Chapter 5 of road to serfdom opens with an interesting implicit question.

The distinction between a “classically liberal democracy” (a democracy which holds the individual supreme) and all other types of government is the ability to allow “autonomous spheres” to exist.  This seems to be precisely the intuition evident in the writings by the founding fathers of the United States (Madison specifically).  Making government as inefficient as possible will ensure that market conclusions are able to co-exist within a nation.  (I don’t begin to touch the implications in a world with competing forms of government.  It is interesting that I have to make this distinction however.) 

What Hayek (trained like Madison with a classical education, including natural rights) seems to touch on is important to the protections we want to have in place for our society.  If there is something legitimately irreplaceable about the free market for ideas, then we have to have a structure which can withstand those ideas which might otherwise “rock the boat.”  In a world that fears for terrorism, these freedoms seem to be ratcheted back.  I don’t know how to solve the paradox of liberty, which those most determined to hurt others and tear apart a free society, will be able to do so more freely.  It is clear that we would like to maintain an environment for innovation and new ideas, but at what cost?  I am not sure that there is a way to have these two can co-exist.  My theory (in true “off the cuff” fashion) is that there are some unique benefits to self-sustaining nodes of radical subversives.  I guess what I would like to see is a better way to determine the harmful ones from the benign ones.  I mean, isn’t college supposed to be full of radical subversives (ideally both on the left and right).  What do we see during great episodes in history?  The people responsible for the enlightenment ran the risk of being exiled from their professions by writing on certain topics.  These people were not supported openly, but they were able to make a huge contribution.  Maybe these subversives wouldn’t have made such a contribution if there was no fear of being caught.  So I could accept the idea that there needs to be an over arching code for behavior, those that violate it would be subject to the same failure which has always plagued those ahead of their time.  On the other hand, what if new forays into our civil liberties decrease the “sphere” in which innovative thinkers reside?  This seems that it would have a huge impact on the amount of innovation which takes place. 

Like I have begun to think of all things lately, it is a trade-off.  I think that maybe there is an optimum level of terrorist activity.  There have certainly been many papers and projects which show that terrorism behaves like a market.  If this is so, then we have to have a full and open discussion about what the choices are.  Freedom is good, but how good is it?  Before we sacrifice freedom we need to know what we are getting in return.  Historically the sacrifice of freedom was though to be temporary, but it was never to return.  I become then very jealous of any freedoms that I have.  I run the risk of sounding like a baby.  Hell, I run the risk of sounding like a subversive.  I believe so strongly in values which I want everyone to have, I just consider individual liberty one of them, therefore, I assume that people are smart enough to make up their own minds. 

I tend to think you are really onto something there. No doubt, there is truth in the fact that; it truly takes a brave/determined soul to overcome the established way of things. Surely there is, for the man whose freedoms are none, more reason and desire to fight for his freedom. Is it not true that the man who has no freedom would cherishes any freedom, even if only a little, because he knows what it is like to be without? It is as though, the stronger the opposition to what one believes, the stronger one believes in what one loves (i.e. freedom, ones country, or the truth). I think we see this in the 9/11 attack. Prior to 9/11 there were very many isolated terrorist attacks. However, it is not until the opposition becomes stronger, strong enough for people to feel its sting, that one begins to see people stand taller. In that sense, it could be that those “subversives” you spoke of, “wouldn’t have made such a contribution if there was no fear of being caught.”

At the same time, I can’t help but wonder, must it be that increasing the protection of ones nation is tantamount to a decrease in its freedoms? I tend to think, in this lies the value of taking an offensive role. If you remove the enemy, there is no enemy to fear and so no reason to defend ones self. Is this not so? There is no reason to eliminate any freedoms for the sole reason of defending ones self if there is nothing to defend against. Fear is often the cause of many things, the elimination of freedom being the most popular. (I just remembered my favorite scene in Star Wars Episode III. Senator Amidala watches in wonder as the whole senate applauds the consolidation of power in the hands of Senator Palpatine. Meanwhile she exclaims, “so this is how freedom dies; to the sound of applause.”). Just a thought.

I tend not to think of it as "us" vs. "Them." I am not quite a "rational criminal" theorist, but I see the merit in these thoughts. I feel like eliminating whole populations at a time is a terrible mal-investment. Purely from a cost/benefit standpoint, we increase all the factors that contribute to global terrorism, and make the U.S. a much bigger target for places formally content to hate the idea of us, now they have distinct images to hate. It is one thing to be a political subversive in a foriegn country, it is quite another to be a hardened insurgent veteran who has lost everyone they love.
Sacrificing any individual control is heading in the wrong direction.
The Winthrop "city on a hill" I think is much more effective if we make an EXAMPLE here. I don't think we should export our culture, just lead our lives the best way we can. Most people who disagree with me think that I am nieve when I assume that our foriegn war doesn't make us safer at home. It just doesn't make sense to me. We are spending money we don't have to fight a war. This cripples our future perogative. At what ends? Do we think that we can forever keep violent people from comming to the US? These are highly sophisticated people. They are willing to do what it takes to subvert the laws regardles of what they are. Raising the price of small terrorist acts decreases the relative cost of huge terrorist acts. So the criminals get around the laws, but the innocent get screwed by them. Central control is an illusion because criminals learn the loopholes faster than the authorities can coordinate. This is why prohibition didn't work, this is why no fundamnetal subversion of liberty can persist in a stable state. Liberty is a frail flower, but with enough blossomes out there some spots will still persist. A state designed with independant actors and broad "constitutional" rules and minimal other law will survive precisely because the individual actors will learn the general rules and seek profit by them. These are the promises of liberty, that system which must be preserved even if it means that our lives and our monumnets are forfeit in the process.

I believe that “eliminating whole populations at a time is a terrible mal-investment” as well. But I never said the elimination of whole populations was the answer to the preservation of freedom. In fact, there has never been a need to eliminate whole populations to succeed in making a point. The point being, “don’t tread on me.” In this “terrorism market,” incentives take a central role. However, here is where the line splits. One group argues that fighting back only “increases all the factors that contribute to global terrorism, and make the U.S. a much bigger target for places formally content to hate the idea of us.” This is the idea; do not aggravate/rile the bees nest, or do not stoke the fire. On the other hand, another group argues that fighting back only decreases the incentives terrorists have to behave so maliciously. In fact, it creates incentives not to behave maliciously. In other words, if you fight me, I will fight back. Thus reducing the cost of small terrorist attacks as well as large ones (for imagine the consequences that might accompany a large attack if terrorists know that a small one will produce negative consequences).
At the same time, is it really “one thing to be a political subversive in a foreign country” and “quite another to be a hardened insurgent veteran who has lost everyone they love?” What do we care what their incentives are, as long as their objectives are the same? One would find a varied list of personal incentives characterizing those “political subversives” of the past. But whatever their incentives, they saw their objectives through to the end. They got the job done. I’m not justifying anyone here. I’m just saying even a good decision, done for the wrong reasons, is a good decision. Equivalently, a bad decision done for the right reasons is still a bad decision. I’m not saying the end justifies the means. I’m just saying if the “political subversive’s” and the “hardened insurgent’s” behavior is paralleled (nearly exactly the same), both having accomplished the same objective, why should we care what their incentives were?
Though I do disagree with you, I don’t think you are being naïve. I understand why you are opposed to the war. It is true that “we are spending money we don’t have to fight a war.” I understand the feeling of not wanting to rile the bees nest. Just leave them well enough alone and they may not bother us as much. Right? Fair enough.
But I think it works both ways. I find it unimaginably difficult to slight what happened on 9/11. Why couldn’t the terrorists have left well enough alone? Why did they intentionally stoke the flames? If a huge and fearfully destructive reaction is what you expect from other countries when we attack them, then why shouldn’t that apply to the United States as well? Is it that we are simply not allowed to get riled up, when we are attacked? But naturally if we stokes the flames of hatred in other countries, all hell will break loose on us. And somehow, we get what we asked for. Huh?
Regarding “spending money we don’t have to fight a war;” I think it breaks down into Long Run and Short Run thinking.
Usually, war is never good for the economy in the short run. Whether it be the nominal costs associated with war or the cost measured in the loss of human lives. War is never a pretty picture. However, I believe it is not for the short run that war is ever initiated. Rather, it is for the long run. If it were only a matter of what we do in the short run, it would most likely produce the response lets “just lead our lives the best way we can” now. After all, why not just live without worry, without care, and indifference as long as nothing directly affects me in the short run. After all, 9/11 had nothing to do with my life in the short run. I wasn’t physically injured, I didn’t lose money, my house didn’t cave in, and my all around daily life wasn’t turned upside down because of it. But again, no one goes to war for the short run.
It is easy to see the short run effects. In the short run we can associate the war with a nominal cost of $75 billion or more, as well as many priceless lives lost in battle. Wow! Those are some high costs. One would thing that it would make war seem like it should never be undertaken. But again, those who do initiate war do if for the long run. Some benefits in the long run are obviously being considered worth more than the costs in the short run. Now you might say, what benefits? What benefits could possibly be worth such short run costs?
I believe that in our case the war is a good thing for the economy. Why? Because it is the long run that is my main concern right now. Not that you don’t have concerns for the long run as well (you seem to be thinking of the long run effects as well). Here’s my take on it.
The idea that the government could have spent its money on things that are more useful such as better roads, better schools, cleaner air, (or not spent the money at all) may be valid. But at what cost? To be frank, there is no better investment or use of government spending than on things that will be used to secure the safety and ongoing freedom of the American people (as individuals), and in this case the Iraqi people as well. I am Lockeian in the sense that I believe it is the role of the government to protect the rights of the people. Remember what happened after 9/11? People stopped spending as much. People were worried and they did not want to spend because things were on edge and people did not know what would happen next. Not to say things went horribly wrong after 9/11, because they didn’t. But say we did forget about the future and only thought about now, such as thinking only of education and better roads, then perhaps government spending will be put to good use, and the economy will reap the good results of such G spending fairly quickly. Right? But to ignore the threat that Iraq (as a terrorist threat) poses on the U.S. now, will no doubt affect the future of the U.S. and its economy.
What if another 9/11 was to happen (Iraq has been linked to Al-Qaeda)? Picture a war that will start. This time on our soil. I have no doubt that if war was to occur on U.S. soil, the economy will be much worse off than if fought now, on terrorist ground (I'm sure you know that is true). And that is just my point. It is to prevent another 9/11 or future war on our soil that Government spending on bombs, fuel, MRE's, ammunition, combat pay for troops was intended. This war can bee seen as having an opportunity cost of $75 billion or more now. But the way I see it is that the opportunity cost of not going to war in the short run is much larger in the long run! It will be later paid in the lives of more innocent Americans, such as those on 9/11, the destruction of more buildings, landmarks, places that are vital to our economy, and so on. The opportunity cost of now ($75bill or more) is only a small fraction of what would be the cost in the future. Better "$75Billion" now than my freedom and the lives of many others in the future (not to mention a worse off economy). Besides the fact that you can't put a price on freedom and lives!
I see myself as fighting for my freedom, because of this simple fact; I can’t enjoy any freedoms if I am dead. Of course, others have told me that this is exactly why they are against the war in the first place. It is again the earlier group that believes that stoking the fire, or aggravating the bees nest, will only lead to less safety and more deaths. All I can say to that is, what has history so far shown. Since the war in Iraq, we have not had a single incident, involving terrorism, on U.S. soil that has lead to the death of American citizens. Again, some might think the loss of money is too high a cost. I however, value human life above anything, as well as my personal freedoms. Moreover, I don’t think the loss of either the lives of many Americans in the future including their and my freedom is a good tradeoff for no war now. What can I say, I am biased. I love my country and the American way of life. So $75 billion or whatever trillion is a cost I gladly pay. Of course I believe in the individual freedom and liberty of every individual (just as you do). But what good is any freedom if not alive to enjoy them. It is sad that freedom is not free. It must be bought at a price.

At the same time, is it really “one thing to be a political subversive in a foreign country” and “quite another to be a hardened insurgent veteran who has lost everyone they love?” What do we care what their incentives are, as long as their objectives are the same? One would find a varied list of personal incentives characterizing those “political subversives” of the past. But whatever their incentives, they saw their objectives through to the end. They got the job done. I’m not justifying anyone here. I’m just saying even a good decision, done for the wrong reasons, is a good decision. Equivalently, a bad decision done for the right reasons is still a bad decision. I’m not saying the end justifies the means. I’m just saying if the “political subversive’s”

no problem, I can however consolidate all these posts into one, next time paste the additional text into an email and I will post the rest for you...

my retort would just be an assertion of beliefs.
1) it is always better to trade with your enemy, in this way war is not necessary (unless some internationally agreed on constitutional rules have been prearranged before the crime took place and the the actor concedeing to this authority still breaks the rules, then in this case war is plausible to reestablish the rule of law. But all this after trading has been exhausted, and not carte blance when dealing with rouge puppet governments).
2) I believe principle is more important than ends. So I would disagree that the result is justified.
3) my mom is fond of saying "the terrorist's won" whenever something comes up -- like having to take your shoes off at the airport. (on a more serious note, getting comfortable with fascism in any context is dangerous)

1)Curious... Does this mean you would support an internationally agreed upon set of constitutional rules? I see this as a move toward consolidation of power(which I oppose).

2)I also believe that "principle is more important than ends." But on that note, as much as I believe that trade with our enemy may justifiably end in positive economic effects on our nation (as well as possibly reducing war as you say), my principles simply cannot allow for the support of those who torture, rape, and kill innocent people for their own gain. As we now know (according to the Duelfer report) any support that went into Iraq, came right back out to certain nations in under the table political deals anyway (and also into the pockets terrorists).

I guess this is why I try to limit myself to case by case scenarios. Just as I support the common law idea of judicial action, I support foreign policy that acts according to each case. Any all-encompassing set of rules or laws that must be applied to every situation is a recipe for disaster.

3) In that sense your mom is absolutely right. But I suppose it is too late for wishing things had happened differently. If only we had acted sooner, and taken more seriously the threat present before 9/11. Perhaps then, we would have had no need to tighten security in our own nation. Oh well…. So much for what ifs and if onlys.

I don't think it is too late, in fact the patriot act is being voted on right now... call your congressman and senator
Please don't give in, that is depressing.

You shouldn't support people that rape, if you don't support nations that rape, then you should stop paying taxes.

There ARE international constitutional rules, these rules were our justification for removing sadam, however we didn't uphold the principle, just the ends.

There are all encompasing rules that should be applied to every situation, in fact these are the only rules that are worth having (statutory). The rest of the rules should be common law, or judiciary. I am worried that people have lost sight of this basic construction. This innovation is what made modern society possible, please don't force us back into arbitraty decesions of monarchs, or empires.

Oh believe me, I don't like the idea of paying taxes any more than you do. I am a strong pro-life advocate. Knowing my tax dollars are go toward the murder of innocent lives everyday just sickens me. But I suppose that I can make more of a difference by challenging established systems by being in the world than I can from the inside of a jail cell.

Yes, there are all encompassing rules that should be applied to every situation (these being the ones based upon hard core principle/values that do in fact apply to every situation no matter what)... such as rape. But this is not always the case. Too many statutes are being created (outside of the knowledge of the people) that apply to too many different situations. This is very limiting. Just like I believe separation of states from the central government is a good thing (in providing a check on power). I believe separation of each country (having it's own constriction) from one central source of power (such as one set of rules for all) is a good thing. Besides, no one except the United States seems to be expected to uphold these "all encompassing rules" anyway. Besides, you and I both know that rules mean nothing unless there is some system set up to enforce them. Obviously there is no move to enforce anything on any other country besides ours. Same old story (Example: supposed "prisoner abuse" for which Spain wishes to put our military on trial for).
Also, I support no random decisions. All decisions should be based on a set of moral and ethical principles. But too many rules is too limiting (like you said, it only ends up limiting the good guys but the bad guys always get around them anyway).

Cool, so I guess what I was getting at was a federal system, some core principles agreed on by all nations, formalized in a way that is agreeable. I would have to see a draft to know if this is possible.

how to as mp3 ringtone set ring treo palm tones 650 for phone downloads ring cell tone free bluetooth you ringtones do how ringtone to how a get city ring sex the and tone ringtone a song make any to my ringtones sent cell free to ringtone cell transfer phone metro back pcs ring for tones how do share ringtones you t mobile fi hi ring tones i ringtones do how sell converter code ringtone registration mobile can i ringtones download where Thursday, February 28th 2008 @ 9:31 PM