J Thomas on May 03, 2011, 08:40:12 pm

I've heard even less of that from Afghanistan. There were a few rare stories about women getting stoned for prostitution. Either prostitution is rare there or stoning for it is rare, or both are common but mostly neither is reported. So I don't know how available sex is for American soldiers, apart from the women soldiers. Clearly there is a taboo about reporting US soldiers having sex, and the exceptions are rare cases where women soldiers get raped, and even rarer cases where foreign civilians succeed in pressing charges for rape or rape/murder.

That's a Koran based custom, originally due to property inheritance laws. It is the older brother's duty to execute his sisters to avoid losing ownership of the land. I think prostitutes in Islam nations are detained separately and (now I'm guessing) probably don't have a family responsible for them.

I read an account from Iraq in the 1950s where the observed prostitutes were gypsies.

A truck driver who had driven 18-wheelers through the middle east told us that he could get prostitutes in Saudi Arabia -- Nubian prostitutes. Somebody asked what that meant and I told them -- black.

Consider the Genesis story of Judah and Tamar. Judah owed Tamar by custom, but refused her status. So she pretended to be a prostitute and slept with him for the agreed price of a sheep -- but she ran off with his signet ring which he left as collateral. Later he heard that she had been out whoring and he resolved to kill her, but she showed him the signet ring he had paid her and he decided not to.

I think this story probably demonstrates the tensions involved. Men are supposed to kill prostitutes but it's hard for them to be so hypocritical.

Aardvark on May 04, 2011, 02:27:00 am
Quote
J Thomas: I think this story probably demonstrates the tensions involved. Men are supposed to kill prostitutes but it's hard for them to be so hypocritical.

They have legal prostitution, but they fancy it up as a temporary marriage, "Mutah." The Sunnis say that it's a Shi'ite custom, but that's not how they practice it. There's a pretty good rent-a-wife business in India that the Saudis partake of.

quadibloc on May 04, 2011, 06:52:03 pm
They have legal prostitution, but they fancy it up as a temporary marriage, "Mutah." The Sunnis say that it's a Shi'ite custom, but that's not how they practice it. There's a pretty good rent-a-wife business in India that the Saudis partake of.
And what I heard of the custom as it worked in Iran was that it was, bizarrely enough, a form of the advanced Sixties institution of "trial marriage".

ContraryGuy on May 10, 2011, 12:15:26 pm
Quote
Mellyrn:

Does the Constitution (by which I think you mean the US one) contain the full list of rights?

No, it doesnt.  The writers of the Constitution knew themselves that they could not enumerate every possible "right" that is possessed by a free person.

Corruption, liars, and the mentally ill, such as socialists and statists, can ruin anything.
[/quote]

Why does a person you disagree with have to be mentally ill?  Isnt it possible for a person to be just as sane, sober and rational as you are and still be disagreeable?

I know you dont understand that socialists want everything to be fair and equitable, but isnt it possible that in a world of limited resources and unequal distribution, that *maybe* the socialists have some ideas that would benefit everyone?

ContraryGuy on May 10, 2011, 12:29:29 pm
So the conclusion was that strikes are stupid and irrational, and working people wouldn't lose anything if they were outlawed entirely. It was presumably just some Communists who wanted to sabotage American industry lying to them that fooled them into thinking otherwise - although it didn't quite come out and say that.

An articulate and intelligent person might be able to see the flaw in that argument. Such a one might point to the Industrial Revolution, or even to the nineteenth century. If strikes were never, ever, possible, instead of wages being lower by the amount that might be gained in one specific labor dispute, they would be likely to be a lot lower.

Observe that better paid workers never have unions

 Boeing machinists have better pay than the non-unionized Boeing employees.

Quote
(unless they are government employees, in which case the unions are primarily get out the vote and campaign organizations: rather than striking against the government, they campaign for more government)

And yet, strange to report, better paid workers are, nonetheless, better paid.

In practice, wages are set by supply and demand, (or government) not by union negotiations.   Strikes are rarely effectual, unless the government prohibits bosses from hiring new workers and firing striking workers, or even from favoring workers that break the strike, or unless the government closes its eyes to use of violence by the union, while forbidding employers from defending their workers.

The same people who see nothing odd about SEIU unionists being bused to protests in government buses
are the same people who defend corporations who bus in workers (who have been told "do this or you're fired") or who bus in bunches of for-hire protestors.

sam on May 10, 2011, 04:14:08 pm
The same people who see nothing odd about SEIU unionists being bused to protests in government buses
are the same people who defend corporations who bus in workers (who have been told "do this or you're fired") or who bus in bunches of for-hire protestors.

Who do we see busing in for hire protestors?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJhBQsD0_hw

We see the left, the official government left.  We see on you tube video union protestors bused in in government buses and signing off on time sheets for state sponsored protests demanding more government employment, more laws and higher taxes.

We see them being handed mass produced signs that were manufactured to look like home made signs.

Where is the video showing non left protestors being bused in and signing off on time sheets?

sam on May 10, 2011, 04:54:17 pm
I know you dont understand that socialists want everything to be fair and equitable

Yet observe, when socialists visited Cuba, and Russia, and saw brutal and terrible inequality, they loved it.

Stalin showed socialists the white sea canal project.  Doubtless he prettied it up before giving them the tour, but still what he was showing them was fear, terror, and slavery, and they loved it.

Whenever socialists were given the tour of recently existent terror states, what they were shown was not fake equality, but brutal and terrible inequality, with people like themselves on top.

When George Bernard Shaw said, during the Ukraine terror famine:
“famine, what famine? Did you ever see such an abundance of good food”,
he was in a restaurant reserved exclusively for foreign friends of the regime, not a restaurant that was faked up with supposedly ordinary Ukrainians in it.  He was surrounded by real and visible inequality, not fake equality.

Similarly, when John Kenneth Galbraith went looking for evidence for the hungry ghosts terror famine in Mao's China, he decided there was no need to look further than the kitchen of his luxury hotel.  He confidently told us that “If there was any famine in China it was not evident in the kitchen”.  Perhaps it did not occur to him that famines are seldom visible in the luxury hotels of terror states.

terry_freeman on May 10, 2011, 08:27:26 pm
I just realized something.  AnCap libertarians are idealists, naive idealists.  You guys are like liberal communists.  You don't take into account human nature.

Its sweet really.

Glenn, could you at least come up with a new variety of nonsense, instead of recycling old stuff?

Idealists are people who claim that, once a human being is "elected" to public office, that being becomes transmogrified into an omniscient and benevolent Public Servant. Around here, such idealists are known as "statists" or "useful idiots" or just "idiots" for short.

Anarchists are those who believe that, even after election, officials must put their pants on one leg at a time ( assuming gravity ) just like everyone else; that said officials suffer from the same problems of limited knowledge and perverse incentives and self-interest-seeking as everyone else. Anarchists believe that electing somebody to public office does not make them something other than human; it merely saddles them with additional handicaps - namely a reduction in the quality of the information needed to seek solutions.

Advise you to read Mark Pennington's book, Robust Political Economy, where he rebuts your tiresome and OLD objections in much more detail than I have the patience for.

Ignorance is curable, but you have to want the cure.

GlennWatson on May 10, 2011, 10:21:54 pm
Quote
Glenn, could you at least come up with a new variety of nonsense, instead of recycling old stuff?

That seems like a very canned response.  I bet you have used that line before.  You seem to be under the impression I am familiar with all the old arguments other posters have made over the years before I got here.  I'm not.  Why would you think I would be?

Quote
Idealists are people who claim that, once a human being is "elected" to public office, that being becomes transmogrified into an omniscient and benevolent Public Servant. Around here, such idealists are known as "statists" or "useful idiots" or just "idiots" for short.

I am not familiar with anyone who believes elected official become omniscient.  Can you point me to a person who holds this belief?

Quote
Advise you to read Mark Pennington's book, Robust Political Economy, where he rebuts your tiresome and OLD objections in much more detail than I have the patience for.  Ignorance is curable, but you have to want the cure.

The pleasant way you dispense advice makes me want to run out and buy a copy.  Are you like this in real life or only online?  In any case if you lack the patience to explain things to me then I have a wonderful solution.  Don’t.  But please spare me your long suffering faux malaise.   Complaining that you are to busy to post in a post is tiresome.  It’s like saying you are too full to eat while shoveling in another mouthful.

sam on May 11, 2011, 03:09:05 am
In typical anarchism, no one owns property because no on *can* own property.  In an anarchy, there is no central authority that one can go to and say "I stake my claim to the piece land that stretches from x to to z to aa; let anyone who asks know that is mine."

Total bullshit.  Over and over again, people have cooperated in establishing property rights without any central authority.  Learn a little history.

Aside from your repetition of the usual idealist talking points,

It is history, not idealist talking points. Property rights were established on American frontier largely in defiance of government, with government reluctantly and belated accepting a reality it lacked the power to change.

On the Australian frontier, the government was more successful in imposing its version of property rights over that of the pioneers, but there are still large areas in the interior that the government claims are government owned, but which are in fact not government owned.  The rum rebellion ended with what was officially a government victory, but was in fact more of a victory for the squatters.


quadibloc on May 11, 2011, 05:24:12 am
It is history, not idealist talking points. Property rights were established on American frontier largely in defiance of government, with government reluctantly and belated accepting a reality it lacked the power to change.
And, in any case, as AnCap has not claimed to have anything in common with the anarchism of "Property is Theft" Proudhon, I must agree that what "typical anarchism" favors does not, by differing from what AnCap favors, refute AnCap.

The ZAP is part of AnCap, and aggression clearly comprises theft of property as well as injury to person.

mellyrn on May 11, 2011, 07:14:35 am
@ GlennWatson:
Quote
I am not familiar with anyone who believes elected official become omniscient.  Can you point me to a person who holds this belief?

Sure.  I will break it down for you, step by step, as if you honestly wished to know.

Are you familiar with anyone who has argued that humans need to be "kept on a leash" (figuratively, of course)?  I don't remember if that was you or CG.

Are you familiar with anyone who has argued that humans need to be governed (note the passive voice)?

If that's true, then the question is necessarily:  who or what is supposed to do the leash-holding, the governing?  The only candidates available are . . . humans, who (as per the claim) need to be on the leash or otherwise controlled.  (Stay on the bus, it's goin' somewhere.)

You claim,
Quote
AnCap libertarians are [...] like liberal communists [who] don't take into account human nature.  (slightly edited for brevity)

The "human nature" you cite, as reason why AnCap is airy-fairy idealism, is thus (from terry):
Quote
problems of limited knowledge and perverse incentives and self-interest-seeking

This human nature necessarily applies to anyone who can fill an office (the dead need not apply).

To believe that humans-in-office are satisfactory leash-holders is to believe that humans-in-office do not need to be on leashes themselves.

Why is that?

If being elected to office changes our human nature from "needing to be controlled" to "fit to be a controller", how about we all elect each other? :)

If you don't believe that merely being elected changes our nature, and
if you believe that humans need to be governed, and
if you believe that humans in office are no less bloody-minded rapacious idiots than the rest of us (i.e., not specially morally gifted), but yet are fit to govern the rest of us,
then you are engaging in what is known as "compartmentalized thinking".

So, a statist is either not really thinking the thing through fully, OR he is believing in the moral superiority of Officeholding humans.

terry could have gone either way with that one.  It remains that he's right, the statists are the idealists, divorced from reality either by compartmentalized thinking or by the belief in the apotheosis of election to office.

SandySandfort on May 11, 2011, 09:26:38 am
@ GlennWatson:
Quote
I am not familiar with anyone who believes elected official become omniscient.  Can you point me to a person who holds this belief?

Sure.  I will break it down for you, step by step, as if you honestly wished to know.

Are you familiar with anyone who has argued that humans need to be "kept on a leash" (figuratively, of course)?  I don't remember if that was you or CG.

Are you familiar with anyone who has argued that humans need to be governed (note the passive voice)?

Here are a couple of visual aids:

Collectivist Dog


Individualist Dog "Come and take it!"

spudit on May 11, 2011, 09:36:35 am
Mine is a willful beast. He'd point out the leash has 2 ends with the boss on one of them. Which end, sigh, that's an ongoing daily negotiation.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

ContraryGuy on May 11, 2011, 05:58:43 pm
The same people who see nothing odd about SEIU unionists being bused to protests in government buses
are the same people who defend corporations who bus in workers (who have been told "do this or you're fired") or who bus in bunches of for-hire protestors.

Who do we see busing in for hire protestors?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJhBQsD0_hw

We see the left, the official government left.  We see on you tube video union protestors bused in in government buses and signing off on time sheets for state sponsored protests demanding more government employment, more laws and higher taxes.

We see them being handed mass produced signs that were manufactured to look like home made signs.

Where is the video showing non left protestors being bused in and signing off on time sheets?


Do you really think that a corporate organizer is going to debark their bussed-in protestors where it can be videoed?
Of course not.

The few times it has happened, the videos diodnt see much press.