If civilians were not terrified by either what has, is about to, or may, befall them then there would be no need of a State - unless, of course, the State invented terrorism.
State sponsored terrorism is real, its only seen as terrorism though if its citizens are on George Dubya's list.
It's very simplified Libertarian logic DD. IF you don't need a State to protect you then those who would wish to establish one would have to minimally invent the threat of terrorism to justify their desire.
Just reading a novel about the first city states in the Euphrates, Tigris area too. I see what your getting at, but libertarianism smacks of hunter-gatherer-warrior logic to me. It's anti-civilisation. Civilisation put a man on the moon, libertarianism gives us sky-Gods.
Page, last night there was sod all else to do! Sure I'll have a go and others are welcome to either initiate or retaliate, the trick is not to take it personally. However it may help if yo appear to be upset from time to time
You should look at the Austrian School of Economic theory especially the work of Mises and Hayek who define what has become known as either Economic Liberalism or Libertarianism. As a life long Socialist these thoughts are an anathema to me but you can't ignore/attack them unless you have an understanding of them.
Saw that programme by Stephanie Flanders on him. Interesting. What gets me about libertarians is that they want all the benefits of society (defence and law and order) but don't see their fellow citizens as their responsibility in any way. Isn't Milton Friedman an acolyte too?
Milton Friedman - now there is a very strange individual indeed. Whilst he was Libertarian by inclination he was the 'Father' of Monetarism - a theory that requires the active involvement of the State. I attended a lecture that he gave whilst I was at Harvard and he spent almost all of the time attacking his own theory! Interesting character.
Fidel Castro (Cuba) leader and so many world leaders who do not talk to one another were there.The man that unites this wicked world.
He even managed to put his 27 years in prison behind him and shake the hands of those racists that took away his freedom for the sake of his nation and its divided people. Madiba a giant amongst men.
Interesting turn this thread has taken. As an amateur historian I think it's almost impossible to look at a subject objectively so close to events. To many people have current invested interest in how that history is told. The entire bomber command debate here shows that. I'd say that would have been an even more emotive discussion 30_40 years ago. There is always a danger of applying today's sensibilities and hindsight on decisions made by individuals and states even 30 years ago. I've found with a little despair that left and right leaning groups have been painting away with the revisionist brush as the leading icons of the 20th century drop off this mortal coil. It's never that simple, it's never quite frankly that dull. I think it takes away from them as historical characters to simplify their lives in such a manner. I find Mandela a fascinating character but not as something as two dimensional as a terrorist or freedom fighter. He played, very well the game of politics in such a manner as to make people like Blair look like what they were the parish leading man in a very bad play. But there I go being subjective about a character I've recently lived through.... I've found no acceptable definition of freedom fighter or terrorist as they are subjective definitions. If you live IN it, it's even harder. I suppose the best statement I've found is you're a freedom fighter if you win and a terrorist if you lose your particular game.
The last sentence of your post is very apt for your location frank,but the reversed roles just keep the fires of hate smoldering in the background, unfortunately.
