An introduction of sorts
Greetings,
The name is Tex. I have my own website over at whackingday.com. John Humphreys kindly invited me to join up here and sing the praises of gay porn and the Iraq War. Or something like that.
Anyhow, by way of a self-deprecating introduction, here are some brief factoids about me:
-> I am 33 years old, live in Canberra, and last week bought my first home.
-> I came to the conclusion that most things I believed up until 2-3 years ago were complete crap. I’m too embarrassed to list the many stupid ideas I supported, though in the interests of disclosure, I will mention the words “gun control” and “medicare”.
-> “Important” books give me a headache. I know the other authors here experience a ten-inch boner at the thought of reading Ayn Rand, Albert Jay Nock, Robert Nozick, von Mises and all that crap, but just the thought of reading this sludge makes my bowels tremble.
-> My view of economics and liberty in general is unapologetically simple: voluntary transaction is good, government regulation thereof is bad. I keep this algorithm simple for two reasons: 1) it works, 2) all complicated economic theory is pretty much an extension of the general rule. There, I just saved you from reading 2000 pages of Chicago school horseshit.
-> Here’s an issue most people reading this will not agree with: my views on the Middle East & Israel make Bibi Netanyahu look like Cindy Sheehan. I don’t give a rat’s arse about the so-called “Palestinians” or their “occupied territories”. They have no genuine historical beef, other than getting their arses kicked in wars they keep losing. I don’t cry for Nazis, even ones who wave the Koran instead of Mein Kampf.
-> In a similar vein, I support the Iraq war, and am one of the few people on earth not pissing their pants over the way it is going. I may elaborate later.
-> I don’t belong to any political party. Well, not yet. I keep meaning to fax off a membership form for the LDP, but I never get around to it.
-> I work in the higher education sector in the field of asset management.
-> I may have single-handedly destroyed the political career – and probably the sanity – of Victorian Greens candidate Thom Lyons.
-> Monica Belluci is the world’s biggest babe.
-> Vindaloo curry is the food of the gods.
Well, that’s all for now. I’ll do a ‘real’ post sometime in the next few days.
116 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Recent Comments
DavidLeyonhjelm on What Type Of Libertarian Are… 
Andrew Russell on What Type Of Libertarian Are… 
jc on Minimum wages frozen 
Juel Briggs on A Call For Radical Utopianism … Weekend Essays on Li… on What Type Of Libertarian Are… 
Tinos on America’s version of… jc on America’s version of… 
papachango on What Type Of Libertarian Are… 
P.M.Lawrence on Minimum wages frozen P.M.Lawrence on Minimum wages frozen 
Michael C on What Type Of Libertarian Are… jc on Minimum wages frozen 
nicholas gray on Discussion 
Bee on What Type Of Libertarian Are… nicholas gray on What Type Of Libertarian Are…
-
LINKS
-
Featured Book
Stats
-
ALS elsewhere
Hey you tax-eating government-loving pro-state warnick… you forgot to provide a link to Monica Belluci. How else are we going to be able to assess your credibility?
Welcome to the club Tex. That’s two people (you and I) who couldn’t give a shit about the those nazis in pali.
All the other stuff is great. I thought I was looking in he mirror reading your stuff. keep it up.
Oh
One thing. monica has gone little latin fat recently. I’d find a new gal if I were you. Saw her in this boring frog crap i was forced to endure by my better 1/2 and I was rather taken aback at how fat she’s become.
Over 25, Sth Euro gals should get the flick.
Rather big generalisation isn’t it, JC?
Surely you don’t mean to include French girls in that?
Sticking a green party member……! great stuff Tex. It’s a pity humphreys never got you up here sooner.
Then again, I had certain issues with Humphreys giving aid and comfort to the enemy. He’s since apologized and have moved on.
I also think the war is going rather well. They killed 100 terrorists the other day in Baghdad, so not every everyhting is bad.
Tex — I look forward to you kicking off a debate about Israel. My concern with that region has nothing to do with the welfare of either the Palestinians or the Israelis, but more to do with the instability that is caused by having those issues unresolved.
Speaking of Israel, something occured to me while backpacking in Georgia recently. Georgia is now full of Israelis as it’s a cheap nearby country that doesn’t hate them. The homestay I was in had about 20 Israelis and one Australian (me). All of the Israelis, without exception, were left-wing. It occured to me that their supposed intellectual allies see them as the enemy. They must get confused about ideological friends/enemies when having political debates with foreigners. Huh.
na Frog gals don’t get as fat but they’re unbearbale in many other rspects . It’s just the latins, jase. You need to trade those gals in at 25.
Giving aid and comfort to the enemy? If you’re going to spread lies about me don’t expect Tex to come to your aid. He may be totally wrong on Iraq and a bit weird in his Israel-fetish, but he is a friend.
“All of the Israelis, without exception, were left-wing. ”
It’s first rate lunacy, isn’t it?
There’s an old saying in NYC. Jews live like wasps but vote like Puerto Ricans…. A Republican Jew said that.
Hmm, wasn’t Stalin from Georgia?
Relax Humphreys, it’s a joke.
Anyway you did apologize so all is forgiven. Think nothing of it.
Humphryes, by the way….
I replied to your Catallaxy comment about GDP etc. You wanna take a look and reply.
Yes he was Jason… but now Georgia is moving quickly into the the western hemisphere. See the comments by Swedish libertarian Johan Norberg on his recent visit to the Caucasus.
I’ve responded to your last comment on Catallaxy JC. Unless there’s a new comment that’s not yet coming up on my computer. Real GDP adjusts for inflation, but not the time value of money. I think you’re definitely trying to do the right thing (apply rational analysis to the AGW fear campaign), so I am honestly not trying to have a got at you here — but rigorous public policy analysis is my thing and I fear that your approach would not stand up to critical economic evaluation.
John
If we’re projecting what Real GDP will be at two different rates of growth, why would the time value of money even come into it. It’s irrelvant if one is looking at real GDP. It has already be discounted buy the deflator.
In other words
starting point US $45 trillion… 100 years from now real GDP will be
at 4.5% growth rate 3670 trillion
at 3.5% growth rate 1400 trillion
I am not making an assumptioon that the cost is the difference. I am saying that the opportunity cost is the difference. Why are you arguing this is wrong.
In a similar vein, I support the Iraq war, and am one of the few people on earth not pissing their pants over the way it is going.
Same here. However, I have been disillusioned by the incompetence of the Americans. In hindsight, there should have been an explicit time-limit for withdrawal from Iraq, in addition to clearly stated goals matched with times for achieving these goals. Still, the removal of a leader who has killed two million of his own people has been a good thing.
If we did a John Humphreys style cost/benefit analysis for Australia specifically a few years after we have withdrawn from a democratic Iraq, I think it would show the benefits have exceeded the costs. Even now, Australia was wise to support our strongest ally. For Australia, our defence spending has been stable despite the Iraq war and we have fulfilled our obligations under ANZUS and strengthened the American alliance.
Whatever the cost to the ‘West’, the cost to us as a country has been tiny.
Of course the cost/benefit anaylsis for *Australia* was fine, we only sent 850-1000 troops, which is almost nothing.
It’s been great for Australia, we have significantly strengthened our relationship with our most powerful ally for next to nothing.
It’s been terrible for the yanks though.
Giving aid and comfort to the enemy?
Well, you did swap your bike for a car, which makes you a poof.
But John is more pacifist than most. As far as I know, not only does he support withdrawal now, he opposed Iraq from the very beginning, even though almost everyone thought Saddam had WMDs.
tex
your link to the previous thom pieces don’t work at you site. I don’t want to miss out reading the throttling you gave that dick.
your link to the previous thom pieces don’t work at you site.
Hmmm, they work for me
Looking for older whackings?
Wanna see my previous rants against lefty, commie, peacenick wankers, plus lots of fun stuff about motorcycles, music and movies?……………. Click here for the full past whackings index
This one
Recent converts, whether to religion, non-smoking or liberty, are often a bit evangelical. So Tex – please stop procrastinating and join the LDP. We need people who do more than comment.
“I support the Iraq war, and am one of the few people on earth not pissing their pants over the way it is going.”
Believe me, you are not one of few. My reservation is that the Americans are not going in hard enough. More dead terrorists would be reassuring.
Like your website. Motorcycles, chicks and guns would feature on mine as well, if I had one. Apart from the LDP, that is.
I’m starting to like this political party. Dead terrorists, guns, fast cars and a fondness for good looking gals.
Davidl
The Americans killed 100 of the bastards a few days ago. Who said we only get bad news out of Iraq.
So many errors to correct… and you guys are supposed to be on my side!
First, Tex, I didn’t trade my bike for a car. I still owned my bike but after it was stolen and totalled for the second time in Canberra I moved it to my parent’s house in Qld for my old man to use. And the car was a BMW Z3, which is quite worthy.
Second, Sukrit, I have never proposed bringing the troops home now and unlike you I would never support a fixed timeline. I did oppose the war from the beginning because even if we assume Saddam had WMDs (which wasn’t 100% fact) the war didn’t pass even a pro-war biased rational assessment of consequences. Finally, I am not a pacifist and there is no such thing as more pacifist than another. A pacifist is somebody who is ideologically opposed to all war irrespective of costs and benefits. That’s not me. What you meant to say is that I am more rational than you and have less faith in government than you and your tax-eating friends. You may be dissalusioned by the failure of government, but that just shows your naivity at having faith in government.
Third, JC, you’re maths isn’t wrong. It’s just not the relevant statistic to compare with the costs of global warming. We need to compare like with like to see whether the policy provides a net benefit. Also, you (and Ron Bailey) incorrectly shock the growth variable instead of the GDP variable — which makes a HUGE difference. And while you say you’re using real GDP, 4.5 and 3.5 sound like nominal growth rates to me.
Finally, Sukrit & Yobbo, I doubt Australia gained much from the Iraq war. The ANZUS treaty wasn’t an issue because the US wasn’t invaded. Our relationship with the US would have been fine and we didn’t gain much from the FTA if that’s what you mean. The only advantage I can see was some good on-the-job training. But I agree our cost was relatively small too — not much more than a few billion of taxpayers dollars I believe.
P.S. David, don’t worry. Tex will do more than join. He’ll run. Won’t you Tex…
1948 was a pile of Zionest religious bullshit supported by simple minded western guilt. The fact that it still enflames a deep seated sence of injustice shows how ill considered it was. You can’t undo history but neither can you wash away the grievances of history with indifference. I look forward to a topic about israel.
And the iraq war was american stupidity in over drive. So a topic on that should be fun also.
Given that John said recently that tax at 25% of GDP would not be socialism I’m wondering if the LDP isn’t more of a reactionary crowd than a liberal one.
Terje
Spare us your Eurotrash dialectic about the Jews. We have heard that crap before. 150-200 years ago Nice was part of Italy. Should I hold everlasting hatred towards the frogs? I do, but not for those reasons.
Should Tibetans have any grievance against the Chinese. Never heard of an Italian going into a frog rest. or a Tibetan going into a chinese noodle shop and blowing themselves up along with a dozen teenagers. Have you?
If you stopped hanging round the Quiggler’s site you’d have better ballast.
I said what? Terje, I think you’re starting to get a taste for blood-sport as you may have successfully antagonised everybody in that comment.
My supposedly reactionary comment was when I gave a rough suggestions that social democracy includes countries with a tax take between 25 and 50%. My point at the time was that both the Anglo system and the Nordic system were social democracies as their tax takes both fall in that category.
And JC, it’s tacky but true — two wrongs don’t make a right. It’s worth while remembering that Israel isn’t perfect. I think the original 1948 idea was (as Terje put) “bullshit” but that doesn’t mean I (or Terje) want Israel gone or support terrorism.
Finally, please note that this is not the LDP blog so doesn’t represent LDP policy. LDP members have a range of views on a range of issues but if you want to see where we are broadly united and the issues we will be promoting (eg guns, tax, property rights) check the LDP website or blog.
John, Listen to me.
I have said this all along and I’ll keep saying it till you understand. I am not figuring out the costs. All I am doing is showing you what an enourmous difference 1% makes to real GDP on a compound basis over 100 years. You seem to be getting it into you head that i am talking about costs. I am not.
I am saying that if you burden the economy with costs and lower the growth sail, your GDP boat will lose the race. A difference of 1% over 100 from 4.5% to 3.5% is a whopping US$2,400 tillion. It is a huge amount.
The AGW howlers don’t think it’s small crums if we lowered our GDP by 1% for the next 100 years. Unless you can explain why I am wrong then what I am saying holds truth. there is no reason to PV real GDP as the GDP deflaor has already used a discount factor.
If you can’t tell me where am wrong then agree that what i’m saying is correct.
>> I may have single-handedly destroyed … the sanity – of Victorian
>> Greens candidate Thom Lyons.
Don’t grandstand Tex. Thommy was a raving loon long before you destroyed his political career!
Well done.
John
“And JC, it’s tacky but true — two wrongs don’t make a right. It’s worth while remembering that Israel isn’t perfect. I think the original 1948 idea was (as Terje put) “bullshit” but that doesn’t mean I (or Terje) want Israel gone or support terrorism.”
Jews to hold a special place for the Euros about having made some mistake. The fact is that there were plenty of jews living in the area. There was no such country as Palestine. There are one million Israeli Arabs living with Jews. So lets all spare the croc of shit tears about the Palestinian nazis wannabes. The fact is they’re so useless other than blowing up people no other country wants them. jordan couldn’t give shit about palis because they know what a bunch of murderous slugs most of them are.
I haven’t noticed the euros giving China a hard time about Tibet, which only means one thing. Those complaining about the Jews and Israel are simply anti-Semitic.
John,
But what is the point of bringing up 48. It offers nothing in terms of the danger Jews face with a bunch of muderous barbarians on two sides of the border. If as you say it is tacky to bring up 48 etc. Why bring it up? Its a redundant point.
Lets face up to the more important issue in that the Jews are facing a neigbourhood of nazi wannabes who should be intitutionalized on mass.
OK JC, fine. Changing world growth rates from 4.5 to 3.5% will make a big difference over time (2270 Trill). But that has nothing to do with the GW debate.
In pretending your analysis is relevant to the GW debate you have made a series of errors. First, despite what you say it seems like you’re using nominal growth rates (4.5 and 3.5). More realistic real growth rates would be 3 and 2. Using these rates it brings the difference down to 530 Trill.
Second you have shocked growth instead of the GDP level. If you shock the GDP level by 1% it brings the difference down to 9 Trill.
But even that number is pretty meaningless because it is for 2106 value of money. If you discount this at the standard rate of 5% then the difference becomes only 0.07 Trill.
You keep claiming that using real GDP takes away the need to discount the future cash flows. Real GDP adjusts for inflation, not the time value of money. I’ve said this three times now. If you don’t know what the time value of money is you should ask instead of repeating your mistakes.
Welcome to the crew, Tex. I’ve long enjoyed your motorcycle posts – hope you can bring a few over here.
BTW Catallaxy got Crikied and Courier-Mailed today so we are having a bit of fun – the site’s only just moved across to the new server and is still bedding in, which is just what we didn’t need.
Nothing has gone astray, just lots of people wanting to visit, that’s all.
And Tex is right about the Palestinians (and many of the loopier Lebanese). I had to travel around the middle-east first to learn this lesson, but that doesn’t make it any less right. I’ve even got an Arabic translation of Mein Kampf around the place (bought in Beirut).
They want all the Jews dead. It’s that simple.
JC, I didn’t bring up ‘48 and I didn’t say it was tacky to bring up ‘48 (it was tacky to say “two wrongs don’t make a right”).
I think lots of decisions in history have been bullshit. These issues don’t keep me awake at night, but if the topic is raised then I’ll tell you my opinion. We were talking about Israel-Palestine here. It wouldn’t make much sense to suddently mention China-Tibet or the Armenian genocide or any other random irrelevant sad pieces of history. This doesn’t imply any sort of anti-semitism.
John
I know what the time value of money is. that’s why i say it has no relevance to REAL GDP growth projections in 2106. In fact it couldn’t be clearer. If you want a good idea about how wealthy the world will look in 100 years time take a growth rate and project out to 2106.
What you’re talking about is different. You’re PV(ing) cost of AGW, which you should. Not for Real GDP.
The argument against the nonsense Howlers present ought to be argued that they want to take from the poor- us- and give a handout to the rich- future generations by applying terrible beeting odds.
Exacly. It’s doesn’t make any sense to bring up 48, like Terje did, and pretend it is relevant when he wouldn’t even think of worse comparables.
“They want all the Jews dead. It’s that simple. ”
Exactly, becasue most, not all are simple minded, twisted murderous freaks.
SL – I’m embarrassed to say I don;t have a sub to Crikey, or access to the Courier Mail. What did they say?
JC, you’re simply wrong when you say that time-value-of-money adjustments aren’t relevant to real GDP. They are.
You are right that you shouldn’t discount something if you’re trying to show how wealthy future generations will be. Fair enough, I guess that’s interesting. Your other mistakes are still real though so the real future difference between action & inaction by 2106 is 9 trillion, not the 2400 trillion you claimed. 9 trillion is pretty low by 2106 standards (only 1% of GDP).
And while interesting, this number is useless in terms of comparing the costs of action with the potential costs of inaction. The number I provided for you ($51.1 trillion) is both higher and more useful.
But you do make an interesting point about intergenerational equity.
I don’t know about the CM, Sinc – I only found out tonight, just as my partner and I were going out to dinner, so too late to buy and not on their cruddy website. I’ll send you the Crikey piece.
The concensus seemed to be bordering on mindless patriotism and I felt like vomiting. So I thought I’d toss in a few grenades. I don’t normally troll but I do take delight in the reaction I got.
I like the libertarian philosophy because it is centred around respecting the rights of others. In order to do that you have to have some respect for the grievances and injustices that others feel and make room for the expression of those concerns. When people start making sweeping remarks along the lines of “jordan couldn’t give shit about palis because they know what a bunch of murderous slugs most of them are” I don’t think its time to quitely buy another round of beers and nod agreeingly.
Spot on.
You have an irritating way of chucking people into groups for the purposes of argument. Eurotrash? You hate the frogs? Dialectic about the Jews? Is there anybody that you don’t put in a can and sell off as spam?
If I wanted to hang around like mind people, let my brain atrophy and never have my worldview challenged then perhaps I’d take your advice. But you see John Quiggin has this ability to engage in polite dialogue and for some strange unexplainable reason I respect that. So I thank you for your advice Senator McCarthy, however I think I will continue to exercise my right to free association and my freedom of conscience .
Hey, good to see your back, Tex.
“The concensus seemed to be bordering on mindless patriotism and I felt like vomiting”
Of course you would Terje. That’s because you wanna bight the hand that’s fed you. Are you and Australian citizen? If you’re not your talking to one who doesn’t vomit at that ideal.
“I like the libertarian philosophy because it is centred around respecting the rights of others.”
Or Nazi wannbes. You’re such a man of the world.
“In order to do that you have to have some respect for the grievances and injustices that others feel and make room for the expression of those concerns.”
Yea? What injustics, Terje? you mean like blowing up a dozen jewish kids in a pizza parlor or keeping a political manifesto that demands a holocaust redux? How about my grievance towards France. Part of my family comes from Nice. It’s silly right? Grievances are silly. Not so silly when practiced by murderous nazis type though.
“When people start making sweeping remarks along the lines of “jordan couldn’t give shit about palis because they know what a bunch of murderous slugs most of them are””
Err, you mean when the truth hits you between the eyes you do a runner.
“You have an irritating way of chucking people into groups for the purposes of argument. Eurotrash? You hate the frogs? Dialectic about the Jews? Is there anybody that you don’t put in a can and sell off as spam?”
Just Europeans like you, who want to conveniently forget they had a hand in killing off 6 million innocents and then find grievances in favour of those that want to repeat the Jew killing party.
“I think I will continue to exercise my right to free association and my freedom of conscience .”
Just do what you like doing, terje even when it’s unhealthy.
The only relatives that I know of that had anything to do with Nazi concentration camps were on the inside dieing. However don’t let anything like that get in the way of personal abuse.
Well apparently “Grievances are silly” so why go on about pizza parlors.
Hmm. More relevant crappla.
Good to see you back, Tex. You’re wrong about Israel.
Give ‘em hell, Terje.
Terje
I find it offensive to read “nuance” when it comes to Isreal/ the jews and what they have to put up with in order to survive.
This is a good example of what I mean.
“Well apparently “Grievances are silly” so why go on about pizza parlors.”
Get some ballast, Terje, if you know what i mean?
JC, just when I start liking you, you go and do something like this. Why can’t you just play nice. Terje is an asset to the libertarian cause and a consistently thoughtful and rigorous contributor to a range of debates. He deserves some respect even when you disagree with him.
The points he raises here are perfectly valid and do not deserve an accusation that Terje has any moral culpability whatsoever for the actions of the Nazis. I think you owe him an apology.
Just because he can’t pronounce his own name correctly doesn’t make him some sort of weird evil foreign devil.
I am reassured to learn that you can read. It will help you immencely in discussions like this. However I would suggest that you try and slow down and put a little more effort into the activity.
You seem to be dragging around a fair bit of the stuff. It looks painful. May I suggest that you “lighten up”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law
Did I win?
I’m not saying terje is a nazi? never even implied such a thing.
All I am doing is sticking for the Israelis and arguing its neighbors are evil bastards whio deserve no quarter. that’s all.
John
This is what Terje said.
“1948 was a pile of Zionest religious bullshit supported by simple minded western guilt.”
It’s hardy reasonable. It simply glosses over the overwheming reason Israel got started and blames it on religious nutcases (his language of sorts)
“the overwheming (sic) reason Israel got started”
Care to enlighten us?
JC, you didn’t say Terje was a Nazi. But you did say “Just Europeans like you [Terje], who want to conveniently forget they had a hand in killing off 6 million innocents”. It is fairly clear that Terje in no way had a hand in killing 6 million innocents. Indeed, I doubt Terje has killed more than 4 or 5 people in his entire life!
John
I think you’re smart enough to know I wasn’t suggesting terje is a nazi. this is silly.
fatso
Stop being so silly.
The holocaust is the reason for Israels being.
“The holocaust is the reason for Israels being.”
Yes, that’s true. So you’re agreeing with Terje, then?
JC, I know you weren’t saying Terje himself was/is a Nazi, but your comment was still inappropriate.
Israel was started because of (1) a group of zionists; and (2) western guilt over the holocaust. I suggest we move the whole zionist experiment to Tasmania. The biggest problem with that idea is what will happen to the Tasmanian cricket side.
Good to see Tex writing again. He gets on the computer and gets distracted by those shoot-em-up games…
Is that Scott Wickstein by any chance?
‘western guilt over the holocaust.’
err, the word you’re looking for is ‘culpability’.
If the Samaritans and their Euro allies had won any of the several wars of aggression they have pursued since 1947 we wouldn’t be having this debate. If the US hadn’t of pursued their ’soft on terrorism’ campaign (ironically the US changed that policy at about 9.30 am on 9/11/01 – coincidence, I’m sure) since 1947 – 2001, we wouldn’t be having this debate either.
Luckily, now that the US is pursuing their “remove americans freedoms and waste tax-payers money” campaign we are no longer having the debate because terrorism has been defeated! Um. No.
Quick Sinclair! Be scared! There’s a remarkably small threat to the west with no evidence of growth… perhaps the government should spend trillions of dollars, restrict freedoms and remove the rule of law. That’s always worked in the past. Can’t talk now, I have to go and hide under my bed. Unless there are terrorists there too. Or worse — huggers!
Ummm, this is all getting a bit nasty and personal, folks. Stoushing may be fun but agreeing to disagree is probably more productive on this one. I suspect it’s possible to sit around arguing about Israel/the Middle East generally until the cows come home and get no closer to any sort of resolution. Just sayin.
/meta
Lovely. Just had to fish one of my own comments out of the spaminator. I’m not having a good run with technology this week…
JC,
The halocaust would not have caused Israel to exist without the Zionists. And the Zionists were on about historical grievances or perhaps more accurately they were longing for historical glory and a jewish utopia.
Your logic seems to be that if we can hate the palestians enough, and if only enough of us felt the need to hate them then the problem would go away. It seems to be an updated version of “the only good indian is a dead indian”.
Regards,
Terje.
Tex, maybe you can diss the Rossi ‘dica 46′ fans in your next post. The stoush may be more lighthearted that way…
What stoush? Surely we don’t have any Rossi fans here!? For some lighthearted stoushing perhaps Tex can tell us again why he prefers girly cars…
John I think you’re over-reacting to my comment. In any event, its not like the US government wouldn’t be wasting money if the war on terrorism wasn’t on. Or any other government for that matter.
This comes back to our discussion on cost-benefit analysis. I know you got very cross and thought I was making a cheap point (I wasn’t).
What stoush? Surely we don’t have any Rossi fans here!? For some lighthearted stoushing perhaps Tex can tell us again why he prefers girly cars…
There’s nothing unmanly about a Daewoo Matiz I tell you.
“There’s nothing unmanly about a Daewoo Matiz I tell you.”
As long as it has twin overhead BP stickers and a chrome indicator switch. Without them you’d be a cross dresser.
Just to clear up a few things:
First of all, I couldn’t give a fart about the zionist project. I don’t see the logic into moving into a region where pretty much everybody wants to kill you. I support israel because they’re pretty much an oasis of sanity and democracy in a region surrounded by genocidal nutballs.
Second, if the “Palestinians” (ie. re-badged Jordanians, Syrians and a bunch of others) had any genuine interest in settling grievances from 1948, they’d have accepted Barak’s peace deal. They didn’t. Nor have they ever accepted any arrangement which does not involve the destruction of Israel.
Third, if the “palestinians” really do care about getting back the country-that-never-was, they seem curiously uninterested in Jordan’s occupation of their land. I’ll give you one guess as to why that is.
Fourth, the oft-refered-to occupied territories weren’t “occupied” by Israel at all until their friendly neighbours decided to start some wars of extermination against them. Amusingly, those captured lands were suddenly determined to have belonged to the “palestinians”.
Fifth, all of the supposedly harsh security measure against the “palestinians” are in place for one very simple reason: because palestinians keep trying to kill Israelis.
Sixth, the poor beleagured “palestinians”, in between moaning about economic hardship, always seem able to find money to have protocols of the elders of zion and mein kampf translated into the local lingo. Not to mention, buying explosives and Ak-47s to win back the very things they were offered in various peace deals to begin with.
Seventh, if any sane person is still in any doubt at all about “palestinian” intentions toward Israel, I suggest you peruse the charters of both Fatah and Hamas. These noble warriors for equality and peace are still sworn to destroy the place.
Eighth, I’d be curious to learn what “grievances” prompted the brutal anti-jewish pogroms prior to the existance of Israel, and why the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was such a keen ally of the third reich. (”Looks like a duck, walks like a duck” etc.)
Yeah, let’s give these people a state. Coz, you know, all their violence has been caused by oppression and injustice. Ayup, I’m sure that’s it.
Thats a pretty one sided reading of the negotiation process. This is the relevant bit from Wikipedia:-
The Palestinians did not walk away from the table, Barak suspended the talks.
Just so we can actually have a dialogue what should we correctly call the nation that existed prior to 1948 and held the territory that is today called Israel?
The problem with Palestine, other than outside influence and repression of any democrats or liberals is that Hamas and Fatah have a very prevalent and widespread loser culture. Everytime they lose, their political leaders win yet again by justifying further violence (claiming the status as glorified victims) and gaining more recruits. I hope the majority of Palestinians wake up and smell their bullshit one day.
Israel needs a long-term strategy of physical disengagement and tit for tat surgical strikes (not just with militias), and to engage and encourage Palestinian liberals as well as bulding trade and diplomatic links with genial neoughbours (with Turkey, Jordan, the new Iraq etc). They are probably doing quite well, but removing religious discrimination would go a long way to winning a PR war with Hamas et al., and withdrawing from the settlements proved their committment to a lasting peace. In my mind, they are quite socialist and removing conscription would help the PR case, remove the anti-war sentiment at home and liberalising the economy in general would raise incomes and give their neighbours an incentive to trade and engage with them civily.
Economic reform in both quarters would be a big plus.
Great points ABL, as usual. Trouble is that Hamas was voted in indicating the barbarous mindset in that goon squad.
The Palestinians did not walk away from the table, Barak suspended the talks.
Arafat rejected the 2000 offer and prosposed no counter offer. I’d call that “walking away”.
Just so we can actually have a dialogue what should we correctly call the nation that existed prior to 1948 and held the territory that is today called Israel?
What “nation” are you talking about?
Looks like Mark is the great concensus builder here. I agree with most of what he says above. The Palestinians may hold much of the blame for the current conflicts, but that doesn’t absolve Israel of any responsibility to move the issues forward — and Mark’s ideas are in the right direction. Actually, I think the current Israeli administration is roughly doing the right thing and has been for a few years.
Tex, you’re being silly: What “nation” are you talking about?
What do you call that big block of land that is now referred to as the Israeli & the palestinian territories. Are you seriously suggesting that it never had a name before?
The wikipedia entry is pretty dodgy and one sided there. I don’t know how anybody can objectively say the talks broke down because Barak “walked away” ?
Read what Clinton and Dennis Ross said on the Camp David talks, I think Arafat totally missed the opportunity to negotiate and get what his people claim is their only goal, a state of their own.
Well at least thats what they claim when they speak to the English speaking press… when its in Arabic, their goals aren’t quite so peaceful.
“Arafat rejected the 2000 offer and prosposed no counter offer. I’d call that “walking away”.
you left out the most pertinent point, i am afraid, tex. The murderous little rat then went home and started the intifada thereby going back to his day job of trying to kill jews instead of moonlighting as a peacemaker.
let me know if you can get through the Euro babble Tex?
John:
What do you call that big block of land that is now referred to as the Israeli & the palestinian territories. Are you seriously suggesting that it never had a name before?
Well, it had many names throughout history. Judea & Samaria through biblical times, then several kingdoms came and went, and it was the British mandate of Palestine. But this territory didn’t only include Judea & Samaria, or what is now called Israel + the disputed territories.
The larger part of it was a massive chunk of land, which today is known as the country Jordan. The British carved it up for the angry Arab population, but it wasn’t enough to satisfy them entirely.
Tex, you’re being silly: What “nation” are you talking about?
If it’s a silly question, why can’t anyone actually answer it?
What do you call that big block of land that is now referred to as the Israeli & the palestinian territories. Are you seriously suggesting that it never had a name before?
A block of land isn’t a “nation”, any more than Mt Everest is a “nation”.
So tell me, what was this “nation” called? Where was the capital? Who was the head of state? What was the official language?
More tellingly, why didn’t any arab nation ever recognise a palestinian nation or a palestinian people?
What economic reform are you talking about Terje when referencing this to the Palis and the rest of the deadenders in that neck of the dark woods.
They have nothing to offer anyone except death and fucking misery. The only thing they seem to be good at is developing new ways to kill of jews. They come onto their own here showing all sorts of entrepreneurial spirit. They recently sent a sick pali gal loaded up with a strap on ( the explosive sort) to take out a Jewish clinic. This clinic was silly enough to offer Palis free medical care. You got to love them.
Remind me here. Didn’t Haveafat actually score the nobel peace prize? What a friggin laugh.
I never accused Barak of walking away. I think he put an enormous amount into the process.
The point of this question is fair enough. Perhaps we can happily refer to the place as “British Mandate of Palestine” or BMP for short.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine
You left out the other parts of the question, Terje.
Like naming it’s capital and it’s head of state. i think for obvious reasons you shouldn’t call the Nazi mufti of Jerusalem the head of state as he was too busy in berlin during the war picking Himmler’s brain how they could kill jews in Palestine. The loathsome animal came up with using poison gas.He was Arafts grandad, by the way.
By he way the Levant was originally Christian land before the barbarous Mulsims came in and overan the place. Does that mean Christinas also have a legit claim on the place?
Yes John, Scott Wickstein. Guilty as Charged, your Honour.
Perhaps we can happily refer to the place as “British Mandate of Palestine” or BMP for short.
Fair enough. BMP it shall be.
I’m not playing shooting games Scott. I’m currently on EA Cricket 07
[...] The most recent addition has been Canberra libertarian blogger Chris Textor (aka Tex) who also continues to maintain his personal blog Wackingday. Tex’s introductory ALS post can be seen here [...]
Pingback by Libertarian bloggers join ALS « Australian Libertarian Society | November 22, 2006
In that case Scott — you should join this group blog too. Send me an e-mail: john.humphreys99 {at} gmail.com
Tex,
So if I understand you correctly you are saying that the Palestinians have no historical beef because BMP was not a nation, the carve up of the BMP was a just act implemented in a just manner and nobody got disenfranchised and that carving up territories to create new nations defined along religious/ethnic separatist lines is a good idea.
Am I getting warm?
Regards,
Terje.
sorry to go OT but catallaxy seems to be back online again. we had some server migration issues this morning.
No it’s still fucked. Catallaxy Files is the ‘Flying Dutchmen’ of Australian blogs when it comes to server issues, I think.
It was fine last night and this morning, and then died again just after I put up my open Ashes thread. I actually think that this time it’s because someone’s tripped over the plug lead in the dark, rather than server overload, although I found out yesterday we got a link in the Sunday Mail as well as the CM/Crikey caper.
that’s what happens when you keep it in the family:-)
If it’s really just a wire tripping I can fix it but I’d have to break into c8to’s family firm office so I’ll just wait for him to get back.
It’s back up now, Jason (and everyone else).
Nice topic hijack guys.
This whole business about Israel, on and on it goes and everyone thinks they know what is morally justified. It takes two to tango and two to go to war and hate each other. Here’s a possible solution. Let’s bomb all those bloody holy sites out of existence. Then all of them can hate us which won’t change that much because they pretty much don’t like us anyway. Israel only likes us to the extent that we will provide them with funds and ammunition to keep on killing. Since both sides of the war are so hate filled why don’t we just give them sticks and allow them to bludgeon each other to death? We could then film the whole spectacle. Now that’s Reality TV.
It is pointless even chooses sides in this debate, the verbal behavior has so obfuscated the issues, the distortions are rampant in so many accounts of who is to blame, that one despairs of ever being able to attribute blame in the correct proportions. The statements in this discussion amply illustrate this. If you blame one side you’re labelled this or that, blame the other side same thing happens. We should equally despise all who are involved in the war.
As to why some Americans so fervently seek the continuance of Israel, have a look at premillenialist ideas about the emergence of Israel as the Big sign of the Second coming. Tim De Lay, former speaker of the house, was a big believer in this.
PS: don’t trust Wikipedia.
Dead Soul: It takes two to tango and two to go to war and hate each other.
So if a country invades Australia and we fight back, then we are just as guilty as them? Do you really find initiation of violence and self-defence to be morally equal.
Sounds like you don’t believe in the moral justification for self-defence. I get called pacifist a lot (generally by people who don’t understand the term) but it seems as though you really are a pacifist.
The consequence is that the agressor can have whatever they want. Your preferred approach would reward the initiation of violence and consequently lead to a world with more initiation of violence.
Perhaps it is worth noting that libertarians are definied by our opposition to initiation of violence. The necessary opposite side of this same coin is that we believe in the right to self-defence.
Of course, the libertarian-warnick crowd have bastardised this rule beyond recognition, but they are a small minority among worldwide libertarians (though unfortunately over-represented in Australia).
The case for support for Israel (at least its original borders) is pretty simple. I agree that the founding was problematic. Anything that causes major population displacement should be minimised. But not supporting the right of Israel to secure its own borders would lead to just that. You don’t break another egg to ’solve’ the problem of having dropped one.
Jason,
I agree entirely with your position. The reason I brought up 1948 however is because Tex said:-
Regards,
Terje.
John Humphrey
I knew someone was going to pick me up on that. No, I am not a pacifist, there are clearly times when violence must be undertaken. “Violence” is an interesting word. Let’s say I do something like dump a lot of toxic waste into a stream that affects the health of all those downstream. Are they then entitled to beat me over the head or make me take something that makes me similiarly sick?
The problem is not so much the violence but the revenge that leads to escalating violence. Sometimes it is better not to persue violence because it begets more violence. Bit like a flaming war on a discussion forum. A vexed issue is violence. If we exercise it at every grievance we facilitate it, if we don’t exercise it at all we get trampled upon. We need to seek what evolutionists refer to as ESS: Evolutionary Stable Strategies. One hint is Haldane’s Hawks and Doves concept: behave like a Hawk 7/12 of the time and a dove 5/12’s. Or the famous Tit for Tat experiments (cf. Anatole Rappaport). A neat twist to this, which improved the strategy (it won a major computer simulation competition) is to add a little chaos into one’s responses, thereby preventing opponents anticipating one’s next move.
A friend of mine used to say that natural selection may have played an important role in generating violence. There is some empirical support for this but only indirectly. Thus in consistently violent environments the violent ones have a selection advantage and over many generations violence increases because of favourable selection towards those inclined towards violence. Given Africa’s history I sometimes wonder. Oh dear, now someone is going to call me a racist.
By the way, I once heard that one plan for the new Israel was in the Kimberley region of NW Aust. Has anyone else heard of this? Why oh why did they choose to settle amongst their age old enemies? Bloody religion. Talking about sticking your head in the lion’s mouth …
Let’s say I do something like dump a lot of toxic waste into a stream that affects the health of all those downstream. Are they then entitled to beat me over the head or make me take something that makes me similiarly sick?
Revenge is not self defence. They would be within rights to sue you for damages though.
A friend of mine used to say that natural selection may have played an important role in generating violence.
Mindless violence would lead to your genes less likely to be passed on. Natural selection would suggest that species that rely on social interaction for survival would have a strong sense of self-preservation, with violence restricted to self defence. Bad things tend to happen to overly aggressive individuals and collectives of individuals.
Your toxic sludge example isn’t about self-defence. That’s just revenge. The idea of individual self-defence is that it prevents further harm. In the case of toxic sludge the appropriate response is the courts system, which punishes people to create a dissincentive against further violations of property rights. At least, that’s how things work in libertarian utopiaville.
I agree that violence can lead to more violence. I argued against the Afghanistan and Iraq wars so I can hardly be seen as a warnick. But I have considerably more sympathy with Israel because they truely are facing a real threat, unlike the irrational fear campaign in the west.
For example, you can’t let Hezbollah kidnap your citizens and then wave at you across a border. Lebannon had almost no control over the southern regions and weren’t going to do anything about Hez, so I think Israel is within their rights to strike and strike hard. It was a no win situation, but I think they lost less than they would have if they did nothing.
“the appropriate response is the courts system”
Going off on a tangent here, but this touches on one of my original objections to Libertopia.
We could have every wrong compensated through the courts system, but what that would mean is a vast, gigantic, behemoth of a courts system, with a lot of resources both human and monetary going into resolution of conflict.
This is one of the ‘invisible hands’ I see pushing the population of any Libertopia towards communal agreements despite themselves for efficiency’s sake – “let’s keep all the toxic industries in one place and not allow residential”, for example. That’s called zoning. Or, “let’s charge a fee on all toxic industries in exchange for not suing, and spend it on cleaning up after them” – that’s called tax.
Not to mention the concentration of power in those with resources to throw at lawsuits, which means that suing for damages can become difficult/impossible/pointless, and wrongs not righted.
Which leads to that other invisible hand – warlordism. It has played out that way in Somalia, the closest thing to a libertarian experiment I know of. The strongest/richest people become warlords, and (funded by businesses who wants stability) have become strong enough to impose government.
To some extent I agree, fatfingers. Which is why I think imposing anarcho-capitalism from the top down is sort of reinventing the wheel. It will lead to a lot of transition costs for nothing. on the other hand, economic forces like globalisation whittling down the discretion of governments I have no problems with.
There is an inherent tension you captured in the Somalia situation – if anarcho capitalism is so efficient why hasn’t it prevailed? Because law enforcement may be prone to monopoly. Same thing happened in Iceland when it ended up in the hands of 5 families and leaded to a revolt that destroyed icelandic society. So the lesser evil may be a politically accountable monopoly but then the political accountability bit leads to this monopoly doing more things because of the legitimacy which leads to big government and to things spiralling back down fom there and so on it goes.
And in some cases as you say statutory law may be more efficient if transaction costs of using case law gets ridiculously high. It’s hard to claim that there is a once and for all efficient framework which can be sustainable under anarcho-capitalism (if it leads to warlord capture and something worse than politically accountable big-gish government) but the current set up isn’t efficient either.
On many quality of life measures Somalia seems to be doing better than it’s comparable neighbours or its own historical past. There was a world bank report about this surprising development a while ago.
If we want to talk hawks and doves and game theory then “tit for tat” seems to be the best strategy. The trick is to find a balance between “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “do unto others as they do unto you”. Zero tolerance, community based policing aims for such a balance.
John H. says
“Your toxic sludge example isn’t about self-defence.”
Of course it is about self defence, if I am being constantly poisoned because someone is knowingly releasing toxins that affect my health then do I just sit back and let myself get poisoned? I approach the courts, the government, they do nothing(no surprises there). You seem to be saying that if the legal means fail then I should sit back and let my children be poisoned. Public protest certainly works but it takes sooo long, by that time the damage has been done(similiar problem to the court and govt route).
So some turkey comes along and blows up my factory, we cannot find the culprit. For those downstream the problem is solved and solved much more quickly than your proposed means. The downstream children are no longer being poisoned. I rebuild the factory, same thing happens. Now if we had a legal system that was more interested in justice than legal games then perhaps this would improve. Now that is being utopian.
This is an issue that is becoming increasingly urgent. For example, in The Lancet recently a study was released which indicated that 200 chemicals they tested have the potential to induce neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders. What is particularly frightening about this is the epidemiological studies reveal huge increases in neurodegenerative and neurodevelopmental disorders. The data on this has been out for years(The Lancet simply highlighted what many neuroscientists have known for years), in the meantime thousands of people are being poisoned and suffering debilitating illnesses. For example, a study 3 years ago found a direct correlation between pollution levels and neurodegenerative disorders. Cancer rates are also rising. Still far too little is being done to address the problem. This aint no utopia.
BH
“Mindless violence would lead to your genes less likely to be passed on.”
“Mindless violence” Just what is that? You’ve created a straw man to attack my argument. Have a look at some wild populations, the bigger the animal, the more aggressive the animal, the more often it passes on its genes. Extreme violence will certainly mitigate against the selection advantage but I wasn’t talking about “mindless violence” or extreme violence, just increased violence. I don’t believe violence is mindless, or any behavior is mindless for that matter. Hell, you need a mind to behave in the first place.
Yes, natural selection would suggest that self preservation holds sway but many people forego self preservation for a greater cause. Suicide bombers. So self preservation, while a strong drive, is not a determinant drive. The historical evidence suggests the USA is one of the most violent countries in the world, it is doing just fine.
1. As for the courts, I would believe in elected judges with no prerequisite for qualifications, but can have their own counsel. No juries (think about it, it is coercive). Similar set up to now, single trial judge or magistrate, a panel for appeals. Full court for final appeal in that jurisdiction or constiutional or interpretive matters.
2. There is plenty of stuff that is dangeous. Remember how phenalthayline was poisonous – turns out those lab rats were given ridiculous quantities of the stuff. There is also informational costs. Are you going to test every single chemical in food before we can eat?
3. The factory example is devious. Firstly, land values would dictate that an owner of land near a residential area would not build a factory without Government enforced zoning due to the capital loss they would be making. They would seek more marginal land. Secondly, land and water rights are easily enforcable. Thirdly, the company has a PR incentive to settle out of court and stop, a prohibitive cost in being sued and no real incentive to pollute other than to save a small marginal cost, which isn’t worth it. Fourthly, blowing up the factory would release more toxins.
4. The USA is a relative beacon of civility, amongst others. It has low rates of murder among the OECD and during peacetime becomes quite prosperous. It’s problems are foreign adventurism and internally bad policy like drug laws, which are wasteful and deleterious, and have serious blowback and black market crime problems. Humans survived because we have big brains and can trade and cooperate, not because we have big fangs or can fly with our arms. How do you kill a GW shark? With an ultraviolent skin diver or some well engineered fishing equipment?
Dead Soul: Of course it is about self defence, if I am being constantly poisoned because someone is knowingly releasing toxins that affect my health then do I just sit back and let myself get poisoned?
Perhaps I misunderstood your original hypothetical. I thought the sludge-dump was a one-time only event, in which case you going and hitting the sludge-dumper wouldn’t be related to the future chance he would hurt you again. But it appears you’re talking about a serial sludge-dumper.
Still, at an individual level we have outsourced most elements of our defence to the police & court system. In your hypothetical the court system doesn’t work which of course undermines the concept of clearly defined private property rights. The libertarian answer is to have a working court system which defines and defends property rights.
However, this hypothetical takes us a little away from the original topic which was geo-political self-defence. Geo-politically there is no agreed police/court system, so there isn’t a third party to adjudiate. If country B is violating the sovereignty of country A, the appropraite response is to ask them to stop. If they continue then you must consider increasingly tougher response measures so long those measures produce a net benefit to your country.
Tex,
I’m still interested to know if I summarised your position correctly.
Regards,
Terje.
The whole point of my hypothetical was simply to stress this: when people perceive that socially sanctioned measures fail they often will take matters into their own hands. In relation to the Isreali – Palestinian conflict this is exactly what has happened, both sides now engaging in endless violence because both parties keep moralising about who is right and wrong. Moralising is not doing something, it is not even constructive thinking, it is simply rehashing old sins to put one’s self in a favourable light.
As to the PR incentive, that only works when people make it known but there is abundant evidence to show that people tend to conceal such matters. If PR incentive, and property values for that matter, were of any real benefit in addressing this problem then why is this problem increasing instead of decreasing? For example, it is still unsafe to eat fish in Sydney harbour, Brisbane river, parts of melbourne, and there are now numerous warnings that eating too much fish can expose us to heavy metal contamination. In that regard take note: don’t eat swordfish, too much mercury. Whose property rights are affected by that? What PR incentive is there in this because mercury and lead levels are rising everywhere? There is no-one to sue because so many are contributing to the problem and these entities cannot be identified for the purposes of “proof” in law, a strategy that the tobacco companies used to very good effect. In science the problem is even more pronounced because it is extremely difficult to establish causation in complex multiple branching systems that typify biological processes. So when people say, science has not proved this or that, I don’t care because I don’t think Science proves a great deal at all. This is why Karl Popper’s concept of falsifiability holds the day, we can’t prove anything with complete finality but the least we can do is offer arguments that can be subject to empirical refutation. ie. We inch closer to the truth, that is sufficient.
Yes, the research makes it abundantly clear that we need much more testing of these chemicals being released into the environment. I study immunology and from the evidence I have seen I am very concerned that we are adding enormous flow on costs in terms of various developmental and degenerative pathologies and know that an increasing percentage of these conditions are occurring because of pollution. To suggest that we should just ignore this problem is intellectual and moral cowardice. The flow on costs to the community and government are already too large and will continue to increase as long as people think like you: let’s just ignore the problem.
And for heaven’s sake don’t think about pollution as being localised, it rarely is. Even if it occurs on the other side of the continent it does reach us.