Defense of Liberty: Two Articles On Anti-Terrorist Policy by Peikoff

The Ayn Rand Institute ^ | September 15, 1998 - September 12, 2001 | Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Andrew Lewis

[Demidog]

What didn't you understand about what I said?

[FReethesheeples]

Nice graphic on St. George at #2.

Raphael did (at least) two great st. George's:

One is at the Louvre; one at the Uffizi Gallery in Florence.

[Clinton's a rapist]

First he rails against "Islamic Fundamentalists" and one wonders if this is who he's going to say we need to eliminate. But, no...he goes on to say it's the governments of Iran(Iran?) and Afghanistan.

Uh, maybe the paradox that is straining your tiny brain is resolved by the fact that Iran and Afghanistan have Islamic Fundamentalist governments?

[secretagent]

Fifty years ago, Truman and Eisenhower ceded to the Arabs the West's property rights in oil—although that oil properly belonged to those in the West whose science and technology made its discovery and use possible.

I didn't know the "West" had any property rights in Arabian Oil, and how that happened. I need some referrence to the relevant treaties or contracts.

[annalex]

No, he doesn't explain many things in these two short articles, which are focused not on the theory of property rights, and not on the history of Arab-Western relations, but on the proper policy today.

The question of claiming unclaimed property is very difficult, and it is central to any theory of property rights. I am fully aware of the need to systematize it, and in fact was preparing a theoretical article on this, that after 9/11 needed major reworking. We'll return to that if you keep yourself from getting banned :)))

Here is a short outline. Oil under someone else's desert is unclaimed property. The property right to oil go to the one with technology to extract it. The only way to argue otherwise is to say that the government claims the property just by the virtue of a national border, a dubious proposition.

[annalex]

General McArthur

Absolutely. The good general is the model to follow in this war. The numerical population argument doesn't stand because (1) we have the military technology that is in proportion to what militant Islam has is also an order of magnitude stronger; and (2) militant Islam is only a fraction of the Muslim world, that is lucky to control one country -- Afghanistan and one junkyard next to Jerusalem, which is far less that all these billions and billions Carry_Okie is talking about in #17.

[FReethesheeples]

Clinton was Wrong:

Humane treatment for Terrorists:

Cut heads off and sew them into pig bellies and send to the families.

[annalex]

OkieRedDust and Gecko

Gecko got banned a long time ago, and Okiereddust about two months ago, for offenses related to perceived antisemitism and racism. I miss them, despite their misguided views. I should also admit that Okiereddust in particular had an influence on me by pointing out the profound role that national culture plays in any political philosophy.

[Carry_Okie]

Militant Islam is fairly well dispersed throughout the Muslim world. Any military technique sufficient to dominate them, that was conducted by or for the United States would produce a billion militant Islamics. Congratulations. You have just produced a recipe for murdering a billion people in World War III.

[annalex]

a fit of rage

Well, a certain amount of rage befits the events, no?

Peikoff's logic though is sound. An individual may commit an offense individually and then it is the job of the government that has jurisdiction to punish him. If the government doesn't, then what we have is a war on that government, which makes otherwise innocent individuals complicit in that government's misdeed. Afghanistan and Iran are the two governments that fall into that category. Other governments that I don't particularly like, for example, Syria and possibly PA, made sounds disassociating themselves from the thuggery. Thus, we can argue about Dr. Peikoff's two-nation list further, but he has a justification for presenting the list the way he did.

I am amazed that you followed my debate about imperialism and still didn't find my thoughts convincing. What can I do to elucidate?

[annalex]

I love that one, perhaps because I am Russian. In particular, note the ease with which he slays the dragon. It is an afterthought, -- he is ahead as he is.

Romulus had a comment on another thread where I posted that icon, -- that it reminds us who the real enemy is.

[annalex]

I didn't know the "West" had any property rights in Arabian Oil,

I don't know about contracts. We can safely assume that some paperwork was filled in at the time. Under natural law, a discoverer should be able to claim rights when the object he discovers is otherwise unclaimed. SwimmingUpstream is going to disagree, so I am bumping him. I plan to discuss this difficult topic in a theoretical way at some calmer time.

[x]

Peikoff is such a fraud. He has all the same normal human reactions as the rest of us -- that I can understand and respect. But he has to clothe everything in his tired Randian rhetoric and dialectic, because his reputation and authority come from being the Objectivist pope. The Randian shell really doesn't correspond closely enough with the emotional core. Does Randian objectivism even apply to situations like this where one must subordinate one's individualism to the common cause and band together to fight? I think of Ayatollah Peikoff as another Woodrow Wilson committed to fighting war after war to bring about the victory of his concept of reason and morality, and pushed ever further from his unrealistic ideal by the needs of the war. One might have thought that making a dogma out of individualism would save us from meddlers like Peikoff, but the dogma demands implementers, theorists and theologians, which keeps Peikoff, the mad Mullah of rationalist objectivism in business.

[annalex]

murdering a billion people in World War III.

It looks like World War III, correct. It won't be a murder though. Does it occur to you that our options are to win the war militarily, or, well, lose it?

You are right that it is in our interest to contain this war to the militant Islam while not attempting to annihilate or rule over the passive Islam. There is no sure way to do so; at some point an offer of partenrship to the peaceful Islam will turn into appeasement, and have harmful consequences. So far, the Republican administration is striking this difficult balance rather well.

[annalex]

mad Mullah of rationalist objectivism

Objectivism, or at least libertarianism, teaches that governments exist to provide a violent response to initiated violence. Such were the events of 9/11. Dr. Peikoff is sticking to the libertarian principles. A mushy praise of individualism above other considerations may be applicable to libertarianism at times; but individualism does not define libertarianism, non-initiation of violence does.

[Carry_Okie]

That is why I stressed the need to identify and work with indigenous Muslim elements of each nation involved. The Japanese model is a poor one. In that case the opposition organized itself into a regular uniformed military. In this case (much as it was in Vietnam), the opponent is well hidden and dispersed within a sympathetic native population (including our own, which has its own sympathetic elements).

This is a political and religious war. We can fight parts of it militarily, but it must be won polititically and morally. We can and must use covert action to quietly eliminate the militant Islamic leadership. Anything else consolidates a sympathetic population into a global oppostion and will turn into a genocidal bloodbath.

Here are some concrete suggestions of what I mean:

• Withdraw from the United Nations and disavow Global Governance as a corrupt Socialist scam of population control and genocide to gain world domination. If the US did withdraw and repudiate the UN the Islamic world would stand up and cheer.
• Limit the export of our NGO charity groups to emergency aid systems that do not destroy indigenous food productivity. Our food aid programs have tended to destroy local ag markets. As much as I like sending our stupid control freak liberills overseas, the worldwide reaction may be to stuff them down our throats. There are better ways to render aid that start with holding to technical education.
• Stop trying to destroy their moral infrastructure. As the Kitten so aptly pointed out, NGO moralizing, tolerance to gays, women's activism, and the like have been a direct attack on the moral and religious life of these peoples. It also threatens them with the genocide of AIDS. They don't want it and will fight to defend their religious lives in that regard alone.
• Cancel the h1B visa program. Why should we import trouble makers in the name of cheaper labor? We end up spending the money in military protection of multinational interests that do not mean us well. Let them be unstable and the corporations will learn the benefits of saying home. Sending home their best and brightest would do a lot to strengthen their desire and ability to join the modern world. As it is, we have been operating a global brain drain at their expense and the expense of our own children. Heck, it might even get us to confront the reality of our own educational systems.

In short, start acting like a nation interested in treating them like one. Develop our strengths and let them stew in their weaknesses until they figure it out. Start respecting their sovereignty, if for no other reason, to protect our own. Develop within their countries those individual leaders with respect for the rule of law, and murder ruthlessly and quietly in the dead of night any bastard who threatens to take his case against the US.

[independentmind]

You are one of the very few here with whom I agree almost completely. (WRT to Islamic terrorism, anyway!)

Get rid of the terrorists and let the Muslim world figure out how to solve its own problems. And one of them is going to be how to live with Israel.

[Demidog]

Here is a short outline. Oil under someone else's desert is unclaimed property.

Balogney. I own the mineral and water rights to my property and I have no technological ability to drill for oil. Nobody may enter my property and drill for oil simply because they own the technology. That would be theft. What you and Piekoff are advocating is a justification for theft which has no basis in property rights but an imagined absence of property rights.

[lakey]

Coming around to my way of thinking yet? Is the oil pipeline the underlying motive for beginning WWIII?