The following intellectual exchange between Mr. Robert Olson, a TRA subscriber, and Mr. G. Stolyarov II, TRA's Editor-in-Chief, occurred on The Rational Argumentator's Mailing Group in response to Mr. Stolyarov's October 21, 2003, article "The Trigger of Justice." All entries shall be marked with the dates of their original appearance.

In Response to "The Trigger of Justice"

To one Mr. Stolyarov, Regarding the nature of his support of Assassination of Political leaders:

First, I must apologize for a late commentary on this article, as it had only been brought to my attention on the 25th of October, and Real Life played an obvious role in the prevention of a speedy response on my part.

With all due respect, sir, it appears that you still had much in the ways of research to do before writing this article. While one may grant much leeway, as it was described as "brief" and former articles were much more thought-out, I still must call certain facts to your attention.

As of yet, the only indications are that the economic policies of Pinochet (which allegedly were actually those of Chicago Business Graduates) proved to be a dismal failure, and the status of Chilean economic might under Pinochet paled in comparison to that under Allende. Granted, such economic, social, and political chaos is bound to follow after a coup, but the Pinochet performance seems, to myself at least, unacceptable. A look at some brief statistics follows:

"The distribution of income in Chile in 1988, after a decade of free-market policies, was markedly regressive. Between 1978 and 1988, the richest 10 percent of Chileans increased their share of the national income from 37 to 47 percent, while the next 30 percent of middle-income households saw their share shrink from 23 to 18 percent. The income share of the poorest fifth of the population dropped from 5 to 4 percent (Collins and Lear, p.88)."

Quintile            1970   1980   1989
1 (poorest 20%) 7.6     5.2     4.4
2                       11.8    9.3     8.2
3                       15.6    13.6   12.7
4                       20.5    20.9   20.1
5 (richest 20%) 44.5    51.0    54.6

Table 8: National Unemployment Rate, 1970-1989
Year Percent
1970 5.7
1971: <4
1974 9.2
1975 16.5
1976 20.2
1977 18.6
1978 17.9
1979 17.3
1980 17.3
1981 15.6
1982 21.2
1983 22.2
1984 18.8
1985 16.3
1986 13.9
1987 12.7
1988 11.8
1989 10.0

LATIN AMERICAN NATIONS: DEBT AS PERCENTAGE OF GDP
Country   1983   1984    1985
Chile        91.3   91.2     89.7
Venezuela 67.0  65.7     60.7
Uruguay   54.0   52.1     59.5
Peru        47.5   46.1      45.6
Argentina 38.3  40.7      48.0
(Interamerican Development Bank, 1993, p.306)

Table 3: Disbursed Total External Debt Outstanding (Millions of 1993 dollars)
(Sum of long-term and short-term external debt and IMF credit)
Year   Debt
1983 17,928
1984 19,737
1985 20,384
(Interamerican Development Bank, 1993, p. 301)

Year: Foreign Debt (NOTE, MILLIONS OF 1982 DOLLARS.)
1974 4774
1975 5263
1976 5195
1977 5434
1978 6911
1979 8463
1980 10746
1981 14653
1982 16000
(Banco Central de Chile, pp.1050, 1512, 1526, 1388, and 1403).

Year: Average Real Wage (IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE OF 1970 VALUES)
1970 100.0
1971 116.0
1977 71.5
1980 89.2
1982 82.2
1983 88.0
1986 93.2
1989 99.8

As one can see, the actual economic situation in Chile was quite bleak, compared to that under the Allende Regime. A vast number of poor Chileans became poorer, while the rich, due to the selling of the Chilean assets to the highest bidder, became much richer. Not only that, but that particular policy was not even a true representation of a free trade market! What it came down to was two competing companies, owning more than half of all of Chile's stores, factories, transportation, and other economic resources. The actual citizens became little more than pawns. Under Pinochet's regime (which seems very much for the wealthy when compared to the Allende Regime) the poor (which numbered more than 40 percent of the population, with more classified as middle class and suffering from the same battle) lost their rights to strike, to organize, and to protest, along with other rights that we (by which I mean you and I, as I can not speak for the population as a whole) champion. Reduction to the status of economic slave for the benefit of the few is never seen as a positive social reform, proving that the Pinochet regime, in nature, was socially regressive.

While you are correct in that inflation did come under control, this did not occur for several years. Rather, during the first few annuals of the Pinochet regime, inflation was a tremendous difficulty for the Chilean economy, at first exceeding 400% and eventually falling into double-digits before finally coming to a rest at the levels that you state Chile had.

However, that was not without loss. The primary method in which Pinochet's economic advisors achieved this effect was by decreasing tariffs uniformly to a meager 10%. This, coupled with the fixed exchange rate of 39 pesos to 1 dollar, caused a spike in the cost of Chilean goods on the global market while allowing foreign competitors to have a more balanced playing field at home, robbed Chile of its manufacturing power, and increased the trade deficit, a side effect not unlike that which we experience in the United States today. This, unfortunately, set Chile up for future recessions, though this may be a welcome trade-off for decreasing inflation. I cannot speak of this, as my background in economics is not quite the strongest at the moment.

So, as it appears, the deposing of Chilean leader Allende for his replacement, Pinochet, was an unwise economic decision for the people of Chile.

As for the actual subject of the commentary itself (Apologies, as I often digress when attempting to make an argument) assassination of political leaders is not exactly illegal. Should my memory serve correctly, this is forbidden only during times of peace. When the shots are fired and Congress issues a declaration of war on a nation, the Head of State is free game for American smart bombs, .50 caliber sniper rounds, cruise missiles, and any other assorted nastiness that we could possibly unleash.

And, frankly, this is intuitively correct. Why destroy a nation's political leadership when no hostilities are officially declared? Pre-emptive strikes? Quite frankly, a nature of pre-emptive strike is against the nature of the United States itself. Do we wish to protect ourselves? Certainly, but we, as commonly said, do not fire until fired upon, preserving the morality of the American culture as attacking only when it had been conclusively proven when we had been attacked first. And, quite frankly, none of the three leaders you mentioned have been proven to be a harm to American lives anymore than Saddam Hussein had drones that could reach America(a blatant exaggeration) or that they pose any threat that is higher than none to these United States. Let me describe my opinions, case by case. (Notice: These arguments are based on the assumption that the United States should never intervene in the internal affairs of another nation unless Mass Genocide is in progress, and even that course of action must be held off until the United States drags itself out of debt.)

North Korea:

While Kim-Jong Il is certainly a cruel man, does he truly pose a threat to the United States, or have the military capacity to actual conquer South Korea? Yes, he does blackmail the United States with his nuclear capacity (as described later, the conventional military of North Korea is by no means capable of defeating South Korea) and I agree we should not give in to his ludicrous demands, we have no reason to actually fear him. There is no reason he would have designs to use his, as of yet, weak nuclear arsenal on South Korea or even have the capability to hit the United States. His range, as of yet, is limited to Japan. After all, should Kim Jong drop his, at most, dozen bombs on US troops, or a South Korean city, the retaliation wrought upon North Korea would be horrendous, with the entire nation turned into little more than glass and rubble.

Deterrence worked against the Soviet Union, Israeli nukes kept Saddam from using his chemical weapons(notice that Saddam used his WMD on nations that did not possess them themselves) and the policy of MAD, where only one side is assuredly destroyed, will work this time. Say what you will, but Kim Jong will not push his luck and attack us with such weapons. One does not rise to power by becoming suicidal. Besides that, China will almost certainly strip Kim Jong Il of his atomic weapons. Having an anti-American nation, seemingly insane when portrayed in American Media, in possession of atomic weaponry will obviously not encourage American investment in the region. Needless to say, the American market is the largest market for Chinese products, and much trade has been established between the two. China will have no problems sacrificing part of its large population to take away Jong's bombs, as it proves too economically devastating to China in the long-run should they let Jong run willy-nilly, terrorizing American populations in Asia.

So, needless to say, a nuclear stand-off with North Korea is not likely for the time-being, with the North having so much to lose and so little to gain. However, long years of a crumbling economy (which was crumbling during the Japanese years, before Communist rule, as well) has proved devastating to the North Korean military as well as its civilian sector, much like that of the old Soviet Union. South Korea, in fact, is one of the top 12 spenders on military ventures in the world, with expenses above those of North Korea. The South, backed up by US cruise missiles, submarines, Guam-based bombers, fighter aircraft, and A- 10 strike aircraft, has a million-man army of its own. All North Korea has as its advantage is numbers. Its technology is often lacking. Its army, with out-of-date equipment such as T-62 battle tanks and World War II era artillery pieces, is only capable of small advances over a short-period of time, as its Air Corps of MiG-21s would soon prove a force incapable of dealing with the combined US and South Korean air forces with added might from air defenses, such as the Patriot, Chaparral, and other US missiles that would be combined with Triple A(Anti-Aircraft Artillery) to protect against low-level strafing runs. B-52 and B-1 bombers would let loose between 50 and 100 thousand pounds of JDAM weaponry to annihilate North Korean artillery, tanks, and supply convoys with pin-point precision.

And, all the while, a gradual build up of American soldiers would assumulate in the South, dealing the inevitable hammer blow. Yes, perhaps Kim Jong will attempt to unleash his atomic arsenal as a last-stand. But, then again, maybe not. Hitler did not use his gas weapons, in 1991 Saddam did not use his, and Japan of the 40's used its weapons on Chinese civilians. So far, there have been no large- scale use of chemical weapons on another nation that has them since the time of trench warfare in World War I.

In summary, Kim-Jong's threat to the world is negligible, and no action is needed.

(On a side-note, while I would not gamble on this slim possibility, in light of recent travel restrictions between North Korea and South Korea being suspended, in essence mirroring East and West Germany, there may be a chance that North Korea and South Korea may re-unify. A long-shot, true, but one can always hope.)

Libya:

The idea that Libya is actually a major terror financier outside Africa seems laughable in my eyes. Gaddafi appears to be a man obsessed with, as you said power. It does not appear likely that he would invest valuable resources in a futile war against the United States and Israel. Rather, it seems much more likely that the often straight-thinking Gaddafi would send his special operatives and intelligence agents to places such as Algeria (more on this later) Nigeria, Liberia, etc., all countries which may provide direct economic and military benefit to the Libyan government.

However, I do not claim to be a psychologist. Gaddafi may very well be an insane man who magically seized power within his party and foiled any possibility of an uprising against him. As for the recent "admission" that Libya was directly involved in the Pan Am bombing, I must humbly disagree, for the moment. A number of people refused the reimbursement money on the grounds that the Libyan government had no direct link in this attack. I refuse to disclose judgment on this case until all evidence has been presented to me, but there are numerous persons whom I trust that are quite confident that Libya was not involved, directly or indirectly, in these attacks, and that Libya was simply admitting guilt to lift United Nations sanctions on the country.

Besides, Libya truly poses no threat to this nation as a whole. When the time arises and this nation is debt free, with social and political problems solved to the point where they no longer are over- riding issues, I shall happily march with you into Tripoli. Furthermore, I must ask why you do not propose to invade Algeria. Algeria has a hefty amount of Libyan influence at the moment, and had successfully constructed a plutonium reprocessing center whose current status is unknown. If such an ally of Libya is capable of constructing atomic weapons, why not move in now?

For the record, I do not support an invasion of Algeria.

Palestine:

One must understand that the topic at hand is quite iffy. While I typically find myself a moderate in this situation (in the sense that I frankly do not give a darn about either, and believe no money should be sent to either) I do wish for you to understand that Arafat was a great reformer in the PLO, bringing an end to terror in Europe and concentrating exclusively on Israel. It is in my personal belief that Arafat, if he is still supporting terrorism, is simply concentrating on Israel, not on American targets. Anything that does cause harm to American citizens should be dismissed as fog of war.

I also absolutely must point out that Israel is NOT an ally of the United States. I will e-mail my sources to you, should you ask, but Israel has proven itself on many occasions willing to attack the United States to meet its own goals(make no mistake, Arafat would do the same, but the United States could simply send Arafat to Kingdom Come. The harms to Arafat are greater than the benefits, at the time of writing)

Some of Israel's transgressions, as follows:

Lavon Affair: In the 1950's, in order to shore up US support for the small Jewish state, an Israeli minister sent intelligence officials to Egypt with one purpose: Destroy the American Embassy and frame Egypt. The end result was a failure, and Lavon, the minister ordering the attacks, resigned.

USS Liberty: During the 6-Day War, the United States dispatched the USS Liberty, a surveillance (Read: Spy) ship of the 6th fleet, to monitor the events of the war. The ship was, according to most crew members, in International Waters and displaying the United States flag. Israel proceeded to attack the ship with bombs, torpedoes, and incendiary devices. During the raid, the Admiral of the 6th fleet, already suspicious of being ordered to send his ship so far from the main fleet, ordered fighter aircraft to save the ship and engage Israeli forces (how a distress call was sent out, I do not know, as the radio mast had been supposedly destroyed first) However, a phone call directly from Lyndon Johnson ordered the planes recalled, an implication that LBJ was directly involved in the planning. After the attack ended, the Liberty miraculously stayed afloat. Israel apologized to the United states, and stated that it mistook the Liberty (which even had writing on the side of the ship to identify the ship as American) for an Egyptian Horse-Carrier. This argument does not actually hold water even at a brief glance, as the ship that Israel allegedly mistook it for was a quarter of the size of the Liberty.

A further bomb-shell was unleashed when the NSA director of that day published his book in the 90's. In that book (I will detail specifics as soon as I get the chance) the director claims that NSA was listening to Israeli (which were American, anyways) radio bands, which showed that the pilots knew clearly that they were engaging an American ship. Two IDF pilots refused and went back to their base, where they were summarily arrested.

Why this attack occurred, I do not know. Some suggest that Israel was attempting to cause the United States to enter the war on Israel's side on quash Israel's enemies for them. Others believe that the attack was meant to destroy the ship that had knowledge of a rumored massacre of Egyptian POWs. More think that the ship had undeniable proof that Israel was the aggressor. And still people suggest that the Soviet Union was listening to Liberty transmissions and relaying information concerning Israeli troop movements to Arab states. Regardless, it seems clear that Israel knowingly and deliberately attacked an American ship, that LBJ covered it up, and still this story is not common knowledge in the American public due to its suppression.

NOTE: The BBC has begun running a documentary on this event, entitled "Dead in the Water."

The various transgressions of Israel against the United States proceed even today, often through the method of espionage. Pollard stole nuclear secrets for Israel and Israel proceeded to sell them to the Soviet Union. Following the security upgrades after the September 11th attacks, more than 100 were arrested on espionage charges, with their parent nation believed to be Israel. These are unwarranted acts of aggression by a sovereign state against the United States, and should be treated as such.

To put this article to rest, I am attempting to say that though I agree with you in theory, your timing and choices of targets are off. In this age, the great nation of the United States of America has too many issues to be concerned about international affairs. We are still in the midst of a wide-spread economic epidemic, due to the loss of American manufacturing jobs. Our demographic issues are rising, with a constant stream of immigrants from Mexico and unsettling high amount of hatred towards Arabs, as well as smaller issues, such as the growing gap between rich and poor, which may boil up at anytime.

We have political issues with the advent of unreliable electronic voting machines. The Internet has brought a new age to the world, and America must handle the issues brought forth by such a new age, or we shall travel the path of the Roman Empire, or see a re-birth of the conflict of the 1860's. The only nations which should be engaged at the moment, should be countries which pose immediate threats to the United States of America, not to any other nation. And, quite frankly, Allende was not likely to begin wars of aggression against the United States. Neither do Kim-Jong Il, Muammar Gaddafi, or Yasser Arafat. All, except, in my knowledge, Allende, have one thing in common. They have willingly driven their people into a state of welfare below what the people should have had, and have suppressed personal freedoms. These actions are inexcusable, as none, except for perhaps Arafat, are in a position to have their nations annihilated and assimilated totally. For that, I brand them enemies of Humanity, but not dangerous enough to be eliminated while America has her own issues.

Once these issues are worked out, my dear Gennady, I shall meet you in the field of battle, willing to lay down my life to put an end to the abuse in the world, and spread the torchlight of liberty to places where there is only darkness. But, until then, hard choices must be made, and the unfortunates of Libya, North Korea, and Palestine must suffer.

Answers to the "Trigger of Justice" Critique

Part I- November 5, 2003:

As I had promised, I intend to address Mr. Olson's comments in a series of responses addressing all topics covered. Mr. Olson has structured his arguments well and approached them on a case-by-case basis. I shall do the same in response to him.

The Chilean Miracle:

To recall a quote from Collins and Lear that Mr. Olson had used: "the richest 10 percent of Chileans increased their share of the national income from 37 to 47 percent, while the next 30 percent of middle-income households saw their share shrink from 23 to 18 percent."

What does "share of the national income" mean? It implies that all the wealth within the nation is analyzed in accordance to which economic groups acquire it. Yet the increase in the "income gap" does not necessarily imply a detriment to the standard of living of lower incomes. One must remember that wealth is not static. A key principle in Objectivist philosophy is the fact that wealth can be generated by means of invention and innovation. In a laissez-faire economy, those whose inventions and innovations benefit the marketplace are met with abundant profits, while, indirectly, numerous others (their employees, distributors, and the general consumer) receive smaller gains. Income does not increase equally, but rather in direct proportion to the individual's contribution to a particular innovative breakthrough. Nevertheless, real purchasing capacity increases across the board.

Let us consider the following passage:

“In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the ‘competition’ between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of ‘exploitation’ for which you have damned the strong.”

[Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged]

No matter how much steeper the increase of upper-class incomes may become, it can never reward the creators and capitalists of this world sufficiently for their accomplishments.

Thus, Mr. Olson, while this statistic may well be veritable, a consideration of its nature shows that it has acted to no detriment in the economic situation of Chile.

Examining your statistics on unemployment rates: what is the cause of unemployment? Is it the inability to find jobs, or the unwillingness to do so? Or is it a combination of both? In a market economy, I am inclined to consider the cause to be unwillingness, since a venture capitalist would eventually arise who would recognize an abundant pool of willing laborers that could be contracted into his employ. We note a decrease in unemployment from 1976 onward, which may indicate that a pool of willing laborers had indeed been recognized and tapped at that time. The remainder, a rough 10% of the population, may reasonably be called unwilling. It is quite expected that the lowest tenth of a population in terms of refinement, skills, and motivation will abandon the elementary human dignity required for self-sufficient existence and instead attempt to either parasitize the government coffers or their more industrious relatives. In the United States, the unemployment rate is only three to four percent under ten, and that is considered one of the lowest in the world. The sloth of the worst among men should not frighten the others; it is not an economic problem, but rather an amalgam of individual ones, which we should not perturb ourselves over.

To briefly examine the matter of "real wages," I wonder how those are calculated. Given the colossal amount of factors (inflation rate, currency exchange rates, tax rates) and the immense variety of incomes within a nation, I am not aware of the precise formula via which such calculations are arrived. If I gain access to such information, the formula will need to be analyzed specifically to note whether there is any potential for subjective manipulations.

In the meantime, I leave you with a brief outline of the key aspects of the Chilean Miracle, some of which had already been mentioned by Mr. Olson. From a set of sources (of various outlooks on the matter) I had compiled these key points. (I am willing to give links to some of these sources, should specific requests arise.)

* Dr. Milton Friedman (born 1912) is a Nobel Prize winning Chicago school economist, a free market economic rationalist (i.e. an advocate of a system where individuals’ logical desires determine the exchanges conducted on a market and the only function of government is to act as the “referee”) whose theories were implemented in Chile by his students, the “Chicago Boys”, during the Pinochet administration (The Pinochet administration was brought about by the Coup).

The Chicago Boys:

* Believed that government has only three legitimate functions: military, protection against crime, and enforcement of contracts. Hence the denationalization, privatization, and forging of international free trade connections by the Chicago Boys.

* Aimed at depoliticizing economy and separating it from the state, so as to eliminate pressure group and class warfare on which much of Allende’s Marxist appeal had been based.

* Slashed tariffs, reduced public expenditure, devalued the currency to counter the massive inflation under Allende’s government.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Economic growth was phenomenal from 1976 onward, in what was dubbed “the Chilean Miracle”, as GDP increased at an average of 8% per year and banks once again began to view Chile as an attractive investment.

* Central government’s role was cut as education, social security, and health care were privatized. The 1979 Labor Plan limited collective bargaining, strikes, and politicizing of economic woes to grant greater autonomy to the individual worker.

* The rationalists have also succeeded in reducing annual inflation rates from 323% to 3.5%, which is only slightly above the inflation rate in the United States.

Part II- November 6, 2003:

The "Right" to Strike

The 1979 Labor Plan did limit collective bargaining, mostly of the compulsory sort. I agree with Mr. Olson that unions should be allowed to exist, but only as organizations of voluntary membership wherein workers agree to work jointly to further the self-interests of all involved. (This implies that closed shop and union shop policies must be abolished.) Moreover, there exists an absolute right on part of the employer to bar strikers from his property (it is his to regiment, after all), and to contract strikebreakers who are willing to accept the terms offered by the employer. This means that the market responds positively to the employer's actions, and there is no justification for a particular special interest lobby (the striking workers) to sacrifice the rights of others to something which cannot ever be a right (i.e. their employment or the reception of a particular wage).

Competition in Chile

Mr. Olson mentioned two competing firms that owned a vast share of Chile's economic resources following the denationalization. I will accept this claim as true and proceed to prove that it does not necessarily signify a detriment to the free market.

Any "monopoly" (or dipoly in this case) not backed by the coercive arm of government can at any time be displaced by innovation, competition, or the introduction of new entrepreneurs into the field. The only aspect that can sustain it is a mutually beneficial relationship with the consumers. That is, the consumers must be volitionally attracted to the non-coercive dipoly's offerings and prices. The employees of the companies must also be generally satisfied with working conditions in order to remain willing to function on the employer's terms. (The other scenario would involve the employer being malleable enough to accomodate the desires of discontented workers.)

The following is a quote from Robert S. Getman: "Antitrust, A Government of Men, not of Laws:"
http://microsoft.aynrand.org/antitrust.html:

Imagine an Olympics where — in an attempt to “level the playing field” — no athlete was allowed to score “too many” points or to win “unreasonably.” Imagine, after the event, a winner being punished for having scored “too much” — punished, at the behest of his competitors. Imagine that the very definitions of “too much” and “unreasonable” were left to the whim of each referee. Such “rules” would not “level” the field — except in the sense of leveling it to rubble, rendering all the rules arbitrary and athletic achievement impossible.

A monopoly or dipoly in itself is not harmful, but indicative of a firm's success and usefulness in the marketplace. Only when the government institutionalizes it (as it had by definition with Allende's nationalizations) does a monopoly bring about great detriments in quality and product availability to the consumer.

Tariffs

Mr. Olson wrote of tariffs as if their removal could have upset the Chilean economy. He is correct to say that tariffs were reduced dramatically. I view this as only beneficial in its implications.

Examine the following passage from Dr. Harry Binswanger, "Buy American is Un-American:" http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/Buy_American_is_Un-American.html:

International trade is not mortal combat but a form of cooperation, a means of expanding worldwide production. The benefits of international trade flow to both trading partners, even when one of the countries is more efficient across the board. This is the “Law of Comparative Advantage,” covered in every economics textbook. Free trade does not destroy but creates employment.

The lucrative workings of free markets do not depend upon lines drawn on a map. The economic advantages of international commerce are the same as those of interstate, intercity, and crosstown commerce. And if we kept crosstown trade accounts, the “trade deficits” that would appear would be as meaningless as are our international “trade deficits.” Fact confirms theory: the U.S. ran a trade “deficit” practically every year of the nineteenth century, the time of our most rapid economic progress.

Philosophically, Americanism means individualism. Individualism holds that one’s personal identity, moral worth, and inalienable rights belong to one as an individual, not as a member of a particular race, class, nation, or other collective.

But collectivism is the premise of “Buy American.” In purchasing goods, we are expected to view ourselves and the sellers not as individuals, but as units of a nation. We are expected to accept lower quality or more expensive goods in the name of alleged benefits to the national collective. Most “Buy American” advocates are motivated by misplaced patriotism. But for some the motive is a collectivist hostility towards foreigners. This xenophobic attitude is thoroughly un-American; it is plain bigotry.

Tariffs, of course, are an offspring of a collectivist protectionist philosophy that somehow presumes that domestic manufacturers, be they American and Chilean, have a right to exist regardless of the fact that consumer demand may indicate to the contrary.

Numerous renowned economists, including Ludwig von Mises, have shown that the so-called "trade deficit" (along with "gross national product" and other collective indices) is an arbitrary fiction, that the only genuine wealth that can be tabulated is the wealth of an economic unit (individual or corporation), and that variance therein is the product of a set of individual decisions, ambitions, and conditions that must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis rather than a sweeping generalization ignorant of particular market trends.

Part III- November 7, 2003:

What is Retaliatory Force?

Mr. Olson writes: "Why destroy a nation's political leadership when no hostilities are officially declared? Pre- emptive strikes? Quite frankly, the nature of pre-emptive strikes is against the nature of the United States itself. Do we wish to protect ourselves? Certainly, but we, as commonly said, do not fire until fired upon, preserving the morality of the American culture as attacking only when it had been conclusively proven when we had been attacked first."

Mr. Stolyarov: George Patton once stated that "the best defense is a good offense," and the notion that actual physical aggression is the limit of what can be classified as initiation of force can greatly endanger American security and lives. What must we wait for? For every potentially hostile nation to initiate September 11th-style massacres on American soil? In Allende's case something similar had happened; American property rights were violated via nationalization. But even when the mere inclination to do so exists, the use of armed force is justified.  

The fact remains that a declaration of war can prepare a dictatorial regime for retaliating against America due to the obvious disclosure of America's intent that it furnishes. A dictator can use this information to (as did Saddam Hussein following our quasi-declaration of war in Iraq) enter hiding, or, on the contrary, to mount a defensive capacity that will result in much bloodshed. Moreover, many of the affiliates of these dictators, most notably terrorist groups, do not respect diplomatic exchanges and strike at the most unexpected occasions, using surprise as their guide and their cloak. The ethic of a traditional "gentleman" will not counter the subtle tactics of our foes.

Thus, in the age of new threats, it is time to redefine what constitutes aggression and realize, reiterating my claim in the original article, that dictatorships have no intrinsic right to exist. Hence, America has the prerogative to displace them either when this action is non-sacrificial to American lives and citizens' interests or when American lives and interests are directly endangered by the dictatorships.

Part IV- November 7, 2003

Kim Jong Il: A Genuine Threat Indeed

Mr. Olson: Yes, he does blackmail the United States with its nuclear capacity (as described later, the conventional military of North Korea is by no means capable of defeating South Korea) and I agree we should not give in to his ludicrous demands, we have no reason to actually fear him.

Mr. Stolyarov: I generally concur with Mr. gvchamp1's uncompromising stance toward Kim's demands as well as his analysis of North Korea's military in comparison to that of the United States. Our country, after all, does possess the finest army in the world by far. However, the problem in the political status quo is that President Bush does not agree on the issue of appeasement with either one of us. To Bush, the appeasement of Kim Jong Il with food aid is a categorical imperative brought about by the President's deeply mistaken commitment to the un-ethics of altruism and relativism.

I quote from John Dawson: "Baby Kim's Secret Weapon:" http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/Baby_Kim.html

         In 1994, when North Korea was on the brink of economic collapse, its leader, Kim Jong Il,, demanded the help of his reviled enemy, the United States of America. Then-President Bill Clinton agreed to supply food, oil and nuclear power reactors.
        What did America receive in return? The withdrawal of a threat of nuclear war! Nuclear war that North Korea had no capacity to wage, but which it might be able to wage some day, if it could keep itself fed, fuelled and powered long enough to develop its nuclear capacity.
....
        Today's moralists adamantly insist that there is no objective standard of morality. Every culture is sacrosanct and immune from judgment. This moral relativism implies that a brutal communist dictatorship such as North Korea is morally equal to the United States. Unwilling to challenge this sacred cow, Bush is disarmed. He lacks the confidence and certainty that would allow him to take action, so he is reduced to issuing empty threats followed by more empty threats.
        But despite their hard-line relativism, Western moralists do offer one moral precept that they consider unquestionable: altruism, the ethics of self-sacrifice. According to this doctrine, those with wealth are guilty by the mere fact of their success and are duty-bound to sacrifice their wealth to those who have less. Thus, rich and powerful America is morally responsible for the impoverished North Koreans, which is why Bush hurriedly offers "food and fuel" and other unnamed aid to Kim.

In our political analysis of the assassination proposal, we should not fiat a drastic change in Bush's attitude and approach; it plainly shall not occur (though we can urge Bush to alter it, which action I fully support, though that is another discussion entirely).  So long as the dictatorial regime persists, Bush's own altruism, but especially his vulnerability to the assaults of his leftist-multiculturalist critics, will continue indefinitely the practice of paying tribute to North Korea and thus giving it the means to develop a far stronger nuclear capacity and a far more formidable military, in both its defensive and offensive facets, than exists presently.

The only means by which Kim's parasitism can be curtailed is if Kim can be curtailed, through his death.

Mr. Olson: Say what you will, but Kim Jong will not push his luck and attack us with such weapons. One does not rise to power by becoming suicidal.

Besides that, China will almost certainly strip Kim Jong Il of his atomic weapons. Having an anti-American nation, seemingly insane when portrayed in American Media, in possession of atomic weaponry will obviously not encourage American investment in the region. Needless to say, the American market is the largest market for Chinese products, and much trade has been established between the two. China will have no problems sacrificing part of its large population to take away Jong's bombs, as it proves too economically devastating to China in the long-run should they let Jong run willy-nilly, terrorizing American populations in Asia.

Mr. Stolyarov: One does not rise into power by being suicidal, perhaps, but when a dictator's power is endangered, inherently endangered, as Kim's stranglehold on his citizens' lives is put under threat by the very existence of the United States and the proliferation of American market economics throughout Southeast Asia. We can recall the famous example of Hitler's bunker suicide in 1945 when he realized that overwhelming Allied military force would surely topple his totalitarian tyranny. Before Hitler killed himself, however, he sent at the Allies every last shred of his military capacity, including the Hitler Youth, the Berlin city militia, and even special conscripted contingents of senior citizens. (A well-known film clip from the time period portrays an SS-man instructing an elderly lady to operate a grenade launcher.) He indeed did not use his gas weapons, but this may be due to the fact that the apt Allied offensives detached Hitler from access to them prior to the Battle of Berlin.

When a dictator is in danger of peril, he will be inclined to drag the entire world into the abyss of non-existence along with him. For Kim, the danger is constant. At any moment, the free market can reject Kim's extortionist tactics and plunge North Korea into a famine which would dwarf all those of the past and leave Kim himself starving (as he will have nothing to expropriate). Kim will therefore seek to acquire and threaten to use a nuclear capacity by all means possible.

Moreover, I contend that Mr. Olson provides an overly favorable estimation of the likely conduct of China in response to Kim's nuclear buildup. Commercial ties indeed exist, and China itself is no military threat to the United States. But it is crucial to recall that it remains semi-communist at best and its leadership possesses influential enclaves of old-style dogmatic communist sympathizers. One such elite faction governs the Chinese military, which would be at the forefront of any purported response to Kim's escalation. In May 2003 I supervised a historical project by The Rational Enlightenment Coalition on the most likely future of the Chinese Communist Party. I quote therefrom:
http://www.geocities.com/rationalenlightenmentcoalition/ccp7.html
(For the full presentation of the project's analysis, see http://www.geocities.com/rationalenlightenmentcoalition/ccp1.html)

* The army leadership has typically been strongly bound to the ruling elite of the CCP. Deng Xioaping had maintained extensive relations with his military, whose officers had pledged loyalty to the president himself.

* Control of the military is crucial to whichever entity wishes to take charge of Chinese politics. Jiang Zemin [who hesitates to encourage further transition to a market economy in China] has retained leadership of the military despite transitioning all others of his powers to Hu Jintao.

Examining the page further, one will note that the Chinese military leadership is not fervently passionate about individual liberties nor particularly concerned about violations thereof, either. Relying on its action in any confrontation between a neighbor government similar in philosophy if not in practice to its own and a superpower of liberty whose gradual influence will most likely unseat China's own elites within the next fifty years is at best imprudent.

Part V- November 10, 2003

The Gaddafi Threat

Mr. Olson: Gaddafi appears to be a man obsessed with, as you said, power. It does not appear likely that he would invest valuable resources in a futile war against the United States and Israel. Rather, it seems much more likely that the often straight-thinking Gaddafi would send his... operatives and intelligence agents to places such as Algeria... Nigeria, Liberia, ... countries which may provide direct economic and military benefit to the Libyan government.

Mr. Stolyarov: It is true that Gaddafi has in fact aided these regimes, but his hostility also extends toward the United States and its allies, as he had repeatedly proclaimed. With Gaddafi's present overreaching network of associates, he is likely to wield the resources to endanger American interests in the Middle East.

Gaddafi's Anti-American rhetoric is equivalent to that employed by al Qaeda propagandists. Here are excerpts:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/legwellback.html

Dressed in electric blue robes with a matching cap, the Libyan leader sat at a desk placed on a rug in front of the shell-pocked ruins of a home on his palace grounds. Posters of the victims behind Gadhafi read: ``This is Reagan's candy to the children'' and ``This is the result of American terrorism.''

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/628/fo3.htm

The Libyan leader, who remained in Cairo until Al-Ahram Weekly went to press, gave an interview to the state-owned Egyptian TV on Tuesday, in which he said that if the US waged a war on Iraq, it would eventually "perish, but before that happens, the agents of imperialism [in the Arab world] will perish first."

Clearly, Gaddafi resorts to the standard militant socialist America-smearing rhetoric (now adopted by certain Islamofascists) that is only a step away from calling America the "Great Satan."

Of course, Gaddafi and the Libyan government shall seek means to exonerate themselves from their admitted guilt in the Pan Am incident after the fact. This would not be reliable evidence for their innocence. As Libya did publicly admit its complicity, and Mr. Olson presents no evidence to the contrary, I shall presume its guilt (and thus Gaddafi's present toll on American lives, for which alone he deserves to be assassinated) and moreover emphasize the danger of maintaining the Gaddafi government's leadership of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, given Gaddafi's own atrocious record in that category. In order to halt the ever-increasing totalitarian slant of the U.N., the United States has two alternatives: either withdraw from the organization altogether (which I would not oppose) or destroy the dictators in power. Perhaps a combination of both would be swiftest and most conductive to American interests.

The Palestinian Situation

Mr. Olson: I do wish for you to understand that Arafat was a great reformer in the PLO, bringing an end to terror in Europe and concentrating exclusively on Israel. It is in my personal belief that Arafat, if he is still supporting terrorism, is simply concentrating on Israel, not on American targets. Anything that does  cause harm to American citizens should be dismissed as fog of war.

Mr. Stolyarov: Arafat was nevertheless the father of modern terrorism and architect of the barbarous assault on Israeli athletes during the 1972 Munich Olympic Games. Moreover, Arafat's concentration on Israel still qualifies him for assassination, as Israel is a key American ally and a means of quelling anti-Western aggression within the Middle East, always serving, via its very existence, as a bastion of liberty in a generally totalitarian region. On this contention, Mr. Olson and I diverge, as he proceeds to present evidence that Israel is not a genuine ally of the United States. This, as I analyze it, is the cornerstone of his argument concerning the lack of need to assassinate Arafat. If I can prove that Israel is in fact a U.S. ally, then it will follow that Arafat's termination is desirable, if not wholly necessary.

The Lavon Affair that Mr. Olson describes is mentioned in quite different terms at http://www.jewishgates.com/file.asp?File_ID=157:

It was in 1954 that the "Lavon Affair" took place. Israeli intelligence planned a strange operation in Egypt. The plan was to set off some bombs to show that Egypt's security was weak and that there were Egyptian terrorist groups. It appears clear now that Lavon was not notified.

The plan back-fired: the Egyptians swiftly and efficiently picked up eleven of the thirteen participants. Two of the accused were sentenced to death and executed. Six others were sentenced to prison terms of various lengths.

Little was known about the affair; Lavon claimed complete ignorance. He tried to fire his second-in-command, Shimon Peres, but failed.

In order to find out what had actually happened, a board composed of two members:
Supreme Court Justice Isaac Olshan and the first chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, Ya'akov Dori was appointed by the prime minister Moshe Sharett. This board stated that it was unable to reach a clear-cut answer about who was responsible.  When the board's conclusions became a matter for discussion in the Mapai party itself, Lavon resigned from his position as minister of defense, and David Ben-Gurion resumed this post under Sharett.

The government then decided to set up a committee of seven ministers headed by Pinchas Rosen, the minister of justice, to look into the matter again. This committee inspected documents but did not call witnesses and published its unanimous conclusion that Lavon did not give the order to carry out the 1954 operation. Their report, which was endorsed by the government and the Knesset, initiated another storm [which would later bring about Lavon's resignation].

As can be seen, the Israeli government was most likely oblivious to the operation, or the operation was not waged with the malicious intent that Mr. Olson attributes to it. In addition to these motives, no Americans were hurt, and, given such radically different interpretations of the affair, we cannot infer Israel's willingness to destroy American lives (my sources do not ever refer to Israel as particularly targeting American sites). Moreover, the Egyptian government's response, the execution of Israeli operatives, demonstrated the Nasser regime's tyrannical nature (which befits a socialist dictatorship) and established Israel as the victim, not the perpetrator, of the incident. The Lavon Affair, clearly, does not jeopardize Israel's position as a key American ally.

Part VI- November 10, 2003

The USS Liberty Incident

Here Mr. Olson's factual information, I must admit, is genuine and confirmed by eyewitness reports. http://ussliberty.org/ is a site created by two survivors of the attack, which, among other features, includes a link to a visual of the American flag flown by the Liberty during the assault. 

However, despite this fact, Israel, I will again argue, did not demonstrate malicious intent in the attack, which was caused in part by misinformation from the United States.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/liberty.html

The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was a grievous error, largely attributable to the fact that it occurred in the midst of the confusion of a full-scale war in 1967. Ten official United States investigations and three official Israeli inquiries have all conclusively established the attack was a tragic mistake.

On June 8, 1967, the fourth day of the Six-Day War, the Israeli high command received reports that Israeli troops in El Arish were being fired upon from the sea, presumably by an Egyptian vessel, as they had a day before. The United States had announced that it had no naval forces within hundreds of miles of the battle front on the floor of the United Nations a few days earlier; however, the USS Liberty, an American intelligence ship assigned to monitor the fighting, arrived in the area, 14 miles off the Sinai coast, as a result of a series of United States communication failures, whereby messages directing the ship not to approach within 100 miles were not received by the Liberty. The Israelis mistakenly thought this was the ship doing the shelling and war planes and torpedo boats attacked, killing 34 members of the Liberty's crew and wounding 171.

Numerous mistakes were made by both the United States and Israel. For example, the Liberty was first reported — incorrectly, as it turned out — to be cruising at 30 knots (it was later recalculated to be 28 knots). Under Israeli (and U.S.) naval doctrine at the time, a ship proceeding at that speed was presumed to be a warship. The sea was calm and the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry found that the Liberty's flag was very likely drooped and not discernible; moreover, members of the crew, including the Captain, Commander William McGonagle, testified that the flag was knocked down after the first or second assault.

According to Israeli Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin's memoirs, there were standing orders to attack any unidentified vessel near the shore.1 The day fighting began, Israel had asked that American ships be removed from its coast or that it be notified of the precise location of U.S. vessels.2 The Sixth Fleet was moved because President Johnson feared being drawn into a confrontation with the Soviet Union. He also ordered that no aircraft be sent near Sinai.

This makes sense: the flag was indeed flown, but for an extremely brief time period, after which its displacement prevented Israeli airmen from recognizing the identity of their target. Moreover, given prior precautions taken by the Israeli government, specifically designed to protect American ships, we can conclude that the incident again was a misunderstanding caused by negligence and rashness, but not malice, on both sides.

As for Mr. Olson's claims regarding Israeli nuclear espionage, I could not find a single shred of evidence on the Internet substantiating those accusations. Quite the contrary, intelligence cooperation between the U.S. and Israel has occurred smoothly and to mutual benefit, as seen in some remarks by former CIA Director Woolsey:

http://www.politrix.org/foia/echelon/echelon-cia.htm

Both Jordan and Israel have very fine intelligence services.  Both countries are friends of the United States.  The countries under a lot of circumstances today are friends of one another. And a number of friendly countries in the Mideast cooperate with intelligence and otherwise, in dealing with rogue states and aggressive states in the Mideast.  And I would certainly count Iraq as first and foremost in that later category.

Keeping in mind this sort of role, a crucial supplement to the United States' ability to counter Saddam-like dictatorships, it is beyond doubt that Israel is not only not a menace to American security, but an indispensible ally in the War on Terror and our endeavors to secure political and economic footholds in the Middle East. Arafat, as an immense threat to Israel, therefore deserves elimination.

Domestic Priorities?

Mr. Olson believes that certain domestic concerns must ultimately delay any United States attempt to cleanse the world of dangerous dictators. Are there domestic issues to be resolved? Certainly, though Mr. Olson and I may diverge on their particular nature. I would like to examine the matters Mr. Olson brings up and prove that their "resolution" does not require a complete inward direction of the U.S. government's energies.

Mr. Olson: "America has too many issues to be concerned about international affairs. We are still in the midst of a wide-spread economic epidemic, due to the loss of American manufacturing jobs."

Mr. Stolyarov: See my general refutation of any sort of domestic protectionism, including protectionism of jobs. The theory of comparative advantage provides not only for worldwide specialization of industries, but of jobs as well. The economic and geographical conditions in emerging Southeast Asian countries (and China) render manufacturing more profitable and convenient in those countries than in the U.S. Thus, the natural drift of the U.S. economy should be toward high-tech and service industries, which require a highly educated and individualized job market. This globally beneficent march of progress should not be impeded upon by the coercive hand of govenment.

Mr. Olson: "Our demographic issues are rising, with a constant stream of immigrants from Mexico and unsettling high amount of hatred towards Arabs, as well as smaller issues, such as the growing gap between rich and poor, which may boil up at anytime."

Mr. Stolyarov: I share Mr. Olson's concern about potential emergence of pressure-group warfare and ethnic bigotry. However, these issues have a simple resolution. First, immigrants should not be given taxpayer funds by means of welfare. This welfare dependency renders them easy pawns of the politician who hands out the subsistence money. As a matter of fact, denying welfare to new arrivals can be a first step toward altogether eliminating the cumbersome and vilely altruistic welfare system. Hatred of Arabs is another matter: it is an issue of proper law enforcement against so-called "hate crimes" (though I do not view them as any different in their effrontery from "ordinary" murder, theft, or vandalism) and a cultural propagation of the idea that Arab does not equal terrorist or America-hater. This spread of tolerance should occur on an individual and private basis via forums such as this one. Still, I see no reason to divert any energies from America's foreign ambitions.

I have already addressed the so-called "gap" between rich and poor and proven that its growth is not necessarily detrimental.

Mr. Olson: We have political issues with the advent of unreliable electronic voting machines.

Mr. Stolyarov: Are the old methods with their "dimpled chads" not similarly unreliable? The issue of voting machinery should indeed be addressed and a certain standards imposed (preferrably with use of new technology, rather than its neglect) so that the Florida Recount incident does not recur, however this task is not gargantuan enough to force an inward collapse of American attentions.

I am convinced that I have adequately addressed Mr. Olson's critique and defended my article in all facets of the dispute. I encourage any man who reads this to respond with his feedback and/or evaluation of both sides of the issue. Who was more convincing to your rational minds?