"Here's how it works: you cannot continually accuse people of avoiding your questions with any credibility is you are simply ignoring the answers. But, knock yourself out. No one is going to convince you, despite the soundness of their position."

No, I don't agree. There's a difference. Really, Scott, you really have a way of avoiding direct and pointed questions that you know will place you in a contradiction. That must be a lawyer trick. Others, thankfully, are answering it on Going Galt.

In further proof that you have a reading comprehension problem, you must have missed this:

"Here's how it works: you cannot continually accuse people of avoiding your questions with any credibility is you are simply ignoring the answers. But, knock yourself out. No one is going to convince you, despite the soundness of their position."

Sharon, how can you say that you do not revere the "Somali Volunteer Navy" after posting favorably about them?

Go read the thread and you will find the answers you claim are not present.

"by means of violence and murder (as employed by your much-revered Somali Voluntary Navy)."

It isn’t “my Somali” anymore than America is your Iraq murdering children and women.

Scott, I’ll answer any question you want—if you’ll answer my question asked on “going Galt”.

The rest of your post is just filler crap. In answering my question, you may consult your Ayn Rand books. I'm going in alone.

"She was wrong about government. When are you going to admit that. Never is my best guess. As for my independent thought, I was an Objectivist peddling small government like an idiot girl. Well, I grew up. How about you?"

Nope. She was right about government and even had the good grace to admit when she didn't have all the particulars figured out.

She did understand that government with a particular kind of written Constitution was a pre-condition to justice and freedom.

You see shackles, everyone else sees necessary preconditions to man's freedom.

The most poignant point was raised recently by Jeffrey (though Aaron is quite correct in noting that you just let hard ideas sail by you): your DRO's offer some, but not all, the benefits of government, offer several significant limitations bourne out of their being competing agencies of force, no objective standards, and will result in the arbitrary infringement of individual liberty--most likely, if history is any example--by means of violence and murder (as employed by your much-revered Somali Voluntary Navy).

I am tempted to go into further details, but what's the point? All of this has been discussed before, and you have gone 'round in circles at least 3 times now, contorting yourself to avoid the questions and issues put to you so that you can stay on script. Here's how it works: you cannot continually accuse people of avoiding your questions with any credibility is you are simply ignoring the answers. But, knock yourself out. No one is going to convince you, despite the soundness of their position.

Nor are you going to convince anyone with your rote recitation of Molyneaux, who has done himself no favors by including you and your discourse style in his camp, nor by failing to admit an error. The man plays awfully loose with facts. It is a hallmark sign of a person who makes up his mind, then seeks to marshal facts to fit his conclusion, rather than analyzing facts and THEN forming a conclusion.

That's very intereting, Kasper. You must speak to a lot of people. Thanks for chirping in, but I still await Aaron's answer.

Everybody that I have spoken to in New Zealand, bar objectivists, are happy to pay tax and have no grudge against it. The grudge that does exist is when taxes go over 30% or so...... Is this not evidence enough that voluntary taxation could work?

I have a good idea as to what you see as the government's function, but let me ask you this: how would that government be funded?

Do you ascribe to what Rand briefly proposed regarding “voluntary contributions” to the government?

"If I thought Molyneaux was honest and he was here, I'd argue with him, but he's not, and you're merely a mouthpiece."

Are you serious? And what would the nature of the debate be? Epistemology or ethics…or? Actually, you can debate with him. I can get a friend to set it up. He has had debates with Objectivists on Youtube, and the hits went through the roof. Now is your chance to shine. Let’s go ahead.

p.s.

At 0:20.00 he talks about his being wrong. ;]

"There are breaches of morality and honest errors, and he came forward with his error, period." He never even admitted it as 'error', tried to retreat to skepticism, you didn't dare speak out about it at all til his new official video anyway, and... well, all that and more I already said and sailed by you. If I thought Molyneaux was honest and he was here, I'd argue with him, but he's not, and you're merely a mouthpiece.

Aaron

I think you are extrapolating the band-width on this issue beyond what it warrants. Molyneaux is an intelligent and good man. There are breaches of morality and honest errors, and he came forward with his error, period. I know the man well.

I am interested in his ideas, yes, just as you are interested in the ideas of Ayn Rand and other thinkers. So what? I am a student of philosophy—of life. Nobody is feeding me back-stage in every interaction here. In fact, I would love it if you would answer the question I have been asking others on the “Going Galt” thread. Shine that towering intellect.

"It's possible if he insists to assume that all the news media reports are lying, and ship captains and crew aren't speaking out to correct this because, I don't know, maybe they are evil, maybe they have all been paid off or had their families threatened by the US government or whatever - that's the kind of tin-foil hat conspiracy theory that it would take to cling to even Molyneaux' new-found skepticism instead of recognizing the *fact* that he was dead wrong."

Check out the alternative media and contrast that to the mainstream and see how wide the gap is. This is not a tin-foil hat approach at all.

I never made a crack about Rand being a cult leader. I don't believe that shit. You misunderstoond me. Hell, even you can make mistakes.

"I've never deified Rand, and will admit and point out those places where she got something wrong."

She was wrong about government. When are you going to admit that. Never is my best guess. As for my independent thought, I was an Objectivist peddling small government like an idiot girl. Well, I grew up. How about you?

Molyneaux doesn't admit propagating a falsehood, he even intentionally avoids referring to it as an 'error', let alone something stronger. He instead tries to throw out the ability to know anything, falling back on epistemological skepticism, a vacuum which would undermine any rational philosophy.

According to him, 'his sources' said twelve miles, but it was brought to his attention that 'others' (reality: essentially every news media in existence) said 'some attacks' (reality: the vast majority of them) were outside this range, so instead of admitting he was wrong - whatever his motives - he instead claims since none of us were there that nobody can really know. While obviously none of us were on the ships, this ignores the evidence that ship captains keep logs, generally know where they are with good accuracy and precision, incredibly good with GPS, and know where they were when attacked or sending out distress signals is recorded. It's possible if he insists to assume that all the news media reports are lying, and ship captains and crew aren't speaking out to correct this because, I don't know, maybe they are evil, maybe they have all been paid off or had their families threatened by the US government or whatever - that's the kind of tin-foil hat conspiracy theory that it would take to cling to even Molyneaux' new-found skepticism instead of recognizing the *fact* that he was dead wrong.

His admission of 'error' doesn't really admit anything, and in addition to not honestly acknowledging he was wrong, he then contradicts a key argument he made in the last video by claiming that the twelve mile limit 'doesn't really matter'. Then for the next nine minutes of the video he goes off on the assumed problems of those who would dare point out that he was peddling bullshit. Oh, the humanity!

Of course, Molyneaux doesn't even consider a 'correction' of any of the other egregiously wrong issues with his 'true' news 32, e.g. nuclear waste dumping ships makes it OK to attack unrelated passenger vessels, or his ability to somehow simultaneously holding the beliefs:
- Coast guards are evil
- Somali pirates are really coast guards
- Somali pirates are good

And, Sharon, regardless the content of Molyneaux' half-assed, dishonest, skeptical 'correction', it's pathetic that you apparently have no capability of independent thought and have to wait for his new video to even make a comment. Rather than consider the evidence of attack locations, contradictions in his arguments, etc. yourself - to admit they were wrong or even to wrongly defend them for yourself - all you do is be silent on the issues til you can parrot whatever Stefan says.

You made a snide comment recently about Ayn Rand as a cult leader, and the irony is delicious. I've never deified Rand, and will admit and point out those places where she got something wrong. You might as well hope that Molyneaux is building a compound to be your new home.

Aaron

Hey Sharon, Molyneux has spoken and only now you are willing to accept all the evidence put forth much earlier here?

Not that Molyneux actually goes so far as to concede he made a pig's ear of the 12-mile limit issue, "...can't really call it an error..." he says. And, having based his argument on the pirates only acting within the waters of Somalia, he now claims that if they did not, "...it is not central to the issue." WTF?

BTW, what is the 'Somali Volunteer Coast Guard,' doing with all this nuclear waste that they have been capturing?

An honest error.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

"I must have missed your opponents conceding, Sharon."

Don't need it.

"A dash of rhetoric, some clumsy evasions and a couple of videos, including one by the grossly dishonest Molyneux, doesn't make much of an argument. It certainly doesn't show that you have proved Bush to be a murderer. Or anything close to it."

Heh, sez you. I stand by my arguements in that thread. They are on record. Of course Bush is a killer. It was in the papers that he ordered the killings. What rock are you under?

So why, then, did the piracy in Somalia start immediately after the civil war in Somalia? Why do the pirates demand ransoms instead of simply forcing vessels to leave their waters (which would be in their power, if they have the strength to board & commandeer vessels)?

'I don’t want to get as involved in this as the “George Bush is a murderer” thread—a topic that my opponents lost the debate over.'

I must have missed your opponents conceding, Sharon.

A dash of rhetoric, some clumsy evasions and a couple of videos, including one by the grossly dishonest Molyneux, doesn't make much of an argument. It certainly doesn't show that you have proved Bush to be a murderer. Or anything close to it.

delete

Scott, I couldn’t give a flying crap what your estimation of my intellect is. Saying things like that, for me, means that you simply disagree with me. If one makes factual errors, (as we all do) inferences of one’s intellectual acumen is not to be drawn from it.

As for the other matter, I am well aware of the Objectivist position in regards to politics; that government is to be limited, as you say, to its “proper functions” or, if you wish, that you are an advocate of “small government.”

Yes, let’s get this straight: I don’t care if you are an advocate of a teeny tiny government! Objectivists, by the very nature of their avocation of a centralized power, are statists. Why? Point out to me any example in history where a government hadn’t been established and maintained by force? And do tell me how that government is to be maintained without taxes? (You do understand, of course, that taxes are theft, right? We agree on that much, don’t we?)

You see, no matter how tiny you wish to make the government, so long as it is a centralized force, it must tax the citizenry for it to function and, in doing so, it violates the none-aggression principle. Do you see the contradiction more clearly now?

edit: The logic is clear, the contradiction is there. However, if you have a solution, and wish to maintain the government, how do you do that without violating the none-aggression principle?

Sharon-
"Any country that has a navy guards their 12 mile coastal area from those that would pilfer fish from their waters. (Every high jacking occurred within the Somali 12 mile limit)."

That's a blatant lie, as I previously pointed out, and you now have no longer have the excuse of ignorance when you propagate it.

Aaron

As much as you try to cast me in the role of government apologist --any government--anyone who actually reads what I write understands that I am not.

I am an opponent of large government and government exceeding its Constitutional mandate.

You know that, because it is plain in my contributions.

Do you want to retract your statement, or would you rather risk the only logical conclusion folks can draw about you if you fail to do so?

As to the Somali Volunteer Coast Guard.

Ha ha ha hah aaa---really? REALLY? You believe that!

Heh heh ha. Wow.

Okay, that is all.

"If you mean capturing and killing the people behind piracy...yes, obviously that should be our policy. And besides, our special ops community still owes the jihadis in Somalia some payback due to the limp-wristed foreign policies of Clinton."

And Ron Paul would support it.

I am beginning to think Scott's estimation of your intellect is correct. Perigo has his hobbyhorse, and you have yours, and damned be facts if facts get in the way.

Every high jacking occurred within the Somali 12 mile limit

I guess you didn't notice that the Alabama Maersk was in international waters off Kenya, and that shipping now tries to avoid going anywhere near Somalia, and that pirate activities are taking place over a broad swath of the Indian Ocean. (Also: the word is hijacking. "High jacking" implies a certain sexual activity that takes place either 1) while using chemical mood inducers or 2)while aboard an aircraft in flight.)

And taking hostages and ships for ransom, and killing the odd captive, like the so called Somali Volunteer Coast Guard is doing, is nothing like the US Coat Guard/Revenue Cutter Service; and nothing that any honest fisherman would resort to.

The facts: the "pirates" are fishermen. They live in villages along the coast of Somalia and their livelihood is in jeopardy. Other countries have been discarding their nuclear waste off the coast of Somalia for many years leaving the waters a toxic mess. The coast of Somalia is overwhelmed with waste and garbage from cargo ships and others who dump their trash waste off the coast of Somalia—and dumping is not allowed in the Gulf area.

Any country that has a navy guards their 12 mile coastal area from those that would pilfer fish from their waters. (Every high jacking occurred within the Somali 12 mile limit).

The "pirates" have formed the Somali Volunteer Coast Guard. Yes, they demand ransoms for the damages caused by the great powers and their shipping companies, and perhaps improperly. But to kill them? And yes, they use the money for guns, but also for boats, cleanup and food. They are not interested in combating for or against a Somali central government or any other political cause ---they simply want the same rights as any other country. They just want to live and feed their families. This sounds like you and me, doesn’t it? Pirates, my ass.

Oh yeah, here is a remarkable tidbit from Wiki: the US Coast Guard was originally named the Revenue Cutter Service and used to ensure tariffs were collected (a major source of treasury revenue at the time).

Hi Jeffery. I think your post is the only one worth responding to. I don’t want to get as involved in this as the “George Bush is a murderer” thread—a topic that my opponents lost the debate over. My partaking in it became a burlesque show. Even now, on the “Going Galt” thread, Scott is going ape shit with insults and has no specific critique. But I am sympathetic to his penchant for being an apologist for the government; he is a product of public school like any of us.

"But in none of this is there an excuse or justification for piracy. If a parent steals bread because he/she has no money to buy it and has children to feed, one might be sympathetic--one might try to help the family--but stealing the bread remains an act of theft."

Yes, I agree. It remains theft.

If Person A dumps toxic waste in my backyard, am I then allowed to make good the damages by robbing Person B, who has no relationship with Person A?

I didn't watch the video, but I've seen an article by Johann Hari that presents similar claims (but doesn't pretend that the pirates are limiting themselves to Somalian waters).

What the claim boils down to is that Somali fisherman can no longer make a living because of illegal dumping and fishing. The proper response to clamp down on the illegal dumping and fishing by the international community, since the Somali government--if one can say there is such a thing as the Somali government--can't. And perhaps private organizations can start programs to teach the Somali fisherman other trades, so they can find a livelihood by other means.

But in none of this is there an excuse or justification for piracy. If a parent steals bread because he/she has no money to buy it and has children to feed, one might be sympathetic--one might try to help the family--but stealing the bread remains an act of theft.

Sharon-
I actually watched all nine minutes of that video, and want that part of my life back.

Europeans are supposed to be dumping nuclear waste near Somali shores: I didn't fact check this, and have my suspicions given the inattention to truth in the rest of the video. But assuming it's true, I'd support 'pirates' or 'volunteer navies' or whatever your preferred terminology having the right going after, capturing or sinking those ships doing such dumping. But it's a ridiculous, overgeneralized, downright collectivist notion that you'd try to use that to rationalize capture and ransom of random dry goods shipping, passenger vessels, etc. which is what's actually happening in reality.

'But Coast guards can be considered pirates too!": And what of it? Just a kid trying to justify stealing by pointing out that another kid is a thief too.

The idea that the Somali 'volunteer coast guard' is just capturing ships within twelve miles: This I fact checked, and it's utter bullshit. Almost all ships captured by Somali pirates have significantly to the north, near the coast of Yemen, or hundreds of miles out to sea.

Aaron

Sharon did you do any research on this subject at all, or is it just that you blindly follow whatever Molyneaux says?

Molyneux: "Every single hijacking has occurred within this [Somalia's] 12-mile limit." The pirates are, he claims, justified in attacking ships within this area to protect their terroritorial waters from the dumping of nuclear waste and illegal fishing. Fair enough.

Except that doesn't explain the actions of these Somali pirates. 'On Saturday, a German freighter was hijacked about 400 miles offshore, between Kenya and the Seychelles,' and 'On Monday, pirates hijacked a British cargo ship hundreds of miles out at sea, off Kenya’s coast.' New York Times, April 2009.
Nor does it explain the hijacking of the 'Playa de Bakio', a fishing vessel to be sure, but attacked 217 nautical miles off the coast of Somalia.

Or how about the 'Seabourn Spirit', what was it doing when hijacked; dumping nuclear waste or pillaging Somalia's fishing stocks? Probably neither actually; it's a luxury cruiser. Although that didn't stop the pirates from firing rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns at crew and boat.

And the list goes on; tugboats, yachts, more luxury cruisers and ships carry nothing more than wheat, palm oil, cement, fishing equipment and iron ore. Care to justify any of that, Sharon?

As for the hijacked 'Rozen' which was carrying UN Food aid: Molyneux believes the pirates actions to be justified because the food was paid for by money stolen from foreign taxpayers! Putting aside the lunacy of that argument, they killed two Somali coastguards during the hijacking. How's that for blood thirsty, Sharon?

Finally Molyneux wonders why the U.S. navy manages to get to the scene of many hijackings so quickly. Well, I don't know: maybe because the government of Somalia invited them, along with a whole host of other countries, to patrol within their waters?

"Irradiated, half-starved fishermen threaten international shipping!"

This should be of interest.

Somali Pirates?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Ah, Bloodthirsty Objectivists taken in by another Government Big Lie.

"'Do nothing' to Somalia or 'invading' is again offering a false dichotomy. I'd support destroying pirate vessels, raiding or destroying pirate ports such as where captured ships or taken (shouldn't be hard to find - just follow the ships, even via satellite) - but invading all Somalia? Hell no, that's insane and self-sacrificial."

Well said, Aaron.

Precision should be a hallmark of an objectivist, and hitting the pirate bases hard and fast is the proper response, not nation building.

The analogy is if the police executed a search warrant on a gang headquarters, arrested the suspects and confiscated the ill-gotten gains... but then occupied the house and land and offered welfare to any new tenants.

Of course I also support immediately eliminating the misguided, destructive US and international restrictions against merchant and passenger vessels carrying arms to defend themselves - without which this whole embarrassing Somalia piracy situation likely could never have gotten anywhere near what it has to begin with.

Ah, ya beat me to the punch! Hire five Blackwater-types on each of your merchants vessels and the problem, for the US, would eventually go away.

Or...we could occupy another country...so that's four so far. Anymore on the list, Jeff? I shouldn't ask!

'Do nothing' to Somalia or 'invading' is again offering a false dichotomy. I'd support destroying pirate vessels, raiding or destroying pirate ports such as where captured ships or taken (shouldn't be hard to find - just follow the ships, even via satellite) - but invading all Somalia? Hell no, that's insane and self-sacrificial.

Of course I also support immediately eliminating the misguided, destructive US and international restrictions against merchant and passenger vessels carrying arms to defend themselves - without which this whole embarrassing Somalia piracy situation likely could never have gotten anywhere near what it has to begin with.

Aaron

Duncan, et al,
Do you think the U.S. should have a policy of picking off pirate ships (and pirates) one at a time, as these incidents arise; would it be unacceptable for it to, say, cut off the source by invading Somalia?

It's unacceptable if by invading you mean our soldiers standing on street corners being told to teach Muslims how great democracy is.

If you mean capturing and killing the people behind piracy...yes, obviously that should be our policy. And besides, our special ops community still owes the jihadis in Somalia some payback due to the limp-wristed foreign policies of Clinton.

...Paul might be an isolationist, but he's a consistent champion of the free market and minarchism. Babies shouldn't be thrown out with their bathwater.

...about brevity

Tribalism is not anarchy. Lack of a central government does not mean that anarchy exists. It merely means that power is extremely localized, and usually overtly connected to the use of violence.

Tribalism, such as is practiced in Somalia, is a form of collectivism. That's why the US was dealing with tribal elders instead of just dealing directly with the pirates themselves.

Your advice about a drink, however, is excellent advice

Duncan, et al,
Do you think the U.S. should have a policy of picking off pirate ships (and pirates) one at a time, as these incidents arise; would it be unacceptable for it to, say, cut off the source by invading Somalia?

Why invade when you could offer them counselling, kumbaya and Ron Paul?

Duncan, et al,

Do you think the U.S. should have a policy of picking off pirate ships (and pirates) one at a time, as these incidents arise; would it be unacceptable for it to, say, cut off the source by invading Somalia?

...have a drink, relax.

"Not so much between objective law and anarchy, as between a system that is willing to defend individual rights and individual property and a tribalism based on predatory practices."

That's exactly what I said. Brevity is a virtue.

There seem to be two versions going about--an official one in which Navy snipers took out the bad guys and thus rescued the captain, and an unofficial one (or at least, the early reports) in which the captain was able to escape a second time, and this time the Navy was prepared.

Nice little contrast between the proper functioning of objective law and anarchy.

Not so much between objective law and anarchy, as between a system that is willing to defend individual rights and individual property and a tribalism based on predatory practices.

Captain rescued, and scratch three bad guys.

Nice little contrast between the proper functioning of objective law and anarchy.