Union of North America?

[The Rabbi]

Well, if you take someone out of his home and force him to work for you, that's called slavery.  Except if it's the U.S. government, in which case it's called the draft.
If you can't distinguish between the actions of the government and the actions of private individuals, then you've got a big problem.

[Len Budney]

Well, if you take someone out of his home and force him to work for you, that's called slavery.  Except if it's the U.S. government, in which case it's called the draft. If you can't distinguish between the actions of the government and the actions of private individuals, then you've got a big problem.

I couldn't have made my point better! When the government enslaves, it's called "the draft," and it's perfectly moral. When the government steals, it's called "eminent domain" and it's perfectly moral. When the government mass-murders, it's a "preemptive strike" or a "defensive war" or a "struggle for the survival of western culture," and it's perfectly moral.

In short, anything that's a crime when one man does it, becomes sanctified and moral when a large mob does it.

That's just wrong. But it's so egregiously wrong that I can't believe you could fall for that for one second! The Shoah was a government program. If you see the slightest difference between the government killing Jews and individual skinheads killing Jews, you've got a big problem.

--Len.

[Tuco]

Soakers sed...
I suppose the human chattel issue is one that we as humans need to continue educate ourselves and rise above.

My apology. Typing slower than I think..(leaving myself wide open )

My thought was "We need to educate ourselves and rise above being human chattel" -
That, my friends, I think we all can agree on.  And in this county, something that is available to us all.

That's a bit of a snarky comment

It certainly read that way.  That is not where i am coming from, however. 
Cheers

[Len Budney]

Soakers sed...
I suppose the human chattel issue is one that we as humans need to continue educate ourselves and rise above.

My apology. Typing slower than I think..(leaving myself wide open )

My thought was "We need to educate ourselves and rise above being human chattel" -
That, my friends, I think we all can agree on.  And in this county, something that is available to us all.

Thanks for the clarification! Yes, I agree completely.

--Len.

[The Rabbi]

Well, if you take someone out of his home and force him to work for you, that's called slavery.  Except if it's the U.S. government, in which case it's called the draft. If you can't distinguish between the actions of the government and the actions of private individuals, then you've got a big problem.

I couldn't have made my point better! When the government enslaves, it's called "the draft," and it's perfectly moral. When the government steals, it's called "eminent domain" and it's perfectly moral. When the government mass-murders, it's a "preemptive strike" or a "defensive war" or a "struggle for the survival of western culture," and it's perfectly moral.

In short, anything that's a crime when one man does it, becomes sanctified and moral when a large mob does it.

That's just wrong. But it's so egregiously wrong that I can't believe you could fall for that for one second! The Shoah was a government program. If you see the slightest difference between the government killing Jews and individual skinheads killing Jews, you've got a big problem.

--Len.

Oh, so there's no difference between a military draft and the Holocaust?
There's no difference between eminent domain and the Holocaust?
Gee, Len.  I think you've gone past anything I could find reasonable to argue about.  Good luck out there, you'll need it.

[Len Budney]

Oh, so there's no difference between a military draft and the Holocaust?

Sigh. That's not what I said and you know it. Please don't do that.

There's no difference between eminent domain and the Holocaust?

You state, without proof, that the government is allowed to steal, to enslave and to murder, even though it's immoral for individuals to do so. You haven't begun to try and justify it, and judging by your replies so far, you won't even try. You'll just assume it and suggest that anyone who questions your assumption has a screw loose.

But by your own reasoning, governments aren't bound by the same morality as individuals. AND, you refuse to limit that statement in any way--because if you did set any boundaries, it would be easy to demonstrate that the US has crossed them in Iraq. But if there are no boundaries, then there's nothing immoral about the Shoah; the government was simply exercising its authority to eliminate those they considered undesirable.

Once you've explained why the Shoah was immoral, you'll have a damn hard time proving that invading Iraq was moral. It's too bad you won't try, because I would thoroughly enjoy watching you.

--Len.

[Tuco]

Kay,

I'm gonna step outta this one for a while.  I may chime in if so moved.

Have fun.
(I did)

Soakers

[The Rabbi]

Oh, so there's no difference between a military draft and the Holocaust?

Sigh. That's not what I said and you know it. Please don't do that.

There's no difference between eminent domain and the Holocaust?

You state, without proof, that the government is allowed to steal, to enslave and to murder, even though it's immoral for individuals to do so. You haven't begun to try and justify it, and judging by your replies so far, you won't even try. You'll just assume it and suggest that anyone who questions your assumption has a screw loose.

Sigh.  That's not what I said and you either know it and are being disingenuous or dont know it and can't read.

But by your own reasoning, governments aren't bound by the same morality as individuals. AND, you refuse to limit that statement in any way--because if you did set any boundaries, it would be easy to demonstrate that the US has crossed them in Iraq. But if there are no boundaries, then there's nothing immoral about the Shoah; the government was simply exercising its authority to eliminate those they considered undesirable.

Governments arent bound by morality period.  I never said they were.  This is some fantasy you have that a government is just a very big person.

Once you've explained why the Shoah was immoral, you'll have a damn hard time proving that invading Iraq was moral. It's too bad you won't try, because I would thoroughly enjoy watching you.

--Len.

So the Iraq War is equivalent to the Holocaust?  Oy.
I have to say, when someone has to invoke the Holocaust to justify his position he has pretty well eliminated any argument he might make from consideration.  It is the cheapest of the cheap shots.

[Len Budney]

Governments arent bound by morality period.  I never said they were.  This is some fantasy you have that a government is just a very big person.

I can't begin to guess what you mean by that statement: start by explaining how you aren't justifying the Holocaust. After all, if governments "aren't bound by morality period," then what objection can we possibly raise to the Holocaust except that we personally disapprove of it? You aren't making a shred of sense.

So the Iraq War is equivalent to the Holocaust?  Oy.

Yet again, you attempt to ridicule an argument to avoid having to reply to it. They are both cases of mass murder. They differ in many details, but you'll have a devil of a time justifying one mass murder while condemning the other.

--Len.

[The Rabbi]

Governments arent bound by morality period.  I never said they were.  This is some fantasy you have that a government is just a very big person.

I can't begin to guess what you mean by that statement: start by explaining how you aren't justifying the Holocaust. After all, if governments "aren't bound by morality period," then what objection can we possibly raise to the Holocaust except that we personally disapprove of it? You aren't making a shred of sense.

So the Iraq War is equivalent to the Holocaust?  Oy.

Yet again, you attempt to ridicule an argument to avoid having to reply to it. They are both cases of mass murder. They differ in many details, but you'll have a devil of a time justifying one mass murder while condemning the other.

--Len.

Here you are again, likening something you disapprove of to the Holocaust, the cheapest of the cheap arguments.
I think the onus is on you to justify how a declared war between two sovereign states is in any way shape or form equivalent to the mass murder of unarmed civilians, many of them citizens of that state, purely on the grounds of heredity.

[Paddy]

HTH do we get from Union of North America to arguing about the Holocaust?

This is just bizarre. 

[The Rabbi]

HTH do we get from Union of North America to arguing about the Holocaust?

This is just bizarre. 

See, Riley; if we don't shoot them Mexicans at the border it will become just like the  Holocaust here.  We need to watch out for attempts to inculcate the notion of One World by introducing threads on the topic.  The biggest one-worlder is GW.  So the Bush Administration is evil, just like Hitler was.
See it now?

[Len Budney]

Here you are again, likening something you disapprove of to the Holocaust, the cheapest of the cheap arguments.

Sigh. You avoid substantiating your support of one mass murder (in Iraq) by arguing about the validity of my analogy. Once again:

1) Please state the limits of legitimate government power.
2) Please identify what determines those limits, since you've stated that it isn't morality.
3) Please justify mass murder in Iraq on the basis of #1 and #2.

I think the onus is on you to justify how a declared war between two sovereign states is in any way shape or form equivalent to the mass murder of unarmed civilians, many of them citizens of that state, purely on the grounds of heredity.

"Declared war between two sovereign states" is again begging the question. Where did we get the right to go slaughtering tens of thousands of Iraqis who have done nothing to us? You haven't even attempted to substantiate it; you've instead dodged the question using straw men, appeals to authority, question-begging and simple mockery.

--Len.

[Matthew Carberry]

Just an aside...

A declaration of war by a sovereign state is a decision by the individuals of that state.  They elect representatives according to rules they agree upon (if they didn't agree they'd change them or leave), those representatives act on their behalf.

If the individuals later decide their chosen action was a mistake, they elect new representatives who will rescind that action.  Representative Government 101.

This (of course) does not address the Constitutional questions around this particular use of force.

[Paddy]

1) Please state the limits of legitimate government power.

OK, in a democracy or parliamentary system the limits are defined the the constitution, or charter, or whatever documents define the authority of that government.  In a dictatorship, there are no limits.

2) Please identify what determines those limits, since you've stated that it isn't morality.

See #1.

3) Please justify mass murder in Iraq on the basis of #1 and #2.

What 'mass murder'?  There has been no concerted effort on anybody's part to commit mass murder in Iraq.

[The Rabbi]

Wow, Riley has assimilated my thought processes.  Scary.

[Len Budney]

1) Please state the limits of legitimate government power.

OK, in a democracy or parliamentary system the limits are defined the the constitution, or charter, or whatever documents define the authority of that government.  In a dictatorship, there are no limits.

Oh. OK, then, game over: in Stalin's Russia, it was acceptable to kill ten million kulaks; in Hitler's Germany, it was acceptable to kill six million Jews; and in Nero's Rome, it was acceptable to feed Christians to lions. After all, "in a dictatorship, there are no limits."

3) Please justify mass murder in Iraq on the basis of #1 and #2.

What 'mass murder'?  There has been no concerted effort on anybody's part to commit mass murder in Iraq.

So if I kill 30,000 people who had done nothing wrong, but I wasn't making a "concerted effort" to do so, then no harm, no foul? Your answer, and the Rabbi's, make no sense unless I theorize that you're taking a moral relativist position: whatever they do is what they do; there's no framework within which to judge the actions of governments.

The founders believed very differently, however. They believed that governments exist to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and when they fail to do so, the people have an inalienable right to change it or abolish it. That alone implies strict limits on governments, and indicates that even a dictatorship, if it fails to secure those rights, is immoral and subject to overthrow. Legal thought since at least the Magna Carta has focused on the principle that there are laws transcending the authority of government, and that government is in the wrong if it violates those laws.

You're taking the paradoxical position of claiming allegiance to the founders' vision, while denying the very principle that there's such a thing as unjust government.

--Len.

[The Rabbi]

1) Please state the limits of legitimate government power.

OK, in a democracy or parliamentary system the limits are defined the the constitution, or charter, or whatever documents define the authority of that government.  In a dictatorship, there are no limits.

Oh. OK, then, game over: in Stalin's Russia, it was acceptable to kill ten million kulaks; in Hitler's Germany, it was acceptable to kill six million Jews; and in Nero's Rome, it was acceptable to feed Christians to lions. After all, "in a dictatorship, there are no limits."

That's obvious that it was acceptable as no one much put up a fuss.

3) Please justify mass murder in Iraq on the basis of #1 and #2.

What 'mass murder'?  There has been no concerted effort on anybody's part to commit mass murder in Iraq.

So if I kill 30,000 people who had done nothing wrong, but I wasn't making a "concerted effort" to do so, then no harm, no foul? Your answer, and the Rabbi's, make no sense unless I theorize that you're taking a moral relativist position: whatever they do is what they do; there's no framework within which to judge the actions of governments.

The founders believed very differently, however. They believed that governments exist to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and when they fail to do so, the people have an inalienable right to change it or abolish it. That alone implies strict limits on governments, and indicates that even a dictatorship, if it fails to secure those rights, is immoral and subject to overthrow. Legal thought since at least the Magna Carta has focused on the principle that there are laws transcending the authority of government, and that government is in the wrong if it violates those laws.

You're taking the paradoxical position of claiming allegiance to the founders' vision, while denying the very principle that there's such a thing as unjust government.

--Len.

The difference between murder and war is intent.  War is messy.  People get killed.  Too bad.  In some part they were complicit since they allowed the country to get to a certain point.  But even if they were, people get killed in wars.  Even defensive wars.  How would you justify civilian deaths in a "defensive" war (assuming there is such a thing)?

[Len Budney]

1) Please state the limits of legitimate government power.

OK, in a democracy or parliamentary system the limits are defined the the constitution, or charter, or whatever documents define the authority of that government.  In a dictatorship, there are no limits.

Oh. OK, then, game over: in Stalin's Russia, it was acceptable to kill ten million kulaks; in Hitler's Germany, it was acceptable to kill six million Jews; and in Nero's Rome, it was acceptable to feed Christians to lions. After all, "in a dictatorship, there are no limits."

That's obvious that it was acceptable as no one much put up a fuss.

Are you being facetious, or confirming my guess that you're a moral relativist?

The difference between murder and war is intent.  War is messy.  People get killed.  Too bad.

Just wow. "Too bad"? So if your wife and kids are killed in a gang war, and they reply, "War is messy. People die. Too bad!" you'll understand perfectly? Oh, I forgot: gangs aren't "nations," and hence lack the mystical power to kill innocent people and then say, "Too bad!" But you still haven't attempted to prove these special powers you speak of.

But the difference between a good shoot and murder is not intent. If I shoot Tom Clancy intending to save the world from alien invasion, it's still murder. If I invade a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack I accused it of, and that had none of the weapons I claimed they had, nor even a program to develop them, and I slaughter a bunch of innocents to "save America from the imaginary Islamabomb," that's murder too.

--Len.

[K Frame]

OK, that's all.

Even I'm tired of this one. For the last three pages it's been more "Less filling, tastes great" than anything else.

I highly encourage you to go back and forth, and get nowhere, via private message.