Democracy

Stavros, "First of all you did suggest that every Arab state has sought the annihilation of Israel [you're right, I did; I'd have been better off saying that Israel was surrounded by states committed to its destruction], in spite of the fact that this is not the case with Jordan (or Egypt [not since Camp David in 1978 or 1979], or Oman for that matter) and the peace treaty which, it seems [the 1994 peace treaty? after Rand's death; I was referring to when she was likely talking], means nothing to you even though it undermines your claim.

Nothing evasive about Munich [I didn't say there was; I said your description of it as a political act was evasive], if you can't handle the political reality don't dismiss it in compensation for your own incompetence [I certainly don't dismiss the Munich atrocity, hence the strength of my reaction to your dismissal of it as akin to a piece of interpretive dance or a letter to a newspaper editor]. The bleak truth about Munich is that as an act of violence, it was symptmatic of the disarray that affected the different factions of the PLO as they tried to make sense of their situation following their expulsion from Jordan in 'White' September, 1970 [evasive claptrap: the bleak truth it that it was an act of murder, slice it where you like]. The simple fact was that violence was counter-productive [not according to you; you categorise it with townhall meetings and million mum marches] but radical elements in both the PFLP and Fateh were split over its use -in Fateh, Arafat was forced to accept that Israel's retaliation was too high a price to pay for cross-border incursions or attacks on targets overseas, but within Fateh the faction led by Salah Khalef (nom de guerre Au Iyad) disagreed and it was he who organised the Munich operation, part of a broader campaign which as Khalaf put it was 'a strategy adopted by the revolution to eliminate all challenges that prevent us from achieving our victories against the three circles of "Arab reaction, the occupied land [Israel] and American interests" '. In fact, Arafat's position was vindicated when, as a consequence of Munich, Israel bombed 'targets' in Syria and Lebanon -Israel's figures were 200 dead, 40% civilian, the Syrians said it was 300 and 75% civilian. In addition, the Israelis tracked down various people it claimed had been part of the Munich operation and killed them,

In other words, even within the PLO Munich was viewed as a disaster, one of many that had begun after 1967 with the aeroplane hi-jackings and continued with the reckless attempt on King Hussein's life in 1970, 'White'/'Black' September, the expulsion from Jordan, the assassinations -of Prime Minister Wasfi al-Tall in 1971 and various foreign diplomats aborad, the Lod Airpot massacre, and so on.

As for Abu Iyad/Salah Khalaf, a founder member with Arafat of the resistance movement in 1959, and half-Jewish (his mother was a Jew), he was assassinated in Tunis 1991 by an associate of Abu Nidal whom Abu Iyad had told Patrick Seale some years before, was working for the Israelis." [nice people, then. not savages]

Savage acts deserve to be labelled as such. The perpetrators can be called savages. But not by extension the ethnicity from which they spring. A greedy Jewish man is greedy. But to say all jews are greedy is clearly wrong. A black mugger is a criminal. But to the extrapolate from that... etc etc....

broncofan, "There are legitimate arguments to be made that when a state "targets" terrorists and kills five times as many civilians that they benefit from the coercive as well as deterrent effect of the collateral damage. This would make it closer to terrorism and make any distinction a distinction without a difference [analytically, I think this argument stacks up]. Terrorism is killing civilians as targets and benefiting from that coercive effect on the government. But if you target individuals so crudely that the majority of the damage is to civilians and infrastructure, and you can anticipate this in advance, it is plausible to argue the state is engaging in terrorism [the problem any sovereign state confronted by terrorists has is that they don't wear uniforms, they don't abide by the norms of war as established by the Geneva conventions and they hide among the civilian population, and such populations are sometimes willing assistants].

I think Rand's statements are racist, but I think there's a more fundamental problem underlying it. She believes anyone who is in a position of weakness has brought it upon themselves [no, she doesn't; there are blameless weak characters in her novels, for instance]]. As someone who has been supportive of Israel I can tell you that Ayn Rand's support is troubling given her views. She must view the Palestinians as the underdogs and the Israelis as the oppressors or she would not be so disdainful of the Palestinians and laudatory of Israeli culture [I'm pretty sure she regarded the Israelis as the underdogs].

I know there are limits to rational self-interest [for example?] and Rand herself must recognize those limits, but one could just as easily see her respecting terrorists for pursuing a rational strategy [Ragnar Danneskjold, I think, in Atlas Shrugged, is a pirate, and a hero of the book]. Is terrorism wrong because it leaves innocent victims, or because it is not effective enough? [the deliberate killing of innocents is always wrong; the accidental killing of innocents is a tragedy although, as Rand used to say, motives don't change facts (albeit they might alter moral culpability)]] If it is not effective enough, is the solution cooperation, and if so is that the way to a collectivism of sorts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by an8150

broncofan, "There are legitimate arguments to be made that when a state "targets" terrorists and kills five times as many civilians that they benefit from the coercive as well as deterrent effect of the collateral damage. This would make it closer to terrorism and make any distinction a distinction without a difference [analytically, I think this argument stacks up]. Terrorism is killing civilians as targets and benefiting from that coercive effect on the government. But if you target individuals so crudely that the majority of the damage is to civilians and infrastructure, and you can anticipate this in advance, it is plausible to argue the state is engaging in terrorism [the problem any sovereign state confronted by terrorists has is that they don't wear uniforms, they don't abide by the norms of war as established by the Geneva conventions and they hide among the civilian population, and such populations are sometimes willing assistants].

I think Rand's statements are racist, but I think there's a more fundamental problem underlying it. She believes anyone who is in a position of weakness has brought it upon themselves [no, she doesn't; there are blameless weak characters in her novels, for instance]]. As someone who has been supportive of Israel I can tell you that Ayn Rand's support is troubling given her views. She must view the Palestinians as the underdogs and the Israelis as the oppressors or she would not be so disdainful of the Palestinians and laudatory of Israeli culture [I'm pretty sure she regarded the Israelis as the underdogs].

I know there are limits to rational self-interest [for example?] and Rand herself must recognize those limits, but one could just as easily see her respecting terrorists for pursuing a rational strategy [Ragnar Danneskjold, I think, in Atlas Shrugged, is a pirate, and a hero of the book]. Is terrorism wrong because it leaves innocent victims, or because it is not effective enough? [the deliberate killing of innocents is always wrong; the accidental killing of innocents is a tragedy although, as Rand used to say, motives don't change facts (albeit they might alter moral culpability)]] If it is not effective enough, is the solution cooperation, and if so is that the way to a collectivism of sorts?

---

Yes, sovereign states face difficulties in combatting terrorists. First, identifying them, then killing them without killing others. Terrorists would argue that poorly armed individuals face problems fighting a sophisticated military armed to the teeth with tanks and planes. Again, terrorism is always wrong. But the problems of combatting terrorism are known to the governments who fight them. They choose given what they view as the costs and benefits to pursue the terrorists into civilian areas and to kill civilians because the terrorists have held these individuals hostage. I'm not saying the terrorists have given them an easy choice, but they've still made that choice, fully informed.

Ayn Rand may believe killing innocents is always wrong, but this is an exception to be carved out of the general proposition that one should pursue their rational self-interest. Now we can amend rational self-interest and fairly say that one should pursue rational self-interest except when doing so harms innocents. But then that would foreclose all sorts of business practices that are in the rational self-interest of entrepreneurs. Not allowing workers to bargain collectively. Signing them up for boilerplate contracts, the terms of which they cannot really alter or negotiate. A take it or leave it sort of contract. You know how unfair that can be:). Once we amend out all of the unsavory consequences of Ayn Rand's philosophy we're left only with a very angry and self-entitled woman.

broncofan, " Does she have to say, "Arabs are savages, and I believe it is racial, that they cannot do anything abou it as they are an inferior ethnic group." [pretty much, yes; otherwise she's simply making a broadbrush observation about the behaviour of a group of people; absent the claim that their behaviour is racially immutable I see no evidence on which to base an allegation of racism. Her explanation for that behaviour might just as readily derive from conclusions about their culture as their race]

If this were required nothing would be racist [I know racism is an obsession among self-styled progressives, but there's a lot less of it about than you seem to think]. Look at Mel Gibson's claim that "Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." I don't see any mention of it being because Jews are Jewish. He just happens to believe Jews have that culpability. Nothing racist there. Of course it is [Personally I think Gibson's remark is primarily very stupid. Secondarily, it may be that as a Catholic he has some ancient anti-semitic grievances. But I see nothing in his remark which says that Jews are responsible for all the wars bcause of their race. Remember also that he was very drunk when he said that, so not exactly mincing his words. And I think there's a difference between his remarks and Rand's in that, as I say, his are merely stupid, whereas hers, though broad brush, are not without foundation. The arab world is largely a cesspit and not a nice place to live and has been thus for a long time]. The racist never says they hate because of race but some other pretext [if they're racist, why not? I would. Actually, that's niaive of me. I can see why racism has been driven underground, but I still think you chaps need more to go on before you start throwing the allegation around. Quite aside from anything else, it's a very boring allegation whose force is diminished when it turns out to be true]."

Prospero, "Savage acts deserve to be labelled as such. The perpetrators can be called savages. But not by extension the ethnicity from which they spring. A greedy Jewish man is greedy. But to say all jews are greedy is clearly wrong. A black mugger is a criminal. But to the extrapolate from that... etc etc.... "

That's a better argument, I'd agree. And yet, for the umpteenth time, she's asked for a geopolitical observation, and she gives it. Sorry, but I've read too much of her work, fiction and non-fiction, to believe that, had a follow up question been asked to the effect of, "are they savages because they're arabs?" she would have answered "yes". And as we've seen, she's not afraid of saying things that offend or outrage where that is what she believes.

Prospero, "No, don't be facetious. But if you said the English or the irish are savages I would [aren't you making the rather unusual assumption that the English, for example, are white, or at least racially homogenous?]. It is fair to characterise the Munich massacre as a savage action carried out by a group of savage people. but not to characterise all Arabs as savages. As you well know.

Would you apply such crass stereotypes to Jews or Black people?" [I'd certainly be willing to venture generalisations - about Jewish mums, for example, or Jamaican yardie culture]

broncofan, "The reason I didn't mention this earlier is because when people say "why don't you just immigrate" it is often derisive or meant to say dissent is not accepted. But it doesn't have to be that way. If there is a country that has laws more consistent with your values, and you can immigrate without too much trouble, it's not a bad option. "

In principle, no. In reality (although I haven't looked too closely at either Hungary or Latvia), whether the gains are worth the candle is another matter. The western disease of social democracy has its claws into much of the rest of the world.

You are being particularly obtuse - for i suspect youdislike racial or cultural stereotypes as much as i do. No Im talking about stereotyping one group - and of course the English are no racially homogenous. But I would LOVE to see your generalisations about "jewish mums"

broncofan, "Ayn Rand may believe killing innocents is always wrong, but this is an exception to be carved out of the general proposition that one should pursue their rational self-interest [you're saying it is sometimes in one's rational self interest to kill innocents? The only such situation I can think of is being shipwrecked with another man, lacking food, and it occurs to me to kill him for food; in the abstract I certainly wouldn't advocate that course of action. I don't know what Rand would say]. Now we can amend rational self-interest and fairly say that one should pursue rational self-interest except when doing so harms innocents [an objectivist would say that A looks out for his interests and assumes B does likewise. If A is correct in that assumption, then both are happy]. But then that would foreclose all sorts of business practices that are in the rational self-interest of entrepreneurs. Not allowing workers to bargain collectively [I previously argued in this thread in favour of freedom of association and I see no reason to depart from that when trades unions come up. Rand had no problem with them either, at least not in principle. Most entrepreneurs are not objectivists. Many don't even like free markets]. Signing them up for boilerplate contracts, the terms of which they cannot really alter or negotiate. A take it or leave it sort of contract. You know how unfair that can be [if the worker doesn't wish to accept the terms, he doesn't have to. If he does so because he wants the job, then he's concluded applying his own rational self interest that he is better off with the job and the terms he doesn't like than without said job; he's applied exactly the same criterion as the employer.]. Once we amend out all of the unsavory consequences of Ayn Rand's philosophy we're left only with a very angry and self-entitled woman [to repeat: you're confusing Rand and objectivists with entrepreneurs; they are rarely the same thing]. "