I support war and terrorism, not political diplomacy against the North Korean government

John, John Bolton, is that you?

 

Iraq wasn't "much worse" than North Korea, but do describe it for me. Maybe his removal was justified. The thing about North Korea I despise is its completely closed off from the rest of the world and its citizens aren't allowed to flee. If they do try to flee their family is put into labor camps.

 

You mean this guy?

Trump calls Kim Jong Un 'very honorable'

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/384600-trump-calls-kim-jong-un-very-honorable

 

Going to war with NK unprovked is going to war with China.

 

Yes. If I were to threaten someone with violence unless he payed me a tax, that would be violence.

 

Well, they don't beat you up like the mob for not paying your gambling debts. They could take your stuff and possibly arrest you though.

 

I still have no right to tell someone they have to pay me a tax and then just come and take their stuff by force. Armed robbery is still a violent crime, even if the robber doesn't actually shoot. And if during the course of my armed robbery, my intended victim were to fight back and kill me, he would be perfectly within his rights, given my behavior.

 

This is why I said, in actuality you really don't actually own anything. The truth is that the government has the final say in who gets to keep what. I do agree with this concept, because without it, I have difficulty imagining us being able to pay for the investments we need like education and infrastructure.

 

I also have no right to have the final say on who gets to keep what. I own what I own, and that's it. Nothing more.

 

The nazi analogy is so weak, that it fails, and falls on its face.

Another arm chair general who has never served in combat, obviously.

 

You don't truly own anything material. Your say doesn't matter in the eyes of the government. They can't take your pride away from you though.

 

It's not weak at all. Their camps aren't that different from Nazi camps. The only difference is they're not invading other countries. They're keeping their camps within.

 

So, you're saying that some other person, not me, has the right to say what I do and don't own, but don't have the right to say what he does and doesn't own. That sounds like a non-universalizable ethical stance, so therefore invalid.

 

I'm saying that everything is negotiated by society. Society controls the flow of goods and who gets to keep what. Property rights, just like all rights, are a made up concept by the human mind.

 

I support leaving tyrannical governments alone so long as they aren't actively invading others.

A nation could be boiling ethnic minorities alive in vats of acid and it wouldn't impact my opinion on invasion at all.

 

Society is the name we give to a group of individuals. As such, society is not a rational agent. It cannot negotiate. Only individuals can negotiate.

Again, society has no agency, so it cannot act. It can't control who gets to keep what. Only individuals can do so.

So that returns to the question of why do some individuals have such a right while you and I don't.

Exactly, they are rules invented to reduce constant conflict over scarce resources.

 

It's the politicians who write the laws as to who gets to keep what and how things are enforced. Politicians are elected by individuals to represent them. If you don't like the ones writing the laws you could always run yourself and become one of many elected officials who have a say in the laws.

 

An ethical law is not consistent if certain individuals (politicians) are not held to the same standards as others. I can't condone deciding who get to keep what. I have no right to do that.

 

But you believe you have the right to own tangible things? What gives you the right to hoard resources? Keep in mind, that most of this country's land has already been stolen from others. I can't say for sure, but most likely where you sleep at night as well.

 

Who would have a better claim to what you currently own than you?

 

Or you could see NK becoming more like china, based on their model since china is still communist. But with NK providing cheap labor for industry as well. And their people would work cheaper than the chinese, given how poverty stricken so many have been.

Need to be an optimist rather than a pessimist. Who would have ever thought china would have joined the world and became the largest manufacturing economy using some capitalistic principles and free enterprise? Who knows? NK may even have a store of rare earth minerals? Which the world needs.

The future of NK is not set in stone. Kim may actually liberalize NK, given where he was educated, in the West, in those highly rated private schools for the rich and powerful. Unlike those that came before him. Or he may be a ruthless, nefarious dictator that the world cannot afford going forward. So for the sake of peace, I would rather not embrace your attitude and beliefs about NK. And it would have to be the very last resort, but only if he attacked us or his neighbors.

 

Whoever founded the land on which I live and get my products from I guess. When you look at products it's a very complex situation. One has to not only look at where the product is being made, but also where those materials come from. I think this idea that we earn money and pay for products that somebody creates is rather a simplistic point of view. A lot had to be sacrificed by others to get those products to you.

 

Founded? I'm not sure what you mean. So this person would have a better claim to your land than you because, why?

 

Always has, always will, every state's guns are always ready to enforce taxes. Pick a better country and motate to it, if you can find one.

In HS civics they taught us that taxes are a necessary evil. Inherently evil, but necessary.

The bulk of the arguments have always been about how much taxes are just the right amount.

Lesser is always better -- but there has to be some taxes.

 

They had it and took what you might consider "ownership" first. After that it's either sold, given, or stolen by somebody else. It was usually the latter back in the day.