This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Does the Iranian Government Have A Right To A Nuclear Bomb?

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,

As Reuters reported last week, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has confirmed that while the Iranian government is still enriching uranium at an increasing rate, there is no evidence of a weapons program under development.  Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei still maintains that the nuclear program is entirely peaceful.  According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, senior Obama administration officials say the 2007 intelligence report which confirmed that Iran’s government put a stop to its efforts to create a nuclear bomb in 2003 is still accurate.  Just last February, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta also confirmed that the government is not pursuing a weapons program.

The nonexistence of a nuclear weapons program hasn’t stopped the neoconservatives in Congress and the press or the Obama administration from denouncing Iran publicly in the name of American hegemony.  Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney remains willing and eager to use military force to halt the country’s nuclear development.  At a speech before the Veterans of Foreign War convention in July, Romney called the prospect of Iran having a nuclear weapon the greatest “danger in the world today” and castigated President Obama for not doing more to stop the continuing enrichment.  The Obama administration hasn’t been sitting idly by however when it comes to Iran.  Under pressure from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, perhaps the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington, Obama signed into law the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act in July which would give “a blank check drawn on the U.S. taxpayer” to Israel “to maintain its qualitative military edge” according to former CIA officer Philip Giraldi.  With Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu playing a game of nuclear blackmail with the White House in an effort to goad Obama into launching a preemptive attack on Iran, U.S. National Security Director Tom Dinilon reportedly presented an attack plan to the war-ready Netanyahu recently.

Should Netanyahu pull the trigger and strike Iran before the U.S. elections as he is rumored to be determined to do, it is highly likely that both President Obama and the U.S. Congress will come to the rescue by ordering the deployment of the military.  The Israeli news source Yediot Ahronoth recently reported that the White House told the Iranian government they would not assist in an Israeli strike if American interests were let be in the Persian Gulf yet the Obama administration has denied the allegation.  The U.S. military literally has the country surrounded with bases; as if already prepared for a full blown assault.  A campaign in Iran will be added to the lengthy list of Middle East excursions this decade that include Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Libya.  The drums for war are indeed being pounded upon not by the general public but by well-connected interest groups looking to profit from bloodshed.

The United States isn’t the only country whose leaders are opposed to Iran’s government possessing nuclear arms.  The European Union’s embargo of Iran’s oil exporters came into effect on July 1st in an effort to curb the nuclear program.  In fact, many Western nations including Canada and Japan have colluded to ban their citizens from doing business in Iran.  Following the U.S.’s lead, it has been decided by the power players in the international community that Iran is not allowed to have nuclear arms.

The idea that the U.S. government should be the sole decider of what governments are allowed to own what weapons is demonstrative of the hegemonic desires of the ruling establishment.  It is automatically assumed that because the government of Iran refuses to bow down to the American empire, it should be stripped of its sovereignty.  There is no consideration of the question at the heart of the matter:  should people have the right to own nuclear weapons in a free society?

It is certainly not outside the bounds of moral considerations to agree that people should have the right to defend themselves from harm’s way or if they feel genuinely threatened.  This includes the right to own small arms for defensive purposes.  Denying someone the right to own arms is denying them the right to protect their own life.  In the context of violent behavior, the act of simply owning a firearm or weapon in no way constitutes a threat towards another.  In a society where property rights are respected and upheld, gun control is a coercive intrusion into peaceful living.

But does the notion that man has a natural right to own the means to protect his life apply to nuclear weapons?

At first glance it may appear so since the mere possessing of a nuclear bomb does not constitute a threat toward anyone.  There is a clear difference between owning a gun and a thermonuclear device however.  As Murray Rothbard explains:

…while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even ‘conventional’ aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction.

Nuclear weapons are bound to kill innocents just because the radius of damage is so encompassing.  Since they can’t be pinpointed, nuclear weaponry can’t be used purely for defensive purposes on Earth.  The only plausible scenario for the justified stockpiling of a nuclear bomb is if there exists a threat beyond Earth.  Economist Walter Block calls this the proportionality thesis.  Because the universe is conceivably wide enough where the setting off of a nuclear device may not harm an innocent person, ownership of an atom bomb can be permissible.

Nuclear weaponry has only one function; the annihilation of vast amounts of people and property.  There is no other use.  In a free society on Earth (which is thus far the only planet known to have the resources to sustain rational beings like humans) there would be no need for anyone to own nuclear arms.  For the state that operates off of the power-lusting of its controllers, the incentives change.  Through educational indoctrination and media propaganda the nation-state becomes synonymous with its inhabitants.   Americans, Canadians, Brits, etc., are affiliated with their government even when certain atrocities are committed solely by individuals of authority.  This mistaken identify provides the perfect cover for the various political classes to scheme for further power grabs.  Wars between states are often fought not for the defense of the citizenry but for other motives outside of protecting life.  They are neither an economic stimulant nor a dignified crusade; they are destructive and horrifying.  War is really mass murder financed through violent means; both of which are unlawful under natural law.  Ultimately it is the various minions of the state seeking national glory and resources located in the jurisdiction of another nation-state who conduct war.

For the U.S. government to even begin to lecture Iran’s on whether or not it should have the right to develop a nuclear weapon ignores the very fact that it remains the one and only government on the planet to ever used the atom bomb to exterminate millions.  American school children are often told that the use of the nuke was necessary to save the troops who were going to invade Japan during World War II even though such an explanation is dubious.  As John V. Denson points out, President Truman kept to a policy of no-surrender even while the Japanese government was willing to admit defeat as long as the emperor could remain in power.  The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were carried out as a demonstration of force to the Russians.  Many of his advisers, including General Eisenhower, had pressured him to not go ahead with the nuking but Truman would have none of it.  Establishing the United States government as a supreme world power was more important than the lives of innocent women and children.

It should also be noted that while it is widely believed that Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, threatened to wipe the nation of Israel “off the map,” this was a mistranslation.  On October 25, 2005, Ahmadinejad reportedly gave a speech titled “The World Without Zionism” in which he supposedly uttered the infamous remark.  But as Arash Norouzi, co-founder of the Mossadegh Project, explains, the words “Israel,” “map,” and “wipe out” were never actually uttered.

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:

“Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.”

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word “regime.” pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase ”rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing.

None of this is to say that Iran’s government is filled with respectable men trying to do what is best for Iranians.  It has its own history of brutal murders and political suppression.  This despicable behavior is not an excuse to distort facts however.  As history has shown, campaigns of misinformation are often orchestrated to make way for war.  And unfortunately for Americans and Iranians alike, war may very well be on the horizon.

The heightening tension between the United States government and Iran’s is based off of the fallacious notion that nuclear weapons have a legitimate purpose outside of killing enormous amounts of people.  Yet they have no other real purpose in the end.  Governments possess nuclear weaponry because there is little recourse for state-sanctioned murder.  The millions of innocent lives that stand to be vanquished off the face of the Earth have little meaning to the power-tripping political elite.  So while the Iranian government’s pursuance of nuclear weapons should be condemned, the United States government, the Israeli government, and others capable of waging nuclear war are in no place to criticize.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:23 | 2763177 LongBalls
LongBalls's picture

All peoples and countries have a right to protect themselves but no right to harm others. Alas the problem; no man can know what is in anothers heart.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:31 | 2763205 Michael
Michael's picture


Israel has over 300 nukes and Iran will target the Dimona reactor facility contaminating the entire country of Israel with platinum if attacked by Israel making Japan look like an eco-sanctuary.

An Israeli strike on Iran nuclear facilities could endanger Israel's Dimona reactor

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:49 | 2763250 Ahmeexnal
Ahmeexnal's picture


The United States under a Presidency which has openly declared disdain for the Israeli government and openly embraced its enemies as well as causes contrary to the interests of the West has caused the Israeli government to prepare for life without an American ally over the next decade barring the election of Mitt Romney or dissolution of the United States into several smaller nations. This pressure to act before Iran demonstrates a successful offensive capability to deploy at minimum an effective EMP device over Western Europe and Israel and worse, a primitive low yield nuclear weapon to attack Israel’s cities means that time is running out before they succeed.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:58 | 2763268 otto skorzeny
otto skorzeny's picture

jew boot-licker- didn't you read the article- Bamster basically signed a blank check to provide US support for Israeli security.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:17 | 2763308 Ahmeexnal
Ahmeexnal's picture

Yeah, right. He also created millions of jobs and has lifted the world from recession.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:32 | 2763337 Popo
Popo's picture

Every country has the right to do whatever the fuck they want to do, as that's the nature of being sovereign. If you've signed treaties however, then you're bound by treaty.

In this case, Iran IS bound by the treaty they signed. That treaty gave them nuclear technology in return for a pledge of peaceful-only development. Israel isn't a signatory.

So politics aside, no matter how you feel about either country -- there is the fact that of the two sovereign nations -- Iran *is* bound by their own agreement to not develop nukes. And they were given massive amounts of technology and support for their agreement.

This isn't a question of sovereign rights or even human rights at the end of the day: it's a question of law. And a nation is bound by its treaties.

A lot of people are thumbing down out of emotion, because they have a political leaning on this issue. But remember -- Iran would never even have nuclear capacity of any kind if they hadn't signed the treaty.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 02:11 | 2763443 Precious
Precious's picture

Nobody, nowhere, no how, has the right to a nuclear bomb or anything else that indiscriminately destroys human lives.

Oppenheimer and the rest of the rabbit juice are buring in hell for having built it.  

Truman the Freemason is burning in hell for having used it.

They wanted a test run.  Japan was a good candidate.  Both atomic bomb models, uranium and plutonium, surpassed their expectations.

By dropping these bombs, the USA created a nuclear nightmare scenario for the entire world, for generations.  A great moral failing.  Even the scientists responsible for fission bomb research and development, pleaded with Truman not to drop the bombs on Japan.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 02:27 | 2763516 Michael
Michael's picture

Food for thought;


Wed, 09/05/2012 - 05:57 | 2763681 Davalicious
Davalicious's picture

"[to Truman] Establishing the United States government as a supreme world power was more important than the lives of innocent women and children." And then Jewish spies stole the technology for the Soviets and wasted the domance that Truman had gained for the United States, thereby throwing us into a "Cold" War that cost millions of lives in Korea, Vietnam and beyond. The Jews are the number one enemy of the US, and of the world.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 12:20 | 2764739 Matt
Matt's picture

"Nuclear weaponry has only one function; the annihilation of vast amounts of people and property.  There is no other use. "

That is incorrect. The primary purpose of having nuclear weapons is to create Mutually Assured Destruction. No country that has a nuclear arsenal has ever been directly invaded. Nuclear weapons allow peace, where otherwise there would be conventional war.

"contaminating the entire country of Israel with platinum if attacked by Israel"

Now that's the kind of contamination I would love to have, Platinum raining down from the sky. Except, since there would suddenly be a greater supply, the value would be reduced. Hmm, bit of a cunundrum there.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 06:57 | 2763738 Cloud9.5
Cloud9.5's picture

That window closed in 1945.  You either have them or submit to those that have them.

Give up the U.S. stockpile and Europe will be speaking Russian and Australia will be speaking Chinese.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 04:01 | 2763596 fredquimby
fredquimby's picture

So politics aside, no matter how you feel about either country -- there is the fact that of the two sovereign nations -- Iran *is* bound by their own agreement to not develop nukes. And they were given massive amounts of technology and support for their agreement.

Yes, and they have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and have no bombs.

Unlike Israel, who has NOT signed and does have nuclear weapons.


I certainly know who I am more worried about fucking up the world.


Wed, 09/05/2012 - 08:41 | 2763980 GoldenTool
GoldenTool's picture

@ popo

Run this statement by some american indians sometime and let me know what they say...  Libya would be another good example.  Treaties are negotiated to give nations buffers, either to cover up a weakness or as an agreement so a certain group does'nt lose power.  When those buffers aren't needed any more the treaties are held together through honor.  The law is for the little people the big people, sovereigns, live and deal through force.

Emotion has little to do with it.  Logic and BS don't mix well.  Most people can smell this even if they can't quite put their thumb on what they smell.


"Do unto others."

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 01:17 | 2763413 otto skorzeny
otto skorzeny's picture

Ahmeex- every GD thing you write on ZH you manage to stick something pro-israeli in- even shit that is totally not on the subject. give it a rest. I didn't say shit in my post that was pro-Obama- only the fact that he is slightly less of a hebe water carrier that that POS cultist Romney. either one of these d-bags are gonna cut loose with the goods for Israel after the election

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:04 | 2763284 redpill
redpill's picture

No.  Countries don't have rights.  Individuals have rights.  Can we have some fucking philosophical discipline here please? Bickering between authoritarian governments over who should have the power to murder millions with a press of a button and who should not has nothing to do with rights except for the fact that millions of individuals would have their rights violated in the process no matter who employs the goddamn thing.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 07:08 | 2763760 ParkAveFlasher
ParkAveFlasher's picture

+1 Can't improve upon this comment.  I can only add my opinion that nuclear weapons were never and won't ever be about "right".

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 08:25 | 2763926 spanish inquisition
spanish inquisition's picture

But it will help, by keeping the US from invading it and save millions of lives from drone strikes. If you were to compile a list of crazy countries that would use the thing, the US and Israel would be at the top of the list. For the rest, it's a defensive weapon.

As far as rights go, does a sovereign nation have the right to exist and go about its business with other sovereign nations without interference by the US?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 09:27 | 2764143 Milton Freewater
Milton Freewater's picture

Thank You Red Pill!!

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 10:35 | 2764343 UGrev
UGrev's picture

Could we say that corporations are not people then as well? just sayin.. philsophically-n-shit. 

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:30 | 2763320 Element
Element's picture

Even with out my text reader finishing reading this to me, I'll just say:

Iran and Israel are in a strategic competition to the death.

Israel is threatening to attack Iran, with no options off the table.

Iran is determined to defend itself and to match Israeli capabilities to achieve equitable and stable deterrence that keeps both Israel and the USSA and NATO in-check.
Sorry have to spell it out, but the real-politic of this strategic competition means matching Israeli capability in all areas.

That people still believe Iran abstains from nuclear arms, or any variety of arms for that matter, due Muslim religious grounds, or some supra-ethical national basis, well, snap the fuck out of it is all I can say!

Look next door at nuclear armed Muslim Pakistan and see if you can engage cerebral first-gear.  You are being lied to, sorry to burst your bubble.  When strategic oblivion is starring you right in the face you will say and do anything to change that, and moral niceties can go take a running jump.  That is what really happens.

It is also rather child-like and fricken feeble as hell, to be honest, to imagine US intelligence knows shit about much of anything and then discloses it publicly.  Take a look at the US farce over Iraqi WMDs.  I am amazed anyone quotes a western intelligence source to as substantiation after that.  And yet they still do!  

Phualeeease!  Snap the fuck out of it.


Western intelligence is a pack of lies.  Write that down somewhere, as you're bound to forget it in about five minutes, and you really shouldn't.

That's the plain truth, for if they do know shit, at any point, you'll never know or hear about it, because they'll cover any fragment of truth that momentarily emerges, under a mountain of public lie-baiting, faster than you can say "bomb Iran".

You'd do much better, to do your own research and analysis.


It's not about "a right to have", it's about going ahead and doing it because you can, sorry if someone didn't realise that.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 01:17 | 2763417 Glasater55
Glasater55's picture

I would agree regarding the US breaking into smaller portions if Obama is re-elected. I would think that walling off the blue hells and letting them deal with their descisions would be a worthwhile lesson for the whole world.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 02:43 | 2763534 Ar-Pharazôn
Ar-Pharazôn's picture

and do you really think that the US army will let this happen?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 01:50 | 2763439 Michael
Michael's picture

9/11 caused a war on Iraq and a war on Afghanistan that the American people, not involved in it, had to pay for in many ways.

I want the people who were responsible for this brought to JUSTICE!

I want REVENGE, on the real perpetrators, within the RULE OF LAW!

9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 06:12 | 2763694 Davalicious
Davalicious's picture

Three Jews were caught filming the destruction of the twin towers, dancing around in Arab costumes. They were never put on trial. Numberous Mossad agents were picked up and ejected from the country. Jews staged 9/11. How obvious do people have to make it?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:55 | 2763384 Vlad Tepid
Vlad Tepid's picture

Really?  I want to live somewhere contaminated with platinum.  How do I go about achieving this alchemy?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 04:38 | 2763631 mick_richfield
mick_richfield's picture

Maybe if you wait long enough ... beta decay ...

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 08:25 | 2763924 Papasmurf
Papasmurf's picture

Long term investing.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 01:00 | 2763393 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

  Iran will target the Dimona reactor facility contaminating the entire country of Israel with platinum

I'm not sure if you're short on PMs or short on Spellchek...

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 01:56 | 2763467 Michael
Michael's picture

Perhaps the mistake had more meaning then a non-mistake, because you noticed.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 02:30 | 2763476 JuliaS
JuliaS's picture

Maybe they could target Fort Knox. We could sure use some contaminatin'.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 02:39 | 2763530 Ben Dover
Ben Dover's picture

Wait. There's gold in fort Knox???

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 02:54 | 2763538 JuliaS
JuliaS's picture

Sean Connery told me so.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 04:19 | 2763613 stacking12321
stacking12321's picture

fort knox is already contaminated.

it's full of nerve gas cannisters, and the gold is all gone.

i know this because i heard it from jim willie, who heard it from his source, who heard it from HIS source.

but, wouldn't surprise me if it were true...

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 10:32 | 2764339 brown_hornet
brown_hornet's picture

Spellcheck would not catch that error.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 01:13 | 2763408 sangell
sangell's picture

"Target" can be a verb or a noun. Iran's ability to target a facility exceeds its ability to actually hit it. OTOH the act of trying to hit it exposes itself to a far more capable counterattack. A nuclear attack is like a duel where Iran has a single shot pistol of uncertain reliability whereas Israel has high caliber, semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine and telescopic sight. Further Israel has a bullet proof vest so Iran has to hit the head with its sole shot at the 'target'. Even in the nuclear bomb arena there is also a thing called 'yield'. Japan didn't surrender because of Hiroshima. It was their uncertainty over how many other Hiroshimas it would have to suffer. Nagasaki revealed there was more of where the first came from. Otoh, a thermonuclear device can produce many Hiroshimas in a single event. Israel has been at this long enough to probably have thermonuclear devices of sufficient size to not hit Iranian cities but to eliminate them including metropolitan Tehran. Killing 100,000 Jews and losing 50 million Iranians is the math of madmen.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 07:23 | 2763784 intric8
intric8's picture

It used to be Isreal as the one all alone and surrounded by enemies. Iran now has that distinction. There is no way in hell that Isreal will allow it to happen.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 03:24 | 2763554 Reptil
Reptil's picture

Moreover, in case the Dimona reactor is NOT hit, the DU (Depleted Uranium shot at Iranian armour), will cause the population of ISRAËL to become INFERTILE in 20 years (along with everyone else in the region). On top of that, there's the emissions of mentioned Dimona reactor, and nuclear waste buried in the Sinaï.

The alpha emitting nano dust of DU cannot be cleaned up. The congenital malformation will INCREASE from generation to generation. The DU nano dust will spread with air currents over a wide area, eventually around the whole planet. DEPLETED URANIUM PARTICLES WILL CONTINUE TO EMIT ALPHA RADIATION FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS (half life) AND IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO CLEAN THEM UP.

On top of that, Prof. Christopher Busby made the claim, after he had soil samples from Lebanon and Fallujah examined, that he found ENRICHED uranium. Meaning that most likely a new weapon was invented using a partial nuclear detonation, most likely an anti-personell weapon. He had these results verified by independent laboratories. The guy is often marginalised, ridiculed, but I think this real, and means THE ISRAËLI DEFENCE FORCE AS WELL AS THE US OCCUPATION FORCE IN IRAQ USED A NUCLEAR WEAPON ON UNARMORED TARGETS.

This will affect future generations in the USA as well: It's not like this coming war will be fought "somewhere else".

Draw from this, whatever conclusions you might have. To me it's fairly simple but also very bleak; The political elite, in the persons of Netanyahu, Obama, Romney, Khamenei want to destroy this planet as a habitable place for the human race. I think the "blowback" (literally) of DU is well known to them. They might have some "plan b" for themselves but I think it'll be based on "hope and change", i.o.w. it won't work, unless they've got a different planet and the means to transport human beings to it.

Remains the question; WHY?! Neither Israël nor the USA have to use Depleted Uranium, or this new nuclear weapon. Iran's powermongers are just as guilty of self-overestimation, human beings have proven to NOT have enough moral fiber to be able to safely handle nuclear fission or it's products. I think the power went to their heads an unbalanced their already psychopathic tendencies, i.o.w. I expect them to be INSANE.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 13:12 | 2763581 Michael
Michael's picture

The Jewish community needs to step up and stop the war on the American people.

We welcomed the Jews with open arms to our shores with no perconditions, and look what they've done to the place.

The Jewish community needs to step up and start policing their own, stop the happy horse shit, and monkey business before we all burn.

Defamation: True Stories

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 04:00 | 2763590 Colonel Klink
Colonel Klink's picture

"Israel has over 300 nukes and Iran will target the Dimona reactor facility contaminating the entire country of Israel with platinum if attacked by Israel making Japan look like an eco-sanctuary."


If they blow up, what will happen to the price of platinum?  Will it crash?


Just had to bust your balls for the obvious error.


EDIT:  Just saw someone else caught it too.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 12:31 | 2764783 Matt
Matt's picture

Maybe Hydrogen-powered cars would suddenly become viable, with affordable catalysts for seperating and re-joining hydrogen and oxygen?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 10:04 | 2764265 AGuy
AGuy's picture

"contaminating the entire country of Israel with platinum"

Only if the Israel could be so lucky to be containmated with platinum! I think you meant Plutonium.


Wed, 09/05/2012 - 07:45 | 2763832 midtowng
midtowng's picture

All this saber rattling has nothing to do with Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons program.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 22:55 | 2763112 dick cheneys ghost
dick cheneys ghost's picture

Does Iran have the right to sell their OIL outside the US Petro Dollar system?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:21 | 2763173 Overfed
Overfed's picture

Yes they do.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:25 | 2763329 ersatzteil
ersatzteil's picture

Iraq and Libya did not...third time's a charm?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 01:08 | 2763405 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

Euro asking for trouble...although gold is less flammable...not that that will help....

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 04:43 | 2763634 mick_richfield
mick_richfield's picture

Yes, they did.

Tyrants violated their rights.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 01:21 | 2763423 Glasater55
Glasater55's picture

Why would they want to?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 03:57 | 2763592 NoClueSneaker
NoClueSneaker's picture

That right makes China's imports dirt cheap :

Q: Does China have right to buy a barrel fer 85 $ ?

A: Nope, it's our oil ...

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 22:59 | 2763115 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Happiness is a Warm Gun


Tue, 09/04/2012 - 22:58 | 2763116 Stuart
Stuart's picture



Tue, 09/04/2012 - 22:58 | 2763117 diogeneslaertius
diogeneslaertius's picture

if you back a sweet wittle house cat into a corner it will tear your face off like a wolverine

looks like its time for Iran to get on the banking cartel central bank plantation or glass parking lot / false flag city followed up by UN love bombs that explode and candy comes out as well as humanitarian aid carried by unicorns that sparkle etc.


we accept the idea of nuclear detente right up to the point where someone wont get on the reservation

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:36 | 2763347 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture



looks like its time for Iran to get on the banking cartel central bank plantation or glass parking lot / false flag city

Yes, thanks for pointing out the REAL reason the US government wants to go after Iran. 

It's the same reason they went after Lybia ...and Iraq.

The banking cartel doesn't want ANYONE thumbing their noses at the US dollar, like Iraq did, like Lybia did, and like Iran is doing now.

It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. 

Besides, Iran doesn't need a single one.  They're solidly backed up by Russia and China, who together have way more nuclear weapons than America has

...and have confidently assured our government they will turn American cities to glass if we go into Iran.

Iran is the line in the sand for Amerian hegemony.  If we cross it, it's the end of America.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 01:16 | 2763412 i-dog
i-dog's picture


"If we cross it, it's the end of America."


Tue, 09/04/2012 - 22:59 | 2763118 cherry picker
cherry picker's picture

Insofar as WMDs are concerned, every government which has them should give them up and disarm them.  It should be considered a crime agains humanity to own a nuke. 


If people really believed the "In God We Trust" logo on the buck, they wouldn't need WMD's would they?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:03 | 2763132 Yellowhoard
Yellowhoard's picture

That's funny.

Just now, as I read this, puppies and rainbow colored butterflies were flying out of my ass.

What a coincidence.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:04 | 2763136 Real Estate Geek
Real Estate Geek's picture

It should be considered a crime agains humanity to own a nuke.

And just what is the arbiter going to do about it?  He's in a nuclear-free zone," and the country he deemed guilty by definition has nuclear weapons.

As Stalin sarcastically said, "How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?"

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:08 | 2763143 cherry picker
cherry picker's picture

Loook at it this way.  Iraq was accused of having WMDs and conventional weapons were used to invade.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:13 | 2763152 Real Estate Geek
Real Estate Geek's picture

In this situation, wouldn't it be better if Iran did have some nuclear weapons?  That might keep us from invading them which would save some American lives (and a lot of Iranian lives to boot).  In the last 65 years or so, we've shied away from picking a fight with someone who can hurt us. 

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:22 | 2763171 cherry picker
cherry picker's picture

To be honest with you, I don't think Iran is the villain that so many make it out to be.  Even if they had a nuke, I don't believe they would use it.

Contrary to what a lot of people think or believe, most Iranians are not much different than us, hope to have an income, raise their families and so on.

I don't know what the agenda is for NATO but there are other countries which possess nukes now I trust less than Iran.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:58 | 2763371 Michael
Michael's picture

I believe the Iranian people love their children more than the American people love theirs. Otherwise we wouldn't be poising and killing our kids with all kinds of things like we do.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 01:22 | 2763415 gwiss
gwiss's picture

The agenda is the competition between Shia and Sunni islam.  You've heard of Islamic fundamentalists?  The ones who support a society ruled by sharia law, in which there is no distinction between religion and state because Sharia demands a theocracy?  The guys in turbans who keep their women bottled up in burqas and use their resources to support the spread of Salafism, otherwise known as Wahhabism, which is the fastest growing Muslim segment?  Yeah, those are the guys we support, the ones who are supposedly on our side, the Saudis.

See, Shia and Sunni is roughly comparable to Catholicism and Protestantism for Christians.  Some ancient enmity, which Christians have only recently been able to get past, but which has thus far eluded the Muslims.  Not surprising, seeing as how Shia have yearly celebrations entirely dedicated to the slaughter of the founding fathers of their denomination by Sunni. 

Shia are outnumbered by Sunni and historically have had little power, except for Iran, which is majority Shia ruled by Shia.  Iraq was majority Shia ruled by Sunni until we "liberated" them, and now they are a majority Shia ruled by Shia regime as well.  Saudi Arabia warned us not to poke that hornet's nest, but we ignored them because of course Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld knew everything.  So now we aren't in control of Iraq and in the process of removing any ability to have input into their country we pissed off the Saudis, with whom we made a deal with the devil in the past, in which we would protect their country from Shia while they promised to keep the oil flowing and reasonably priced and only priced in dollars.  The oilfields of Saudi Arabia exist in the minority Shia section of the country.  Small wonder that the Sunni Saudis are worried about Shia uprisings.


So we find our country once again, shades of cooperating with Stalin to defeat Hitler, siding with a more powerful and quite possibly much more dangerous enemy in order to defeat a smaller rival.  Exactly where is the strategic considerations in this?  Answer is, strategy is ignored.  We presume that our version of the world (we need oil, therefore it essentially belongs to us, and therefore reasonable that we do whatever dirty deeds we need to in order to keep it flowing) is what everyone else is thinking, but of course they are not. They have their own long term considerations, in which oil is not the end but simply the means.  Their strategic gaze is cast much further into the future than ours, but of course it is always that way with junkies who cannot and will not let themselves think past their next hit because their long term reality is too depressing and harshes their buzz.

What we should have done in WWII was to let Hitler and Stalin whale away at each other, because the real conclusion that we would have come to had we thought much about it, was that both were our enemy.  And, if both of your enemies are fighting, you don't gang up on the smaller one.  You help even the odds so that the larger one bleeds a lot more and becomes weaker defeating the smaller one.  Similarly, it is asinine that we historically have sided with Sunni in order to suppress Shia.  Sunni is our friend even less than Shia is.  We need to let the Sunni and Shia pound away at each other and exhaust themselves, rather than using our military might to protect the grandfather Sunni who are the source of much global Salafi funding, all because we could not bring ourselves to formulate a coherent energy plan that did not involve addictively sucking at the Saudi oil tit.



Wed, 09/05/2012 - 02:19 | 2763506 Michael
Michael's picture

I really like the Shaira banking system. It's good competition.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 12:53 | 2764862 Matt
Matt's picture

"What we should have done in WWII was to let Hitler and Stalin whale away at each other, because the real conclusion that we would have come to had we thought much about it, was that both were our enemy. "


Unless I'm missing something, Hitler and the Japanese attacked us? I thought the original plan was that they were both supposed to invade Russia, but the Japanese lost a big tank battle and decided the Soviets were too powerful, and Germany decided to fight two fronts at the same time.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 04:19 | 2763612 fredquimby
fredquimby's picture

Great post Gwiss. Thanks.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 04:27 | 2763618 stacking12321
stacking12321's picture

good point, and i agree with you for the most part.

however, the difficulty is in the fact that there are also religous zealots in iran, who are willing to blow up themseves and anyone else, in the expectation of an eternal reward with 72 virgins.

the risk of such persons getting hold of a nuke are unacceptably high.

not to say there aren't such people in the US as well, but there are fewer of them here, and the checks and balances are somwhat better.

but frankly, the US shouldn't have nukes either, i don't trust anyone with that power, especially not those who rise to the top politically seeking power, those are the most dangerous of all.


Wed, 09/05/2012 - 05:30 | 2763665 mvsjcl
mvsjcl's picture

And why 72 of them? Would not a baker's dozen suffice?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 12:07 | 2764689 Nikao7
Nikao7's picture

The sad part is that the common people of Iran seem like a great bunch of people.  Wars of The Empire destroy so many innocent.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:32 | 2763339 ersatzteil
ersatzteil's picture

Hold the conventional weapons assumption; Fallujah is littered in depleted uranium ammo, causing serious birth defects and skyrocketing leukemia rates. Just a continuation of Agent Orange on Vietnamese, nuclear weapons on Japanese, smallpox to Native Americans...

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:22 | 2763174 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture many Catholics/Christians are there?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:58 | 2763389 Vlad Tepid
Vlad Tepid's picture

That didn't stop the US from destroying the Biblically ancient Christian communities of Iraq...

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:02 | 2763283 Michael
Michael's picture

Housing Panic is that you? I miss you.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:00 | 2763122 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

In an anarcho-capitalist world, of course they do.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:12 | 2763131's picture

But the article quotes Murray Rothbard (who defined anarcho-capitalism) as saying that no one has a right to use nuclear weapons. So how did you arrive at your analysis?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:22 | 2763166 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

They can afford to build 'em.

(I made no assertation as to whether they had any right to nuke anyone.  That's a hypothetical.)

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:40 | 2763234's picture

So your analysis is based on doubletalk?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:47 | 2763249 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

When you define the ruleset, you have the answer. 

"law."  "logic."  "math."

"Politics"?  No, that seems to be a self-contradictory ruleset.  "Morals"?  Another one.  "Religion"?  However you can try to make that work....yeah.

There's a *gap* between the human understanding and the human ability to formalize.

Basically, once you think you have the perfect set of instructions, you've agreed that machines can replace people.  THAT CONCEPT has become some kind of weird moral/spiritual question.

Know where you stand.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:36 | 2763267's picture

Dude, Murray Rothbard, founder of anarcho-capitalism didn't believe that the use of weapons of mass destruction is moral in any context because they kill indiscriminately. You were wrong when you said that anarcho-capitalism stands behind the right of either governments or individuals to use such weapons. The man clearly stated his point of view. You can attempt to misrepresent that view but as he spoke clearly and you tend to ramble on about God knows what so I don't see much hope for you or your unsupported position.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:49 | 2763365 Dr Benway
Dr Benway's picture

Except there isn't any real difference in this regard between a machinegun and a bomb - in reality, stray bullets inevitably kill too and the distinction is false.


Most casualties of war, military or civilian, are still caused by smallarms. The invention of the AK47 and similar assaultrifles completely changed the game and are a bigger military leap than any more modern innovations such as drones. Read the excellent "The Gun" by Chivers.


As usual, the ivory tower anarcho-libertarians have no connection to reality, and no actionable insight.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 01:15 | 2763409's picture

The simple fact that small arms can be used to initiate violence has no bearing on the fact that bombs are more indiscriminate than firearms.


As usual, the ivory tower anarcho-libertarians have no connection to reality, and no actionable insight.


If you ever tried to live with others in a voluntary fashion then you'd know just how actionable libertarian ideas can be. People are friendlier and tasks can be achieved more efficiently by individuals who work willingly together than when some people are compelled to act by the threat of violence from others. Can you enlighten us as to what you consider to be the best actionable insight derived from a philosophy which encourage violence against others rather than voluntary interaction?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 01:19 | 2763418 Dr Benway
Dr Benway's picture

I'll tell you exactly that.


The best insight you could have is the realization that a political system that works on an extremely small scale (a rural town of 50 buddies) would not necessarily work on a big scale, indeed is extremely unlikely to do so.


When you say that we should abolish police and courts, and that everyone should be responsible for their own free market "protection", and that this will work fine, you prove to me that you have completely abandoned reality and have actually become partly insane.


Wed, 09/05/2012 - 01:56 | 2763464's picture

When you tell me that in order to be safe we must give an elite class the right to a monopoly on violence then it shows me that you are insane. Can you name anyone in the private sector who has killed more people than government officials like Hitler, Stalin or LBJ? Of course you can't. As government kills vastly more people than those whom they claim to protect us against why is it reasonable to support that system?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 02:02 | 2763484 Dr Benway
Dr Benway's picture

So recognizing the absolute necessity of police and courts means I support Hitler and Stalin?


Sorry dude, but the only people you can convince that we could succesfully abolish police and courts are people already insane. What you are saying is completely removed from all reality.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 03:09 | 2763499's picture

A desire to select security and adjudicative services in a voluntary manner does not mean that one wants to abolish police and courts. When individuals have no control over those who are supposed to be their public servants then they inevitably end up with a Hitler or an LBJ.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 13:04 | 2764894 Matt
Matt's picture

"Can you name anyone in the private sector who has killed more people than government officials like Hitler, Stalin or LBJ? Of course you can't."

Just give them some time. I'm sure Earth-orbit asteroid mining, a space elevator, or fusion reactors will earn the private sector the high score in mass destruction one day.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 16:46 | 2765761's picture

The goal of war is to kill people. If some workers are killed in accidents that is qualitatively different. And with all that new technology won't war become more deadly as well?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:49 | 2763366 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

So anything like an automatic weapon or grenade or flame thower or large-clip gun or bomb of any kind or missile should be outlawed notwithstanding the 2nd amendment because any of those weapons could be used to kill indiscriminately?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 01:21 | 2763422's picture

There's a difference between weapons which can be used in a targeted manner despite the fact that they can be used indiscriminately and weapons which can only be used indiscriminately. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that simple observation? Why do you feel a need to mischaracterize my statements rather than dealing with the actual content of my posts?


Wed, 09/05/2012 - 01:38 | 2763442 i-dog
i-dog's picture

It's unusual for you to make sense, but you have here. Crockett is confused and conflating possession with use. Owning a gun is quite different from using a gun against another person.

A true anarcho-capitalist says anyone can possess any damn thing - including any M.A.D. weapon - as a deterrent and means of self-defence, or just for the hell of it ... but that it is totally immoral to use them to initiate force or violence against another. Aside from that, it would also be insane to use an M.A.D. weapon against another who held one!

So, yes, Iran does have a right to a nuclear bomb ... and the sooner they get one, the sooner their people can sleep peacefully at night (which is why ZATO will never let them have one).

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 02:02 | 2763474's picture

Can you explain how it is possible to make a retaliatory strike with an indiscriminate weapon like a nuclear bomb in a way that does not initiate force against a large number of innocent people? If you can provide a reasonable scenario in which Country A uses a nuclear bomb in a retaliatory strike against Country B which injures only those citizens of Country B who have launched the attack without there being any collateral damage to innocent citizens in Country B or neighboring countries then I'd love to hear it.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 03:34 | 2763566 i-dog
i-dog's picture


"without there being any collateral damage to innocent citizens"

I apologize for apparently confusing you further ... I didn't realise you were that dumb (though I've often suspected you were a moral relativist).

Well ... apart from the fact that you are still conflating possession with use ... If you can first explain how a gun avoids "any collateral damage" (you may prefer to sidestep how a cop firing at one perp succeeds in hitting 10 innocent bystanders in NYC), or how a conventional bomb avoids "any collateral damage" (again, you may prefer to ignore the fire-bombing of Dresden in retalliation for the buzz-bombing of London), or how a fusillade fired over the city walls from bows and arrows avoids "any collateral damage", then I'll address any remaining loose ends here from the perspective of a rational philosophy.

Try to work from first principles when framing your reply....

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 03:36 | 2763574's picture

But a gun can be used in a way that causes no collateral damage. A reasonable shooter endeavors to do just that. Can you provide a scenario in which a nuclear weapon can be used so that it causes no collateral damage?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 03:44 | 2763582 i-dog
i-dog's picture

Yes ... a very small nuclear bomb dropped directly on the Capitol (by a reasonable bombardier) would do the job. Now, can you get back to my questions?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 03:52 | 2763585's picture

Are you suggesting that if someone dropped a nuke on DC there would be no civilian casualties? That's clearly not rational. Are the bus boys at the Capitol legitimate targets in your opinion? How about tourists? How about secretaries? How about maintenance workers? Etc.

What other burning questiona are uppermost in your mind?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 03:52 | 2763587 i-dog
i-dog's picture


"nuke on DC"

I'm sorry ... I don't debate with trolls who continually revert to straw men. Byeee.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 04:59 | 2763589's picture


a very small nuclear bomb dropped directly on the Capitol


So you're claiming that you didn't say that even though everyone can read it two posts up?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:37 | 2763223 tmosley
tmosley's picture

No one has a right to use them, but everyone has a right to own them.

Despite popular opinion, they stop 99.9% of wars against their posessors.  The only exceptions are ultra small scale land grabs a la Faulkland Islands.  In fact, I think that is the only example in history of a military invasion of the territory of a nuclear armed nation by another nation state.

The more people that are protected by a nuclear deterrent, the better.  If only individuals could posess them to protect themselves against the overwhelming power of their OWN nation state and it's oppression apparatus.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:52 | 2763245's picture

Are you suggesting that no one has a right to use nuclear weapons except in retaliation? Even in retaliation nuclear weapons can't be "pinpointed to use only against aggressors," as Rothbard says. Nuclear arms are indiscriminate and at best can only be used by the government of one geographical area against all the inhabitants of an opposing geographical area. One must abandon anarcho-capitalism if one is to suggest that nuclear weapons can be used in such a manner as the scenario demands action by and upon members of one team or another based on geographic location rather than the voluntary interaction of individual with individual.


Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:59 | 2763270 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Name a modern weapon that isn't capable of being used by and upon members of one team or another based on geographic location and not exclusively mano-a-mano.  Or are you not programmed to respond in that area?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:12 | 2763298's picture

That's hardly the point. If a grandma uses a .38 to kill a rapist then she has used force only against the individual who initiated violence against her. If grandma lobs a Molotov cocktail at the neighborhood where the rapist lives then she will have injured those who had absolutely nothing to do with the violence initiated against her.

Do you agree that individuals have a right to defend themselves against those who attack them? Do you also agree that no one has a right to kill those who have not initiated violence against them? If so, then you agree with Rothbard. Welcome to the cult.


Or are you not programmed to respond in that area?


When have I ever failed to respond to your weakly reasoned and wholly unsubstantiated posts? Must be wishful thinking on your part.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:17 | 2763305 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Ironically, your simplistic view was used against all of us by our government in response to 9/11.  We were "attacked" by an enemy that could not be easily identified.  We have the right to defend ourselves.   Therefore, we must commit to endless war against terrorists who attacked us.  Ayn Rand loved the military industrial complex precisely for this reason.  Welcome to the cult.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:20 | 2763312's picture

Right. The elected government which you revere played our team against their team and ended up killing and displacing millions of innocent people. Anarcho-capitaists are opposed to such actions. You oppose anarcho-capitalism and support the state.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:25 | 2763323 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

No, the government which has co-opted the elected government I revere used your simplistic reasoning to convince 90% of the population of the correctness of their [your] view.   I do not support "the state."  I support elected government of the people and by the people.  You support oligarchs.  

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:33 | 2763334's picture

So you think that the anarcho-capitalist's abhorrence of indiscriminate killing was used as an excuse by the government to kill indiscriminately? Can you back that up with any citations which support that assertion? Can you document the use of anarcho-capitalist theory in support of the recent Middle Eastern wars or are you just making things up as usual?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:40 | 2763350's picture

Rand was not an anarcho-capitalist. Would you care to try again?


AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:42 | 2763359 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Do you officially reject Ayn Rand and her ridiculous ideas?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:51 | 2763367's picture

There's a lot that I like about Rand and a few things I don't like. So, to answer your question, no I will not swear allegiance to the anti-Rand cult which you are so fond of promoting.

But back to business. You claimed that the government used anarcho-capitilist philosophy to justify the post 9/11 wars. You were asked for citations and failed to deliver. Where is your documentation?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:55 | 2763379 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

So you don't like one of her primary tenets but she's still a okay because she justifies your culture of selfishness.  

Getting to your other point, your neo-con Rand worshiping government in 2001 said that we must defend ourselves from the murderer terr'ists.  Self-defense etc.  Do you deny same and demand that I give you links?  If so, you are demonstrably a fool.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 02:03 | 2763435's picture


So you don't like one of her primary tenets but she's still a okay because she justifies your culture of selfishness. 


Why do you believe that one should only appreciate the work of those who are correct 100% of the time? Who are these flawless individuals whom you read and enjoy? Don't be selfish, share the names.


Getting to your other point, your neo-con Rand worshiping government in 2001 said that we must defend ourselves from the murderer terr'ists.  Self-defense etc.  Do you deny same and demand that I give you links?  If so, you are demonstrably a fool.

But you said that the government used anarcho-capitalist philosophy to justify the wars. Rand was not an anarcho-capitalist. So you have failed to document your position. How does your inability to substantiate your position make me a fool?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 08:51 | 2764035 tmosley
tmosley's picture

>your neocon government

>anarcho capitalist

>Ayn Rand

You are a very confused little boy.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 01:07 | 2763404 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

There's no "anarcho-capitalist" abhorrence of anything that can be paid for.

You're letting some OTHER level of moral consideration enter the discussion.  Good for you, but don't mistake it for the term you use.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 01:34 | 2763440's picture

You are reacting to what someone else has told you about anarcho-capitalists. Do yourself a favor and read what they've actually said. Then post a critique of anarcho-capitaism based on its actual principles and we can talk intelligently.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 01:52 | 2763462 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I'm "reacting" only to what anarcho-capitalism is in the pure sense.  Government is unnecessary because commercial/contract business negotiation will do a better job at determining what's OK than politicians ever could. 

Just because every anarcho-capitalist of consequence was a Jew doesn't mean that anarcho-capitalism incorporates Judaic principles.

When you're claiming to have an ideal ruleset to replace traditional ordering systems, you can't pretend that you also INCLUDE all the previously understood rules that you're saying are misguided.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 02:49 | 2763488's picture

So you are opposed to allowing individuals to interact freely with other individuals as long as they do not injure other people or property? Why do you believe that peace and freedom constitute a Jewish conspiracy?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 08:55 | 2764050 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Flailing with strawmen.  If you reply to what I write, instead of assumptions you're making about what I think, we might have a chance of understanding each other.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 09:45 | 2764199's picture

Voluntary interaction is the core of anarcho-capitalism. That is not a straw man. If you have a problem with the human right to interact freely in a peaceful manner with others then state your case.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 10:43 | 2764360 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

    Voluntary interaction is the core of anarcho-capitalism.

"Voluntary interaction" is what built our nukes.  There was no one holding a gun to the physicists' heads and forcing them to work equations.

I'm really not getting what your disagreement with me is.  It's almost like you think anarcho-capitalism would prevent people from doing things you don't like.

It wouldn't.  People would still do the stuff they want to do, and some of that stuff would be stuff you wouldn't like.  Just like today.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 16:55 | 2765782's picture


"Voluntary interaction" is what built our nukes.  There was no one holding a gun to the physicists' heads and forcing them to work equations.


And how were the billions in tax dollars collected if it were not from the threat of violence from the state?


I'm really not getting what your disagreement with me is.  It's almost like you think anarcho-capitalism would prevent people from doing things you don't like.


No, it wouldn't. It would take away the state's moral claim to my labor and my life. I would still have to work to preserve my own health, welfare and security but I would not be legally compelled to support those who injure me through theft and threats of violence.


People would still do the stuff they want to do, and some of that stuff would be stuff you wouldn't like.  Just like today.


If things would be just like today in your opinion then why oppose anarcho-capitalism? Seems like a big waste of energy on your part considering the fact that you say everything will be exactly the same as it is now. Why bother?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 19:22 | 2766244 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I don't really oppose it.  I'm just not irrationally smitten with the concept.  There's no utopia.

The only real difference between the world as it is today and the world as it COULD BE if everyone embraced anarcho-capitalism is that the major corporations would no longer have to pretend to care what governments say.  There'd still be plenty of ways for them to "force" people like you and me to support them. 

So instead of paying "taxes" you'd just be compelled to pay "subscription fees," and the rulers of the world would STILL be using the money you claim is yours to do stuff you don't want done.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 23:09 | 2766856's picture

Of course there's no Utopia. That's what I'm trying to tell you. More's Utopia was a centrally planned society and they never work.


The only real difference between the world as it is today and the world as it COULD BE if everyone embraced anarcho-capitalism is that the major corporations would no longer have to pretend to care what governments say.  There'd still be plenty of ways for them to "force" people like you and me to support them.


Give a scenario in which individuals would have given a trillion dollars or more to the bankers if the government had not compelled them to do so.


So instead of paying "taxes" you'd just be compelled to pay "subscription fees," and the rulers of the world would STILL be using the money you claim is yours to do stuff you don't want done.


I don't mind paying for services. I want to pay those who provide quality goods and services. The difference is that if you don't like a service to which you subscribe you can cancel it. If my security company starts roughing up its customers I can just hire a new company. Government doesn't let you do that. In fact the government now claims not only the right to take your money away without filing a charge but they can kill you without filing a charge. No one would pay for such "services" in a free market.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 23:28 | 2766898 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

To be clear: I was referring to "utopia" the noun, not "Utopia" the proper noun.  I guess I need to point that out, you know, so we don't MISUNDERSTAND EACH OTHER.

    Give a scenario in which individuals would have given a trillion dollars or more to the bankers if the government had not compelled them to do so.

They're called "demand deposits."  It's been many trillions, actually.  The importance to society of those demand deposits has a lot to do with why government's been called in to fuck everything up so many times.

      The difference is that if you don't like a service to which you subscribe you can cancel it.

Yeah, but when it's a service you depend on to survive, that opt-out involves death.  It's a similar bargain currently negotiated between the people and the governments. 

You and I both know that no *business* claims the legitimate right to murder you, but if they murder you even in the absence of such a legitimate right, what difference does it make to you the consumer?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 08:48 | 2764026 tmosley
tmosley's picture

An army invades, and gets nuked.  It could have happened during Desert Storm--that was Schwarzkopf's greatest fear.  One nuke hidden in the desert would have wiped out the entire US invasion force, giving Sadaam weeks or months to invade the rest of the Middle East before we could regroup.

You are thinking of the way that the US used nukes, and the way the USSR and US threatened to use nukes during the cold war, as tools of genocide and citizen morale destroyers.

And even if that WERE the only use, so what?  Collateral damage occurs in war, a war started by an aggressive party.  Aggression causes violence.  To have the ultimate defense against aggression can be nothing but good.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 09:55 | 2764215's picture


To have the ultimate defense against aggression can be nothing but good.


So you stand fully behind the state in the development and possible use of nuclear weapons? Only the state has the funds and the desire to create weapons which can destroy the world multiple times. And just how can destruction of our planet be considered an ultimate defense of anything that actually lives on the planet? Can you honestly say that if there ever is a nuclear exchange between nations that you will still insist that nuclear arms are "nothing but good?"

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:50 | 2763370 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture



But the article quotes Murray Rothbard (who defined anarcho-capitalism) as saying that no one has a right to use nuclear weapons.

Nobody gives a fuck what Murray Rothbard thinks.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:55 | 2763383's picture

So it's fair, in your opinion, to claim that the man said the exact opposite of what he actually said? What can be gained by that?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 05:41 | 2763670 NewWorldOrange
NewWorldOrange's picture

Arguing with LTER is pointless. He once read a book, mainly about Ayn Rand, called "Yellow Oligarchs". His entire world view is constructed around that one book. He has admittedly never read a single word Ayn Rand ever wrote. His entire being is now framed by this experience. He hasn't read anything else, studied anything else, knows nothing else, cannot frame an argument in any other way, and has nothing else in his arsenal whatsover. His Kung Fu is incredibly weak. He can only "win" if you let him draw you onto his own, miniscule battlefield of ideas, er idea, where everything under the sun is defined by Rand vs Anti-Rand. He's just like that AnAnonymous fool, who read a book on "Americanism" and who's worldview is now entirely framed within that single, narrow construct. There are legions of "one-source" people like this (in fact, there are a lot of people who read nothing but Ayn Rand, call themselves "Objectivists", whose entire being is framed by that.) I think it's great when people here put themselves and their ideas out there and go at it over ideas -- this is Fight Club after all, and I think almost everyone learns from that. LTER has no interest in learning. He read a book, and he now has all the answers.  Fighting an LTER is like fighting Gandhi. May as well just go shopping. At Ikea.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 05:54 | 2763675's picture

I do enjoy playing with him up to a point but it has become rather dull. LTER and Benway's almost exclusive dependence on ad hominems and straw men has made them somewhat sluggish sparring partners. Such workouts are liable to hurt one's game in the long run.

Reminds me off this:

Hawkeye: I dreamed I was walking along the beach with my mother. There was this giant bleached-out Frank Burns lying on the sand, his white belly shining in the sun.
Frank: Pierce...
Hawkeye: I said "Mommy, can I touch it?" And she said "Be careful, son. The dullness rubs off."

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 07:05 | 2763746 NewWorldOrange
NewWorldOrange's picture

Heh. It was a sad day when "Mash" went off the air.

Ayn Rand had some great stuff. A lot of libertarian-minded people were influenced by her ideas, directly or indirectly. But she viewed the world as all black and white. She frequently said exactly that, and explicitly condemned those who found or looked for the gray. In her view, everything and everyone was either good or evil. The characters in her novels are mostly caricatures, mere walking incarnations of black or white She admitted the same. It had the positive effect of making her "point" clear as day, and she made some great points. Unfortunately for her and those around her, this spilled over into her personal life and it created great misery for her and for them.

LTER views the world in exactly the same manner. Exactly. The only difference is, her black is his white, and vice versa. No doubt LTER rants about Rand with everyone around him, whether at home,work, standing in line at the grocery store...and has driven people away or driven them to think he's batshit crazy. I can just see him on lunch break at work, and a coworker mentions his daughter is taking tap dancing for a role in the high school musical, and LTER injects, "Ayn Rand once said that tap dancing is superior to all other forms of dance. So tap dancing is evil." (Ayn Rand did actually write that all dance forms are inferior to tap dancing.)

LTER, as a result of his obsession with Ayn Rand, learned that many libertarian-minded people were influenced by Rand. He discovered that zh readers tend to be libertarian-minded. So he came here, chose the moniker he did, as a way to sort of lay a spider web to ensnare a few people now and then in order to vent his anger and hatred at those he views as black/evil (that is, at most anyone here, even if they've never heard of Ayn Rand.) It's like if I read a book about Saul Alinsky written by Bill O'Reilly, then spent every moment of my life on Huff Po, accusing anyone who said anything that even hinted of modern liberalism, of being a fascist communist silver pony-tail hell bent on destroying America in order to hand the world over to a globalist socialist Caliphate. LTER is a troll, but not a common troll. A common troll has a much wider arsenal. And knows he's a troll.

There's an old saying, "You become what you hate." LTER is a fine example. In most every way that truly matters, especially with regard to who and what he is and how he interracts with people, he is a mirror image of Ayn Rand.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 08:38 | 2763786's picture

I hesitate to agree with that assessment as it can only confirm the existence of the feared cult of LTER's imagination. But that pretty much sums things up.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:20 | 2763165 ultraticum
ultraticum's picture

In an anarcho-capitalist world would there even be a "they"?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:21 | 2763168 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Yep.  Governments are corporations.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 08:57 | 2764054 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Anarcho capitalist WORLD, no.  Anarcho capitalist REGION, yes.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:01 | 2763124 diogeneslaertius
diogeneslaertius's picture

israel's massive nuclear capacity is instantly offset 0.0001% by some enriched uranium


Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:02 | 2763126 LongSoupLine
LongSoupLine's picture

The U.S. doesn't need Nukes when it has...


Chuck Norris.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:02 | 2763129 diogeneslaertius
diogeneslaertius's picture

"dont confuse me with the facts, do we or do we not get to shoot brown people" Direct Quote from DNC/RNC Atendees

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:24 | 2763179 Overfed
Overfed's picture

Iranians are mostly white.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:00 | 2763275 otto skorzeny
otto skorzeny's picture

actually they are Aryans- no wonder the yids hate them

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:04 | 2763134 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

Iran has just as much right to nukes as Israel and its puppet, the USSA, has.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:30 | 2763203 jtg
jtg's picture

Then in WW2 we shouldn't have stopped the Nazi's from developing nuclear technology? You would have been OK with Hitler having had the nuke?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:48 | 2763251 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Invalid.  Straw man fallacy.  Nobody is talking about Nazis here.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:54 | 2763376 Dr Benway
Dr Benway's picture

Right. And all countries on earth are exactly equally corrupt, and all leaders equally likely to go mad and use such weapons?


You don't really believe that yourself. You are just pretending to. You are a liar.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 00:58 | 2763390's picture

All 16 US intelligence agencies and the Pentagon assert not only that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons but also that Iran is a rational actor. They don't want the next now you see the WMDs now you don't fiasco left at their doorstep yet again.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 01:24 | 2763426 Dr Benway
Dr Benway's picture

So you admit that some countries and leaders shouldn't have nukes? Then you agree with me.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 01:37 | 2763444's picture

I would prefer that there were no nation states and no nuclear weapons for anyone to posses. The insanity of nuclear war is plain to any individual but start talking about our team vs. their team and suddenly having nuclear weapons targeted at every major population center is just fine.

So do I still agree with you?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 02:07 | 2763491 Dr Benway
Dr Benway's picture

Dunno, in typical fashion you seemed to have avoided both the question and any semblance of actionable insight.


Yes, we all wish there were no baddies and nukes. But in a world these things exist, just saying "oh but they shouldn't" is worse than useless.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 02:21 | 2763509's picture


Yes, we all wish there were no baddies and nukes. But in a world these things exist, just saying "oh but they shouldn't" is worse than useless.


Do you believe that South Africa's destruction of their nuclear weapons was a bad thing? Did not this act of disarmament begin with someone suggesting that nuclear weapons should be done away with? Is not this realization on the part of the South Africans an actionable insight for the rest of the world? After all, no one nuked them now that they can't threaten others with mutual destruction.


Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!