It's not perfectly applicable, but while reading this post that old haiku came to mind Friend, that open mouth    Reveals your    Whole interior... Silly hollow frog! anon. This is the bit that jogged my memory: Arnold's got a "non-pacifist syllogism" to counter my "pacifist syllogism". I think all of Arnold's premises are wrong or misleading. Point-by-point: Premise 1: There will always be individuals and groups whose comparative advantage is plunder and extortion. Call them pirates. For any conceivable activity there is always, by definition, someone with a comparative advantage in it. So far, so good. However, this does not imply that every activity will actually be performed! Someone, somewhere has a comparative advantage in making silent movies, but that does not imply that anyone will pursue this occupation or continue producing silent movies. Similarly, someone, somewhere, has a comparative advantage in hunting bears with his bare hands, but it doesn't mean anyone will actually do so. This...

The Hollywood version of the American southwest after the Indian wars and the closing of the frontier - and much earlier in Texas - is of rough, vigilante justice meted out by flawed heroes. The truly bad were tracked down and summarily dispatched with a minimum of fuss or passion. All in a day's work. There's some truth in that but it was as likely to be solid citizens as flawed heroes who did the deeds. One of the striking changes in American society after 9/11/2001 was the number of solid citizens who remembered their roots - or at least the Hollywood version - and voiced interest in some vigilantism. That's one of the reasons that Bush was applauded for his initial handling of the event. I'm putting this out there for your consideration with a fully conflicted heart. I don't feel diminished by the deaths of Mohammed Atta and the other creeps who killed thousands on September 11....

Norm is disappointed. Too many people have died in Iraq and too many people are dying there - and this is to say nothing of the wider social disaster that has overtaken the country, the numbers of the dead aside. . . at the levels of mortality and suffering now involved I'm put off by expressions of scepticism of a form to suggest that while 600,000?+ deaths is not a credible figure there is some lower, though still very high, figure about which supporters of the war could feel relaxed. The situation has passed that point, whatever it might be thought to be. Too many have died and too many are dying. Saying this, I do not intend, either, to imply that the battle in Iraq is lost, and that all hope of salvaging a half-way decent, or even just not totally disastrous, outcome should be abandoned. I fear this may be so, but am unwilling to give up...

People reason from their own narrow experience. Not surprising but knowing this, as we all must, it's useful to take a cortical-thalamic pause now and then to consider the implications of events for others having quite different experiences. It’s illegal to be a goth wirehead. “They were arrested for behavior that was suspicious and disturbing,” said Lt. Gregory Reinhardt, a police spokesman. . . A friend of the group said the arrests were overkill and that the suspicious devices were homemade stereos. “This was just kids trying to have some fun,” said Helen Hicks, who said she has attended similar “zombie” gatherings in the past. This kind of story illustrates to me the reason why it’s better to just throw up your hands and give up on proactively protecting society from terrorists than to follow through on what it takes. The argument goes something like: Suppose you are going to watch carefully for terrorism. Ergo, you will waste resources...

A suggestion to put government, including its current war, in context "The Pentagon is the Post Office with nuclear weapons." That says it all doesn't it?...

The terrorist bombings in London have caused a flurry of commentary already and I expect that there will be more. As each pundit stakes out their stance it is inevitable that they will take the opportunity to justify their previous positions and take a few whacks at their enemies. Everybody sensible and decent agrees on the basics. That the people who put those bombs in London are bastards. That they should be caught and punished. That there is no excuse or justification for what they have done. That by placing those bombs they have set themselves against the rights of free people everywhere, and in doing so, are against freedom itself. That they may hold other beliefs and ideologies in mind as they kill innocent people does not cancel out the fact that they stand against the rights of free people to go about their daily business as free people will. That the ideologies, creeds, institutions, organizations or leaders...

I observe political contests for the most part with detached curiosity, finding all sides a bit repellent and their actions mainly destructive. Politics is not about governance and is usually antagonistic to good governance. While it is clear that societies must govern themselves to achieve desired outcomes, and that since there are differing views some type of decision making system must exist to resolve disputes on a pragmatic and provisional basis, the best methods yet devised fall far short of adequacy. Representative democracy with a variety of constitutional hobbles to blunt fanaticism, buffer mood swings and preserve subsidarity is a theoretically decent solution made much less effective in practice by political advocacy and conflict. Though not deeply interested in the details of political contests at either the practical and strategic levels of particular contests, such as the current US presidential elections, or the more theoretical and ideological level of historical trends, I do follow a couple of sharp pundits...