Peter Breugel the Elder. Hunters in the Snow. (1565)
When civilization meant food on the table...
Posted on 11/04/2001 7:15:41 PM PST by annalex
My translation is functional but does not adequately express the author's style, that transitions from chatty conversationalism to erudite academese with remarkable agility.
We approached these topics in the previous weeks. In particular, in The Contours of Victory I assert the civilizational character of this war and sound similar warnings. Two Articles On Anti-Terrorist Policy by Peikoff, Just Intervention , and Philosophy: Who Needs It? contain a Randian blessing of an aggressively prosecuted war in defense of freedom.
Let me remind everyone that Defense of Liberty (earlier known as Pursuit of Liberty) is a periodical Free Republic publishing operation that I took upon myself to advance our understanding of libertarianism. The previous threads are on my Freeper profile. On occasion I take the intiative to place some fellow Freepers on my bump list, but primarily the list is formed from your requests. If you are not on the list and wish to be on it, let me know; if you are presently on and want off, ditto.
Please support Free Republic
Peter Breugel the Elder. Hunters in the Snow. (1565)
When civilization meant food on the table...
:
It hasn't been that long since Arafat was offered
everything he has been clamoring for, IIRC. He
turned it down flat.
It appears the Islamic fundies will settle for
nothing less than the disappearance of advanced
society and a dragging of all civilization to their
dirt-dwelling, woman-enslaving, brutal lifestyle.
It won't happen.
You can't unring a bell.
Someday, when we have 'won', there may be
reservations upon which live these primitive
tribes at the sufferance of overarching
civilizations who no longer tolerate
the hatred, envy, and criminality of backward-
looking bands of fanatics. Let them run casinos.
Linguistically, absolutely (I studied Russian in College--I even have a degree). But ideologically, it has much more in common with Western thought in general, and with American political tradition especially, than I am used to seeing from Russion sources. That's one of the very fascinating aspects of the article, actually.
To find all articles tagged or indexed using
taliban_list
Click here:
Excellent analysis.
As long as we ask our rulers to "establish a durable and just peace between the nations", we will be ruled solely by chamberlains. They cannot extinguish the volcano of hostility. But our losses from each eruption will grow sharply. That is because all peaceful gestures from time immemorial only kindled the zeal of the attackers.
Even better.
The dog.
As long as we do not recognize a state of war, we will require our police and our foreign intelligence to respect the privacy of the correspondence of our enemies, their "civil freedoms" and other rights, guaranteed by the constitution. That is akin to forbidding the military officers to use binoculars, lest, God forbid, they see some intimate details of life in the enemy trenches. Martial law requires sacrifice of some freedoms and people will be understanding if the martial law is openly declared.
No sale.
A war such as this requires absolute commitment of the populace to the principles and causes of the state. You do not get that by destroying civil liberites and civic respect for unalienable rights, but by the empowerment of self-government on a local basis. The key here in our defense is the organization of the Militia under the rule of law, more local republican architectures of "neighborhood government," and to replicate that device eslewhere.
transitions from chatty conversationalism to erudite academese with remarkable agility.
You'll enjoy mine.
Thanks for the post. The article reminded me of a similar observation about the relationship of coveteousness to war by the Biblical writer, James:
James 4
1 What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you?
2 You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God.
Cordially,
We don't want their territory. We could use the oil, of course, which should rightly be ours anyway. The victory will mean that the Muslim governments that we support will put those bastards on reservations, -- if they have the mercy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.