Re: MD terrorist blackmail

From: Wim Nusselder (
Date: Fri Dec 10 2004 - 08:37:09 GMT

  • Next message: Sam Norton: "Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?"

    Dear Platt,

    You wrote 8 Dec 2004 09:10:18 -0500:
    'It seems to me your solution to terrorism is to offer terrorists Dutch
    style socialism whereby money is forcibly extracted from the pockets of the
    productive citizens of the world to pay off killers in the hope that in so
    doing, the killers will renounce their decapitating ways and become model
    world citizens. I find no historical evidence that large scale
    redistribution of wealth assures peace any better than encouraging and
    rewarding the productive members of society by means of a free market

    Does that (implicitly) mean that you at least concede that my suggested
    solution would not imply giving in to terrorist blackmail?

    As I told you before, the money needed for a social security system is not
    forcibly extracted from the pockets of Dutch tax payers. Almost all of them
    are convinced that it is right that they pay for it. Political debate is
    only about a little more or a little less. That's not socialism as I
    understand it and as it was meant by Marx, as the 'means of production' and
    the decisions on how to utilize them stay safely in the hands of their
    Dutch experience shows that we don't need large scale redistribution of
    wealth to assure peace. The USA would be a much safer place if most of its
    expenditure on national security would be redirected into social security
    and (to the small extent necessary to meet its obligation to spend 0,7% of
    GNP on it) into development aid.
    Until recently it DID assure peace (in combination with encouraging and
    rewarding people in a guided market system) in the Netherlands. (Mind you
    that political assassinations, like those of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh,
    that shocked the Dutch politial landscape in recent years, had almost no
    precedent in the Netherlands since the assassination of Willem van Oranje,
    the Dutch founding father.) It does not assure peace in the Netherlands any
    more, because the Netherlands had become part of a globalized world without
    a globalized social security system.

    I will leave the discussion whether terrorism is biological to others this
    time. We have gone into that before.

    You wrote:
    'As for the UN and Global Courts -- well, one look at the Iraq oil for food
    scandal is enough to convince me that trusting international politicians to
    do the right thing would be disastrous.'

    What struck ME, was that those 'international politicians' didn't behave
    like supranational politicians, but tried to serve national interests. Of
    course you should never trust them. That's why I proposed checks and
    balances. These are indeed still lacking to a large degree (but less so than
    in most nations).
    Why do you lump UN and a Global Court of Justice together?
    What about my argument that you need a carrot (global welfare state) as well
    as a stick (military capacity/global police force) for world peace? A free
    market system alone doesn't serve as a proper carrot. It creates wealth for
    the average participant (enough state intervention to guard the rules), but
    it also creates losers (and disproportionate winners) and excludes people
    from participation as well.
    The USA has police and courts internally and lots of state-inforced rules
    for a proper functioning of its 'free market system' (often more than in
    Europe). Why not develop them (again: with checks and balances) on a global

    With friendly greetings,


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 10 2004 - 09:00:24 GMT