Re: Re:POLITICS: National Interest (was Having Babies)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/27/04 8:57:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, hl@...

writes:

> Blind patriotism is not that same as patriotism. Period. Try again.

_____

~~~~> Perhaps you overlooked the word " or " in the definition I quoted.

Excessive patriotism is the definition I addressed in my post. I don't see a

need

to repeat what I said, although for a quick recap, " excessive " is a subjective

term and therefore in the eyes of the person using it, while the objective

elements of " chauvinism " are applicable to your view.

_____

> Okay. What are physical borders for? They don't consist of people.

> But people do indeed occupy land. Still, do you want to outsource

> defense of your land and people?

_____

~~~~> By physical borders do you mean political borders? Most political

borders aren't physical (especially at levels below national boundaries.)

Political borders are used to designate the area in which people residing are

automatic members of a state by compulsion and are required under the threat of

force

to obey the just laws and arbitrary decrees, and submit to regular theft of

property by the state.

I don't own land but hope to in the future, although I don't and hope never

to own any people. I would want my land protected by whatever and whomever

would best protect it.

______

> The US troops were not defending their nation. And, in fact, the Iraqis

> might say the troops were offending the Iraqi nation. Bad example. Is

> this now US oil? What is you point?

______

~~~~> If you ask W Bush, they were defending their nation, and if you

ask many of their troops, they were defending their nation. This wasn't my

point, but it does bring up another example of how the state under the guise of

" national defense " will allocate resources towards activities that have

nothing to do with national defense and are in fact *offenses* against other

nations. (Nations that were warred against as a result of the cutting off of

trade

for the previous decade: if goods don't cross borders, soldiers will.)

My point was just to use a recent example that can illustrate how a " nation "

cannot be defended. Since nations are arbitrary abstract boundaries and not

actual things, only things within nations can be defended. I wasn't addressing

*who* was defending these things, and I did use examples below that involved

domestic national defense.

_____

> > When 9/11 happened, the government failed to protect the World Trade

> > Center

> > and those involved in the tragedy. When the Republican National

> > Convention

> > occurred, a force of 10,000 police men successfully defended the

> > President. A

> > smaller amount of human resources were employed in the search for

> > Osama bin

> > Laden. These are more examples of how allocating resources in

> > different amounts to different tasks results in the selective defense

> > of some interests at the expense of other interests within a nation.

>

> It depends on which version of events you wish to accept. Who did what

> and why?

____

~~~> I don't understand your question. Who did what about what and why did

they do what? Regardless of *why* the government failed to protect us from

9/11, it failed. My point isn't so much to attribute blame to anyone, but to

demonstrate that defense is not a unified good. It is a divisible batch of

goods

that can be applied not to a monolithic nation but to a divisible batch of

properties that need protection. Had the government allocated more resources to

protecting airlines, say by having armed guards trained in disarming turbaned

boxcutter-weilding hijackers, perhaps it would have been prevented.

I am NOT commenting on whether the government SHOULD have done this or not.

I am simply demonstrating that the resources the government allocates to

national defense could be allocated in a multiplicity of ways, to many things,

or

concentrated to one thing. It is not true that something is either defended or

not defended. It could be defended by video, by human, by 1 policeman, by

100 policemen, or by a forcefield, or whatever conceivable thing.

As to the other two examples, I'm not sure it is disputable that 10,000

police protected the RNC, or that far fewer agents searched for bin Laden.

Again,

a choice to allocate a given amount of resources to one activity, and a

different amount to an entirely different activity, both of which have neutral

impacts on some, and important impacts on others of different degrees.

Meanwhile, some woman in an urban slum is being raped and no one will bother

investigating.

_____

>

> >

> > Since the government is able to levy its fees by force, without regard

> > to its

> > success at the task of defense, it is not required to be successful to

> > maintain its revenues. A firm located within, or outside of, the US

> > that must

> > perform successfully at providing its defense services, has a greater

> > incentive to protect the property entrusted to it than does the US

> > government, because

> > protecting US property could generate an enormous amount of revenue,

> > and failing the task or deliberately avoiding it would result in a

> > loss of that revenue.

>

> This is simply not true when contractors (mercenaries?) are used to

> fight wars; not for the US government directly, but for profit by

> private firms, as is the case in Iraq anyway.

_____

~~~~> What isn't true? That the soldiers-for-hire have a greater incentive

to perform the task they were hired for than the government does to perform the

tasks the electorate expected it to perform when they voted for it?

_____

> > On the other hand, a defense firm that maintains its revenue by the

> > use of

> > force (such as the US government) could not only be incompetent, but even

> > deliberately avoid defending the property entrusted to it, and not

> > only continue its

> > revenue, but even use this incompetence or other failure as a political

> > justification for increasing the revenue it acquires by force.

>

> BTW, the US government is not a defense firm.

____

~~~~> The US government is entrusted with the responsibility of defense.

(Thus, it has a " Department of Defense. " ) If a " firm " is " a business

enterprise "

(Webster), then it is a firm to the extent that one doesn't consider

" business " to mean " honest business " or one that engages in a free market. It

offers

goods and services, such as defense, for a payment, taxes. If the fact that

it acquires its revenue through theft instead of voluntary payment for those

goods and services disqualifies it as a " business enterprise, " then many US

corporations should also not be considered businesses.

______

> And last I checked,

> contracts for defense are not based on force (which I have shown, may

> not even be the job of the US government) but are solely based on

> projected budgeted needs. Procurement is another matter, of course.

______

~~~~> I'm not sure what your first sentence means, but I kept my paragraph

quoted above so it could be seen that I only used the word " force " with respect

to how the revenue was acquired.

_______

> > . This It is relatively easy to slip by incompetently or deliberately

> > failing to

> > defend the " national interest " when there is no such thing. A firm

> > that had

> > specific property to defend with specific amounts of resources to

> > achieve specific

> > results could be objectively evaluated by its customers as to whether

> > it was

> > failing or succeeding to perform the duties being paid for.

> >

> > Maybe " outsourcing " " national " defense isn't such a bad idea?

> >

> > Chris

>

> Stocks are speculative as well. Terrorism is also. The US nation. Do

> these entities exist? YES.

_____

~~~~> What does speculation have to do with anything? I did not say anything

about the national interest being speculative. I said that there isn't any

such thing. My argument, in sum, was that one cannot attack or defend an

abstract concept (unless one does so intellectually), but can only defend or

attack

tangible, physical things, because both defense and attack are physical

phenomena, and must be applied to physical entities. There are innumerable

pieces

of property and objects and people within a nation, and they cannot all be

defended infinitely and equally because resources are scarce, not infinite.

Therefore, resources must be allocated selectively, and some interests will

necessarily be defended at the expense of others, or defended to a greater

degree at

the expense of others defended to a lesser degree. Thus there is not one,

national, interest to be defended, but many, many interests to which defense

must individually and selectively be applied.

_____

> Well, you maybe happy to know that

> if this open ended war on terror continues, some nice young man like you

> may well be outsourced by draft for the defense of our nation :0

_____

~~~~> I'm not particularly happy that we grant the US government the

exclusive moral exemption allowing it to engage in

1) kidnapping and

2) slavery

which are ordinarily considered criminal acts when engaged in by private

individuals or private organizations.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> ~~~~> By physical borders do you mean political borders? Most political

> borders aren't physical

Then what was the Berlin Wall? Why do US agents patrol the US - Mexican

border, if it is not physical? Waaake up! Wars are fought over real,

physical entities. What is Kashmir? Some metaphysical realm? While

disputed, the territory is REAL.

>

> ~~~~> If you ask W Bush,

Are you W. Bush? Cuz I wasn't asking him, I was asking YOU.

> Since nations are arbitrary abstract boundaries and not

> actual things, only things within nations can be defended.

Um, no, nations are real, bound by citizens and territory. The nations

compete in the Olympics. Abstract ideas do sometimes yield concrete

results. Study electronics and complex numbers for an example of this

basic truth.

Welcome to the real world. Travel some, eh? See the UK and know it is

indeed a nation. Find out for yourself, don't just trust a professor.

> My point isn't so much to attribute blame to anyone, but to

> demonstrate that defense is not a unified good.

Now this is where president Bush should come in: ' you're either with us

or against us. " But I am not him. The Patriot Act is the law of this

NATION, for good or bad. Does it exist? are people in Guantanamo Bay,

or is that also and abstraction?

> Meanwhile, some woman in an urban slum is being raped and no one will

> bother

> investigating.

>

> ~~~~> The US government is entrusted with the responsibility of defense.

> (Thus, it has a " Department of Defense. " ) If a " firm " is " a business

> enterprise "

> (Webster), then it is a firm to the extent that one doesn't consider

> " business " to mean " honest business " or one that engages in a free

> market. It offers

> goods and services, such as defense, for a payment, taxes. If the

> fact that

> it acquires its revenue through theft instead of voluntary payment for

> those

> goods and services disqualifies it as a " business enterprise, " then

> many US

> corporations should also not be considered businesses.

Can you think for yourself without Webster? So government is business?

Well then why all the fuss over regulation and intervention. Yee haaa!

Business rules because government is business, and converse like, ya know?

>

>

> > Well, you maybe happy to know that

> > if this open ended war on terror continues, some nice young man

> like you

> > may well be outsourced by draft for the defense of our nation :0

> _____

>

> ~~~~> I'm not particularly happy that we grant the US government the

> exclusive moral exemption allowing it to engage in

>

> 1) kidnapping and

> 2) slavery

But slavery is another abstraction, Chris. It all depends on how

willing y'are. But wait, since you've already shown that US cabinet

departments are firms, thus it is all work! And you can volunteer, or

not! At least by your fuzzy, contrived logic of sorts. How can you

even argue kidnapping and slavery when you have shown that nations don't

exist and government agencies are only business firms after all. Brilliant!

Think and wonder, wonder and think, how much water can 55 elephants

drink? And you don't have to stop! You can think about schlop! Schlop

schlop, beautiful schlop. Beautiful schlop with a cherry on top!

Deanna

>

> which are ordinarily considered criminal acts when engaged in by private

> individuals or private organizations.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

Oh the thinks you can think ...

You can think about that until Saturday night...

uugghhh...

Would you dare yank the tooth of the Rink Rinker Fink?

I can't believe we have forgotten! And it is packed in storage...

uuuuggghhhh the pain...

catz... skipping away merrily to seuss land...

> Think and wonder, wonder and think, how much water can 55 elephants

> drink? And you don't have to stop! You can think about schlop! Schlop

> schlop, beautiful schlop. Beautiful schlop with a cherry on top!

>

> Deanna

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/27/04 11:45:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,

hl@... writes:

> Then what was the Berlin Wall? Why do US agents patrol the US - Mexican

> border, if it is not physical? Waaake up! Wars are fought over real,

> physical entities. What is Kashmir? Some metaphysical realm? While

> disputed, the territory is REAL.

_____

~~~~> The Berlin Wall was a physical border, and parts of the national

borders are physical. The US-Canada border is pretty void of natural physical

barriers, which I think is somewhat unique with national borders, but it does

have

man-made physical borders. What I said was that most political borders aren't

physical, primarily at the lower levels of organization. The most numerous

political borders are those between towns, which in general are not physical.

You're telling me to wake up, but I'm just responding to the question as you

asked it. You aren't satisfactorily connecting this tangent to the rest of

the discussion. The fact that territory is real is painfully obvious. It is

also painfully obvious that territory cannot be attacked or defended as a

national unit, but that each mechanism of defense (say, a police officer, or a

military unit) is only capable of defending a certain portion of territory at

once,

and limited resources must be divided to selectively defend certain parts of

a territory at the expense of others. I don't understand why you continue to

dance around this obvious fact-- that nations per se cannot be attacked or

defended, but only things within them.

____

> >~~~~> If you ask W Bush,

>

> Are you W. Bush? Cuz I wasn't asking him, I was asking YOU.

____

~~~~> Did you not read the rest of my paragraph? You seem to be arguing for

argument's sake, rather than bothering to address my arguments as they were

designed to be understood. I was not deflecting the question onto Bush

for the sake of not answering it. I was using the fact that the US attacked

Iraq for the purported purpose of " national interest " to demonstrate that

activities carried out in the national interest necessarily benefit or oppose

more

specific interests than that. Haliburton and other contractors are

beneficiaries of the Iraq war in ways that I am not. Soldiers that fought and

in this

war are US citizens as are their families, both of whom have suffered a net loss

from the war. Bush hopes to get political capital from its hopeful success.

Bush, Haliburton, and the familes of soldiers that died are all Americans,

and thus all part of the " nation, " yet they each have specific interests, some

of which were served by the war, and some of which were hurt by the war. There

isn't a national interest; there is only a nation of many interests.

_____

>

> >Since nations are arbitrary abstract boundaries and not

> >actual things, only things within nations can be defended.

>

> Um, no, nations are real, bound by citizens and territory. The nations

> compete in the Olympics.

_____

~~~~> Nations do not compete in Olympics. That's ridiculous. How far can a

nation long jump? How long is a nation's legs? How far can a nation throw a

spear? What does it throw it out of?

Individuals compete in the Olympics on behalf of their nations.

_______

>Abstract ideas do sometimes yield concrete

> results. Study electronics and complex numbers for an example of this

> basic truth.

______

~~~~> I understand that this is true and very obvious, all the while not

conflicting with my true and very obvious point that only physical entities can

be

physically attacked. An abstraction can be intellectually attacked or

defended, because the realm of the intellectual is abstract. An abstraction

cannot

be PHYSICALLY attacked or defended, because abstractions do not belong to the

realm of the physical.

_______

> Welcome to the real world. Travel some, eh? See the UK and know it is

> indeed a nation. Find out for yourself, don't just trust a professor.

______

~~~~> Maybe I'll visit the Olympics and watch the UK participate in a weight

lifting competition. Out of curiosity, how much does the UK weigh? The US

probably weighs much more, so they probably won't be competing in the same

class, no?

_______

> >My point isn't so much to attribute blame to anyone, but to

> >demonstrate that defense is not a unified good.

>

> Now this is where president Bush should come in: ' you're either with us

> or against us. " But I am not him. The Patriot Act is the law of this

> NATION, for good or bad. Does it exist? are people in Guantanamo Bay,

> or is that also and abstraction?

______

~~~~> The PATRIOT Act (that's an acronym) is real. That something is

abstract does not make it false. It just makes it non-physical. The PATRIOT

Act

cannot be physically attacked or physically defended. If there were only one

paper copy, the paper copy could be attacked and defended, but that would be

different from attacking or defending the law itself.

_______

> Can you think for yourself without Webster?

______

~~~~> I suppose the fact that I disagree with you must make it obvious to you

that I am incapable of thinking for myself (after all, if I could think for

myself, I would obviously and necessarily agree with you), but for the record,

I consulted Webster only after you questioned my use of the term, which I

originally used without consulting a dictionary.

_______

> So government is business?

________

~~~~> Like any other business entity, government provides goods and services

to consumers. These goods and services include, for example, defense of

property, defense of person, adjudication of disputes, charitable contributions

and

operations, investigations. Every single one of these goods and services can

and is and has been offered by other business entities.

If there are economic laws that govern the interactions between individuals

and groups of individuals (organizations, business entities, whatever), they

don't suddenly cease to operate because one organization calls itself

" government. " If the dynamics between an entity that has a monopoly on phone

services

are affected by its monopoly status, then it would be likewise affected for a

firm that offers defense and adjudication.

Do electric companies that have state-level monopolies cease to be business

firms because they have a monopoly? If not, why does the US government cease

to be a business firm from its monopoly?

If a monopoly electric company suddenly declared that it performed its

business solely for the common good of the people, would it cease to be a

business

entity?

If a monopoly electric company allowed its consumers to participate in

elections to its board would it cease to be a business entity?

_____

> Well then why all the fuss over regulation and intervention. Yee haaa!

> Business rules because government is business, and converse like, ya know?

____

~~~~> No, I don't know. If you were less sarcastic, I'd have an easier time

understanding your points.

_____

> But slavery is another abstraction, Chris. It all depends on how

> willing y'are.

_____

~~~~> I wonder whether I should respond to something so blatantly doused in

sarcasm. I know you don't believe that, and I haven't given you any reason to

believe that I believe it. All interactions and all thoughts and all legal

systems and legal constructions are real. My pointing out the obvious fact that

abstractions are just that, abstractions, and are not physical entities, and

thus are not subject to physical phenomena (does a law fall when it is dropped

out of a window, and does it accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 in freefall?) does not

indicate in any way that I believe all abstractions are false or unreal.

______

> But wait, since you've already shown that US cabinet

> departments are firms, thus it is all work!

____

~~~~> Are you seriously suggesting that what US cabinet members do is NOT

work? What do they do, vegetate? Become one with the universal nothingness?

No, they work, to produce things that others need or want.

_____

> And you can volunteer, or

> not! At least by your fuzzy, contrived logic of sorts.

____

~~~~> This is unintelligible.

_____

> How can you

> even argue kidnapping and slavery when you have shown that nations don't

> exist

____

~~~~> I never once said that nations do not exist. I said that the " national

interest " does not exist. What could be more " fuzzy " than conflating these

two terms?

_____

>and government agencies are only business firms after all. Brilliant!

______

~~~~~> Do they not produce goods and services to consumers? There is only

one set of laws that governs the interactions between humans and groups of

humans. Economic law can shed light about how these dynamics change when the

interactions take place within different contractual arrangements (which are

abstractions, and very real) (such as within a laissez-faire legal framework,

within

a cartel, within a state-granted monopoly, etc), but economic law does not

cease to govern the interactions between groups of people that are trading in

certain goods just because someone claims that those goods are the exclusive

domain of a political sphere that is by fiat exempt from the laws of human

interaction.

Thus, I'm treating any organization that offers goods and services to

consumers as just that, whatever the pretenses of that organization.

_____

> Think and wonder, wonder and think, how much water can 55 elephants

> drink? And you don't have to stop! You can think about schlop! Schlop

> schlop, beautiful schlop. Beautiful schlop with a cherry on top!

____

~~~~> I'd be more interested in how much water an African nation can drink,

rather than the elephants. After all, despite the status of a nation as an

abstraction, since it is real, it must be subject to all physical phenomena,

such

as drinking water, right? I bet the nation could eat more hot dogs than its

laws could.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/28/04 4:41:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, hl@...

writes:

> I never once said that nations do not exist. I said that the " national

> interest " does not exist. What could be more " fuzzy " than conflating these

> two terms? - Chris

> -----------------

>

> **** Actually this is untrue, as YOU said this way back at the

> beginning on 11/27/04 5:46 PM:

>

> There is therefore no such thing as " national defense " per se,

> because resources are limited, not unlimited, and therefore must be

> allocated

> selectively, necessarily defending some interests of some people at the

> expense of

> other interests of the same people or of other people.

_______

~~~~~> I just read this paragraph three times and I do not see a single

sentence that explicitly or implicitly indicates that nations do not exist.

In the paragraph you quote, I'm expressing the same position that I've been

expressing: that nations do not exist as physical objects, but they exist as

collections of divisible physical objects. The possibilities of points of

attack in a nation are divisible into many individual points, most of which are

property owned by different individuals. The resources employed are limited and

therefore must be employed selectively, and, since the different individuals

that own the different possible points of attack each have their own

interests-- one primary interest of which is the defense of their own property--

it is

impossible to defend the " nation " from attack without in actuality defending

individual interests within the nation, some at the expense of others, and some

more at the expense of others less.

There is NOTHING in this argument that says that nations do not exist, and

there is NOTHING in the paragraph you quote that says that nations do not exist.

_______

>

> **** Yes, I can be sarcastic, and you can be selective with your

> memory.

_____

~~~~> Then why don't you simply quote what you claim I said? You insist that

I've said nations do not exist, and you attempt to prove it with a paragraph

that does not claim this anywhere inside it.

Again, I'm claiming that a monolithic " national interest " does not and cannot

exist, and that a government cannot therefore defend this " national

interest " -- termed " national defense " -- because the nation is filled with

conflicting

interests and individual pieces of property to be defended.

I absolutely do not in any way deny the existence of nations as abstract

legal and political constructions nor do I deny the physical force that is used

to

enforce these legal and political boundaries, nor do I deny that some of

these boundaries have naturally occuring geological occurrences that the

political

boundaries were shaped around.

______

>This is not the first time, nor I am the first person to

> complain of this coming from you.

_____

~~~~> The fact that the, um, other person has complained about me doing such

does not give any credence to your claim in this instance. If I've said that

nations are not real or do not exist, you could prove this very simply by

quoting this passage. That you attempted to show this and quoted instead a

passage in which I did NOT make this claim seems to indicate that you have not

observed me making it.

_____

>And funny thing, really, I find that

> you seem to enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. Perhaps we both do.

_____

~~~~> I enjoy making a point, and I don't always make my points perfectly,

but I do try to make them honestly (maybe I don't do this perfectly either, but

I try.) In the instance where I suggested that you were arguing for the sake

of arguing, you were clearly taking a single sentence entirely out of context,

and responding to it in a way that did not relate to the purpose of the

sentence within the paragraph in which I'd written it.

_______

>

> Well, I have work to do writing a spam filter for meself. If you'd like

> to engage in a discussion about outsourcing sensitive defense related

> jobs to nations other than the US, and/or explain how defending a nation

> is impossible, since there is no such thing as national defense, AND if

> we can both let the littles things go, I'll be reading from time to time

> and responding specifically on occasion. But straining at a gnat and

> swallowing a camel just annoys me. Ever think of law school? Common

> sense is as important as abstract thinking.

______

~~~~> I'm not sure I've been making any points in this thread outside of the

argument that national defense per se is impossible because there is no

national interest per se.

You seem to have dismissed most of what I've said, and responded with

information that doesn't conflict with what I was saying in most other areas, so

I

suppose this won't go to far. Although, I'll work at it if you want.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I never once said that nations do not exist. I said that the " national

interest " does not exist. What could be more " fuzzy " than conflating these

two terms? - Chris

-----------------

**** Actually this is untrue, as YOU said this way back at the

beginning on 11/27/04 5:46 PM:

There is therefore no such thing as " national defense " per se,

because resources are limited, not unlimited, and therefore must be

allocated

selectively, necessarily defending some interests of some people at the

expense of

other interests of the same people or of other people.

------------

**** Yes, I can be sarcastic, and you can be selective with your

memory. This is not the first time, nor I am the first person to

complain of this coming from you. And funny thing, really, I find that

you seem to enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. Perhaps we both do.

Well, I have work to do writing a spam filter for meself. If you'd like

to engage in a discussion about outsourcing sensitive defense related

jobs to nations other than the US, and/or explain how defending a nation

is impossible, since there is no such thing as national defense, AND if

we can both let the littles things go, I'll be reading from time to time

and responding specifically on occasion. But straining at a gnat and

swallowing a camel just annoys me. Ever think of law school? Common

sense is as important as abstract thinking.

Truly, all the best,

Deanna

>

[Guest guest]

I left this block up for reference. I have address your claim

below.

ChrisMasterjohn wrote:

> In a message dated 11/28/04 4:41:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, Deanna

> writes:

>

> > I never once said that nations do not exist. I said that the " national

> > interest " does not exist. What could be more " fuzzy " than

> conflating these

> > two terms? - Chris

> > -----------------

> >

> > **** Actually this is untrue, as YOU said this way back at the

> > beginning on 11/27/04 5:46 PM:

> >

> > There is therefore no such thing as " national defense " per se,

> > because resources are limited, not unlimited, and therefore must be

> > allocated

> > selectively, necessarily defending some interests of some people at the

> > expense of

> > other interests of the same people or of other people.

> _______

>

> ~~~~~> I just read this paragraph three times and I do not see a single

> sentence that explicitly or implicitly indicates that nations do not

> exist.

The point is that you are confusing your terms. National defense

and national interest do not equate. One may depend on the other in

your view, but they are not interchangeable terms. You started

discussing the former and end up defending the latter like that is what

we were talking about the whole time. You accuse me of conflating

terms, yet that is exactly what you have done. You have interchanged

the terms of discussion. I just find it ironic, that is all. Perhaps

we should begin with a definition of terms and be consistent in their

use. I think for the sake of integrity, consistency is important.

And then you come up with a summary like:

" national defense per se is impossible because there is no

national interest per se. " - Chris

Now here is a clear, concise claim. Thank you. One more point before I

address it.

I do read your words, even with (what I feel is) the overabundance of

them present most times. And sometimes they do contradict. For some

examples:

" Since nations are arbitrary abstract boundaries and not

actual things, only things within nations can be defended. "

" Nations are made of people... "

" My argument, in sum, was that one cannot attack or defend an

abstract concept (unless one does so intellectually), but can only

defend or attack tangible, physical things, because both defense and

attack are physical

phenomena, and must be applied to physical entities. " - Chris

By laws of thought, something is either " a " , or it is not " a " . Is a

nation abstract or is it not? The context doesn't matter. Either it is

or isn't.

Nations are comprised of real, tangible physical entities, symbols and

laws, thus they are concrete in nature. Palestine. Is it a nation?

Well, not now. Nations have political boundaries that are physical in

nature (and natural boundaries don't matter. I can walk across the 49

parallel into Canada as it is a physical location). Is there a Jewish

nation? No, for other reasons. The law is a fine example of an idea

which concerns the concrete and has very real tangible consequences,

even if a law in and of itself is an abstraction. Laws need no national

interest or national consensus to be written, enforced or changed. And

just because they are ideas, does not mean they can not be attacked or

defended. And that is another consideration: the constituents of a

nation change fluidly and are not a fixed set of items.

" national defense per se is impossible because there is no

national interest per se. "

The contrapositive of a true claim is also true. And the contrapositive

of your claim is:

If there is national interest, then national defense is possible.

Defending the concrete constituents that comprise a nation (national

defense) is totally independent of some national interest. Not only

that, just because one nation attains a national interest, does not mean

that nation can defend itself. So your claim is invalid. These two

ideas are not only unequal, they are not dependent on each other.

National defense was possible, for instance, at Pearl Harbor. It did

not materialize. That certainly had nothing to do with national

interest. The US Civil War is an example of clear division. Not only

was national interest not present, it may be that lack of common

interest that divided our nation provoking was in the first place.

Still the nation defended itself against itself from within. And the

boundaries of it didn't even change, yet even if they had, the US nation

would still exist. Or are you saying since nations are abstract, wars

are imaginary too, or only fought on an intellectual level?

Deanna

PS. You may find life in the military an easier position than your

present civilian job. The US Air Force position I held was the most

relaxed and easy job I ever had. And that veteran status helps on the

resume.

[Guest guest]

>

> " national defense per se is impossible because there is no

> national interest per se. "

>

> The contrapositive of a true claim is also true. And the contrapositive

> of your claim is:

>

> If there is national interest, then national defense is possible.

>

Okay, I should have reworded your statement first and awakened more fully.

If there is no national interest, then national defense is impossible.

Contraposing: If national defense is possible, then there is national

interest.

Converse or not, they are not dependent on each other somehow.

Deanna