Oakes

What's even more short-sighted is the belief that making our tax-collection system simpler, more transparent, and more consistent couldn't help our economy and/or lead to tax-cuts. A simpler system would be far less costly to operate, cheaper, easier, and less-intrusive to comply with, and could prevent politicians from catering to special interests through loopholes in a complex tax code. A more transparent system that eliminated hidden taxes would show exactly how much we really pay, encouraging citizens to push for tax-cuts. A more consistent system that taxed American-made and imported goods equally would allow US companies to be more competitive.

Someone in my school looks and acts like Napolean. When asked if he saw the movie, he said "Yeah it was the worst movie EVER, God!" I think far too many people are just amused with the old-school script that reminds them of when they were kids - like the chapstick and tater-tot scenes when Napolean says "Eww gross!" I laughed in a couple parts, especially the dance scene, but I agree that it was very depressing - the main characters all seemed lifeless and the small town was so uneventful.

At the risk of sounding biased, I prefer Boeing's vision of the future of passenger aircraft far more than Airbus'. While Airbus is promoting the concept of one 555-seat monstrosity, Boeing prefers a smaller, more efficient 217-seater that can go to smaller airports more specific to your destination.

I can't imagine why you wouldn't support a step toward freedom. Do you really expect to unwind the welfare state in a single massive piece of legislation? You seem to understand that a national sales tax would be better than an income tax - and I agree - yet you refuse to support it because it isn't ideal. Tell me, did you vote this last election?

The recent tsunami tragedy got me thinking about how emergency operations would work in a free society. What I am focusing on specifically is fire rescue, emergency medicine, natural disaster relief (and early warning systems), and virus containment. I was thinking that these services could be owned by insurance companies, since they have a profit incentive to save lives and property. However, I have two questions: 1) Who would provide emergency services to those who haven't bought insurance? 2) Should the government be involved? What about cases where the disasters are caused by criminals, i.e. arson or a virus spread by terrorists? Wouldn't the government need to force fire departments and virus containment providers to work closely with it for investigative purposes? BTW, if anybody has a better idea than insurance companies, please let me know.

I'll be starting my fourth Japanese course tomorrow, so that's the first one I started working on. I've also started learning Russian at home. I probably won't work too hard to master speaking the National Security languages -- I just want to be able to read them.

I'm not fluent in a second language yet, but I've spent a lot of time thinking about my language goals. I started by listing my reasons for wanting to learn them. I came up with two, and split my list of languages according to them: Business (I want to be a businessman) and National Security (I want to work for the CIA). There are tons of languages that fit those categories, so the second step I took was to narrow the list down according to motivation. I took out all European languages because I find them boring (too similar to English) and as a businessman it would be relatively easy to hire a European translator. Thirdly, I set proficiency goals for each language, rather than wanting to learn them all at the same level. I decided to reach basic conversational level with some, and advanced level with others, according to which I expect to use more. From there, I just made my list. For Business languages, I focused on the Capitalist Jewels of East Asia -- Japan, Hong Kong (Cantonese), and South Korea. The rest of the East is rather under-developed, except Russia, which is misdeveloped (I added it to my list too). For National Security languages, I focused on Iran (Farsi) and the rest of the Middle East (Arabic) as well as China (Mandarin). To constantly motivate myself to look at the big picture, I made a memorable acronym for all of them: JERCKAF (I had to tuck in an E for English to get another vowel, and squish Cantonese and Mandarin into C for Chinese).

That's what intel is for.

Nothing's wrong with it -- but you're advocating not killing civilians who potentially support us, which could easily include all of them.

Al Kufr, I don't pretend to read your mind, but it seems as if you are basing your strategies on Bush's altruistic goals because that's the only way to apply maneuver warfare the way Lind does. Now, I've read A Swift, Elusive Sword by Chester Richards and I just started The Mind Of War by Grant Hammond, and there are a lot of useful ideas to be found in Boyd, but I'm determined to make you realize that it's all based on shaky philosophical foundations. For example: In Richards' book, I found the section Military vis-a-vis Other Options (pg. 32-35) to be repulsive. It felt like a tribute to all those who regard the US as an imperialistic impediment to "surviving on their own terms." He rubs in our faces the fact that " . . . many Third World countries resent the U.S. ready resort to military power," and goes on to quote someone bashing the U.S. for "rushing to court unpopularity across the world," as well as bashing the Bush administration for its "hegemonic arrogance." Pretending that we give a rat's ass about the warnings of a former Soviet, Richards then quotes Gorbachev saying " . . . the present situation of the United States, with a part of its population able to enjoy a life of extraordinary comfort and privilege, is not tenable as long as an enormous portion of the world lives in abject poverty, degradation and backwardness." To summarize: I think Boyd and his followers have it right on the military strategy, but it becomes tainted when they apply it to their philosophically-corrupt foreign policy of appeasement. Objectivism is a great cure -- and it doesn't, I must stress, necessitate that we replace all military forces with nuclear weapons and B-52s. Wiping out neighborhoods is one strategy for demoralizing and striking fear in civilian populations, but I see no reason why that would render counterguerilla operations obsolete. We could all benefit from Richards' "Evolutionary Force" and Boyd's maneuver warfare, but we could benefit even more if we knew when to apply it and who to regard as our friends. That's the job of philosophy.

You mean, you're arguing that some of the civilians are pro-American and pro-capitalist? If this is true, we should try to spare them. But never at the cost of our own soldiers' lives. Yes, that's what we're doing, but again, it isn't our primary mission -- protecting America is. So if a middle-eastern city is swarming with terrorists, we have every right to engage in mass bombings to eliminate the threat -- the situation, I repeat, is fundamentally different than a police engagement in Iowa.

Are you arguing that most civilians in the Mideast are pro-American and pro-capitalist? Or do you agree with Yaron Brook that many civilians are supporting the insurgency, and that we need to bring the consequences of the war to their mosques, homes, schools, and hospitals? I'm for sparing as many pro-American students as possible, unless it requires that we risk the lives of our own troops. No! Our primary mission is to protect the safety of America. We have no obligation to bring order back to the country and protect their rights -- that was their government's job. It may be in our interests to replace their government with a free one, but that is never our primary mission -- we are not the Global Cop.

That was my mistake -- I meant to hypothesize there being less red and more Islamic fundamentalism as a result of our actions. I restate my question with that correction. That's a bad analogy, because all you did was persuade the thug to turn on his fellow thug. If it were as simple as convincing the islamists to fight another enemy of ours, I would be all for it. But for your analogy to hold, you would have to arm that thug and hope he doesn't turn on you.

Rather than half of it in red, and a quarter of it in Islamic fundamentalism? Only by looking with Near-Seeing Glasses will you prefer one over the other -- in reality, both ended up being dangerous threats, which is why it is such a mistake to contain one while empowering another in the process. If you're looking for strong militaries, you won't find it in East Asia, Western Europe, or anywhere else on this planet save the US. Any military that comes close in technology or size, has a deficiency in training and transportation. We're looking not for strong militaries, but loyal friends with strong economies and commitments to the cause of freedom. Granted, you may not find it in France or Germany for the time being, but the Brits have been valuable allies nonetheless. Surely you don't regard the absurdity of allying with terrorist-supporting nations to fight terrorism as a floating abstraction. Google it for yourself if you don't believe me. We're lucky they weren't well maintained and didn't work well at night, but the idea of helping philosophical opposites to fight a perceived greater evil remains a bad idea.

Because the original force isn't weakened; furnished with your physical support and motivated by your moral support, it continues on stronger than ever. The proper approach is to let evil destroy evil and go in to finish off the victor. You're right -- I would be incapable of allying with such vital centers of power as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to fight terrorism. I would be left all alone with the miniscule combined strength of the United States, Western Europe, and the capitalistic jewels of East Asia. Instead, he should broaden his options with pragmatist thinking? I've never heard such an open attack on philosophic principles on this forum. And we were to leave the next generation to deal with the Islamo-fascists now equipped with Stinger missiles? Evil cannot survive without the sanction and support of the Good.

FC, I used to have your position, but then I realized it's completely wrong. Here's why: I believed civilians were a valuable center of power, which we dare not alienate with mass bombing and total war. But this reasoning fails because, as I said to Al Kufr, a center of power that requires a sacrifice is not a center of power at all. If we need to avoid killing civilians in order to gain their support, they aren't truly pro-American, and we shouldn't want to ally with them in the first place. We should only ally with those who agree with our goals, our philosophy -- NOT those who will only work with us if we build them schools, grow beards, and avoid civilian casualties. The same reasoning explains why the UN is fundamentally wrong: It attempts to create relationships between nations without regard for philosophic differences. Any gain from allying with evil to defeat a greater evil is short-term. The short-term gain resulting from our arming of Afghani Jihadists was the failure of the Soviets to push into Afghanistan. Judge for yourself the long-term consequences. I'll ask both of you the same question I asked Mr. Wakeland: Do you believe that the government is obligated to treat non-citizens the same as citizens? In other words, should it spare no expense or risk to treat non-citizens as individuals, each with civil liberties and the right to a trial? Both of you make the same error that liberals make: You view war as an act of judicial prosecution. Our soldiers are NOT policemen carrying out a court order -- they are NOT going out to "punish" the bad guys. War is an act of national self-defense, and it is a fatal error to compare it with a domestic situation involving the SWAT team in Iowa, in which our government is obligated to protect the rights of each individual.

I didn't read the whole article, but I thought the last bit was pretty admirable:

For the record, "Yes," I think you're being absurd.

Name a post in which I advocated that. My only argument is that there may be times when we must kill pro-American civilians to kill an enemy. In that case, it would be wrong to send troops in -- risking their lives -- to avoid killing the civilians.

Putting boots on the ground will always be more dangerous than flying jets overhead.

So you support engaging in small-unit tactics -- putting our troops in far greater danger than if we ignored civilians -- to avoid killing (potentially) pro-American civilians? Again, I state: A center of power that requires a sacrifice in order for us to connect to it is not a center of power at all.

Mr. Wakeland, My two short questions certainly won't do justice to the obviously large effort you put into your post, but they pretty much sum up my reaction to it. The first deals with the philosophy of war, and the second deals with the science of war: 1. Do you believe that the government is obligated to treat non-citizens the same as citizens? In other words, should it spare no expense or risk to treat non-citizens as individuals, each with civil liberties and the right to a trial? Your answer will determine whether you believe we can kill civilians and kill "militiamen while they're hiding behind civilians." I believe that our government needs not treat enemy civilians as individuals, and needs not treat human shields as hostages. The responsibility to do these things lies with their government, whose aggression made it responsible for any civilian deaths resulting from our war of retaliation. 2. Do you recognize any fundamental difference between wars with ideologically-motivated, non-state forces and conventional militaries? Between 4th Generation Warfare and 3rd Generation Warfare? Your answer will determine how much you're willing to underestimate guerilla warfare, underestimate "a loosely aligned front of pre-industrial nations," and underestimate the effect that the "ideological vices of our culture" can have on our chances of victory. I believe that our technological superiority has very little relevance in fighting 4GW, that history shows few cases where guerilla forces couldn't defeat advanced militaries (think Mao's campaign in China, think our ordeals in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia, think Russia's ordeals in Afghanistan and Chechnya), and that 4GW wins primarily because of the problems within our culture that curb our resolve.

Al Kufr, You said: "John Boyd described strategy as connecting yourself to as many centers of power as possible, while isolating one's enemy from as many centers of power as possible." 1. Does a center of power have to reflect our ideals, or was it okay to work with the Soviets in WWII, and with the Afghani jihadists in the 70's? Is the UN a source of good because it connects us to centers of power? 2. If it must reflect our ideals, would you agree that in 4GW conflicts, we should only work with civilians who are unequivocally for the U.S.? 3. Would a truly pro-U.S. civilian become enraged at the way we kill the civilians in his country? My point, then, is that a center of power that requires a sacrifice in order for us to connect to it is not a center of power at all. The civilians are not really pro-American if we must resort to small-unit tactics, grow beards, build schools, participate in their rituals, and call off operations during Ramadan in order to gain their support. They either support our goals or they don't.

1. To insert a name (ignore the asterisks): [*quote=Randrew]Blah Blah Blah[*/quote] 2. A link to the quote is usually automatically inserted at the bottom, but the format is (ignore asterisks again): [*right][*snapback]65793[*/snapback][*/right] You can find the number by clicking the number on the upper-right corner of the post, which gives you the url to it: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...iew=findpost&p=65793

I was surprised by that too. It was after Bill said that killing civilians would make us Nazis. When Brook responded that we are the good guys defending America, Bill said "Well the Nazis thought they were right too." Brook then said "It doesn't matter what you think you are, what matters is what you truly are." Then came Bill's awful plunge into subjectivism: "Perception is reality."