Naked Science Forum

General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: CliffordK on 07/01/2014 20:17:21

Title: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: CliffordK on 07/01/2014 20:17:21
Is Germany better off having lost WWII?

I suppose the question is complex.  Had they won WWII, Europe, and perhaps Eurasia would have been unified under German rule in the 40's or 50's.  Would they have continued the war until they controlled everything from the Atlantic to the Pacific?

However, in losing the war, the Nazis were expelled, and they were able to rebuild a strong economy.

So, 70 years later, how the the Germans feel about the war?  Do they consider the way the war ended the right way?  Is Germany better off?
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: Don_1 on 29/01/2014 12:21:25
Certainly a damn site better off than the UK.
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: CliffordK on 31/01/2014 08:20:15
Quote from: Don_1 on 29/01/2014 12:21:25
Certainly a damn site better off than the UK.

Apparently France and the UK were the biggest recipients of reconstruction aid via the Marshall Plan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Expenditures)

However, WWII marked the end of the colonial superpowers which would have left Britain struggling to rebuild somewhat.  However, even without colonies, I think there is a significant ability to use and abuse trade.
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: Aemilius on 01/02/2014 17:01:04
Quote from: CliffordK on 07/01/2014 20:17:21
Is Germany better off having lost WWII?

I suppose the question is complex.

It's not a complex question.... it's simply an impossible question. To know one way or the other if Germany is better off or not having lost WWII one would have to know how things would have turned out had they won WWII.

Since we can never know whether or not Germany would have been better off had it won the war, obviously we can never know whether or not they're better off now for having lost it either!

To know whether a given situation is beneficial or not one must have something to compare it to. You don't have that here so no convincing answer to the question is possible.... Logic.
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: CliffordK on 02/02/2014 01:01:28
I would argue that Denazification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification) had to happen in Germany sometime. 

One could argue that the USA has evolved significantly with respect to personal rights of all individuals over its 200 year history, taking big steps around the time of Lincoln and later with MLK and Rosa Parks.  It is possible that Germany would have evolved beyond the Nazis and their discrimination policies.
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: Aemilius on 02/02/2014 17:33:59
Quote from: CliffordK on 02/02/2014 01:01:28
I would argue that Denazification had to happen in Germany sometime.

You mean you would speculate that Denazification had to happen in Germany sometime. 

Quote from: CliffordK on 02/02/2014 01:01:28
 
One could argue that the USA has evolved significantly with respect to personal rights of all individuals over its 200 year history, taking big steps around the time of Lincoln and later with MLK and Rosa Parks.  It is possible that Germany would have evolved beyond the Nazis and their discrimination policies.

I suppose one could speculate on any of a whole constellation of intricately constructed possible/various scenarios or sequences of events leading to this or that possible outcome but.... fact based arguments will always be more convincing.

Using now well known facts and without any speculation one can argue very convincingly that the USA has, in reality, actually taken breathtakingly bold strides backwards with respect to the personal rights of all individuals (yes, even provably around the time of MLK and Rosa Parks) with the recent disclosures of things like "Operation Gladio"*, a covert decades old US taxpayer funded global terror network created to further what was generally referred to at the time as "A Strategy of Tension"**, along now of course with the disclosure of other things like (my favorite) the unbelievably US taxpayer funded domestic terrorist plot known as "Operation Northwoods"***, a plan verifiably submitted to president Kennedy in 1962 by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that included carrying out a series of lethal terrorist attacks in Miami, Washington DC and elsewhere, and even using the blowing up of John Glenn on his way into space as a pretext for the invasion of Cuba! Then there's the more recent unprecedented and historic US taxpayer funded global NSA spying scandal.

.....* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio)
...** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension)
.*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: Aemilius on 04/02/2014 02:36:23
Just curious (if not too personal).... What's your educational background CliffordK? Are you a US taxpayer?
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: CliffordK on 04/02/2014 08:23:08
Yes, I do pay taxes in the USA.
And, I don't support everything the USA does including targeting individuals for murder without a trial, or failure to extend "civil rights" to those outside of our boarders. 

What is the point of building a prison on a US military base outside of the continental USA, built specifically to deny individuals a trial, criminal charges, evidence, and etc.

One can be judged by the way one treats their "guests" and "neighbors".
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: Aemilius on 04/02/2014 12:21:37
Right, I see your point.... Are you a scientist?
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: Aemilius on 08/02/2014 02:03:33
Quote from: CliffordK on 04/02/2014 08:23:08
Yes, I do pay taxes in the USA. And, I don't support everything the USA does....

Hah! Right, it's the old "Yes I do.... And, I don't...." type of thing.

Just speculation of course, but if one continues to willingly hand over tax dollars in spite of knowing that the funds are being misappropriated for illegal purposes by a covert political entity not approved or authorized in any way by authentic legal legislative due process.... Doesn't that make each and every such aware taxpayer complicit as an accessory in the commission of an ongoing state sponsored terrorist/criminal conspiracy? 

Just as with German citizens after the war, wouldn't US taxpayers who knowingly did that then naturally each bear some measure of responsibility for crimes verifiably being/having been committed in their name  by the covert political entity during (at least) the time they were aware of it.... yet continued to willingly/actively fund it?
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/02/2014 02:40:10
The operative word is "willingly". 

As governments consistently refuse to hypothecate tax revenues it's impossible to withhold that part of your taxes that you consider is funding something of which you disapprove. Of course if you disapprove of everything your government does, you can always apply to live somewhere else, or try to avoid paying taxes altogether.

What made the majority of German citizens culpable was persistently electing a thoroughly unpleasant government and colluding in its internal terrorism. Even so, there were some heroes who objected, and their modern counterparts in the US seem to have some Presidential sympathy. 
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: Aemilius on 08/02/2014 04:54:14
Quote from: alancalverd on 08/02/2014 02:40:10
The operative word is "willingly".

So they're doing it all unwillingly?

Quote from: alancalverd on 08/02/2014 02:40:10
As governments consistently refuse to hypothecate tax revenues it's impossible to withhold that part of your taxes that you consider is funding something of which you disapprove.

Not buying it. Every American taxpayer now knows or could reasonably be expected to know that for at least the last five decades (and probably longer) their alledgedly democratically elected government, administration after administration after administration, has been and continues to be secretly involved around the world with murder, bombings and false flag terrorism in order to cultivate and maintain some kind of insane "Strategy of Tension" and anyone who knows that and keeps giving them money is part of it.... period. Everyone (from individuals to major corporations) knows now where the money is going and they just keep handing it over. The bullets continue to fly and the bombs continue to explode and innocent people continue to die.   

Quote from: alancalverd on 08/02/2014 02:40:10
What made the majority of German citizens culpable was persistently electing a thoroughly unpleasant government and colluding in its internal terrorism. Even so, there were some heroes who objected, and their modern counterparts in the US seem to have some Presidential sympathy.


American citizens have now provably been persistently electing a thoroughly unpleasant (actually now confirmed rotten) government for at least five decades and the people know it and have done nothing. Grave injustices have occurred (a million dead in Iraq alone over a lie.... a million people!) and continue to occur. And you say US taxpayers aren't colluding as they continue handing over money they know is going to an out of control covert political entity not approved or authorized in any way by authentic legal legislative due process while winking and looking the other way.... Hah!
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/02/2014 10:13:11
1. I don't know anyone who willingly pays taxes.

2. I'm not sure what your tax dollars buy, but over half of my unwilling contribution to the UK treasury goes on social security benefits, public health, and education. Surprisingly, only about 5% is spent on "defence" (which nowadays consists almost entirely of pointless offense) and very little indeed on Foreign Office efforts to destabilise legitimate regimes overseas. So my choice is to put up with maybe 3% unjustified expenditure on sending willing volunteers to be blown to bits in Afghanistan (if the UK didn't spend a small amount on actual defence, the original question would have been quite different) or to emigrate to a regime that will devote 100% of my taxes to things I approve of. Any suggestion will be welcome.

3. Party politics does indeed tend to produce governments whose principal motivation is to get re-elected, and ever since Machiavelli's time, one way to do this is to start a war. It also helps, where the vote is balanced between two incompetent parties, to have your brother count the deciding votes in a presidential election. Where the UK has gone off the rails is in allowing an unelected prime minister to declare war on anyone she thinks might benefit her (later his) public image.

Never forget the roots of "democracy". Demos - the people; krassos - the worst. Government of, by, and for, the worst people. There is a better system, but it too has become infected with politicians. 
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: Aemilius on 11/02/2014 22:56:07
Quote from: alancalverd on 08/02/2014 10:13:11
1. I don't know anyone who willingly pays taxes.

Don't you mean you don't know anyone who likes paying taxes? Personally, I've never unwillingly handed over one penny to anyone in my life, and I don't think you have either. If demand is made upon one to knowingly continue contributing to something like, say, a proven major ongoing conspiracy and covert campaign of global murder, bombings and false flag terrorist plots, one must make a choice. One has to decide what one is or is not willing to do. Whatever one ends up deciding to do, it is that one then willingly does.... pretty basic stuff man.       
 
Quote from: alancalverd on 08/02/2014 10:13:11
2. I'm not sure what your tax dollars buy....

Hah! My tax dollars never bought anything. I decided early on, actually starting with my first taxable job at about the age of fifteen (I've been on my own since I was eleven) to maintain an annual reportable income below the minimum taxable amount required for a United States citizen, $10,000.... not a tall order for a life long minimalist!

Quote from: alancalverd on 08/02/2014 10:13:11
....but over half of my unwilling contribution to the UK treasury goes on social security benefits, public health, and education.

So, using (what we now know) you've willingly paid in the past as a standard, a very significant 50% or more of taxes (at least what you're being told about) goes to noble causes like social security benefits, public health, and education....

Quote from: alancalverd on 08/02/2014 10:13:11
Surprisingly, only about 5% is spent on "defence" (which nowadays consists almost entirely of pointless offense) and very little indeed on Foreign Office efforts to destabilise legitimate regimes overseas.

....and after all it's only an insignificant 5% (about £30 billion in 2013) of the budget that even goes to the military....

Quote from: alancalverd on 08/02/2014 10:13:11
So my choice is to put up with maybe 3% unjustified expenditure on sending willing volunteers to be blown to bits in Afghanistan....

....and as you say it's your choice, it's what you've decided you're willing to put up with, this paltry 3% (about £18 billion in 2013) of unjustified annual expenditures, and as long as there's no substantial increase in these unjustified annual expenditures it's not a problem. As it turns out, these days £18 billion is really just chump change and it's probably not hurting anyone anyway. All things considered, it certainly doesn't merit taking any time or trouble to investigate or prosecute any of these ongoing crimes, conspiracies or terrorist plots as that might risk funding delays in the areas of more noble expenditures like social security benefits, public health, and education. Best just to maintain the status quo.... Eh? 

I think you'll continue to willingly hand over the money too, as you seem to have imagined things for yourself in a way that doesn't present any pressing moral issue here. To your mind, as long as any well established long term secret government expenditures devoted to illegal invasions, global murder, bombings and false flag terror plots are held down to a reasonable percentage (as if there was such a thing) of the annual budget as a whole (at least the budget your being told about), and because really so much obvious good is being done with most of your tax dollars, and since it doesn't cause you any additional economic discomfort, as you say it's you're choice to put up with it, you've decided to accept it and willingly pay for it! If that's your choice, believe me.... I'd sooner shoot myself than trade ideologic shoes with you for an instant!   

Interesting to note that nowhere in your tidy little cost/benefit analysis is there even a crumb of outrage about the whole country of Iraq being completly destroyed or even a morsel of empathy for the over one million people murdered in Iraq alone as a direct result of a criminal terrorist conspiracy and subsequent invasion provably hatched between Britain and the United States for the sole purpose of looting the country of its oil.
       
Quote from: alancalverd on 08/02/2014 10:13:11
3. Party politics does indeed tend to produce governments whose principal motivation is to get re-elected, and ever since Machiavelli's time, one way to do this is to start a war. It also helps, where the vote is balanced between two incompetent parties, to have your brother count the deciding votes in a presidential election. Where the UK has gone off the rails is in allowing an unelected prime minister to declare war on anyone she thinks might benefit her (later his) public image.

You seem to have missed the elephant in the room Dr. Calverd.... if you get down off the brontosaurus you're riding for a moment you'd be better able to see it!

It can't have been just party politics or some revolving door of bloodthirsty Presidents calling the shots over such an extended period of time producing such a consistent result (constant war). Operation Gladio is a major decades old global terrorist network that has clearly been consistently and smoothly functioning independent of whichever party happened to be occupying the White House over the decades. It appears more likely now that the various Presidents over the last five decades (including the current one, so impotent he can't even close Guantanimo) have really just been doing what they're told to by "advisors" at the Pentagon (the Joint Chiefs of Staff).... not the other way around.
 
The continued funding and implementation of such a major ongoing state sponsored global covert terrorist operation, set up many years ago during the Cold War, is almost undoubtedly by now well beyond the reach of even the President of the United States to alter. It's a distinct covert political entity operating within the United States government itself (and no doubt numerous other governments as well) that's not subject or answerable in any way to the Executive, Judicial or Legislative branches of government. It's the Pentagon (the Joint Chiefs of Staff) that have been continuously running and seamlessly implementing the whole operation.... it has been all along.     

Quote from: alancalverd on 08/02/2014 10:13:11
Never forget the roots of "democracy". Demos - the people; krassos - the worst. Government of, by, and for, the worst people.

Yeah man, I know all about it.... Planet of the Apes is one of my favorite movies!

(Not meaning to beat you up over it personally Dr. Calverd (well, maybe a little), really only meaning to beat up the line of reasoning.)
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: CliffordK on 12/02/2014 22:11:54
Quote from: Aemilius on 11/02/2014 22:56:07
Hah! My tax dollars never bought anything. I decided early on, actually starting with my first taxable job at about the age of fifteen (I've been on my own since I was eleven) to maintain an annual reportable income below the minimum taxable amount required for a United States citizen, $10,000.... not a tall order for a life long minimalist!

So, have you moved to a no property tax state (eg Washington), close enough to the boarder that you can drive to a no sales tax state (eg Oregon)?

You could brew your own biodiesel, but that would still leave you with vehicle licensing and registration taxes.  Perhaps a bicycle?

Don't forget any businesses you support are also paying business taxes and their shareholders pay income taxes on the profits, unless all your shopping is done at non-profits.

Hopefully you're not anticipating receiving more public support than you're paying in taxes.
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/02/2014 22:43:55
Quote from: Aemilius on 11/02/2014 22:56:07
(Not meaning to beat you up over it personally Dr. Calverd (well, maybe a little), really only meaning to beat up the line of reasoning.)

So according to your logic,

(a) the fact that I run a successful business that can't avoid paying taxes (despite the best efforts of my brillliant accountant) makes me wholly morally liable for state terrorism

(b) the fact that you don't understand how businesses are taxed relieves you of all moral liability for the stupidity of the state that receives all the taxes and duties you pay on goods and services

(c) the fact that I spend a lot of time complaining about and undermining immoral government actions counts for nothing because you don't know about it   

(d) but you can wallow in selfcongratulation for being too lazy to do anything except criticise the state that protects your free speech.

All very 1960's. 

So let's return to the question you didn't answer. Do you think I should (1) close down my business, sack my employees, and thus not pay direct taxes in case a portion thereof gets spent on things of which you disapprove, or can you suggest somewhere I might (2) move to where I can continue to make a living by healing the sick but not one penny of any money I might earn or part with, willingly, unwillingly, knowingly or unknowingly, will be spent on anything you consider wrong?   Remember that I am known to the authorities as a "dangerous pacifist", which rather limits my options  for emigration.
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: Aemilius on 14/02/2014 11:40:26
Quote from: CliffordK on 12/02/2014 22:11:54
So, have you moved to a no property tax state (eg Washington)....

Never owned any property.... never paid any property tax.

Quote from: CliffordK on 12/02/2014 22:11:54
....close enough to the boarder that you can drive to a no sales tax state (eg Oregon)?

You could brew your own biodiesel, but that would still leave you with vehicle licensing and registration taxes.

No licensing or registration taxes, never owned a car.... never bought a drop of gasoline or any other automobile related product.

Quote from: CliffordK on 12/02/2014 22:11:54
Perhaps a bicycle?

I walk.... a lot.

Quote from: CliffordK on 12/02/2014 22:11:54
Don't forget any businesses you support are also paying business taxes and their shareholders pay income taxes on the profits, unless all your shopping is done at non-profits.

I don't "support" any business. I pay state and local sales tax on non-food items, probably around $150.00 to $175.00.... a year. How other individuals (store owners, shareholders, the local drunk, Mick Jagger, etc.) conduct themselves financially is a matter of supernatural indifference to me.   

Quote from: CliffordK on 12/02/2014 22:11:54
Hopefully you're not anticipating receiving more public support than you're paying in taxes.

I never anticipate receiving any support of any kind, public or otherwise.... as a suicidal procrastinator it's not an issue!
 
Look, you can continue to dissect my personal approach intuitively arrived at as a kid for dealing with this issue and even make it appear as if I'm somehow inextricably entangled in all this crap no matter what I do, and maybe you're right to some degree.... I don't see it. It just doesn't seem at all likely that any of the $150.00 to $175.00 I pay annually in state and local sales tax is being insidiously siphoned off by some sinister top secret Pentagon/Gladio "Operation Nickle-and-Dime" program. But then again.... Who knows?

Anyway, like I said, focussing on me or my particular approach doesn't invalidate the moral predicament I'm framing here (reminiscent of the moral predicament the citizens of Nazi Germany ultimately found themselves in). In fact, even if I was paying a thousand times what you are in taxes, it still wouldn't invalidate the fact based assessment here of what's actually occurring, or the moral implications the average taxpayer faces once they fully realize and understand that it was actually their own government that has been deliberately conspiring, planning and committing horrific acts of murder, terrorism and general carnage around the globe, even as it steadfastly maintained that the crimes were being committed by others for over half a century!
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: Aemilius on 14/02/2014 12:12:12
Quote from: alancalverd on 12/02/2014 22:43:55

So according to your logic,

(a) the fact that I run a successful business that can't avoid paying taxes (despite the best efforts of my brillliant accountant) makes me wholly morally liable for state terrorism


No, according to my logic, at least when it comes to the criminal terrorist conspiracy that led to the illegal invasion of Iraq, where approximately 1,000,000 innocent people have been essentially murdered....
 
....if one knows that elements within the American and British governments secretly planned and verifiably carried out various deceptions, illegal murders, bombings and terrorist plots....

....and if one knows that elements within the American and British governments have used and are continuing to use taxpayer money illegally to carry out these deceptions, illegal murders, bombings and terrorist plots....

....and if one knows that by continuing to pay taxes one is actually aiding and abetting an ongoing criminal terrorist conspiracy....

....and if one knows that the capability to continue secretly planning and carrying out further deceptions, illegal murders, bombings and terrorist plots will be ensured by ones continued cooperation....

....and if one then deliberately chooses, in spite of knowing all that, to continue to willingly hand over tax revenues, I don't see how such a one could possibly be seen (by definition) as anything less than partially liable as a willing accomplice in the commission of an ongoing criminal terrorist conspiracy.... What other way is there to see it?   

Quote from: alancalverd on 12/02/2014 22:43:55

(b) the fact that you don't understand how businesses are taxed relieves you of all moral liability for the stupidity of the state that receives all the taxes and duties you pay on goods and services.

Hah! Well Dr. Calverd, I immediately suspect anyone who claims to actually understand how businesses (or anything else for that matter) are taxed under either the American tax code of about 7,500 pages or the British tax code of about 11,500 pages! I don't think even your Ph.D will be of much assistance when it comes to figuring out the tax code. It doesn't matter though, because all one really needs to know is the facts. Whatever the current tax structure is it's helping to facilitate the unknown objectives of an ongoing criminal terrorist conspiracy by allowing various deceptions, murders, bombings and terrorist plots to continue being carried out using tax revenues through the (very convenient) inability of any regulatory authority to effectively itemize, separate out or even trace what money goes where or why within the budget.... apparently without fear of prosecution or even cursory investigation.   

Quote from: alancalverd on 12/02/2014 22:43:55

(c) the fact that I spend a lot of time complaining about and undermining immoral government actions counts for nothing because you don't know about it



Oh, I know about it Dr. Calverd. I've read some of what you have to say. I just think your priorities are a little screwy. What advantage is there after all (even if you're improbable quest should succeed) in converting the world to veganism and slowing down global warming/climate change.... if the governmental equivalent of Jack the Ripper is in charge?
 
Quote from: alancalverd on 12/02/2014 22:43:55

(d) but you can wallow in selfcongratulation....


Wallowing in selfcongratulation? All I've done really is relate how I chose to deal with certain things personally in light of certain facts, and outlined the moral implications I think others are facing and the choice they must make, knowing the same certain facts.

Quote from: alancalverd on 12/02/2014 22:43:55
....for being too lazy to do anything except criticise the state that protects your free speech.


Right.... so if the great Dr. Alan Calverd Ph.D. spends a lot of time complaining about and undermining vague immoral government actions* he deserves public recognition, credit and the deepest appreciation.... but if I complain about a specific proven ongoing state sponsored foreign and domestic campaign of deception, murder and terrorist carnage spanning five decades and the taxpayers funding it, I'm lazy and ungrateful for criticizing the state which, according to you, has been admirably and dutifully battling to protect my right to free speech! Do you hear laughter Dr. Calverd? 

*What actions (besides the vegan thing)? I'd actually enjoy reading more of what you have to say if you have links.
 
Quote from: alancalverd on 12/02/2014 22:43:55
 

So let's return to the question you didn't answer.


You never asked me a question.... Flustered?

Quote from: alancalverd on 12/02/2014 22:43:55

Do you think I should (1) close down my business, sack my employees, and thus not pay direct taxes in case a portion thereof gets spent on things of which you disapprove, or can you suggest somewhere I might (2) move to where I can continue to make a living by healing the sick but not one penny of any money I might earn or part with, willingly, unwillingly, knowingly or unknowingly, will be spent on anything you consider wrong?   Remember that I am known to the authorities as a "dangerous pacifist", which rather limits my options  for emigration.


Man.... you really know how to play things down! We're not talking here about some kind of "....in case a portion thereof gets spent...." type of thing, what were talking about is a portion thereof that has been spent annually over decades, were talking about a portion thereof that is being spent right now, and were talking about a portion thereof that will continue to be spent annually well into the future. There's an enormous difference between that and your "....in case a portion thereof gets spent...." characterization.

Hey.... this is starting to remind me a little of the "catastrophic aerostatic blowout/speed of sound stress propagation shockwave/spontaneous progressive structural disintegration" thing from our other conversation!

First, we have the seemingly insurmountable difficulty of ever being able to sort out when what money goes where or why because governments consistently refuse to hypothecate tax revenues....

Next, we have all the noble good that's done with most of the tax money such as social security benefits, public health, and education....
 
Then, it's really only about 3% (£18 billion!) of the budget as a whole being unjustifiably spent, so it's not really worth fretting over or looking into....

And, there's the hardship that might be suffered by you and your employees should you make any rash decision in response to finding all this out....
 
Sorry, but all I see there is excuses for past, present and future inaction.... a recipe for disaster. 
 
This isn't just some abstract possibility that might happen someday, it's a reality.... It's something that has been happening, is now happening and will almost undoubtedly continue to happen.

Quote from: alancalverd on 12/02/2014 22:43:55

All very 1960's.


Right, I gotta split man.... bad vibes!
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: Aemilius on 28/02/2014 02:27:00
Dr. Calverd, you mentioned you spend a lot of time complaining about and undermining immoral government actions. I'd really like to read more of what you have to say on other issues.... Do you have a couple of links? 
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/02/2014 08:02:21
Please don't accuse me of providing excuses for anything anyone else has ever done. I may be able to explain the reason why they did it, or why it would have been difficult for anyone to prevent it, but a reason is not an excuse.

Quote
What advantage is there after all (even if you're improbable quest should succeed) in converting the world to veganism and slowing down global warming/climate change.... if the governmental equivalent of Jack the Ripper is in charge?
strikes me as very defeatist. One victory at a time is better than not fighting. I suspect things will change when a cattle farmer's brother becomes prime minister, but for the time being, at least, the government can't force anyone to eat meat.

I don't want to make this ad hominem but I'd be interested to know what steps you took to prevent the CIA from carrying out any particular covert action, particularly before you knew about it. This does seem to be what you are demanding of others, so an example would be helpful. As has been pointed out by other contributors here, simply not paying direct taxes doesn't count: what governments don't collect from you, they will collect from your suppliers. 

 
Quote
....if one knows that elements within the American and British governments secretly planned and verifiably carried out various deceptions, illegal murders, bombings and terrorist plots....
Never mind "secretly". It was obvious to anyone who heard Tony B Liar announcing the invasion of Iraq that he was lying to Parliament and everyone else. It was obvious to anyone who ever read Machiavelli why he was doing so. But none of our elected representatives had the balls or brains to challenge him - war is good for politicians. At least a fair proportion of the electorate turned out to protest, but unless you are prepared to deceive, murder, etc., (like the criminals who now run Northern Ireland) you can't force your own  government to back down.
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: Aemilius on 03/03/2014 04:35:40
Quote from: alancalverd on 28/02/2014 08:02:21
Please don't accuse me of providing excuses for anything anyone else has ever done. I may be able to explain the reason why they did it, or why it would have been difficult for anyone to prevent it, but a reason is not an excuse.

No personal accusations intended, sorry if it came across that way. Just a casual indictment of all taxpayers really (including me if you like). It's all just fun facts, friendly argument and thought provoking opinion as far as I'm concerned. After all, that list of reasons you gave for cooperating is probably very similar to what any prosperous german citizen might have given back then to explain why they cooperated.... on their way to a waiting train that would take them away to a forced labor camp somewhere.

Quote from: alancalverd on 28/02/2014 08:02:21
strikes me as very defeatist.

Funny, I always thought of myself as a realist, not a defeatist, although I have to say as the global situation continues to rapidly deteriorate on almost every front I'm finding it increasingly difficult to tell which is which!

Quote from: alancalverd on 28/02/2014 08:02:21
One victory at a time is better than not fighting. I suspect things will change when a cattle farmer's brother becomes prime minister, but for the time being, at least, the government can't force anyone to eat meat.

That's what I meant earlier when I said (about your vegan/climate change crusade) that I thought your priorities seemed a little screwy. It's a bit like saying.... "I know an arsonist is using the gasoline I'm supplying to set fire to the political/social/economic house and I'll supply more gasoline on demand for now, I just want to go ahead and finish tending and watering the environmental rose garden before I turn the hose on it." By that rationale, judging by the rate at which climate change occurs in the environmental rose garden, and taking into consideration your current age of sixty-five, I'm afraid you shall need a firm belief in reincarnation if you're ever to get to it.

Quote from: alancalverd on 28/02/2014 08:02:21
I don't want to make this ad hominem but I'd be interested to know what steps you took to prevent the CIA from carrying out any particular covert action, particularly before you knew about it. This does seem to be what you are demanding of others, so an example would be helpful.

Come now Dr. Calverd, we both know there's no way for anyone to go out and physically stop the CIA from carrying out any particular covert action. That tactic doesn't even rise to the level of ad hominem! Somewhere around the time I learned what happened in Vietnam and Cambodia I did take one step though.... I refused to cooperate. After all, just because one can't stop the horror doesn't mean one has to play a part in it.
 
Like I said earlier, focussing on or trying to implicate me in the whole thing, even if successful, doesn't invalidate the moral predicament I'm framing here reminiscent of the moral predicament the citizens of Nazi Germany ultimately found themselves in or change the fact based assessment I've given here of what's actually occurring, along with the accompanying moral implications the average taxpayer faces (or refuses to face) once they fully realize and understand that it is actually their own government* that is deliberately conspiring, planning and committing horrific acts of murder, terrorism and general carnage around the globe and even at home for over half a century, all the while steadfastly maintaining it's really trying to protect its citizens, falsely attributing the crimes to others who were often then attacked and killed.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio).... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension)....  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)

Interesting how initially you suggested, presumably as a way to avoid the moral conflict that....

Quote from: alancalverd on 08/02/2014 02:40:10
....if you disapprove of everything your government does, you can always apply to live somewhere else, or try to avoid paying taxes altogether. 

....but when I make it known that I never paid taxes for that reason, I'm characterized as wallowing in selfcongratulation, being too lazy to do anything and even being ungrateful for my right to free speech!

So all I did was refuse to cooperate. Now that you've thrown open the ad hominem door though, it's only fair for me to ask.... What steps have you taken? 

Quote from: alancalverd on 28/02/2014 08:02:21
As has been pointed out by other contributors here, simply not paying direct taxes doesn't count....

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see where a bunch of "other contributors" have pointed out anything of the sort.... Quotes? Even if someone had pointed it out though it wouldn't matter. When it comes to personal accountability.... How could anyone in their right mind see refusing to be complicit in the commission of a proven ongoing criminal conspiracy as not counting?   
   
Quote from: alancalverd on 28/02/2014 08:02:21
....what governments don't collect from you, they will collect from your suppliers

So the implication here seems to be that because others (known or unknown) around me are providing material support for an ongoing criminal enterprise, it ultimately doesn't really make any difference what I do because whether I personally refuse to cooperate and hand over the money or not, since someone else either directly or indirectly connected to me will, so.... I'm inescapably guilty by association unless I intentionally maroon myself on a deserted island somewhere? I don't think so.

I'm sure you're right about one thing though, they'll find a way to get the money they need one way or the other....

....they just won't get it from me.
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/03/2014 07:43:56
Intentionally staying below the tax threshold is morally fine as long as you don't expect other peoples' tax dollars to provide you with any services. Not merely direct personal services like health and welfare benefits but sanitation (mains water and removing other people's sh1t and garbage from your environment), genuine defence of your freedom, policing in all its forms (including actively preventing other people from dumping their S&G in your backyard, and indeed even registering the backyard as yours)....and all the other economic goods that you don't purchase directly.

The moral conundrum for all conscientious objectors is that their right to object is defended by exactly the thing they are objecting to. Life ain't easy in a complex society: other people are both the problem and the solution.   
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: Aemilius on 10/03/2014 19:49:36
Quote from: alancalverd on 03/03/2014 07:43:56
Intentionally staying below the tax threshold is morally fine as long as you don't expect other peoples' tax dollars to provide you with any services.

Deliberately maintaining a certain income level isn't only morally fine, it's legally fine too. It doesn't exclude me from any eligibility to recieve emergency goods/services I'm entitled to as a United States citizen either.   
 
Quote from: alancalverd on 03/03/2014 07:43:56
Not merely direct personal services like health and welfare benefits but sanitation (mains water and removing other people's sh1t and garbage from your environment), genuine defence of your freedom, policing in all its forms (including actively preventing other people from dumping their S&G in your backyard, and indeed even registering the backyard as yours)....and all the other economic goods that you don't purchase directly.

Flotsam.... everything you mentioned there is covered by its own designated state and/or local tax set up for the purpose (which I pay where applicable), even the community health clinic I frequent is paid for by state and local taxes of one sort or another. 

Quote from: alancalverd on 03/03/2014 07:43:56
The moral conundrum for all conscientious objectors is that their right to object is defended by exactly the thing they are objecting to.

For someone so intent on proper definitions you're playing pretty fast and loose! I'm no "conscientious objector".... if this country was attacked I would gladly be among the first to pick up a rifle. But as everyone now knows and has known for quite some time, Iraq (just one of many possible examples) wasn't a war fought to defend this country. It was an illegal slaughter, invasion and occupation of a sovereign state launched by a criminal terrorist conspiracy provably hatched between the US and the UK (the originators of Operation Gladio).
 
In light of those facts I don't fit the profile a "conscientious objector" at all. I'm just a law abiding United States citizen who, while not agreeing to relinquish any constitutional rights, at the same time, refuses to cooperate or provide material support for a proven criminal terrorist conspiracy that has verifiably taken the lives of at least one million people.
 
Seen in that light, there's no moral conundrum at all when it comes down to deciding whether or not to cooperate or hand over any federal tax dollars no matter what the majority of those taxes purportedly go for, the fact remains.... One is either knowingly cooperating and willingly continuing to fund it (providing material support for a proven illegal ongoing international criminal terrorist conspiracy), or one is refusing to knowingly cooperate or willingly continue funding it. It's really very simple.
 
Quote from: alancalverd on 03/03/2014 07:43:56
Life ain't easy in a complex society: other people are both the problem and the solution.

You can stick with all the ad hominem (if you need more ammunition PM me for my ex-wifes phone number) and sagely platitudes Dr. Calverd, but if at this point I had to choose between standing in your shoes and defending myself from criminal charges of knowingly aiding and abetting a proven ongoing international criminal terrorist conspiracy for decades (especially using that list of reasons you gave), or standing in my shoes and defending myself against criminal charges of recieving goods/services without having payed any taxes that support them.... I'll stick with a case I know I can win.
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: Aemilius on 10/03/2014 20:16:19
Just to sum up.... I appreciate your point of view Dr. Calverd and I think you see my position too. I guess I would just say that if the citizens of Germany were guilty back then of cooperating, then the citizens of the US and UK are guilty right now of cooperating as essentially the same scenario is playing out.

You mentioned you spend a lot of time complaining about and undermining immoral government actions.... Do you have a couple of links or is it just the "Global Vegan Crusade" thing?

As always, nice chatting with you Dr. Calverd.
Title: Re: Did Germany benefit from losing WWII?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/03/2014 07:40:27
Quote
Deliberately maintaining a certain income level isn't only morally fine, it's legally fine too. It doesn't exclude me from any eligibility to recieve emergency goods/services I'm entitled to as a United States citizen either.

It's the word "entitled" that needs justification. The state protects you only because it would be impossible or administratively difficult not to.

Current UK immigration law means that a UK citizen can't, for instance, bring his lawful American spouse to live in the UK unless he is earning at least $30k per anum - not merely declared and taxed, but proven. On the other hand, any layabout with a European passport is "entitled" to the full range of state handouts including full cradle-to-grave medical treatment and child benefits, however much he avoids work.

And it's not a global vegan crusade. I like eating meat, but just thought it worth pointing out that anyone who worries about anthropogenic carbon dioxide (I don't) has the answer on a plate.