participant-3927, 8:13 AM, March 2
This example is against free trade. Can you find a better example, that made something like this legal, but not to advance evil?
participant-4603, 8:14 AM, March 2
It’s in the US Constitution.
participant-3927, 8:17 AM, March 2
From the Wikipedia:
[They] regularly raided shipping of other states, as in the case of the English Sir Francis Drake’s attacks on Spanish shipping. Queen Elizabeth I (despite protestations of innocence) took a share of the prizes.
Such business could be very profitable; during the eight years of the American Revolutionary War, ships from the tiny island of Guernsey carrying letter of marque captured French and American vessels to the value of £900,000 (equivalent to £145,029,851 in 2023).
participant-3927, 8:19 AM, March 2
I am actually against the concept of sanctions to fight a war. A war must be fought with weapons. It’s only reasonable to restrict the sale of arms to your enemy, but not general goods. The reason? The two specific individuals trading are not in conflict. Also, these traders are not going to benefit from either side dying, so they don’t want the war. The war, this way, is more likely to end faster.
participant-3927, 8:22 AM, March 2
Update: fixed the bug on the website in the Related section. Now Telegram archives do not show up there.
participant-4603, 9:16 AM, March 2
Letters of Marque, as I understand them, were once issued by governments as a way of outsourcing some of their dirty work, insofar as legalizing piracy to the detriment of a country’s adversaries. You could even call it a form of hiring mercenaries.
But as to your observations, I do agree. At the same time, I also understand why restricting trade with a belligerent can be considered a security matter. However, it then gets into collective action and collective punishment, which is not such a good thing. If someone wants to sell Big Macs in Moscow and buy oil from Siberia, they should. The trouble with the latter example is that it does strengthen the Russian war machine because of that state’s control over their economy.
But slapping sanctions in this case on Russia is not a neutral position or stance. I’m much more in line with neutrality and free markets. At the same time, I do understand not wanting to support and prolong an aggressor.
participant-3927, 1:43 PM, March 2
Oil in Russia is state controlled, but even in this case I would say that oil is not a weapon. A free country should care that its side doesn’t restrict the freedom of its citizens. So as long as a free person chooses to by oil , does it matter how the selling side produced it?
participant-3927, 1:45 PM, March 2
I am for collective punishment, but by means of attack via weapons: e.g. a nuclear bomb , as was dropped on Hiroshima.
participant-3927, 1:46 PM, March 2
All citizens in the aggressor state (except the little kids), carry political responsibility for the actions of their state, Ayn Rand supported this point.
participant-6456, 1:58 PM, March 2
This tells you just about everything about how much unprovoked invasion it actually was
participant-7471, 2:18 PM, March 2
Collective punishment is cringe
participant-7471, 2:40 PM, March 2
I’m not responsible for the actions perpetrated by the state; collective guilt is antithetical to Ayn Rand’s philosophy, and as Ludwig von Mises stated, “All rational action is, in the first place, individual action. Only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts.”
participant-4603, 2:43 PM, March 2
What then do you make of when the United States restricted the sale of its oil products to the empire of Japan before Pearl Harbor?
participant-4603, 2:47 PM, March 2
Then, this is why I support the establishment of a new, neutral country, similar to Switzerland prior to its entry into the United Nations.
This would serve as a beachhead and refuge for those who do not wish to carry that political liability and risk.
participant-3927, 6:06 PM, March 2
You definitely are responsible. I will find you Ayn Rand’s response on this. The essence of the argument is that you can’t live and ignore the political process , as if it’s not related to you.
participant-3927, 6:09 PM, March 2
US didn’t penalize Japan with that oil restriction in any meaningful way: it’s the nuclear bombs that ended the Nazi Japan.
participant-3927, 6:10 PM, March 2
Yes, if you leave the country, you are no longer responsible for its actions.
participant-7471, 6:12 PM, March 2
Well, I’m pretty sure the De Florio family hasn’t had any feudal power for, oh, just a few hundred years now. I’ve no substantial power over the Italian Republic, therefore I’m not responsible…
participant-7471, 6:15 PM, March 2
Obviously, if you can somehow make me the absolute monarch of some nation, I’m ready to take full personal responsibility for any misdeeds.
participant-7471, 6:24 PM, March 2
The point is that the Casamonica clan (a gypsy criminal organization in Rome) extorts protection money from store owners on Via Tuscolana and then use that money to commit crimes; the store owners are not responsible for those crimes.
participant-7471, 6:28 PM, March 2
I apply the same logic to the State.
participant-3927, 6:29 PM, March 2
First page on “Innocents in War” topic from “Ayn Rand Anwers” book. Get it on Amazon Kindle
participant-3927, 6:29 PM, March 2
I can’t post copy of this very interesting chapter here, for copyright reasons. But I encourage you to buy the kindle book for a few bucks
participant-3927, 6:31 PM, March 2
participant-3927, 6:32 PM, March 2
There is also a YouTube version of the similar (or the same), published by the Ayn Rand Institute.
participant-3927, 6:36 PM, March 2
The Italians are responsible for electing a government that can’t prioritize funding and training an effective police force. They are collectively responsible.
participant-7471, 6:39 PM, March 2
The text contains an incorrect transcription.
participant-4603, 6:40 PM, March 2
No, I understand the U.S. oil embargo on Japan happened before Pearl Harbor, and some speculate (pun intended) it fueled Japan’s attack on Hawaii.
But yes, you’re right; the atomic bomb ended the Second World War and led to the instruments of surrender that Japan signed.
participant-4603, 6:41 PM, March 2
Right, many of us have voted with our feet and our wallets. I happen to be a huge fan of that form of suffrage.
participant-3927, 6:41 PM, March 2
And to a new peaceful Japan. To a new psychology for the Japanese, a more friendly outlook.
participant-7471, 6:42 PM, March 2
Must pay ≠ have to pay
participant-4603, 6:44 PM, March 2
That’s a good point because I don’t think Japan has involved itself in any overseas military enterprises, other than when the United States was backing Seoul during the Korean War. The U.S. military did purchase lots of hardware from Japan, and maybe they did too during Vietnam, but I don’t know offhand.
Officially, not a neutral power, Japan has largely stayed out of conflicts since 1945 and also does not welcome mass immigration.
participant-3927, 6:44 PM, March 2
So it can be argued that sanctions just pour gasoline on the fire, and give the dictator more leverage to convince the public to support him.
participant-7471, 6:45 PM, March 2
Unrealistic.
participant-3927, 6:45 PM, March 2
I obviously think that helping an enemy in war is counter productive. Israel could have won Gaza simply by blocking food and water.
participant-3927, 6:46 PM, March 2
Why is it realistic in USA, Canada, and many other countries ? No one is raiding any stores here.
participant-7471, 6:46 PM, March 2
Form of government, form of state, etc.
participant-3927, 6:47 PM, March 2
There you go: Italians selected their form of gov, and they are paying for it.
participant-3927, 6:48 PM, March 2
The New America, that Anthemism advocates for, will be a place to all who want to leave their broken countries. It will have open borders and no visa requirements to work and live.
participant-7471, 6:49 PM, March 2
In America and Canada, they steal outright because crime is different. I’ll grant you that in rural America, there’s justice.
participant-3927, 6:49 PM, March 2
Let’s not lose sight of the Anthemist project. You already see that the rest of the world is going to shit, and it can’t be redeemed.
participant-7471, 6:50 PM, March 2
(because of the 2A)
participant-4603, 7:12 PM, March 2
Any thoughts on the naturalization process and citizenship?
participant-3927, 8:03 PM, March 2
From my article on open borders:
Citizenship should be restricted to descendants of immigrants who are at least N generations removed from the original settlers. This generational requirement serves a crucial purpose: ensuring the country’s core values remain dominant as the immigrant population gains political representation. While the exact value of N remains to be determined, it must be sufficiently high to account for various factors that could dilute an immigrant family’s integration into the country’s value system. These factors include cross-marriage with citizens of other countries and part-time residency arrangements, both of which can weaken exposure to and understanding of the country’s fundamental principles. The waiting period must be long enough to prevent such arrangements from circumventing its intended purpose.
participant-3927, 8:04 PM, March 2
I think that N must be 5
participant-7471, 8:32 PM, March 2
Btw, it’s not true.
participant-7471, 8:39 PM, March 2
According to set theory and formal logic, the fact that a majority votes for something does not imply that everyone has voted for it.
If we define T as the set of all voters and M ⊆ T as the subset representing the majority who voted for a particular option, then, in general, M ≠ T unless there is unanimity.
In other words:
The majority has chosen the option, but not everyone has.
The claim that “everyone has voted for it” would require the set of all voters to be identical to the majority subset, which is false if there exist voters who made a different choice or abstained.
@participant-3927 your previous reasoning exemplifies the fallacy of composition, which occurs when one mistakenly attributes the properties of a part to the whole.
participant-7471, 8:44 PM, March 2
That being said, even by the amoral standards of ochlocracy, holding the 1946 Italian institutional referendum to dictate the lives of future generations and having a socialist constitution drafted in 1948 by an oligarchy of social democrats was far from ideal.
participant-7471, 8:51 PM, March 2
Since I was busy, I had to end the discussion, but my point about the transcription error concerns the fact that ‘must pay’ implies that the sacrifice is a moral imperative accepted as just. In other words, it means that it is right for the innocent to die.
participant-7471, 8:54 PM, March 2
‘Have to pay’ implies an obligation imposed from the outside—essentially an objective reality, without necessarily implying a value judgment
participant-7471, 8:57 PM, March 2
2:40
participant-3927, 9:02 PM, March 2
OK. I won’t speak for Ayn Rand – you have the audio, and judge yourself. My point is that it’s impossible to tell from the outside who is guilty and who is a dissident – he is in the country, and if a bomb falls on his head (in retaliation), it’s a moral thing in war.
participant-3927, 9:05 PM, March 2
About the Italy example, the general point is that although there’s always a majority and a minority, it’s rare that over a long time the significant minority holds radically different view. In Canada and USA, all sides are in favour of statism. Re: police, all sides are in favour of strong enough police to ensure safety. But in many counttries of the world, apparently including Italy, where stores being raided by local bully is the norm, the priorities of the population are different.
participant-7471, 9:11 PM, March 2
I’m not in agreement. Not all sides. The radical chic left doesn’t support a defense of property with isonomy, unlike the right-wing counterpart (most of the GOP)
participant-7471, 9:12 PM, March 2
We wouldn’t have patriots like Kyle Rittenhouse if what you’re saying were true
participant-7471, 9:15 PM, March 2
The terrorist attacks in Kenosha, carried out by black bloc cells ideologically linked to anarcho-communism, have never been substantially condemned by the Democratic Party nor by the media funded by USAID
participant-7471, 9:24 PM, March 2
Having made this reflection… Here is something that could serve as inspiration for hypothetical countries:
participant-3927, 11:38 PM, March 2
What do you think about Mongolia, getting a piece of it for a new country. A corner of it that’s adjacent to China, Kazakhstan, and Russia
participant-7471, 11:41 PM, March 2
Is there really a terra nullius there, or is it purely speculative?
participant-7471, 11:47 PM, March 2
I’d like to point out the border countries are irredentists
participant-7471, 11:48 PM, March 2
(e.g. China and Russia)
