVE WON.
>
> Darn right! And instead of losing 3,000 people on 9/11, we could have had
> mushroom clouds over 6 different cities, and then had to fight one Islamic
> country coverint what is now Iraq and Iran--if not also Syria, Saudi
> Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen and Jordan and who knows where else. Now
> there's some blood for your hands--except that since it wasn't spilt, you
> get by on the moral cheap--criticizing the people who saved lives while
not
> having to deal with the consequences of the actions you advocated.
>
>> AS A CHESS PLAYER, KISSINGER LIKE, I DON'T SEE YOU WRITING ABOUT HEALTH,
AND
>> HOW TO GET THERE. NOPE. YOU PLAY THE BIG GAME, EH, JUSTIFYING TORTURE
TO
>> PREVENT TORTURE.
>
> And you avoid "the game" so that you can bask in your "moral superiority"
> from not having to decide or deal with the consequences of any decision
you
> supported. (Hey, one good gratuitous insult deserves another, right? :-)
>
> Lowell C. Savage
> Give War a Chance.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape.....Re: good gawd, lowell!!
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 02:08:49 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Larry,

I appreciate your honesty. (Sheese what a soft touch I am with for a
little honesty and civility... :-)

However, I'm afraid you misunderstood me somewhere. Nowhere do I justify
rape.

>lowell,
>
>with your rape analogy, below, you hit me in the brain. i wanna try to do
>the same for you.
>
>i was traveling with michelle, one of my favorite contributers to this
>group, a few days ago.
>
>she said to me, "saddam ain't attacked the u.s.", why should "we" worry?
>
>my reply was, "good gawd, 'chelle, if someone was trying to rape you, am i
>required to wait 'till they try to rape me before coming to your defense??"

And if that "someone" used to be a friend of yours, would it make any
difference?

>that is my conundrum, lowell, and your's.

Bingo!

>i want saddam gone!! but i want u.s. foreign policy gone, too!!

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. "No foreign policy" *IS* a
foreign policy. Going after Saddam *IS* a foreign policy. *Not* going
after Saddam *IS* a foreign policy.

*THE* question is: what foreign policy will best promote freedom? I would
hope that libertarians can at least agree on the question--even if we
disagree on the answer.

I think that both you and Frank have fallen victim to one of the liberal
fallacies, namely that anyone who disagrees with your chosen method of
achieving peace and freedom outside the US must actually oppose peace and
freedom outside the US. Of course, with liberals, it's more than that. If
you oppose government welfare, they think you want poor people to
starve. If you oppose gun control, then they think you want more
crime. Basically, the idea is to take a simplistic approach to solving a
problem and then claim your opponents want the continuation or worsening of
the problem.

> saddam was
>largely a creation of the u.s., as was ossama, and the shah.

If I recall correctly, Saddam was basically who we had to work with. And,
given the situation, we decided to work with him. They say "hindsight is
20-20", but it sure seems to me that a lot of people are forgetting an
awful lot about the context in which our government was working. So
hindsight isn't 20-20 if you put blinders on.

The Shah we've discussed.

Osama was little more than a glorified clerk during the Afghanistan
war. Al Qaida and the Taliban didn't really get going until after the
Afghanistan war was over and we'd stopped supplying weapons. I'm afraid
you're giving the US far more credit than it deserves in "creating" Osama.

>i despise rape, lowell. but you seem to justify it, if it furthers the
>geopolitics of power.

Please explain how you have come to the conclusion that I justify rape.

>quoting hitler won't help ya, lowell. one raped is enough! calling the
>rest statistics, as hitler did, and you have, ain't no escape.

Actually, I thought the Hitler quote applied to what you said. You seemed
to think that the Shah was (to quote you) "the sickest fucker since stalin"
and then when I said that he wasn't even close, you said "... they all end
up in the catagory in my mind." This sounds an awful lot like the
sentiment expressed by Hitler: "1 is a tragedy, a million is a statistic".

>grow up, lowell, unless you aspire to power,

Grow up yourself, Larry--unless you really think you want to live in a
world where good men do nothing because they are afraid that other good
people might be hurt or killed as a side-effect of their stopping evil.

Lowell C. Savage
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: well, lowell......
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 02:32:13 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

At 01:05 09/21/02 -0700, you wrote:
>good gawd, lowell,
>
>response below...
>
>on 9/20/02 10:47 PM, Lowell C. Savage at savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >> it was **your** foreign policy which generated saddam, lowell
(kissinger).
> >> and now ya want to turn on him?? what a fair-weather friend!! and now
ya
> >> want to pick a fight with ossama, too!!
> >
> > Huh!??! You're going to have to explain that one. (Especially that
last
> > sentence.)
>
>criminee, lowell, the taliban recieved over $6 billion from the u.s.
>government, mostly via the CIA.
>
>where the hell does the "huh" come from???? "we" had to fight russia,
>right, in afganistan. ossma was "our" buddy, then. is your memory that
>short?????!!!!! i was just saying that if ya wanna defend the shah, ya
>oughta be defending ossama, too, if you were consistent, and saddam, too.

The Taliban didn't exist until after the war was over (and we stopped
sending aid). But, let's suppose all that money went to the Taliban and Al
Qaida (instead of Massoud, who Osama killed, and others who got run out by
the Taliban). When they turn around like ungrateful SOBs and attack us,
then it seems to me that's even more of an argument for wiping from the
face of the earth--not less of an argument!

>ossama was an ally, my fiend,

Hardly. Actually, Osama is an argument for increased intervention in other
countries. Some of the people in Afghanistan said that if the US hadn't
"abandoned" them after the Russians moved out, they might have been able to
make a go of it without winding up under the thumb of the
Taliban. Remember, the "Northern Alliance" was the remnants of the former
government that the Taliban pushed out.

> as was saddam,

Granted.

> after the shah got kicked out.
>are you tooo young to remember that??!! henry kissinger would understand,
>war criminal he is. apparently you're too young!!
>
>like i wrote, lowell, ya ain't real picky about your friends.

Well, when my "friends" turn on me, I turn on them pretty quick.

> the shah
>still suits ya, but reading you, you would have supported ossama and saddam
>all along, as long as the cia did. that makes ya a fair-weather friend, as
>i see it.

I don't think friendship requires that I put up with a friend turning on me
or committing crimes. If that makes me a "fair-weather friend", so be it.

For Osama, see above. As far as Saddam, if I remember correctly, we were
getting the idea he was turning on us (and probably was doing so because we
were starting to put pressure on him to ease up on his human rights
violations) before his planes attacked the USS Stark. I'm still not sure
it was an accident. After that, it was pretty much downhill. Would I have
done anything differently had I been in charge? I don't know. One might
always hope so, yet realize that events, circumstances, and a lack of
knowledge about them might have led one down a worse path.

Lowell C. Savage
Give War A Chance!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 03:08:52 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello Frank!
>Greetings Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Gary Triest...
>
>Gary Triest wrote:
> > >I don't know enough about what other sanctions are available, I do
believe
> > >there are quite a few left short of absolute war.
>
>You replied:
> > Well Gary, I'm sorry, but if you can't come up with something, it seems
> > rather hypocritical to criticize someone else when they say they can't
come
> > up with anything either.
>
>Well, *I* can come up with something, however it will never happen,
>although it should. The Shrub Regime<tm> should be replaced by
>whatever fashion could do the job (and quickly), and replaced by a new
>administration who puts value and not merely words, on such things as
>self-determination and individual choice. It should be an
>administration that confesses the sins of 5 decades of US militaristic
>aggression in foreign policy, and withdraw all US military personnel
>from foreign bases around the globe. A new foreign policy should
>emerge which restricts US military force to self-defence.

ROFLMAO!!! You're almost as entertaining as Larry!

Let's see, the administration which replaced a religiously-based fascist
dictatorship with a government that was elected (yes, Frank, it was
elected) is one which should be "replaced by a new administration who puts
value...on...self-determination and individual choice. Oh. I left out the
individual choice part. The dictatorship had laws forbidding all kinds of
things, from choice in what one wears to whether girls could be educated,
to whether a man shaved. All kinds of individual choices are now available
in Afghanistan that weren't available before. That's "value and not merely
words."

If the government in Iraq is changed, one can expect a similar (although,
perhaps not quite as dramatic) a change in "self-determination and
individual choice." Or, at least, one can expect it if we don't have a
Congress determined to deny the President any "victories."

Yes! We should confess those sins! We should apologize to the Eastern
Europeans for the "militaristic aggression" that "ripped" them from the
"warm embrace" of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. We should
apologize to the former members of the Soviet Union (particularly the
Baltic states) for "tossing" them out into the cold cruel world of
independence from the Soviet Union. We should apologize to the South
Koreans for keeping them separated from the paradise enjoyed by their
loving cousins to the north, and Taiwan for keeping them separated from
velvet glove of their cousins to the west. We should apologize to Thailand
keeping them from enjoying the socialist paradise like their neighbors to
the east. We should apologize the the people of Central America,
particularly Chile, Nicaragua, Grenada, El Salvador, Guatemala and Panama
for keeping them from enjoying the worker's paradise of their neighbor in
Cuba. To a lesser extent, we probably owe similar apologies to Honduras,
Columbia, Peru, Venezuala and perhaps, even Ecuador.

>And, that's just for starters.

Darn right! Why stop at 50 years? Let's go back further and apologize to
the Philippines for cutting them loose. And to the Western Europeans for
so viciously removing their kind and loving masters, the Nazis and the
Fascists (the real thing! not the fake ones that everyone talks about
these days), and for removing huge swaths of Asia from the tender mercies
of their fellow Asians, the Japanese. We should also apologize to
Australia and New Zealand for preventing them from experiencing the wild
pleasures enjoyed by Nanking.

Yup. Lots of apologizing for that next administration to do.

snork. giggle. BWAHAHAHA!!

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Give War A Chance!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 21:13:03 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> >Well, *I* can come up with something, however it will never happen,
> >although it should. The Shrub Regime<tm> should be replaced by
> >whatever fashion could do the job (and quickly), and replaced by a new
> >administration who puts value and not merely words, on such things as
> >self-determination and individual choice. It should be an
> >administration that confesses the sins of 5 decades of US militaristic
> >aggression in foreign policy, and withdraw all US military personnel
> >from foreign bases around the globe. A new foreign policy should
> >emerge which restricts US military force to self-defence.

And, you replied:
> ROFLMAO!!! You're almost as entertaining as Larry!

That tells me a lot.

> Let's see, the administration which replaced a religiously-based fascist
> dictatorship with a government that was elected (yes, Frank, it was
> elected) is one which should be "replaced by a new administration who puts
> value...on...self-determination and individual choice.

So. What's your problem with that? Entertaining, of sorts, maybe. But
to me it has a lot more to do with who decides what moral values will
be "accepted" in the USA, and whose are not. In your opinion, sir,
should I surrender my moral values to yours? And what propriety do
you have to make such choices for me? I just want to know. Because
you have power, and the force to do so?

> Oh. I left out the
> individual choice part. The dictatorship had laws forbidding all kinds of
> things, from choice in what one wears to whether girls could be educated,
> to whether a man shaved. All kinds of individual choices are now
available
> in Afghanistan that weren't available before. That's "value and not
merely
> words."

OK. Now you must be dealing with Afghanistan. I thought for a moment
at least you were talking about OUR government, the Shrub Regime<tm>.
You like to talk, I guess, about a government that really doesn't
matter at all, the prior Afghan regime. And, just what *regime* is
that anyway, if not self-imposed by the Shrub Regime<tm>? So, are you
willing to admit that the current Afghan regime is really an extension
of sorts of the US government? After all, we provide almost 100
percent of the security force to make that regime even credible or
seemingly legitimate. I would suggest, you sir, are advocating
imperialism and a policy of neo-colonialism. Prove me wrong, and I
hope to God to can!

> If the government in Iraq is changed, one can expect a similar (although,
> perhaps not quite as dramatic) a change in "self-determination and
> individual choice."

Dream on! Would YOU, as an American, even consider siding with the
Mexican government, even if they proved they would guarantee you more
liberty? I don't thing so, and even if you did, most Americans would
rise up and kill such foreigners if they could, and in this case, they
can!

> Or, at least, one can expect it if we don't have a
> Congress determined to deny the President any "victories."

Well, excuse me. But I am NOT willing to give THIS President any
victories. About the only victories this President might enjoy is at
the expense of my liberties, and a lot of other folks who claim to be
Americans.

> Yes! We should confess those sins! We should apologize to the Eastern
> Europeans for the "militaristic aggression" that "ripped" them from the
> "warm embrace" of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union.

Why? Because, historically the US government never followed through
and supported such "revolutions" in the past? Give me a break. This
wasn't something the US government should be credited for! If
anything, four decades notwithstanding, we supported Soviet hegemony
over eastern Europe.

I'm beginning to see why the late Roger Erdman put you on his twit
filter and ignored everything you had to say. You call me
"entertaining". Really great commentary.

> We should
> apologize to the former members of the Soviet Union (particularly the
> Baltic states) for "tossing" them out into the cold cruel world of
> independence from the Soviet Union.

Oh shit Lowell! Talk about Strarman arguments? Did I ever suggest
anything of this sort, obviously NOT! After all, as Larry suggested,
it was the US government that created ALL of our current enemies. All
of them. You might get some takers here for your verbal assaults, but
you ought to own up to what I have really said. It was US foreign
policy that is largely to blame for creating this stinking mess in the
first place. The US government, vis-a-vis our foreign policy, that has
created the enemies that wish now to destroy us. And we were once
their "friends", benefactors, and supporters to the tune of billions
of dollars. I've always said, what goes around, finally comes around.

> We should apologize to the South
> Koreans for keeping them separated from the paradise enjoyed by their
> loving cousins to the north,

Ad Noseium... they want the US government to leave them alone to
settle their own differences, as they are now doing. Surprise again!

> and Taiwan for keeping them separated from
> velvet glove of their cousins to the west. We should apologize to
Thailand
> keeping them from enjoying the socialist paradise like their neighbors to
> the east.

YOU WISH! That isn't history out here, and you're in dreamland, only
wishing that that was so! It was NEVER history. All of what you
contemplate has long been gone, because it was never any reality upon
which to base US foreign policy to begin with.

> We should apologize the the people of Central America,
> particularly Chile, Nicaragua, Grenada, El Salvador, Guatemala and Panama
> for keeping them from enjoying the worker's paradise of their neighbor in
> Cuba. To a lesser extent, we probably owe similar apologies to Honduras,
> Columbia, Peru, Venezuala and perhaps, even Ecuador.

Dream on!

I can tell you one thing Savage, and that is YOU are not a
Libertarian. You belong in the right wing of the Republican Party,
certainly not here. Roger was probably more astute about you than I
realized at the time. He "rightly" identified YOU with the radical
right, trying to infiltrate a Libertarian group. With your own words,
I am becoming more convinced all along that he was correct.

> Darn right! Why stop at 50 years? Let's go back further and apologize to
> the Philippines for cutting them loose.

Was that too, any of our business, or was that a US obligation?

> And to the Western Europeans for
> so viciously removing their kind and loving masters, the Nazis and the
> Fascists (the real thing!

Excuse me. But the "real thing" exists currently in Washington, D.C.

> not the fake ones that everyone talks about
> these days), and for removing huge swaths of Asia from the tender mercies
> of their fellow Asians, the Japanese. We should also apologize to
> Australia and New Zealand for preventing them from experiencing the wild
> pleasures enjoyed by Nanking.

I see. So you do support an aggressive US government "police" state,
willing and able to protect the entire planet, from enemies far and
large! Well, it seems to me if YOU really want to do that, you need to
address the issue of every "police state" and "fascist" government the
US government has propped up and supported for the last fifty years!
Currently, we can talk about Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and all of the
so-called "Gulf Emirates". We can likely discuss all of the other
governments in Latin America that don't meet such standards as your
project as morally correct, at least upon libertarian definitions.

If you are NOT willing to do that, sir, then YOU are a hypocrite, and
why should anyone have any reason to listen to your carpings to
initiate aggression? We live actually, in a much better world today
than we have for the last 100 years. We live in a world where liberty
is increasing. It is not really the result either of anything the US
government really ever did, no use of force. Only results from failed
alternatives.

> Yup. Lots of apologizing for that next administration to do.

I don't even have any idea what the "next" administration will do.
All I said was what it should NOT do. As Americans, we are willing
victims of what we have allowed previous administration to get by
with, mainly beers we have supported most of these decisions. Not all
of them to be sure, but in general, the war hysteria of today is
pretty much reminiscent of past failed policies going back a long,
long time. So yes, you and I, and everyone else are directly
responsible for the aggression exhibited in US foreign policy for the
last five decaces.

I don't know what else to say here Lowell. If you really do support a
foreign policy that using brute power to kick ass and take names,
sooner or later such a policy will come back in spades and meet you on
the front door of your delusions. Say the World Trade Centre in New
York, the Pentagon, or anywhere else your sanctimouneious attitude
forces those against the wall to resist you. They will resist you, and
they are. They will kill you at any cost, including the loss of their
own lives to do so. That is the world you have created for yourself.
And, it is exactly a world in which I protest should not be allowed to
happen. Only Americans can stop this insanity. And if we won't, then
we'll all pay the collective price for not doing so.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 17:11:28 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in small part:

> Would YOU, as an American, even consider siding with the
> Mexican government, even if they proved they would guarantee you more
> liberty?

I don't know about Lowell, but I know I sure would. I'd side with the
Mexicans, the Martians, whomever, under the condition above.

> I don't thing so, and even if you did, most Americans would
> rise up and kill such foreigners if they could, and in this case, they
> can!

As in the movie, "The Monitors". But let's not concern ourselves with
most Americans (argumentum ad populum), but with libertarians -- what's
best for freedom.
> I can tell you one thing Savage, and that is YOU are not a
> Libertarian. You belong in the right wing of the Republican Party,
> certainly not here. Roger was probably more astute about you than I
> realized at the time. He "rightly" identified YOU with the radical
> right, trying to infiltrate a Libertarian group. With your own words,
> I am becoming more convinced all along that he was correct.

That's odd. Lowell's ideas seem rather middle-of-the-road in this
field. They don't seem right-wingish. But with remarks like that, can
you understand why Lowell intimated that he might be kicked off Liberty
Now Worldwide? But people should remember, as you point out, that
Radical Roger was a regular participant, so this forum has considerable
room for different ideologies, so Lowell's intimation was off base.

Even odder is that farther above, Frank refers to what most USAmericans
would do or think, apparently as a standard. But directly above, he
holds to libertarianism as a standard, and disdains as "right wing"
ideas that are very much in the mainstream.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 18:01:24 -0400
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Wow. We did do a lot now didn't we.
I'd like to think they coulda done it themselves, but the fact is we were
enormously instrumental in getting them free of militaristic totalitarian
regimes.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.

> Hello Frank!
> >Greetings Lowell!
> >
> >"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Gary Triest...
> >
> >Gary Triest wrote:
> > > >I don't know enough about what other sanctions are available, I do
believe
> > > >there are quite a few left short of absolute war.
> >
> >You replied:
> > > Well Gary, I'm sorry, but if you can't come up with something, it
seems
> > > rather hypocritical to criticize someone else when they say they can't
come
> > > up with anything either.
> >
> >Well, *I* can come up with something, however it will never happen,
> >although it should. The Shrub Regime<tm> should be replaced by
> >whatever fashion could do the job (and quickly), and replaced by a new
> >administration who puts value and not merely words, on such things as
> >self-determination and individual choice. It should be an
> >administration that confesses the sins of 5 decades of US militaristic
> >aggression in foreign policy, and withdraw all US military personnel
> >from foreign bases around the globe. A new foreign policy should
> >emerge which restricts US military force to self-defence.
>
> ROFLMAO!!! You're almost as entertaining as Larry!
>
> Let's see, the administration which replaced a religiously-based fascist
> dictatorship with a government that was elected (yes, Frank, it was
> elected) is one which should be "replaced by a new administration who puts
> value...on...self-determination and individual choice. Oh. I left out
the
> individual choice part. The dictatorship had laws forbidding all kinds of
> things, from choice in what one wears to whether girls could be educated,
> to whether a man shaved. All kinds of individual choices are now
available
> in Afghanistan that weren't available before. That's "value and not
merely
> words."
>
> If the government in Iraq is changed, one can expect a similar (although,
> perhaps not quite as dramatic) a change in "self-determination and
> individual choice." Or, at least, one can expect it if we don't have a
> Congress determined to deny the President any "victories."
>
> Yes! We should confess those sins! We should apologize to the Eastern
> Europeans for the "militaristic aggression" that "ripped" them from the
> "warm embrace" of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. We should
> apologize to the former members of the Soviet Union (particularly the
> Baltic states) for "tossing" them out into the cold cruel world of
> independence from the Soviet Union. We should apologize to the South
> Koreans for keeping them separated from the paradise enjoyed by their
> loving cousins to the north, and Taiwan for keeping them separated from
> velvet glove of their cousins to the west. We should apologize to
Thailand
> keeping them from enjoying the socialist paradise like their neighbors to
> the east. We should apologize the the people of Central America,
> particularly Chile, Nicaragua, Grenada, El Salvador, Guatemala and Panama
> for keeping them from enjoying the worker's paradise of their neighbor in
> Cuba. To a lesser extent, we probably owe similar apologies to Honduras,
> Columbia, Peru, Venezuala and perhaps, even Ecuador.
>
> >And, that's just for starters.
>
> Darn right! Why stop at 50 years? Let's go back further and apologize to
> the Philippines for cutting them loose. And to the Western Europeans for
> so viciously removing their kind and loving masters, the Nazis and the
> Fascists (the real thing! not the fake ones that everyone talks about
> these days), and for removing huge swaths of Asia from the tender mercies
> of their fellow Asians, the Japanese. We should also apologize to
> Australia and New Zealand for preventing them from experiencing the wild
> pleasures enjoyed by Nanking.
>
> Yup. Lots of apologizing for that next administration to do.
>
> snork. giggle. BWAHAHAHA!!
>
> Lowell C. Savage
> It's the freedom, stupid!
> Give War A Chance!
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 21:39:38 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

This conversation is becoming rather fascinating, finally. I was
beginning to get bored with most of it, until just now.

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> > Would YOU, as an American, even consider siding with the
> > Mexican government, even if they proved they would guarantee you more
> > liberty?

You replied:
> I don't know about Lowell, but I know I sure would. I'd side with the
> Mexicans, the Martians, whomever, under the condition above.

I'll gladly reserve any judgement I might have, because this is
largely your choice. It has more to do with WHO should, or should not
resolve the "liberty" stuff. I do NOT believe we should allow any
foreign government to make such choices. If Americans themselves
can't defend their own liberty against our own tyrannical government,
then it is a scapegoat, in my opinion to believe any foreign entity
could satisfy the American appetite for increasing such tyranny. They
might, but that doesn't say very much in terms of the quality of
American enthusiasm to embrace liberty. Much as in the case of
Afghanistan, liberty would be an import from abroad, not necessarily
wining the hearts and minds of those who consider themselves
"Americans" infringing upon the right to self determine our own lives,
government and future. In other words, any "liberty" that might
result would at best be temporary in nature, and only backed up by the
foreign regime that imposed it, in this hypothetical case, Mexico.

> As in the movie, "The Monitors". But let's not concern ourselves with
> most Americans (argumentum ad populum), but with libertarians -- what's
> best for freedom.

Even if such is only very temporary and artificial? If it is imposed,
as such, only on the basis of foreign domination, then it isn't
something that will last any longer than such domination exists.
Americans have an opportunity every two years to completely overthrow
the totalitarian police state that already exists in America. It's
called "elections", and its power rests in the voting booth. Every
two years, the entire US House of Representatives is up for
re-election. Americans could, therefore, every two years, vote out
every Republican and Democrat and replace them with Libertarians! If
Americans are really sick and tired of the same old tyranny,
outrageous taxation, and increasing regulation of our daily lives and
choices, would could simply revolt and vote all of the current
bastards out of office. That opportunity exists every two years.

I previously wrote to the "radical Right's" representative, Lowell
Savage:
> > I can tell you one thing Savage, and that is YOU are not a
> > Libertarian. You belong in the right wing of the Republican Party,
> > certainly not here. Roger was probably more astute about you than I
> > realized at the time. He "rightly" identified YOU with the radical
> > right, trying to infiltrate a Libertarian group. With your own words,
> > I am becoming more convinced all along that he was correct.

And, you replied:
> That's odd. Lowell's ideas seem rather middle-of-the-road in this
> field.

Well, maybe since 9/11! I doubt previous to that that most Americans
considered themselves as supporting the agenda of the radical right
wing in American politics. If that is the case, then we should now
say that the far right probably should be redefined. If the
"mainstream" in America now supports the radical right, how can we
best redefine who or what the radical right in America currently is?
Only perceptions have changed really since 9/11. Those perceptions
are driven more on the basis of fear (I believe) than upon qualitative
political ideology. We have this very same scenario now appearing
today in the German federal elections, and it will be real interesting
to see who really wins this election. If the more centrist government
is voted out, and the conservative opponent is able to win, I guess
what I am talking about has more to do with western civilization in
general, than simply a radical shift in politics in the US itself.

I'm not trying here to divert this discussion elsewhere, but the
radical right has won in many cases in recent elections in western
Europe. The most stunning victory for the radical conservatism was
probably in Denmark, where a conservative government won the first
election since 1922! If you don't believe that this is predicated
upon much of the same hysteria as in the US today, you need to take a
second look. Islamic immigration into western Europe is at least as
high as it is in the US. It was a major case, et al, in Denmark's
sudden shift to the radical right, e.g.: the influx of immigrants. It
was also the pattern in France, and elsewhere in western Europe,
although the radical right lost the election in France. That's about
the only case however, that I can think of where that has happened
since 9/11.

You might believe that Lowell is now the "middle of the road", but
really that only has to do with the historical context of events that
have proceeded from the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and a reflection upon
possible future attacks, or even an ongoing series of attacks against
western civilization itself. That is, in my opinion anyway, behind
what is driving this substantial shift in political direction toward
the radical right. And, if that is the case, it is no longer the
radical right, but largely becoming rather mainstream. And, that's my
point. Maybe, just maybe I was unfair to charge Lowell as a spokesman
for the radical right. As you point out, perhaps in today's
environment, he might be considered somewhat as "mainstream".
However, I doubt that would have been the case a year or so earlier
prior to the 9/11 attacks.

> They don't seem right-wingish. But with remarks like that, can
> you understand why Lowell intimated that he might be kicked off Liberty
> Now Worldwide? But people should remember, as you point out, that
> Radical Roger was a regular participant, so this forum has considerable
> room for different ideologies, so Lowell's intimation was off base.

Well, Lowell never any reason whatsoever to doubt his opinions are
certainly welcome here, but he needs to understand that some of us
might disagree with such opinions, and many do mine. In a LOT of
ways, I believe in many instances "radical Roger" was far more
Libertarian than Lowell has made himself out to be! I am not about to
defend Roger's economics, but at least in terms of brute aggression
and force by the US government to achieve political goals, certainly
Roger embraced mainly libertarian principles.

I feel rather guilty right now in the prospect of even suggesting what
Roger might say, since I will never claim to speak for him.

> Even odder is that farther above, Frank refers to what most USAmericans
> would do or think, apparently as a standard. But directly above, he
> holds to libertarianism as a standard, and disdains as "right wing"
> ideas that are very much in the mainstream.

Well, in historical context, just how "mainstream" was the right wing
prior to 9/11? Because it was on the fringe, the "radical" right, it
certainly wasn't considered "mainstream" at all to invoke
incarcerations without charges, or wiretaps and surveillance without
court orders. All kinds of things have changed since 9/11. Yea, the
mainstream seems to largely be moving to the extreme right, and for
Libertarians that is NOT good!

I don't see why you have a problem with the fact that I would most
likely fight and kill Mexicans if they invaded my country, and
intimidated the rights of this country to self determine our own
future. I've very often stated here that you can't "export" liberty
and force it upon anyone, that is, only if you have a temporary power
to make such happen against the wishes of the people. So, having a
long track record in saying so, why do you feel what I said was "odd"?
You should have rather, expected it. If the American people really
don't want liberty, (that is, don't want to be free), then I fail to
understand how it can be imposed upon them against their will by a
foreign government!

Self-determination is the most operative word here. You seem to
believe that ANY power demanding obedience to its own dictates is
operative. That is counter to what Libertarians believe and assume as
vital in making real liberty possible. You can't really have real
liberty until you are able to say that you refuse to force everyone
else to accept such principles by force.

It's pretty obvious to me that "liberty" isn't very important almost
anywhere within the islamic world. Within the islamic world, liberty
is likely not understood as a principle worth defending. It likely
can be, for a time anyway, imposed upon them by brute force, whether
they like it or not. France is likely the greatest aggressor of all,
since France occupied most of the islamic world in north Africa for
many decades. That failed too.

I guess what I am saying is only that the "people" must be convinced
that liberty, without the use of force to impose it, is the only
environment in which liberty has a chance to succeed. I am NOT
suggesting here that force isn't necessary either. But the force has
to be in the hands of the people who really want to be free, who have
the compelling necessity to fight for themselves against aggression to
make their own choices.

If you want to take a look at real history, it has happened before,
many times. After the success of the American revolution, just about
all of latin American decided to accept the American model for
revolution. Within a few short years, Spain and Portugal were booted
out of almost all of latin America. Most national constitution were
modelled after the US Constitution. It was NOT the US government that
imposed its will upon them, but rather set an example for others to
follow.

During that time, we didn't send our military into such places to
force liberty upon anyone. That's primarily where America is
faltering so badly today. It certainly does not have to be that way,
but it is. This is mainly because America has surrendered a long time
ago to notion of using force to impose not liberty, but hegemony over
regional territories. We did NOT have to do that, but we did. In
1776 we were not on the aggressors. Now we have become "the"
aggressors on the world stage. People previous to that followed our
example by their own choice, and NOW they are being forced to do so at
the point of a gun!

I guess, at least in my humble opinion, that's the difference.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: 22 Sep 2002 12:07:48 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 03:11, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings Lowell!
>
> "Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Gary Triest...
>
> Gary Triest wrote:
> > >I don't know enough about what other sanctions are available, I do
believe
> > >there are quite a few left short of absolute war.
>
> You replied:
> > Well Gary, I'm sorry, but if you can't come up with something, it seems
> > rather hypocritical to criticize someone else when they say they can't
come
> > up with anything either.
>
> Well, *I* can come up with something, however it will never happen,
> although it should. The Shrub Regime<tm> should be replaced by
> whatever fashion could do the job (and quickly), and replaced by a new

Frank, that is not a sanction against Iraq. That is what Lowell and Gary
were talking about.

Oh, and as far as never going to happen, Bush can only get elected once
more. That means that by definition, your precious Regime will be gone
in 2008 at the latest. Unless, of course, you want to go back to the
conspiracy theories of Clinton, shake the dust off, and hang them on
Bush.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ataq on Iraq, not warranted now.
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 23:57:30 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank Reichert" <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
on Sunday, September 22, 2002 9:39 AM wrote in part:

> > > Would YOU, as an American, even consider siding with the
> > > Mexican government, even if they proved they would guarantee you
more
> > > liberty?

> If Americans themselves
> can't defend their own liberty against our own tyrannical government,
> then it is a scapegoat, in my opinion

If you're going to use such metaphors as "straw man" and "scapegoat" in
this forum, you'd better know what they mean. I don't see how what you
describe below can be described as a scapegoat.

> to believe any foreign entity
> could satisfy the American appetite for increasing such tyranny. They
> might, but that doesn't say very much in terms of the quality of
> American enthusiasm to embrace liberty. Much as in the case of
> Afghanistan, liberty would be an import from abroad, not necessarily
> wining the hearts and minds of those who consider themselves
> "Americans" infringing upon the right to self determine our own lives,
> government and future. In other words, any "liberty" that might
> result would at best be temporary in nature, and only backed up by the
> foreign regime that imposed it, in this hypothetical case, Mexico.

You're changing the conditions, a little bait-&-switch. You wrote that
they'd prove they could guarantee more liberty.

> > As in the movie, "The Monitors". But let's not concern ourselves
with
> > most Americans (argumentum ad populum), but with libertarians --
what's
> > best for freedom.

> Even if such is only very temporary

All things are temporary. It's just a matter of degree. When you set
the conditions as proving a guarantee, I took that to mean that in my
judgement, the increase of liberty would be over a reasonable period of
time as compared to the usual course of history. Nothing can be
guaranteed forever.

> and artificial?

Liberty is ALWAYS artificial. It does not exist absent people making
it.

> If it is imposed,

Except in anarcho-pacifist versions, liberty is ALWAYS imposed. As long
as you have law enforcement, you have the conditions of liberty being
imposed by some on others. The others are viewed by libertarians as
criminals or at least as transgressors of some kind.

> as such, only on the basis of foreign domination,

This is like the complaint of ghetto residents that the foreign (not
from the ghetto, or not of the ghetto's predominant race or ethnicity)
are imposing an unjust regime -- unjust just on the basis of its being
foreign. They'd rather be allowed to loot & shoot up their
neighborhood.

> then it isn't
> something that will last any longer than such domination exists.
> Americans have an opportunity every two years to completely overthrow
> the totalitarian police state that already exists in America. It's
> called "elections", and its power rests in the voting booth. Every
> two years, the entire US House of Representatives is up for
> re-election. Americans could, therefore, every two years, vote out
> every Republican and Democrat and replace them with Libertarians! If
> Americans are really sick and tired of the same old tyranny,
> outrageous taxation, and increasing regulation of our daily lives and
> choices, would could simply revolt and vote all of the current
> bastards out of office.

So what of all the complaining you do about USAn policies? How can
anyone win with you? If they go by the usual rules of democracy and
institute policies of the people, you complain that they're unjust
because un-libertarian. If they go against the people and institute
policies of freedom, you complain that they're unjust because not of the
people.

> > Lowell's ideas seem rather middle-of-the-road in this
> > field.

> Well, maybe since 9/11! I doubt previous to that that most Americans
> considered themselves as supporting the agenda of the radical right
> wing in American politics. If that is the case, then we should now
> say that the far right probably should be redefined. If the
> "mainstream" in America now supports the radical right, how can we
> best redefine who or what the radical right in America currently is?
> Only perceptions have changed really since 9/11.

You really think there was such a sudden and large change?

> I'm not trying here to divert this discussion elsewhere, [reference to
Germany snipped]

Why not? This is a worldwide discussion group.

> You might believe that Lowell is now the "middle of the road", but
> really that only has to do with the historical context of events that
> have proceeded from the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and a reflection upon
> possible future attacks, or even an ongoing series of attacks against
> western civilization itself.

Isn't that what most people do -- take the relevant facts into account?

> I don't see why you have a problem with the fact that I would most
> likely fight and kill Mexicans if they invaded my country, and
> intimidated the rights of this country to self determine our own
> future.

Because you STILL don't seem to acknowledge that individual liberty on
the one hand, and national sovereignty and democracy on the other, are
completely different things. At times they'll coincide, and at other
times they'll be opposed.

> I've very often stated here that you can't "export" liberty
> and force it upon anyone,

And I state that, other than in anarcho-pacifist versions, liberty must
ALWAYS forced be forced on people. And besides, ideology should not be
thought of at this late date as coming with a nationality, so I don't
even like the metaphor of "export". True, there are or at least have
been ideologies that have become endemic, but their essence transcends
all blood & geography. To insist otherwise invites the thinking of
"multiculturalists" and conservative bigots that genetics must determine
culture.

> that is, only if you have a temporary power
> to make such happen against the wishes of the people. So, having a
> long track record in saying so, why do you feel what I said was "odd"?

Because on the one hand you write about how far from the mainstream
libertarian ideas, which you maintain are good, are, while OTOH you
criticized Lowell's ideas as being far from the mainstream! But now you
seem to be reassessing that judgement.

> If the American people really
> don't want liberty, (that is, don't want to be free), then I fail to
> understand how it can be imposed upon them against their will by a
> foreign government!

The same way as the cops & courts impose it on criminals. Unless of
course you mean a case in which NOT A SINGLE (US)AMERICAN wants liberty,
in which case they can all loot & shoot each other by mutual consent.
But as long as 1 person is in the right as we see it, what's the
difference if everyone else for a thousand miles around is in the wrong?
If everyone in the USA except Innocent Person 1 wanted to loot & shoot
Innocent Person 1, and some foreigner had the power (although not the
legal authority) to prevent everyone else in the USA to loot & shoot
Person 1, you mean you wouldn't side with that foreigner?

> Self-determination is the most operative word here. You seem to
> believe that ANY power demanding obedience to its own dictates is
> operative. That is counter to what Libertarians believe and assume as
> vital in making real liberty possible. You can't really have real
> liberty until you are able to say that you refuse to force everyone
> else to accept such principles by force.

OK, so you're a radical pacifist. To you liberty doesn't count if it
includes law enforcement. That's a respectable POV, but you should
acknowledge that that's what it is. Unless you're really a blood-&-soil
believer in the integrity of a people or national grouping of peoples
residing on a particular piece of land; but then it's very hard to be a
radical libertarian, so I'll assume you're actually a radical pacifist
until you straighten me out.

You object to foreigners using force to defend persons from
transgressions. I can see just 2 possible bases for your objection:

1. You oppose all use of force, whether aggressive or defensive --
radical pacifism.

2. The problem is that they're foreigners -- nationalism.

And what makes foreigners foreign? The fact that they haven't spent X
amount of time -- 10 days, 10 months, 10 years, 100 years -- inside
certain geometric boundaries? Or some other criterion? you seem to
want to consider yourself USAn even though you've spent very little time
there in recent years. Why shouldn't you be considered Filipino?

> It's pretty obvious to me that "liberty" isn't very important almost
> anywhere within the islamic world. Within the islamic world, liberty
> is likely not understood as a principle worth defending. It likely
> can be, for a time anyway, imposed upon them by brute force, whether
> they like it or not. France is likely the greatest aggressor of all,
> since France occupied most of the islamic world in north Africa for
> many decades.

Huh? Is that how you rank nations on the aggression scale? By
geography and time? Even by that standard, France seems an odd choice.
Russia occupied Siberia for even longer, and Siberia's awfully big. Not
much in it, but it's sure got space.

> I am NOT suggesting here that force isn't necessary either.

So you're not a radical pacifist.

> But the force has
> to be in the hands of the people who really want to be free, who have
> the compelling necessity to fight for themselves against aggression to
> make their own choices.

And those who act similarly out of beneficence rather than necessity
don't count? That shrinks the libertarian movement enormously. Most of
us have no compelling necessity to fight.

> If you want to take a look at real history, it has happened before,
> many times. After the success of the American revolution, just about
> all of latin American decided to accept the American model for
> revolution. Within a few short years, Spain and Portugal were booted
> out of almost all of latin America. Most national constitution were
> modelled after the US Constitution. It was NOT the US government that
> imposed its will upon them, but rather set an example for others to
> follow.
>
> During that time, we didn't send our military into such places to
> force liberty upon anyone.

But luckily for them, Spain & Portugal were too weak and/or distracted
to maintain their colonies by force. They didn't need help as the North
Americans got from France. Sometimes an outside force can make the
difference.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape.....Re: good gawd, lowell!!
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 21:34:22 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

> However, I'm afraid you misunderstood me somewhere. Nowhere do I justify
rape.

Not really. What you seem to advocate is absolute rape. I believe
Larry was much more on target here than you care to realize.

I know for damn sure I have never advocated any reduction in the US
government's means to defend itself against aggression. I do have a
problem however, with the US government using such awesome power to
initiate aggression. There is a huge difference here.

Who exactly, gave the US government the moral right to interfere in
the rights of other sovereign countries? Is it the power itself that
makes such a moral right imperative? I just want to ask. That means,
the might makes right, and you know as well as I do that that doesn't
cut it. We have an arrogant government today, as we have had for the
last five decades or so. Why is this so? The Shrub Regime<tm>
represents one of the most arrogant governments on earth.

Do you reality want G.W. Bush, Tom Daschelle, Al Gore, or any other
fucking politician to commit YOU to waging a police state presence on
the face of the entire planet? Do you really want to spend all of
your productive income to support such a reality? Do you believe that
the rest of the planet will go along with you, even it you choose to
spend the big bucks to make it so? Well, I hope you won't. I hope you
will not, because I don't want to spend one penny of my productive
capacity to support such nonsense.

If you believe differently, then why not support YOUR right to fund
whatever political or international political issues as YOU yourself,
feel are appropriate to your desires? Shouldn't this be voluntary? I
would hope so. At present, it certainly is not. For me, I object
entirely to my tax dollars going to support this regime's "foreign
policy" since it is confiscated against my free will.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape.....Re: good gawd, lowell!!
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 22:49:22 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

lowell,

response below:

on 9/21/02 2:08 AM, Lowell C. Savage at savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

<snip>

> Grow up yourself, Larry--unless you really think you want to live in a
> world where good men do nothing because they are afraid that other good
> people might be hurt or killed as a side-effect of their stopping evil.
>
> Lowell C. Savage
> Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

all folks who do evil consider it to be justified by the end - as you do,
risking a necessary side-effect, as you see it. what you see as side-effect
is pure evil, lowell. the only reason you can't see that is that you figure
you, yoursef, won't be a "side-effect".

i had no idea how precient i was when i called you 'kissinger'.

ARE YOU WILLING TO BE A SIDE-EFFECT, AS A CONSEQUENCE OF YOUR ARGUMENT??!!

i figured not.

no fuckn wonder your have rationalized the shah, and rationalized saddam,
too, until he turned on **you**!!! and even ossama.

you wanna be on the winning side, lowell. liberty is secondary to you, even
given that in the end it is the *only* winner.

sick crap, lowell, and i truly wish that you would quit it with useing
collective terms like "we" & "our" when you discuss foriegn policy. i'm no
fuckn mouse in you pocket, implicated by you b.s. arguments.

as frank wrote, libertarians, first of all argue 'it oughta be voluntary'.
don't go trying, with words, to implicate me in your crap!!!

larry




---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape.....Re: good gawd, lowell!!
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 02:21:46 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello Larry,

Earlier in this thread, I posed the hypothetical of a man kidnapping a girl
where your only option to stop the man risked hurting the girl or maybe
even was certain to hurt the girl. I'll ask you again. Would you do it if
you were certain the girl would be hurt by your actions? Would that girl's
pain and suffering be on your conscience?

Now, how about this. You live in a town in an anarchist country. A
neighboring town gets themselves a mayor/sheriff/paid-protection-chief
(whatever your preference, I'll just call him the "town leader" for
convenience) who is a bit of a sick puppy--picks up a young woman (or girl)
about once a month--whether she likes it or not. The good folks in the
town are scared of him and so keep electing him (or paying him or whatever)
to keep him from killing them or locking them up. Some of the townspeople
get ahold of you and ask you to come help them get rid of this guy. About
the same time word gets around that there's a criminal gang (maybe Hell's
Angels types) that's headed toward this town (your town, being larger, is
probably safe for the time being). If the criminal gang takes over the
town, you can figure that just about every woman in town is going to get
"her turn" in rather short order--not to mention that most of them will
probably lose their husbands and some of their sons. The town leader
doesn't have the resources to fight off the gang (and, in fact, some of the
people in the town hate the town leader so much they'll help the gang.) Oh
yeah, one more thing. If the gang takes over this town, they'll probably
get a few recruits from the town (after all, gang members get all the
women, right?) Then they'll be strong enough to take the next town, and
the next town...and eventually your town.

You are able to convince some people from your town to go help the people
in this other town. However, it's a pretty good bet that if you drive off
the gang (which will be easier if you work with the town leader) the people
aren't going to be too eager to take down the town leader. On the other
hand, if you take down the town leader, you and the people from your town
(plus the few good folks that are left in the other town) aren't going to
be enough to drive off the gang. In fact, once the town leader is gone,
most of the people you brought are probably going home.

So. What do you do? Do you say, "It's none of my business, let them fight
it out."? Do you bump off the sick puppy town leader and leave the town to
the "tender mercies" of the gang? Or do you "support" the town leader and
drive off the criminal gang? Or do you drive off the criminal gang and
then try to bump off the town leader--knowing that you won't have
sufficient support to do it. (And knowing that the gang will be back when
they know the town leader and his people are gone.)

I'd say you've got blood on your hands and are "rationalizing" evil of one
sort or another, no matter what you choose. What's the "libertarian"
answer, Larry? And don't give me a bunch of bullshit about how you'd fight
off the gang and bounce the town leader out and save the world (or at least
the neighborhood). I'm calling that bullshit because the world doesn't
work that way. Even the US government, as powerful as it is now, can't
always get itself away from a bad, stinking choice of a "lesser of the two
evils".

So Larry (or anyone else who cares to answer), what would you do in this
situation? Whose blood is going to be on your hands? Whose rape will you
"justify" or "rationalize"? What course of action results in the most
liberty?

And if you think that supporting the Shah or Iran or Somoza or Pinochet or
Batista or some of the other unsavory characters that the US supported was
done under essentially different circumstances from my hypothetical, please
explain how those circumstances were different (other than being on a
larger scale).

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Give War A Chance!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape.....Re: good gawd, lowell!!
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 08:46:35 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net> on
Sunday, September 22, 2002 1:49 AM wrote in part:

> ARE YOU WILLING TO BE A SIDE-EFFECT, AS A CONSEQUENCE OF YOUR
ARGUMENT??!!

David Brudnoy gets that sort of question from phoners-in and other
figures all the time, and points out that it's not a sound basis for
policy analysis. Make things personal, and the whole idea of policy
goes out the window.

The appropriate question is, are you willing to LIVE IN A WORLD IN WHICH
IT IS POSSIBLE to be a side effect as a consequence of the argument?

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape.....Re: good gawd, lowell!!
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 14:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Lowell,

> Now, how about this. You live in a town in an
> anarchist country.

My biggest gripe with your post is the way you
described your scenerio as "anarchist." It's not. A
"town leader" who initiates force against the
townspeople and can't be gotten rid of voluntarily has
nothing to do with market anarchism; he's just your
typical leader of a State. What you're describing
here are just a bunch of mini-states that aren't
dressed up with the niceties modern democratic States
have.

> So. What do you do? Do you say, "It's none of my
> business, let them fight
> it out."? Do you bump off the sick puppy town
> leader and leave the town to
> the "tender mercies" of the gang? Or do you
> "support" the town leader and
> drive off the criminal gang? Or do you drive off
> the criminal gang and
> then try to bump off the town leader--knowing that
> you won't have
> sufficient support to do it. (And knowing that the
> gang will be back when
> they know the town leader and his people are gone.)

It depends on what "help" the townspeople ask for. Do
they just want help getting rid of the town leader -
and they figure they can take on the "Hells Angels"
group themselves? Or do they want help with both? Or
do they not care about the town leader any more with
the more grave threat on the horizon?

Providing help when no help has been requested is
wrong; if the town hasn't asked for your help, don't
go and help them. I'd also say, if all they want is
help getting rid of the town leader, and they don't
want help dealing with the gang, that they are pretty
stupid and it's not going to do much good to go to
their aid.

If, however, they want help with both problems, then
it would be best to first have anyone from Larry's
town who is willing and able help the neighboring town
fight off the Hells Angels group (which is clearly
self defense). Then, after the Hells Angels group has
been taken care of, you deal with the town leader if
the people still want help getting rid of him.

And don't give me a bunch of
> bullshit about how you'd fight
> off the gang and bounce the town leader out and save
> the world (or at least
> the neighborhood). I'm calling that bullshit
> because the world doesn't
> work that way.

There's no reason to assume a priori that you can't
fight off the gang and get rid of the town leader too.
That statement is solely your unsupported opinion.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape.....Re: good gawd, lowell!!
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 23:42:02 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello Michelle,
>Hi Lowell,
>
> > So. What do you do? Do you say, "It's none of my
> > business, let them fight
> > it out."? Do you bump off the sick puppy town
> > leader and leave the town to
> > the "tender mercies" of the gang? Or do you
> > "support" the town leader and
> > drive off the criminal gang? Or do you drive off
> > the criminal gang and
> > then try to bump off the town leader--knowing that
> > you won't have
> > sufficient support to do it. (And knowing that the
> > gang will be back when
> > they know the town leader and his people are gone.)
>
>It depends on what "help" the townspeople ask for. Do
>they just want help getting rid of the town leader -
>and they figure they can take on the "Hells Angels"
>group themselves? Or do they want help with both? Or
>do they not care about the town leader any more with
>the more grave threat on the horizon?

There are probably some people in all of the above camps. In fact, there
are probably some people who hate the town leader so much that they're
helping the "Hells Angels"--some with their eyes wide open and others with
their "eyes wide shut".

>Providing help when no help has been requested is
>wrong; if the town hasn't asked for your help, don't
>go and help them. I'd also say, if all they want is
>help getting rid of the town leader, and they don't
>want help dealing with the gang, that they are pretty
>stupid and it's not going to do much good to go to
>their aid.

Good points.

>If, however, they want help with both problems, then
>it would be best to first have anyone from Larry's
>town who is willing and able help the neighboring town
>fight off the Hells Angels group (which is clearly
>self defense). Then, after the Hells Angels group has
>been taken care of, you deal with the town leader if
>the people still want help getting rid of him.

Another good point. Now. What if, the initial battle with the Hells
Angels was only successful in driving them off. In other words, you hurt
them a little, but not enough to really affect their strength. So, do you
then leave the town leader where he is for as long as the Hells Angels
group is a threat?

> And don't give me a bunch of
> > bullshit about how you'd fight
> > off the gang and bounce the town leader out and save
> > the world (or at least
> > the neighborhood). I'm calling that bullshit
> > because the world doesn't
> > work that way.
>
>There's no reason to assume a priori that you can't
>fight off the gang and get rid of the town leader too.
> That statement is solely your unsupported opinion.

There may occasionally be situations where you can do both. But in the
case of governments or large societies, it usually is the case that you're
not powerful enough to do both. And, of course, the types of choices that
the US government had to make during the Cold War are analogous to this
situation...times 100. In fact, we are probably going to have to make some
similar choices in the future. Not only that, but to the extent that we
become a more libertarian society, these choices will probably become even
more necessary.

In other words, in my analogy, there are a 100 towns like this one. Some
have more brutal "town leaders", some have less brutal "town leaders", some
even have a properly functioning democracy or representative governments
and a few may even have a properly working anarchy. The Hells Angels gang
keeps probing all of them for weaknesses and if it thinks it finds one, it
charges in. Your town has decided that it is willing to help these other
towns--as a matter of self-defense. But obviously, if you try to bounce
out a town leader, he may ask for help from the Hells Angels gang. Or, you
may create a situation where there is so much weakness in a particular
town, that the people from your town would find yourselves fighting the
Hells Angels group all alone in this other town--and perhaps against some
of the townspeople.

So, do you "tolerate" some bad town leaders? Maybe even help them
out? How bad do you let them get before you stop tolerating them?

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape.....Re: good gawd, lowell!!
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 18:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Lowell,

> >If, however, they want help with both problems,
> then
> >it would be best to first have anyone from Larry's
> >town who is willing and able help the neighboring
> town
> >fight off the Hells Angels group (which is clearly
> >self defense). Then, after the Hells Angels group
> has
> >been taken care of, you deal with the town leader
> if
> >the people still want help getting rid of him.
>
> Another good point. Now. What if, the initial
> battle with the Hells
> Angels was only successful in driving them off. In
> other words, you hurt
> them a little, but not enough to really affect their
> strength. So, do you
> then leave the town leader where he is for as long
> as the Hells Angels
> group is a threat?

That depends largely on what the townspeople want to
do (do they still want the town leader gone or not?)
and also on whether the volunteers from Larry's town
think it's in their best interests to assist with
removing the town leader when the Hell's Angels gang
is still on the loose. (Again, if the people from
Larry's town think the people in the neighboring town
are acting foolishly in wasting energy getting rid of
the town leader, when a more dangerous enemy is on the
horizon, they are likely not to continue in their
volunteer efforts.)

> >There's no reason to assume a priori that you can't
> >fight off the gang and get rid of the town leader
> too.
> > That statement is solely your unsupported
> opinion.
>
> There may occasionally be situations where you can
> do both. But in the
> case of governments or large societies, it usually
> is the case that you're
> not powerful enough to do both.

> So, do you "tolerate" some bad town leaders? Maybe
> even help them
> out? How bad do you let them get before you stop
> tolerating them?

Basically, since we're talking pure speculation here,
I'm not sure how to respond to this; anything I can
think to say would seem to go off on a real tangent.
(And honestly, on my list of "interesting topics to
discuss," foreign policy and the "rights" of States is
way at the bottom, so I'm not inclined to want to head
off on any tangents anyway.)

I will just say that I don't see any reason why we
"must" tolerate "bad leaders" as a matter of course.
However, I do think, so long as States exist (evil
insitutions that they are), that it will be pretty
difficult to AVOID having bad leaders.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape.....Re: good gawd, lowell!!
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 19:10:33 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello Michelle,

> > There may occasionally be situations where you can
> > do both. But in the
> > case of governments or large societies, it usually
> > is the case that you're
> > not powerful enough to do both.
>
> > So, do you "tolerate" some bad town leaders? Maybe
> > even help them
> > out? How bad do you let them get before you stop
> > tolerating them?
>
>Basically, since we're talking pure speculation here,
>I'm not sure how to respond to this; anything I can
>think to say would seem to go off on a real tangent.
>(And honestly, on my list of "interesting topics to
>discuss," foreign policy and the "rights" of States is
>way at the bottom, so I'm not inclined to want to head
>off on any tangents anyway.)

I understand that. But that's precisely what this thread is about.

>I will just say that I don't see any reason why we
>"must" tolerate "bad leaders" as a matter of course.

I don't believe anyone is proposing this. (Except as a straw man.)

>However, I do think, so long as States exist (evil
>insitutions that they are), that it will be pretty
>difficult to AVOID having bad leaders.

Now *there's* a true statement. And from that statement, it logically
follows that, at least occasionally, there will be times when a country has
to deal with one bad leader in order to defeat a worse one. I understand
that you want anarchy, but right now you have to deal with states.

So, given a situation where you can support one bad leader who *in your
judgement* is less bad than another: Is it moral to deal with the "lesser"
bad leader? Is it moral to refuse to deal with a lesser bad leader when in
*your* judgment, not doing so will result in the ascension of a worse
leader?

I know that many people want to say something like "I'll decide it on a
case-by-case basis when I see the facts." That way, they don't have to
face any ethical dilemmas--or be accused of "supporting evil because you're
supporting the lesser of the two evils."

The crux of the issue is that it is a moral dilemma. "larry" skipped
around it and sprinkled obscenities and accusations to try to cover his
tracks. I figure you're made of better stuff and are at least willing to
examine the issue and face it.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape.....Re: good gawd, lowell!!
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 22:40:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Lowell,

> >Basically, since we're talking pure speculation
> here,
> >I'm not sure how to respond to this; anything I can
> >think to say would seem to go off on a real
> tangent.
> >(And honestly, on my list of "interesting topics to
> >discuss," foreign policy and the "rights" of States
> is
> >way at the bottom, so I'm not inclined to want to
> head
> >off on any tangents anyway.)
>
> I understand that. But that's precisely what this
> thread is about.

Yup, which is why I haven't even been reading most of
the posts on the thread - I'm not terribly interested
in the topic. But when subjects that pique my
interest - like anarchism :) - come up, I'll add my
two cents.

>
> >I will just say that I don't see any reason why we
> >"must" tolerate "bad leaders" as a matter of
> course.
>
> I don't believe anyone is proposing this. (Except
> as a straw man.)

Well, you told Larry he didn't have the option of
defeating the gang AND getting rid of the town leader;
in the real world, you suggested, it's just not
possible to completely get rid of bad leaders.

So long as there are State institutions, I think bad
leaders are inevitable since States attract and
encourage bad leadership. But I don't agree with you
that it's ultimately impossible in the "real world" to
"get rid of the gang AND the town leader."

> So, given a situation where you can support one bad
> leader who *in your
> judgement* is less bad than another: Is it moral to
> deal with the "lesser"
> bad leader? Is it moral to refuse to deal with a
> lesser bad leader when in
> *your* judgment, not doing so will result in the
> ascension of a worse leader?
>
> I know that many people want to say something like
> "I'll decide it on a
> case-by-case basis when I see the facts." That way,
> they don't have to
> face any ethical dilemmas--or be accused of
> "supporting evil because you're
> supporting the lesser of the two evils."

Well, I'm inclined to say I'll decide on a case by
case basis when I see the facts - simply because
speculating in the abstract isn't a terribly easy
thing to do. It's a lot easier to figure out what I
think when I have concrete examples to work with.

Thinking of your previous example, though, I would say
it would probably be "morally acceptable" for Larry's
town to work with the lecherous town leader in order
to fight of the greater evil of the Hell's Angels
gang.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Strawman
Date: 21 Sep 2002 10:57:52 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 00:12, Lowell C. Savage wrote:
> Greetings Frank!
>
> There was a reason that I changed the "Subject:" line to "Strawman". That
> was because I wanted to discuss what is and is not a "strawman
> argument"--independent of whether an attack on Iraq was a good idea or
what
> the nature of treaties might or might not be.

A reasonable alteration.

>
> You wrote:
>
> > You've both missed the entire philosophical argument, ...
>
> Actually, Frank. You missed it. The "philosophical argument" would be
the
> one about what a "strawman argument" is and is not. The political
argument
> would be the one about Iraq and the nature of treaties.

True.

>
> I'm sure that Bill understands that you are against attacking Iraq and
that
> you think it would be a disaster for the US--particularly in its
> relationships with other nations. (Notice that I can even partially
> summarize your position, which means that I understand what you were
> getting at.) However, even after reading his post a second and third
time,
> he does not say whether he shares your opinion of those things or
disagrees
> with them. His post on this topic was solely disagreeing with you on the
> basis of the definition of what a strawman argument is (well, he did quote
> a few economic statistics to set you straight on a few facts).

Exactly, my post was not about attacking Iraq at all, rather the
assertion regarding straw man arguments.

> > Sorry Lowell, Bill, you are NOT
> >historians, nor do any of you have any clue at all how the rest of the
> >planet perceives you. You are both arrogant and proud, just as your
> >Heir Leader, the Shrub is so proud to have all the moral answers.
> >This is a ridiculous and total illusion. Live it while you can!
>
> The "appeal to authority."

Yes, a hidden appeal to authority, good catch.

>
> > > Actually, politics is all about all kinds of arguments. Some of them
are
> > > valid and some are invalid. Some of the invalid ones are strawman
> > > arguments and some are other kinds of arguments. As Bill pointed out,
you
> > > still didn't identify a single "strawman argument" put up by the Bush
> > > administration.
> >
> >And, you sir, are fucking ridiculous, as is Mr. Anderson, in which I
> >expected a lot better since I've known him much longer than yourself.
> >Arguments don't have ANYTHING at all to do with this.
>
> Arguments have everything to do with it since arguments are what we (and
> politicians) use to convince others that the government is doing the right
> (or wrong) thing.

If anything, Frank should have expected *exactly* what he received form
me, having witnessed me do it on this very list several times before
(which he fully stood behind at the time, though it was indeed not sent
in his direction).

> >Politics, sir, is power. It has nothing so much to do with
> >"arguments" as it does with who has the funding and power to control
> >the arguments and choices individuals still have available to make on
> >their on behalf. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to differentiate
> >between the two.
>
> Power, sir, in a representative republic, comes from making effective
> arguments to get elected.

I would add, "or convince other elected officials to support you".

>
> >Your "strawman" arguments are very real, since you support the current
> >gestapo, and all of the same arguments that are really political
> >arguments, as the case may be.
>
> The "ad hominem" argument again.

And partial straw man.

>
> > Just because we have the
> >Anderson/Savage axis doesn't really attest to how valid your arguments
> >may be.
>
> And now, another example of a "strawman". Neither Bill nor I claimed that
> we must be more correct because the other supported us. After all, both
of
> us know full well that such a claim would be either an "Appeal to
> Authority" or an "Argumentum ad populum" an appeal to the popularity of
the
> idea (which would really be absurd since there's only two of us.)

Yes, it would be the latter, and a ridiculous form of it as you noted.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Nature of Treaties (no longer short)
Date: 21 Sep 2002 13:28:29 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 23:53, Lowell C. Savage wrote:
> Greetings, Frank
>
> >But I did write, previously:
> > > > as Bush did with the ABM treaty, and
> > > >ignoring the Kyoto Protocols, and probably the Geneva Conventions
> > > >supporting the treatment of prisoners.
> >
> > > Not one of these three applies to the issue at hand. (Abrogating
> > > treaties.) Not one of these treaties was abrogated or even
temporarily
> > > ignored.
> >
> >The ABM treaty wasn't abrogated!? It clearly was. At least everyone
> >else saw it as such, even it YOU didn't.

The Russian President didn't say he considered it abrogated, in fact, he
stated that it was well within the rights of the U.S. to do so.
In fact, the exercising of the end clause was discussed with Russia
AFTER a lengthy discussion on altering the treaty, something that was
done several times before when it benefited the USSR.

In fact, Russian deputy Vladimir Zhirinovsky *welcomed* the US
withdrawal from the ABM treaty because "at 30-years-old it was past its
sell-by date."

What is telling about Frank's arguments, is that there were a few
"near-abrogations", but it wasn't by Bush.

In May 1999, Congress passed legislation making it the policy of the
United States to deploy a limited national missile defense (NMD) system
as soon as technologically possible. It was later pointed out by the
experts in the technology that this legislation violated the 1972 ABM
treaty. Bush was not President, nor in Congress in 1999.

In fact, regarding Putin's statement, there are a few interesting notes
to make.

"As is known, Russia, like the United States and unlike other nuclear
powers, has long possessed an effective system to overcome anti-missile
defense. So, I can say with full confidence that the decision made by
the President of the United States does not pose a threat to the
national security of the Russian Federation." -- RUSSIAN PRESIDENT
VLADIMIR PUTIN ON DECEMBER 13, 2001

So, Putin acknowledges a means of defeating existing ABMD systems, and
that this is crucial to the "national security of the Russian
Federation".

> >You seem to want to ignore
> >them all, don't you? We DID sign on to BOTH the ABM treaty and the
> >Geneva Conventions, all of them!
>
> Yes we did sign on to them both. We also have broken neither--or if we
> have, you haven't presented a shred of evidence (other than "Frank sez")
> that we've broken either. You also seem to have ignored repeated
offerings
> of information about them which would show that we have obeyed them.

The key principles of the Geneva Conventions grew out of an original
agreement dating back to 1864. They are established in one of four
conventions adopted in 1949 and ratified by 189 countries.

A later set of rules, the "Additional Protocol" was drafted in 1977. It
significantly alters the criteria of eligibility for POW status, but
neither the US or Afghanistan are among the 159 signatories.

One thing many people fail to realize/talk about is that among the
Geneva Conventions, are Conventions on protection of "Intellectual
Property", for example. One can not simply refer to them as whole ("The
Geneva Convention"), and be accurate, when using them to demark a
particular protection, action, or obligation. A Power can sign one, but
not others.

The one being referred to here is "Geneva Convention relative to the
Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War".

The Geneva Conventions specifically state that they only apply to
parties that agreed to the convention(s) ("...between two or more of the
High Contracting Parties..."). It further states that in situations
where there are more than two parties, and one power is not an signatory
to the convention, the signatories shall be bound by it to other
signatories, and that IF the non-signatory practices the requirements of
the Convention, THEN the other parties shall be bound to it with regards
to said Power.

Just to be clear, in Article 4 is states "Nationals of a State which is
not bound by the Convention are not protected by it."

So, if the opposing Power(s) in Afghanistan are not bound by the
convention, then it/they are not protected by it. If they are not
protected by it, then the US could not be in violation of the 1949 GC on
POW treatment.

So, the question becomes one of whether or not the al'Queda group and
the Taliban forces are protected by said Convention. Neither party is a
signatory to it.

However, if they practiced the conventions, they are protected by it.
They did not do so. In fact, terrorism is *specifically* excluded by
the conventions, attacking reporters is against it, as is attacking
medical personnel and vehicles.

Thus, by these applications of logic, the assertion that the United
States is breaking the Geneva Convention through it's treatment of
"detainees" at Gitmo, falls short of validity.

Further, the treatment the "detainees" are getting is within the bounds
of said Geneva convention. I've *read* the thing, rather than accept the
wild assertions of media nuts who think that they simply *must* violate
it. In fact, the treatment has exceeded what is required in said
Convention.

Now, what you do NOT hear being told, is that there are certain
provisions of said Convention, that would provide the U.S. with certain
"abilities" that many people want to complain about.

For example, Chapter III, Article 82 states:
"A prisoner of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations and orders
in force in the armed forces of the Detaining Power; the Detaining Power
shall be justified in taking judicial or disciplinary measures in
respect of any offence committed by a prisoner of war against such laws,
regulations or orders."

This is important, since Ar