newpopularfront:

from this right here

Politicals memes are, and forever will be, the piss-poor way of communicating a set of political beliefs. Eternally. 

Stop it, you’re only insulting your own intelligence when you feel the need to simplify an ideology so much for a joke that it can fit into 2 sentence fragments. 

That goes for all you conservatives and libertarians who seem to adore this thing too:

Things of the sort really do need to stop. These get posted, you and your narrow buddies laugh, and then you get all upset when people “mysteriously” start to use ad-hominems/strawmans instead of actually taking the time to learn about these vast complex theories. 

Knock it off.

After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the US had no incentive to be involved there anymore (remember we used this war as a proxy war against the USSR). So we turned our influence/power in the region over to the Pakistani intelligence agency (the ISI), and left the Mujahideen groups to split and war between themselves.

The ISI found this power vacuum rather… convenient. They became buddies with the Taliban and its warlords (for trade route purposes), and helped them during the Afghan Civil War. With the aid of the ISI (and financial aid from Saudi Arabia), the Taliban took over most of the country by 1996.

The new Taliban regime initially rejected bin Laden’s al-Qaeda (after both Sudan and Saudi Arabia had banished them), but eventually warmed up to the thought of being their friend. When they inevitably became allies, the Taliban allowed al-Qaeda to have shelter within their borders, and integrated the terroristic organization into their military. 

At this point, the Taliban assigned al-Qaeda to train 055 Brigade, which was a strong part of the Taliban’s military (made up mostly of Soviet-Afghan war geurilla veterans). This brigade was in fact used for al-Qaeda’s terrorist activities (such as the 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassy).

Needless to say, they were really good friends. Al-Qaeda was practically a dependent arm of the Taliban regime. Pakistan only ever set up this alliance, albeit they remained friendly with both organizations from the 1980’s. But Pakistan only supported al-Qaeda after the 2001-present phase of the War in Afghanistan commenced.

Invading the Taliban was the correct choice, not Pakistan (as good-gollymissmolly would suggest). 

Though to be fair, the entire conflict was initially our fault in a multitude of ways:

• 1) The Cold War was an avoidable conflict, easily remediable by swift action immediately following World War II. 
• 2) We (our CIA) funded and supplied the Afghans in the Soviet-Afghan war through the ISI, thus creating weakened regimes, allowing for the power vacuum that inevitably assisted the Taliban just so we could say “HA!” to the Soviets.
• 3) The Taliban and al-Qaeda were/are also mainly composed of soldiers that we helped; Osama bin Laden was among these soldiers (under the alias of Tim Osman).
• 4) We continually involved ourselves elsewhere in the Middle-East (like in Kuwait or in the Iraq-Iran affair), escalating situations that in turn entangled the regimes all over the Arabian Peninsula, disturbing alliances/conflicts further.

Still, overthrowing the Taliban was necessary after they refused to hand over al-Qaeda following the September 11 attacks (even though the conflicts that 9/11 was contingent upon were our fault). Attacks on our soil should never go unchecked. 

good-gollymissmolly:

And I do respect their belief and their willingness to fight for it.

However, the fact of the matter is that American soldiers have not HAD to die for our freedom since World War II.  And it’s disgusting that the government’s propaganda is able to convince millions of men and women that they have to.

Now now, that’s not true (referring to the part I bolded).

Our invasion of Afghanistan was warranted. Yes, in retrospect, it was a self-inflicted conflict. But we were still attacked, and we can’t let attacks on our soil go unchallenged. It’s good that we chased bin Laden to the ends of the Earth like we did.

Though you know me, I obviously agree with you for the most part. Korea, Vietnam, our involvements in Israel’s battles, Kuwait, Iraq, funding the Mujahideen and Saddam Hussein, etc. all were not necessary and were unwarranted. But I stand by the belief that the War in Afghanistan was a somewhat proper course of action (I say “somewhat” because it’s evident that we’ve been there longer than the circumstances necessitated).

P.S. Ask box is open! Need material to post every now and then until I come back so… any questions?

communismkills:

1. The fifty-year-old Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is the core cause of Middle Eastern violence. It is wreaking tragedy on the region and creating increasingly dangerous destabilization for the entire globe.

2. American taxpayers, without being consulted, are giving Israel over $10 million dollars per day of their tax money - far more than to any other nation on earth. This enormous disbursement abroad of American money is rolled over year after year, and is often increased - without any debate whatsoever by our governmental representatives.

3. With this money the Israeli government is maintaining an occupation that has been decreed illegal according to the United States government and international law. This occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights is engendering escalating violence, which is costing the lives of numerous innocent civilians, both Israeli and Palestinian.

4. A multitude of international observers and organizations - from the International Red Cross to UNICEF to Israeli nongovernmental organizations - have reported systemic and continuing violations by Israel of the Geneva Conventions. These violations create desperate reprisals by Palestinian resistance organizations, causing a tragic and growing cycle of violence that inflames the entire region.

5. In 1967 Israeli forces attacked an American naval ship, the USS Liberty, killing 34 American servicemen and injuring 172. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moorer called this attack “an act of war against the United States of America.” For over 30 years the surviving crewmembers of the USS Liberty have long called for a thorough, honest, and open Congressional investigation of the attack that killed their crewmates and maimed many of them. To date, Congress has failed to give these American servicemen the respect of its attention.

6. In 2004 an Israeli military bulldozer crushed to death 23-year-old American Rachel Corrie, who was sitting on the ground in front of a Palestinian family home in an attempt to prevent it from being bulldozed. Rachel’s parents, Cindy and Craig Corrie, are asking that the United States investigate their daughter’s death by America’s close ally.

It is time for the United States to work toward peace between Israelis and Palestinians through the implementation of policies of rationality, morality, and practicality. It is time that American funding be contingent on adherence to international law and American principles. Only through justice and firm resolve will peace be achieved. It is unacceptable for Israel to take American money while disdaining American needs.

THEREFORE

1. The United States must end all aid to Israel until it obeys international law. By doing this, Israel will finally take the road to peace that many of its citizens have long called for. In addition, the United States will demonstrate the principles of fairness and democracy that will begin to earn back the respect that our nation traditionally enjoyed in the region.

2. The United States Congress must immediately undertake a fair and thorough investigation of the USS Liberty. This will bring the justice these Americans deserve, and demonstrate to future American servicemen that they will not be abandoned.

3. The United States Congress must call for an immediate and open investigation of Rachel Corrie’s death. The Corries, and all Americans, have the right to learn the truth. When Daniel Pearl was killed in Pakistan, American investigators were there within days. Rachel Corrie deserves the same.

For many years, Israeli and Palestinian civilians have been living in tragic fear and violence. As the United States Congress sends more and more aid to Israel, Americans are becoming increasingly embroiled in this conflict and imperiled by its violence. Peace can only come through justice. It is time that America stand up for our principles of equality, inclusion, and fairness. It is time that American policies ensure the right of Israelis and Palestinians to exist in peace. By doing so, we will not only bring peace to this sacred land, we will bring it to our own as well.

Source: http://www.judgejimgray.com/grayarticles4.php

Wow, for someone who “doesn’t want foreign intervention”, he seems to want a lot of “do what America wants or else”!

I would consider most of this post to be honest. Not all of it, mind you; some of it pushes for too much/is untrue.

But requesting that aid to Israel/other nations stop and that we actually investigate the USS Liberty’s sinking is pretty non-interventionist. If we were attacked, we ought to know by whom we were attacked. It’s not at all a pressing foreign policy.

transhumanisticpanspermia:

In fact, welfare can help it greatly.

Capitalism requires some amount of consistent unemployment, so that labor remains competitive. It avoids scenarios where the workforce becomes disillusioned with the “community benefits” and slows down, but there’s no disincentive against slowing down because there’s more demand for labor than supply. This creates a snowball effect of more and more inefficient labor causing less production causing less community benefits causing more disillusionment causing more inefficient labor.

A small contingent of unemployment ensures that there remains an incentive to do well at one’s job. However, that doesn’t mean that these people have to live in squalor or lose opportunity. After all, it’s not their fault, the system needs them to be unemployed to maintain society. You want a competitive workforce, so by educating and training the unemployed, you ensure a degree of turnover between rising unemployed and less efficient employed. By guaranteeing a basic standard of living, you ensure that the unemployed are at least able to be happy, and to advance. The only thing you have to do is make sure there’s some incentive to return to or enter employment; this can be engineered through a high minimum wage, special non-essential benefits for the employed (could be anything, for example privileged entertainment [obviously this is just a “tier” of entertainment, it’s not like your’re going to deprive the poor of all entertainment]), or even cultural stigma (if the system is ingrained into culture, which can take time.)

Moral of the story: welfare in capitalism both patches up an unfortunate necessity, and helps the system by producing a happy populus.

This is generally the modern day Capitalist system but is by no means Free-Market Capitalism. This is fairly clear to you, I’m sure. 

The primary case against Welfarism and the Minimum Wage is not aimed at leeches and is not meant to institute a policy that leads people to “live in squalor”; instead it evaluates the negative economic repercussions that these policies entail.

The first of these that come to mind is Inflation. Reality shows that with an increase production costs (such as minimum wage), we will witness an increase in the velocity of money, resulting in an increase in the general price level. New Keynesians may refer to this as Cost-Push inflation. It does exist.

Welfarism in general may also inflate the markets with artificial demand, especially depending on the types of programs that are set in place (do these include access to credit with low rates and insurance?). In whatever the case, we would witness more price inflation and a crowding out of markets (as resources will be allocated to where the market may not need it most).

The idea obviously has good-intentions and a certain amount of validity, but it can be self-defeating and destructive to a society, rather than helpful.

logicallypositive:

thoseboringpolitics:

anticapitalist:

this makes things SO much easier.

Oh my god.

this would’ve saved me lots of time.

Debunked on a philosophical level. The only people you are defeating are Natural Rights Libertarians. Which leaves people like me or Justin.

Generally, us Consequentialist/Utilitarian Libertarians don’t care much for the philosophy or “morals” of Libertarianism, just the results.

ehh

Nick, if you debunk free will, you debunk Austrian economics. It has nothing to do with morality or natural rights. It has to do with praxeology, which is ethically neutral and value-free.

It debunks Austrian economics if the school of thought sticks to relying only on Praxeology. By my view, it shouldn’t be so dependent on this methodology any longer. I had an exchange with Andrew Friedle about this a while back. It might be best if the School takes a more Positivist approach to economics.

anticapitalist:

this makes things SO much easier.

Oh my god.

this would’ve saved me lots of time.

Debunked on a philosophical level. The only people you are defeating are Natural Rights Libertarians. Which leaves people like me or Justin.

Generally, us Consequentialist/Utilitarian Libertarians don’t care much for the philosophy or “morals” of Libertarianism, just the results.

It seems this past winter until now has been full of them. I’m sorry again guys I’ll be back soon!

Have to disagree. No matter who is using the phrase, objectivity should not be ignored. It’s highly ignorant to write a correctly-used phrase off simply because you disagree with 99% of what the person who uses the phrase says.

Accident of birth is the correct phrase when indicating something that a human has no control over after birth. Here’s the wikipedia article on “Accident of Birth”: 

Accident of birth is a phrase pointing out that no one has any control of, or responsibility for, the circumstances of their birth or parentage.

These circumstances can range anywhere from citizenship or societal norms of faith to sex or race to your sexual orientation. Notice that CK listed pretty much all of these other Accidents of Birth. The usage was correct. It wasn’t poor choice of words, it was poor interpretation of words. 

I will be the first to say that CK enjoys confrontation. She does word things poorly sometimes, and she’s not really amicable if you disagree with her. So I do disagree with her methods of arguing and her approach to those who dissent from her (despite actually agreeing with her a lot of the time). But it’s blatantly ignorant to suggest that a term (that was correctly used) was meant to only be offensive simply because you don’t like her as a whole.