Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Slobadog, Mar 6, 2013.
South Korea says it will strike back if attacked
No, I thought SK was just going to say "Its my weakness, stupid rogue nations. Please don't hurt us!" While all simultaneously dropping their weapons.
If NK attacks I hope the US (Unlikely) will not participate but I'll root for SK.
Of course the U.S. will participate. But this is just more talk from NK. Who do they think they are scaring?
So begins the righteous campaign against imperialism and k-pop.
I'm sure your against individuals renegging on contracts, right?
So why is it suddenly differrent when the government is involved?
I'm sure those karate chops have the ROK marines shaking in their boots.
First of all, I do subscribe to the title-transfer theory of contract, which I don't think would apply here. Second of all, and much more importantly (I don't absolutely insist that title-transfer contracts be adopted although I think they are ideal, and they solve the common "Why can't you sell yourself into slavery... you don't REALLY have a good reason other than it sounds bad so you're inconsistent" argument) the government doesn't have a real right to contract because when an individual contracts, he contracts his own money, time, and or resources. Government, on the other hand, uses other people's time, money, and resources. They do not have a right to do this. Congress, in promising to defend a foreign nation, is really just promising that they will personally contribute their personal assets and personal lives to defend that nation. Everything else is illegitimate, and since they don't have a right to contract it, the contract is void.
It would be like if I stole five hundred dollars from you, and then traded that five hundred dollars to someone else in order for them to do some service for me. They do the service, but then I get caught before I can give them the money. Now, I still owe 500, but you do not, and the 500 I stole is still yours. Let's say I only have thirty dollars to my own name. I would have to pay the person in question the thirty, but I would have to give the 500 to you. The contract I made with your money does not have to be honored. Granted, the courts can, and should, put 470 dollars of debt to my name, to be paid to the person in question, but unless or until I can pay this, the person I contracted with is screwed. You don't have to give him anything, because you didn't sign a contract.
This is a shakedown. This is what North Korea does.
We say we won't negotiate with terrorists but we are going to look at getting a package together and weigh the costs versus the costs of hostilities.
NK will take the package in exchange they will make promises and later break them.
This goes on until it doesn't. Someday some commander somewhere will go too far and a commander on the other side will act on it rather than kick it upstairs and then it will get messy.
I predict China's government will collapse before this happens.
We'll collapse before China does
That's a whole lot of words to say you didn't understand my question.
Let me rephrase:
We have a defense agreement that is legally binding with South Korea.
Further, we do tons and tons of business with South Korea; any war they lose would cause our business, economy and ultimately individuals to suffer.
In light of this, why do you think it's OK, in fact, you consider it a moral imperative, for our government to reneg on our legally binding agreement?
Can I now renneg on my mortgage because the bank used someone else's money to finance it?
When reading NK's threats, who else leans back in their chair and thinks, I know 12 year olds who are more mature than this?
I can't say I bother with the leaning back in the chair thing, but yeah. And what a murderous, psychotic, just plain dangerous 12 year old!
I do like the North Korean taste in flashy medals, though. Also typically pre-adolescent.
Some libertarians think fractional-reserve banking is fraud in and of itself, although I don't. Personally, if someone signs a contract with the bank to allow the bank to use their money, without actually transferring ownership of that money, I don't really see a problem. Government, on the other hand, would be financing a war defending South Korea on tax money that does not belong to the government and putting American lives on the line that do not belong to the government (I also think that defense pacts possibly encourage irresponsible foreign policy.)
Granted, I don't think a war defending SK would be evil to the same degree that an unprovoked attack like the War in Iraq, but its still bad and its not the government's obligation.
Let me rephrase rephrase:
I am not talking about fractional banking.
I am talking about contracts.
We signed a contract with S. Korea. I say it's morally reprehensible to reneg on said contract.
You said it's morally reprehensible to not reneg on said contract basically because the government uses other people's money.
I said the bank used someone else's money to finance my mortgage. Why can't I reneg on that contract?
The bank didn't steal the money. They got it through voluntary contract.
I didn't want to go there again but I kind of had to to answer the question.
If North Korea said it was going to nullify Obamacare he would be in favor of it.
You sure the bank didn't steal that money? Last time I checked, the banks were operating thanks to money they got from the government, which came from taxpayers, ie they 'stole it'. That's not even touching all of the cases where they are heavily implicated in actually stealing people's money (every bank that invested with Maddoff, for example).
You're both partially right.
I say lets abolish the Fed, ban banks from speculative trading and let them go bankrupt. In which case he would be right.
On the other hand, he is wrong about honoring our commitment to Korea. But North Koreans are right to hate us for meddling in their country.
If we attack them and they nuke us it would be a just nuking. And we would be justified to nuke them back.
But Lincoln was indeed a tyrant.
Are we clear?
I can't imagine how thrilled Beijing must be at this.
I see no issue with speculative trading.
"North Koreans" just believe whatever ideological babble their dear leader tells them. I'm a principled non-interventionist but that has nothing to do with the North Koreans who would indeed be better off ruled by pretty much anyone else. A war with NK would, however, make US a heck of a lot less free and a heck of a lot poorer.
Any statement that says "We should do this, and then nuclear war is justified..." means that the premises are wrong.
That's true but seems to be irrelevant here.
Well, I agreed with some of what you said and disagreed with other parts. Hobbs will probably disagree with the whole thing.
Separate names with a comma.