at least you acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist group... I don't mean to paint Israel in white but it's annoying to see hamas so sugar-coated.

I did not...I said when they do smth like that I'll call them terrorists.

and about the warnings...do you really think that it will make it ok to tell you to get out of your house before blowing it up??

A doctor member of the first foreign medical volunteers allowed into Gaza following the Israeli attack on Gaza at the end of 2008 gives his opinions to Al Jazeera News. He notes that 40% of the injured victims are women and children, opining that they are, in fact, the targets of the attacks, which he calls cowardly.

 

This was the second airing of this clip on the evening of New Year's eve 2008/09. It was shortened. The first airing of this doctor's statements ran about a minute longer and he stated that a large proportion of the injured were suffering from extreme burns that he presumed were caused by "new" bombs most commonly known (but definitely little-known) as Heavy Metal Tungsten Alloy (HMTA)weapons (http://tinyurl.com/72ovr5). He also mentioned that these bombs appear to be radioactive as well.

 

As I write this, there are no Web references to these weapons being used in the current attacks, although there are claims of their use in attacks on Gaza and southern Lebanon in 2006. (http://tinyurl.com/94vauc)

 

If these weapons are indeed radioactive, this feature might be due to the use of depleted uranium, a surprisingly common component of modern bombs.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm4UH0F_S2o]YouTube - Al Jazeera clip - Gaza attacks 2008/09 - Norwegian doctor opines[/ame]

hmmmm so Hamas is not a terrorist group?

they have been elected by the people of gaza...they lead them. my opinion: no.

and if you consider them terrorists...then you should consider Israel terrorists too.

I am going to stop giving you guys my opinion cause we're not getting anywhere...I'm just going to post facts and news.

watch this video it has the opinion of both sides.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cagL8Tt7XGM&feature=related]YouTube - Two differing perspectives on the Israeli offensive in Gaza that began on 27 December 2008[/ame]

R.I.P. to all the dead, it's such a sad state of matters :(

they have been elected by the people of gaza...they lead them. my opinion: no.

and if you consider them terrorists...then you should consider Israel terrorists too.

 

Hitler was elected. The election of Hamas was my confirmation that Bush's notion of democracy as a "cure" for the whole middle-east is foolish and naive. Democracy only works if the public can elect leaders that aren't terrorists and extremists.

 

The European Union, Canada and the U.S. list Hamas as a terrorist organization. The notion that their violent antisemitic policies are justifiable, or that they only hate, attack, and suicide bomb israelis out of self defense is laughable and ignorant IMO.

 

My hopes and prayers for peace go out to the whole middle-east.

Remember the war on terror is a joke.

they have been elected by the people of gaza...they lead them. my opinion: no.

and if you consider them terrorists...then you should consider Israel terrorists too.

 

Ok then, Israel is doing no wrong because the leaders were elected by the people of Israel. If that's all it takes.

Ok then, Israel is doing no wrong because the leaders were elected by the people of Israel. If that's all it takes.

 

Remember, all governments are terrorist organizations. There is no moral or logical distinction between them.

Remember, all governments are terrorist organizations. There is no moral or logical distinction between them.

i don't agree with that that much.

History has tought us that a bad use on democracy ends on a dictatorship so a kind of terrorism, but governments don't need to be terrorists themselves, although most them are in some way.

i don't agree with that that much.

History has tought us that a bad use on democracy ends on a dictatorship so a kind of terrorism, but governments don't need to be terrorists themselves, although most them are in some way.

 

Look at the definition:

 

ter⋅ror⋅ism

   /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

 

Particularly #1. What is the government? Regardless of whether it's democracy or fascism, it uses the threat of violence to take your money and spend it on political purposes!

 

All government is terrorism.

All governments do is kill, steal and destroy.

I disagree. Governments provide essential services that private industry cannot (cost prohibitive), or will not (no profit), supply.

 

Are there problems with governments...absolutely! But let's not categorize all governments as terrorists or destructive entities.

I disagree. Governments provide essential services that private industry cannot (cost prohibitive), or will not (no profit), supply.

 

Are there problems with governments...absolutely! But let's not categorize all governments as terrorists or destructive entities.

i agree.

I disagree. Governments provide essential services that private industry cannot (cost prohibitive), or will not (no profit), supply.

 

Are there problems with governments...absolutely! But let's not categorize all governments as terrorists or destructive entities.

 

Prove there is no profit in private industry providing these services, as that is the crux of your argument.

 

Also, what services does government provide that are too costly for private sector to provide?

I disagree. Governments provide essential services that private industry cannot (cost prohibitive), or will not (no profit), supply.

 

Are there problems with governments...absolutely! But let's not categorize all governments as terrorists or destructive entities.

 

Very very limited things like police and military. I'm not an anarchist, I believe in a very small, limited power government kept under close watch. Government can be an ok thing sometimes if done right, but it's never done right.

Prove there is no profit in private industry providing these services, as that is the crux of your argument.

 

Also, what services does government provide that are too costly for private sector to provide?

 

There are 1) political and 2) ethical/moral reasons for government involvement, however, since you are pressing me on profit, I will concentrate on the third reason, economic or market failures:

 

1. Government needs to be involved when private industry has a MONOPOLY. Government regulation is required in order to prevent artificially high prices.

 

2. Government needs to be involved when there are NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES. For example, there is no fiscal incentive for a manufacturing plant to limit pollution. Government will tax and/or regulate in order to reduce the negative social costs of pollution.

 

3. Government needs to be involved when there is INFORMATION FAILURE. One of the basic assumptions of a market economy is "perfect information," and that buyers and sellers are acting rationally. Therefore, it is the government's responsibility to step in and provide this information (i.e. labels on food and drugs).

 

4. Government needs to be involved when you are dealing with a "PURE PUBLIC GOOD." These are goods that are 1) non-exhaustive (your consumption does not reduce the amount the I am able to consume) and 2) non-excludable (you and I can both consume at the same time). Private industry does not have the resources to produce ALL the public goods that the public demands.

 

An example of a pure public good would be national defense. The fact that you are receiving protection does not reduce my ability to be protected (non-exhaustive), and you and I can both be protected by the military at the same time (non-excludable).

 

Look, if you think that private industry has the capacity to provide for national defense, you and I simply disagree. Furthermore, private industry will exit any area that is not producing a profit. I don't know about you, but I still want national defense even if it is not producing a profit.

1. Government needs to be involved when private industry has a MONOPOLY. Government regulation is required in order to prevent artificially high prices

 

Quite the opposite actually. Government subsidies and things like that cause prices to rise. Food prices in the U.S. would be a lot less if government left it alone. This is a common misconception that causes prices to be raised because of government involvement.

I do not agree. It violates one of the major principles of a free market economy: that there are many buyers and many sellers. You will have a messed up world if you allow for monopolies or oligopolies.

I do not agree. It violates one of the major principles of a free market economy: that there are many buyers and many sellers. You will have a messed up world if you allow for monopolies or oligopolies.

 

Thats what governments are. The very thing you are trying to avoid a government creates. It simply does not work, as we are seeing yet again in the market.

Thanks for splitting up your post, I'll take each argument separately:

 

1. Government needs to be involved when private industry has a MONOPOLY. Government regulation is required in order to prevent artificially high prices.

 

A monopoly is impossible without government protection. Remember that without government, there are no patents, and no corporate structures. Further, there isn't a singular judicial system that businesses can use to sue one another.

 

2. Government needs to be involved when there are NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES. For example, there is no fiscal incentive for a manufacturing plant to limit pollution. Government will tax and/or regulate in order to reduce the negative social costs of pollution.

 

Ahh, the old pollution argument. On the contrary, government actually causes pollution and the free market limits it. There are several reasons why, but the first and most obvious reason has to do with the fact there is no incentive to protect public land. When government owns land, it never plans on selling it to a potential future buyer. Therefore, it sells the rights (to mine, deforest, etc) rather than the land itself. The land becomes overused and any beauty it once had is gone because Uncle Sam doesn't care about the view.

 

A manufacturing plant that pollutes first has to buy the land it plans on using. Owners of the land nearby will have bought into "pollution insurance" which is just a collection of money they will use to bid up the price of any land a polluting manufacturer intends to purchase. If the price of the land is bid up too high for the business, it'll either relocate or strike a deal with the insurance company (which represents the nearby landowners) to cap emissions.

 

Pollution lowers the value of land, which is a commodity with a relatively fixed supply. So to say there isn't economic incentive for some people to protect the value of their land is rubbish.

 

3. Government need to be involved when there is INFORMATION FAILURE. One of the basic assumptions of a market economy is "perfect information," and that buyers and sellers are acting rationally. Therefore, it is the government's responsibility to step in and provide this information (i.e. labels on food and drugs).

 

Of course, because politicians have perfect information and market participants don't. :rolleyes:

 

Have you heard of Consumer Reports? Or any of the other businesses that provide information (hint: there's a little thing called the "media"...) The assumption here is that because the FDA is gone, suddenly manufacturers of food will close their plants to any sort of inspection by outside agencies other than the government. Nothing could be further from the truth, and everybody will want to buy food from suppliers that are most forthcoming with evidence their products are safe.

 

4. Government needs to be involved when you are dealing with a "PURE PUBLIC GOOD." These are goods that are 1) non-exhaustive (your consumption does not reduce the amount the I am able to consume) and 2) non-excludable (you and I can both consume at the same time). Private industry does not have the resources to produce ALL the public goods that the public demands.

 

An example of a pure public good would be national defense. The fact that you are receiving protection does not reduce my ability to be protected (non-exhaustive), and you and I can both be protected by the military at the same time (non-excludable).

 

Look, if you think that private industry has the capacity to provide for national defense, you and I simply disagree. Furthermore, private industry will exit any area that is not producing a profit. I don't know about you, but I still want national defense even if it is not producing a profit.

 

Have you ever studied the politics of nuclear proliferation? If you did, you would be aware of the fact that any state that a state possessing a nuclear weapon has never been invaded, because the threat of retaliation is too massive to make this a viable option. Do you know how much a nuclear warhead and its launch equipment and upkeep costs? Not much. Large corporations could easily provide defense for their interests (namely: customers) with nuclear bombs, and it would cost pennies a day per capita.

 

The reasons you cite for the existence of government are government propaganda, taught in government-funded schools.

Look, we can debate every point ALL night long, and I don't have the patience for it.

 

Can we simply agree that governments are not just terrorist organizations whose goal is to kill, steal, and destroy?

 

For every example of abuse of government power, I can give you an example of corporate corruption. We are starting to get into topics of organizational theory and the human condition, and I don't want to debate forever. All I am asking for is fairness.

Look, we can debate every point ALL night long, and I don't have the patience for it.

 

Can we simply agree that governments are not just terrorist organizations whose goal is to kill, steal, and destroy?

 

For every example of abuse of government power, I can give you an example of corporate corruption. We are starting to get into topics of organizational theory and the human condition, and I don't want to debate forever. All I am asking for is fairness.

 

By definition governments are terrorist. Now you can argue if terrorism is right or wrong, but by definition they are terrorist, and robbers. Just because they are common and accepted does not make them any less bad.

By definition governments are terrorist. Now you can argue if terrorism is right or wrong, but by definition they are terrorist, and robbers. Just because they are common and accepted does not make them any less bad.

 

OY! I am out.