Why IDF Deserters Deserve Mad Respect, And Redefining Zionism

Bored IDF Soldier

Excuse typos on this one please. I’m typing really fast before Shabbos and I still have to clean my house. 

A follow up on my niece Eden Farber’s article on serving in the Israel Defense Forces.

She took down her article after being pressured by the bureaucrats to do so. It is still up on the Wayback Machine and will be as long as the Archive.org server remains online.

A short word on the IDF policy to not allow soldiers to publish negative commentary on Tzahal. At first glance it seems a rational policy. Employees of private companies would be fired for badmouthing the company that employs them. This is the old adage “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.” The policy itself is not the problem. A company should have the right to fire its employee for any reason at all, even if they don’t like his nose. Everything should go by contract, and if the contract says you can be fired for having an ugly nose, then that should be enforceable. Practically, this clause is actually in most contracts in the form of “any party can terminate said agreement on X notice for any reason etc.”

The problem with the policy is first, IDF service is not a voluntary contract for young people. Eden would have been forced into it anyway in some form. So to prevent soldiers from saying anything they want about the machine that forces them in is unjust, but really the problem is that a private company would fire you and demand its money back. If the IDF stopped there that would be fine. Kick anyone who badmouths the army out of the army and demand back their stipends of what, 300NIS a month? Fine.

But the IDF does not do that. If she didn’t take it down she’d go to prison eventually, be blackballed against future employment etc.

Anyway, that’s not the point of this post. The point is rather the comments that I’ve seen in response to her article as well as in response to my reposting of it on Facebook. Most of them miss the point and display a clear bias towards army service and against market activity, which is not surprising.

Here are some 3 examples:

…Just remember that Israel needs you, both as a soldier and as a citizen, but I think you already understand that as well.

…Nice to read about a spoiled American idealist kid faced reality, grew up, and became a contributing citizen of the most important country in the world. The IDF isn’t there to help you feel good about yourself, that’s YOUR job, no matter what the task. The IDF is there so that every Jew can have the opportunity to do so in that country.

…She deserves respect from the community for volunteering to serve. But, she shouldn’t be so depressed, not everyone can be Moshe Dayan, and even he was not as much as he’s made out to be.

Here’s the problem with these comments. At the base, they build off the assumption that merely wearing a uniform and twiddling your thumbs is a holy endeavor. Because there’s this metaphysical “entity” called Tzahal, sort of like כל ישראל יש להם חלק לעולם הבא, every Israelite has a share in the world to come, and just being part of it is like joining up with some spiritual core. I’ve said this before, but it is a form of worship of something other than God.

Therefore, no matter how useless one is, how abused, or even how destructive (take the case of Gilad Shalit who contributed nothing and lamely went into captivity in one of the most pathetic army stories I’ve ever heard – not blaming Shalit he was forced into it like everyone else) one is to Tzahal, it is still considered holy to wear that uniform.

Now, one of my על חטא’s that I klopped for this year is being too reactionary and caustic. I’m trying to soften my tone a bit here, so I’ll say I understand these sentiments. I grew up with them. They are not foreign to me. They are part of my past, and I get it. Defending the Jewish people (any people really, in the true sense of defensive protection) indeed is a holy endeavor because we are God’s people, and those motivated to join the IDF for this should not be faulted.

But here’s where the bias comes in. If defending the Jewish people is holy, then why aren’t army deserters who would rather work and make money in Israel praised for doing the same exact thing? Take Bar Refaeli for example. She is extremely productive. I like her a lot. (I’m a guy and she’s Bar Refaeli, OK?) The taxes she pays support how many IDF soldiers? And yet she is reviled for being a deserter. Many business leaders and successful Israeli Jews are also army deserters. Good for them. We should respect the heck out of them for being brave enough to say no. That they won’t simply “do their time” to be part of the “big picture”. I’d have less of a problem with respecting army service for the sake of army service if deserters who go into the private sector to make money were also given the respect they deserve.

Zionism connotes service to the State of Israel. The State of Israel is not some metaphysical spiritual yeshus that exists in heaven. It’s just a group of people who pass laws coupled with enforcers. Zionism should not be defined as service to the State of Israel. It should be defined as service to God, or service to one’s conception of some Jewish higher purpose as centered on the Land of Israel if you’re an atheist or don’t believe in religion. I’m religious, so I pick the first one.

I am anti Zionist because I do not serve the State of Israel. But according to my definition of Zionism, I am a Zionist because God has given me a personal religious obligation to live in Israel and to create value in Israel. I am fulfilling that obligation by living in biblical Israel and creating value here for myself and for others.

Are soldiers who twiddle their thumbs in the army fulfilling their religious obligation according to this? I would say no. Market value is very had to measure with a monopoly army, but it’s pretty obvious that a soldier doing nothing is simply consuming resources in Israel.

The Mitzva of יישוב ארץ ישראל, settling the Land of Israel, requires creating more value that one consumes, either measurable economic value in terms of a monetary amount or spiritual value in terms of enriching people’s lives (which in the end could be valued monetarily aggregating the salaries of Rabbis and other spiritual workers in the private sector), both are necessary. If you just have people leeching of the work of others that is not settling. Settling requires work. If everyone leeched, everybody starves and יישוב cannot be done.

Army deserters who are not on welfare fulfill this role more than soldiers who do nothing, or next to nothing.

Now imagine this the other way around. Private companies in Israel, everywhere really, are often reviled for whatever they do, sometimes justifiably but often for simply doing business legitimately. It’s always דן לכף חוב, guilty until proven innocent with the private sector. If someone from a private company like Teva or something were to write an article reviling Teva’s abusive practices against its employees, oh boy would there be hell to pay.

Nobody would come to Teva’s defense commenting on an Eden type article documenting the emotional abuse of Teva that:

…Just remember that Teva needs you as an employee and Israel needs Teva, but I think you already understand that as well.

…Nice to read about a spoiled American idealist kid faced reality, grew up, and became a contributing citizen of the most important country in the world. Teva isn’t there to help you feel good about yourself, that’s YOUR job, no matter what the task. Teva is there so that every Jew can have the opportunity to have cheap medicine.

…She deserves respect from the community for working at Teva. But, she shouldn’t be so depressed, not everyone can be Mark Thatcher (founder of Teva), and even he was not as much as he’s made out to be.

Etc. That would all be ludicrous. In fact, just the opposite. Jews left and right would be manhandling Teva and urging a bunch of people to be fired and big fines to be levied and compensation to be paid to the abused.

But with the IDF, no matter what the heck you’re doing, whether it’s damaging or nothing or barely anything, it’s always good because the IDF is holy.

Well what about Teva? Yes, they do bad things when they partner with the State. Not a perfect example. But how many lives has Teva saved? Wow, a lot. Who cares? Very few. Who considers Teva holy for fulfilling יישוב ארץ ישראל? Virtually nobody.

Statists like to quip, “Israel can’t survive without the IDF,” by which they mean a monopoly State-controlled IDF. Well, maybe, maybe not. It’s an empirical question. Several IDF’s privatized into different competing security companies sounds scary to many, but it is at least conceivable that it would operate much better than what we have now, which is a drain on everyone’s standard of living and death to many who commit suicide in the army.

(In fact, parenthetically, statists also quip that if Private Company X, say Teva again, would cease to exist, the market need would be filled by some other company to meet the need so there is no need for Teva specifically and it is not holy. But when libertarians say that if State Institution Y (say the IDF) would cease to exist, statists claim that everyone would die so therefore the IDF is holy, whereas libertarians say that the market need would be filled by private companies and therefore the IDF is not holy.)

But can the IDF survive without people working in the private sector? No, it cannot. That is not an empirical question. In order to survive in this planet and consume its resources, you first need to produce those resources. That is an a priori logical proposition. The IDF cannot surive  without a private Israeli economy.

So, being that the IDF is absolutely dependent on the private sector, whereas Israel is only dubiously dependent on a public monopoly state controlled IDF, then by transitive property, Israeli companies are much holier than the IDF.

Therefore, army deserters who work in the private sector in the Biblical Land of Israel, deserve equal, if not MORE respect than IDF soldier with no obvious purpose in the army.


How to MacGyver a Dead Car Battery With Used Deodorant

This is straight up the coolest MacGyvering I’ve ever done.

The car battery in my 1997 Kia Pride died 2 weeks ago. I’m getting rid of the car in a few months because the State of Israel government road kappos (responsible for more deaths than all of Israel’s wars and murder victims combined but never ever blamed for them) will require me to take two tests a year instead of one on my car’s 20th birthday, and I don’t want to stomach that.

So I don’t want to get a new car battery for the thing just for a few months. So I went to YouTube. I found this

The production value on this one is quite low, but the basics are all there. The basic idea is to pour out the battery acid, neutralize the rest with baking soda distilled water solution, and then pour in ammonium aluminum sulfate AKA alum (pickling salt solution) in distilled water. Then charge the battery with a battery charger for 24 hours and reinstall it. The car should start and the battery should be good for a few more years.

Problem was, I have no distilled water, I have no alum, and I have no battery charger, and I don’t even have the proper sized wrench to take out the car battery.

But I DO have a water distiller, and I DO have two sticks of mineral salt deodorant and I remembered that one of them showed the main ingredient as ammonium alum. I got the second stick after my other one cracked but I kept the cracked one anyway. I looked up the ingredient of the second stick of deodorant. It was a Thai crystal deodorant, also mineral salts, but this out made out of magnesium aluminum sulfate, basically the same thing just a different metal ion.

I’d rather not use my old deodorant so I look for that deodorant new but it is not sold here. I look in the nature store and they have it but in liquid form only and with a bunch of scented flecch in it that would ruin the battery. So I have to use my old deodorant and buy a new stick. So in the video it prescribes one gallon of distilled water to 8oz alum, but the two sticks together once crushed totaled only 5.5oz or something close to that. So I distilled a little less than one gallon, though my water distiller uses 110V electricity and Israel is 220. So I have two adapters that shouldn’t be used for more than 20 minutes at a time due to overheating, so I alternated them and stuck the other one in the freezer 20 minutes at a time until all the water was distilled.

I got some baking soda, also hard to find in this country because they sell mostly baking powder which has corn starch and would ruin the battery, but I found enough. Really cheap stuff. Neutralized the acid, and then poured in my distilled water and 5.5oz of old crushed dissolved deodorant crystal.

This was after prying the battery out of the car with a screwdriver to the terminals after unsuccessfully trying to find the appropriate wrench at the Katzrin mall.

I can’t charge the battery because I have no battery charger, but I roll start the car (our parking lot is on an incline and the car is a stick shift) and we drive to Kibbutz Ein Gev last night for dinner, thinking that just driving it long enough would enable the alternator to charge the battery by itself.

On the way back, miracle of miracles, the car actually starts.

Total cost:

  1. baking soda about 15NIS
  2. new deodorant 36NIS
  3. water plus electricity to distill the water maybe 2NIS

Total about 53 shekels, if you count me buying new compensatory deodorant as part of the expenses.

Baruch Hatov VeHaMeitiv.

Statism as Battered Woman Syndrome (Politically Correctly Stated as Battered Person Syndrome)

My niece just wrote this piece at Times of Israel. (UPDATE 10/20/16 THE IDF FORCED EDEN TO TAKE DOWN THE PIECE. I FOUND IT ON THE WAYBACK MACHINE LINKED HERE AND WILL REPOST IT ON TJL IN FULL.) I’m thinking of writing a response but they’ll probably just ban it like they banned my Yanklowitz article on organ donation. Maybe I’ll give it a shot just to annoy the editors.

But anyway, call me biased, but it’s very well written. And to me it’s agonizing. It’s about her disillusionment with the Israeli army, how she went into it idealistic and wanting to serve, use her talents, be useful. Driven by Zionism, love of Israel, all the stuff we are taught in Jewish day school or Hebrew school or youth groups or home school all our lives.

But then she realized that the army is not that great. In fact it was the worst experience of her life. She’s still in it. Here are some relevant passages to the very sad point I’m going to try to make here. Eden writes (my bold):

I became depressed. I cried, more than I ever have. I couldn’t sleep more than a few hours in a row. I stopped eating. Food nauseated me. I could go a week eating just one box of cookies. I fought with my family, I canceled plans with my friends. I kept fighting to advance, putting in appeals, meeting with high ranking officers to show them who I am, but in the back of my head I began to ask myself, who am I? Why would I deserve this?

And then one sentence later (my bold):

I know that Israel needs the IDF, and I know that being a part of it is important in the big picture. But I wasn’t ready for this.

And then this (bold and italics mine):

I was able to get out of my depressive state. I was able to find myself outside of just being a cog in the machine. I’m a relatively happy soldier now, who hates her job, just like every other soldier, but does it anyways, just like every other soldier, and goes to the pool and the gym with her friends on breaks. I have had my share of important shifts, where I’ve done a great deal, as well as shifts so boring I started counting speckles on the ceiling tiles. I have set my naïveté aside and learned that the biggest challenge – the one nobody prepares you for – of being in the army is staying out of it, mentally and emotionally.

the process of separating yourself, the you that thinks and cares and wants, from the you that obeys and does and works, can be heartbreaking.

For this article she is being praised, and rightly so (partially) for being courageous enough to write an article that is not entirely flattering about an institution that most American Jews are trained to worship – mamash worship almost like it is a god. The Israel Defense Forces are holy. But since the IDF is only a tool of the State, it’s the State that is holy, the State that is worshiped, the State that is a god of sorts. It’s like a חפצא של קדושה, a holy object. To say anything bad about it or unflattering is being courageous, and it is. To question its existence? Well then that’s sacrilege.

No, I’m not saying that all Statists are idolators in a halachic sense, not at all. Idolatry has shades and subtle levels, we all know that. We are all guilty of Avodah Zara to a degree, some more and some less.

But Eden stops just short of the real conclusion, because to her the State itself is holy. She would not object to that assertion.

I just googled battered woman syndrome. Political correctness has infected Google which brought me to Battered Person Syndrome. Here are some key symptoms:

Repeated cycles of violence and reconciliation can result in the following beliefs and attitudes:

  • The abused thinks that the violence was his or her fault.
  • The abused has an inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere.
  • The abused has an irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient.

There are elements of all these symptoms in her article.

Repeated cycles of emotional violence and reconciliation with the State (being a part of it is important in her words) results in her thinking the violence is her fault: “I began to ask myself, who am I? Why would I deserve this (a promotion from a high ranking officer)?

The responsibility is elsewhere, never with the abuser, the State, who the battered person always returns to: “I know that Israel needs the IDF, and I know that being a part of it is important in the big picture. 

The belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient (in this case holy or godly), is in that same sentence.

Her solution? You can’t ever fault the IDF itself and call it an evil institution. You can’t repudiate years of education meant to make you believe the State is a holy entity. So you disconnect from yourself. Stay in the marriage, become emotionally detached…a ghost of yourself…

…the biggest challenge – the one nobody prepares you for – of being in the army is staying out of it, mentally and emotionally.

Mentally and emotionally. Notice what she did not say. Physically.

In order to refrain from lashing out at the State itself, which is what I have done and have been doing for years and will do God willing until the day I die, you have to disconnect from everything. Turn yourself off. Become a robot rather than a human. Learn to turn off your humanity.

But there’s a bigger challenge than staying out of the army mentally and emotionally. The biggest challenge – the one that causes you to fundamentally change the way you see the world – is to stay out of it physically. To put your foot down and say NO MORE.

You can get a divorce.

And here I’m not talking to Eden alone. I’m talking to everyone in that Godforsaken hell, you don’t have to do this to yourselves. You don’t have to stay married. You don’t have to return to your abusive spouse convinced that being part of an abusive marriage is important or idealistic. You don’t have to believe that it’s holy to serve in the army for the sake of serving in the army because it happens to be that a group of 120 evil human beings who lie, cheat, and steal from you for a living say that you have to do it. We all hate politicians to some extent at least, yet we believe following their word is holy? The State is what they say it is. If they say the draft is over, it is no longer a duty to serve.

Let’s assume the IDF is holy. Let’s accept that, for argument’s sake. From a minarchist libertarian perspective that public defense is legitimate, that could certainly be argued from a religious Zionist minimal State perspective. But that doesn’t mean that serving in the IDF is holy. If everyone served in the IDF, everyone would starve because there would be no profit-driven division of labor. We’d turn into Mao’s Great Leap Forward where everyone was a soldier and simply die of starvation, just like the Chinese did, 45 million of them from 1958-62, when the whole country was drafted into a Chinese army all at once with Mao directing it.

If the IDF is holy, it needs support. It needs people outside of it in the economy to feed it. I’m one of those. Other people in Israel need people in the private sector to supply them with goods and services. When you get a job and make money, you are doing something holy because you are supporting the IDF that way. You are supporting the army, but you are also supporting everyone.

When you sit in the army and do nothing, you are not supporting the army. You are not supporting anyone. You are obeying politicians. That’s it. You are burdening the army. So the most courageous thing to do would be to simply leave and accept the consequences. If you are worried about prison, you need not be. You’re already in one.

I, of course, do not see the army as holy. I hate it. It is only necessary because if we try to defend ourselves privately, the State will murder us, just like Yitzchak Rabin murdered those holocaust survivors swimming ashore after Ben Gurion ordered the shelling of the Altalena and the murder of its passengers as an illegitimate Israel defense force.

Yes, if there was a war I’d fight in the IDF, and I’d be grudgingly OK with forced basic training only so we are prepared in case of an emergency. But serving just because it happens to be the artificial law agreed on by 61 out of 120 loathsome people is not a holy endeavor.

But let me close out by putting this into perspective. Eden is complaining, and rightly so, about being wasted in a vast bureaucratic system that doesn’t know its right from its left. But it gets much, much worse than that. Eden’s case is a mild one. Consider the families – the wives and children and parents – of soldiers who have died capturing murderers, who are then released by Netanyahu in a “good will gesture” to Abbas, and they go out and murder again.

Imagine how broken, beaten, downtrodden they are if they have any will to live at all. Eden has the luxury of reconnecting with her humanity on weekends or breaks or when she happens to maybe be doing something useful in the IDF in rare instances. Those people, they do not. They are broken for good. There is no way out of their eternal hell. They will die miserable, because of the IDF and the politicians who run it.

Some soldiers are not as strong as Eden. Many commit suicide. Suicide, in fact, is the leading cause of death of IDF soldiers.

You can break away. You can separate. You can love Israelthe people, the nation, the land, and the God of Israel – and hate the State. Once I achieved that break, I became a happier person.

If you don’t think you’re doing anything useful, just leave. Don’t go back. If you are fighting and you don’t believe what you’re doing is helpful or morally acceptable, don’t risk your life. Leave. Don’t go back. Take the prison sentence and move on.

And if you’ve already been destroyed by Tzahal, or you have a loved one who was drafted who has already committed suicide, the only thing I can say to you is that Moshe Rabeinu placed the broken tablets in the same Aron (ark) as the full, unbroken set of tablets. You may be broken, but you’re still with us, והמקום ינחם אתכם בתוך שאר אבילי ציון וירושלים.

עד מתי, as they say in the army. It’s an inside army joke to some, but a serious life-threatening question to others, some who cannot survive it.

Yidlach Shirai…Ad Mussai!

When will this hellish draft end? When the Jews realize it is not holy, and as we say in Avinu Malkeinu –

אבינו מלכנו, אין לנו מלך אלא אתה.

Our Father our King, we have no King but You.

When I say it, I mean it.

Chag Sameach.


It gets to anarcho-capitalism pretty fast on Facebook

I went to Brandeis University. Full disclosure, I despise Louis Dembitz Brandeis and most of what he stands for. The clueless statist Zionism, the totalitarianism, his position on the Supreme Court.

While I was at Brandeis, I was not a libertarian, but I was headed there, even then.

While I was at Brandeis, there was this guy Igor Pedan. I never met him. I think he was my editor in chief at The Hoot where I wrote humor columns.

Here’s the thread we had. Posting here because I assume it will be deleted soon and it’s not bad. In response to this video of another Brandeis guy who thinks its worth his time to get politicians to condemn people who hit Muslims. He’s probably an aspiring politician, as many lawyers are. Though he’s anti war so he’s less dangerous than the average neocon and he’s a good guy generally, just a bit confused. He wants to spend your money giving it to others who didn’t work for it while you did rather than spend it on killing foreigners. That’s less bad. If he runs for anything, vote for him, because he probably won’t kill people.

Context: Cahn argued for some resolution that politicians in New York City should condemn people who say bad things about Muslims. I think anyone should be able to say bad or good things about anybody for any reason. So I objected.

You’ll see that Cahn’s video is pretty much standard politician-speak meant to sound so obviously moralistic and taking advantage so he can run in the future for some office using these lines as an ad. There’s nothing sophisticated or deep about it, just cheap opportunistic talk. But if you’re a New Yorker vote for him anyway because he’s against war. Seriously. Hopefully he’ll stay that way but I doubt it. Politicians who use these opportunities to pedal nonsense rarely stay principled.

Rafi Farber what’s the resolution? that politicians should condemn people who commit violence against other people? Is this more hate crime legislation? Why aren’t current punishments against violence enough? Why do we need more laws? Aren’t there already laws against violence against innocents?
Albert Cahn Rafi, as you’ll see if you review the bill, the resolution does nothing of the sort. It’s
A resolution that expresses the sentiment of the council, not a law restricting individual liberty. Your objection seems a bit off pointhttp://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx…|Text|&Search=1230

Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber Wasn’t objecting. Just asking questions. I’m not sure what this will accomplish, but nothing objectionable in the text.
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber Actually, now that I read it carefully, it is objectionable. It condemns rhetoric and speech. For those who care about the constitution, that is unconstitutional, but that doesn’t really matter to most people. It is important for people say hateful things without the fear of being punished. Discrimination is also very important. Everyone discriminates. It’s why I married one female instead of 4 men.
Igor Pedan
Igor Pedan Isn’t condemning also speech?
Like · Reply · 1 · 4 hrs
Albert Cahn
Albert Cahn Rafi are you sure you want to use the rhetorical gambit of claiming that you care more about the constitution than I do? I’m a full-time civil rights lawyer, I work every day to defend my clients’ rights, including their rights under the First Amendment. The First Amendment prohibits laws that punish individuals for speaking, it does not restrict the right of our deliberative assemblies to pass a resolution expressing their own opinions. If you think this is censorship, if you think this violates the First Amendment, then there are two centuries of contrary precedent that you need to review. As for the utility of the measure, there’s a power in using civic institutions to reinforce social norms, even if those measures lack the force of our penal law. The reshaping of our political dialogue in recent months has correlated with a significant increase in hate crimes and violence that cannot be readily explained by any other causal factor. If political rhetoric can push the trendline in one direction, what basis do you have for asserting rhetoric can’t push it in the countervailing direction?
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs · Edited
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber I do not care about the constitution at all. Condemning sure is free speech, but politicians should not be allowed to condemn the free speech of others. Their rights should be restricted because they are public officials. They should not be allowed to condemn the speech of others because they live off the money of others.
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber You use academic legal language a lot. I don’t understand lawyer talk. I’m pretty stupid, as you can see. When I read that congress shall make no law restricting free speech I think that’s what it means. I must be wrong though. I just don’t see the point of getting politicians to say things when it’s already illegal to hit and harass innocent people.
Albert Cahn
Albert Cahn Because ever since a certain Republican politician started saying very inflammatory things a whole lot more people started getting attacked, even though it was just as illegal as before he started talking. Words have impact.
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber Which politician? I don’t follow politics.
Albert Cahn
Albert Cahn You’re joking right? I’ll give you a hint, he’s brash and orange.
Igor Pedan
Igor Pedan Rafi “politicians should not be allowed to condemn the free speech of others… because they live off the money of others.” First, only elected official actually live of the money of others. Second, pretty much everyone who is employed lives off the money of others. Third, what other things should politicians not be allowed to say? Is there a list somewhere (maybe in the Constitution?) that lists these banned topics for politicians only?
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber Igor, I said before I don’t care about the constitution. And no, only politicians live off the money of others because they force others to give them money by threatening to kill them if they don’t give the money. Other private people engage in voluntary exchanges, so the money they make becomes theirs on the exchange. Everything politicians do, from their sex lives to going to the bathroom should be recorded 24/7. If you want to be a public official, your life should be 100% public, all of it, everything, no exceptions whatsoever. This way they won’t have any secrets whatsoever. If people want to watch it should be on C-Span.
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber If it were up to me politicians should not be allowed to say anything at all.
Igor Pedan
Igor Pedan Then how would you know what they stand for?
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber I wouldn’t. I don’t care what private people stand for as long as they don’t hurt me. If politicians have no power over us what they stand for doesn’t matter.
Igor Pedan
Igor Pedan So you are against voting? Against Democracy? Against government (ala Sumolia)? What you just said make so little sense, it’s comical.
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber I’m not against voting. I am against democracy, and I am against government. If you want to vote, vote, but there’s no difference. Whoever leads will spend more money and kill more people than the guy before.
Igor Pedan
Igor Pedan That ends this discussion. Hope you never have to call the police, fire department, need to use roads, airports, etc.
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber Those should all be privatized. Then I wouldn’t have to complain to politicians who don’t care and have no responsibility when more people are killed on their roads than in all US wars combined.
Igor Pedan
Igor Pedan There wouldn’t be any roads.
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber If there’s a market demand for roads there would be roads.
Igor Pedan
Igor Pedan That’s blatantly false.
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber read the book, get back to me later
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber and I’d rather have private security directly responsible to me personally than a police force that locks people up for smoking pot and kills black people randomly.
Igor Pedan
Igor Pedan And someone with a bigger private security force will just kill you with no repercussions.
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber they’d have to answer to my force. And wars between private police forces is much less scary than nuclear war between huge countries.
Albert Cahn
Albert Cahn Rafi and Igor if you’d like to have a separate discussion about the merits of representative democracy versus anarcho-capitalism, i’ll gladly show up and bring the popcorn, but I’d respectfully suggest that this is not the preferred forum for such a debate.
Rafi Farber
Rafi Farber OK signing off. Your wall.
Igor Pedan
Igor Pedan Albert, feel free to delete this thread. I didn’t realize Rafi prefers to live in Sumolia and that this conversation was headed there.
Rafi Farber

Rafi Farber Agree, delete the thread and I should move to Sumalia. Though I’m not sure how. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumalia

Sumalia is a genus of butterflies found in Southeast Asia ranging from the Indian…

SURPRISE Obama Adds More to National Debt Than Any Other President Ever

Who would have guessed this? Apparently Obama has added $9,036,534,448,884.32 to the national debt. George W. Bush added only about $5 trillion.

Wasn’t the Obama administration always bragging about cutting the deficit, and that deficits under him were lower than anyone something blah blah? That’s like saying “I only cheated on my wife with hookers 4 trillion times and not 7 trillion times. I’m relatively faithful.”

Keep it coming guys. Pile it on. Let’s see how big it can get before it falls.

And when it does, make sure you reading this if you’re in America have plenty of riot gear and an exit strategy.

In fact, all those Jewish Obamaniks and other lefties who keep saying that Trump is Hitler and mean it seriously, I expect you to all get your tickets to Israel and get over here before the next 6 million are gassed.

He grabs vaginas apparently, so he’ll be grabbing them Jews next! Makes sense, no?

I wonder what the gematria of the debt will be when the world finally stops lending the American government any more dollars.

Shimon Peres is Dead and the Thought Police Are Out Guns Blazing if You Don’t Think He Was Awesome

He’s dead. No joy, no sadness, just relief. He will no longer harm anyone ever again. The following are two Facebook posts I made after being rather infuriated by gushing lovey dovey “We Love Shimon Peres” posts.

Post #1

Alright Facebook. Another politician dead and here come the deep meaningful posts about what we can all learn from his life. The gushing, the love, and even the people who didn’t like him at all saying things like “Say what you want about Shimon Something, but he positive positive blah blah. He may have destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of people and worse, but at least he was a great blah blah blah.”

The aura of thought police is exuding, totally exuding today. I’m not interrupting or trolling comment threads about this Peres guy, except I will say this on my own.

There are many, many people who hate the guy’s guts, and justifiably so. It should be legitimate for them to have their own catharsis of relief that he’s gone.

That’s how it is in politics. You take from one group you give to the other. Those that were taken from have a right to resent it, and resent it intensely. Those that gained from it will likely love him, but only they are allowed to post things because they liked him? No.

Me personally, I don’t care. The world is not better or worse off now that he’s dead, because he’s been inactive for a while. But the people whose lives have been destroyed by him should not feel embarrassed or afraid to call him every bad name in the book and if their life or their home was destroyed by him, they should feel that it’s OK to cry in relief that this man is no longer breathing the same air that they are.

It’s OK to say bad things about dead politicians. It’s not pasul. You can do it, and it’s legitimate.

Post #2

Here’s a follow up on the lovey dovey Peres posts. As expected the Jewish thought police rang the alarm on me defending those who do not mourn the passing of Shimon Peres. I am one of those people and there are many many others.

There were the hysterical types calling me names, but they are more entertaining than annoying. Then there are the sagacious types who respond with counterpoints that sound reasonable but actually are not reasonable at all.

One case in point is a friend of mine who responded to me by saying something along the lines that Jewish etiquette encourages seeing the good side of people that just died, even politiciians, and that after the shiva we can all engage in a “dispassionate” debate about the merits and failures of the politicians.

Dispassionate? Dispassionate? If you have something critical to say you have to be DISpassionate and wait, while everyone else gushing over an evil man gets to be as passionate as they please, immediately upon hearing of the death?

No. Double standard.

Think about it this way. Imagine you are a person whose son committed suicide in the aftermath of the expulsion from Gush Katif. Your family is ruined, you livelihood gone, you live in a caravan and your marriage is a shell. You hate this man with a PASSION and you have to watch everyone else say great things about him while implying that anyone who says bad things about him now is doing something illegitimate.

You, the victim of Peres, on the other hand, even though your life was destroyed by this man, YOU have to wait, and you can only be DISpassionate even if you are allowed to criticize, eventually, after a certain buffer zone invented by the other side.

So I say no. We call the emperor nude when we see it. We do not praise him and then when nobody cares anymore, only then point out his nudity DISpassionately in retrospect, when it’s not in the news anymore and nobody is paying attention.

So I’m turning the tables. I say, if you have anything good to say about Shimon Peres, be quiet now, let his direct victims have their say first, PASSIONATELY, and then one week from now after shiva, anyone who wants to praise his legacy do so DISpassionately, when nobody gives anymore.

Otherwise, you are grievously insulting everyone whose lives this man destroyed.

And keep in mind, anyone he ever helped, by definition, he did it by taking money by force from others.

Farber out.

Is There a Statute of Limitations in Libertarianism, Part II

You know when Hillary Clinton says something so stupid and inane that literally everyone, even her fans, knows she’s either seriously mentally handicapped or deliberately lying? Yeah, well, she’s not the only one.

Back in our debate on the legitimacy of Israel from a libertarian perspective, which was challenging as Hammond gave me decent arguments that at least had the pretense of some sort of logic, Hammond insisted that there does exist a statute of limitations in libertarianism as far as claims to previously homesteaded land goes.

Our argument is that there is no statute of limitations in libertarianism in terms of a hard specific quantitative amount of time that must pass before a claim from the past becomes null and void. Such a statute cannot be in libertarianism because any specific quantitative time limit would be a posteriori and would null claims that could, in theory, be proven based on actual hard physical evidence of previous homesteading.

Now, Hammond is challenging me to “make an argument”. Obviously, what follows below will not qualify as “an argument” according to him, because according to him, I have never “made an argument”. I’ll just let you all judge for yourselves if I’m raving nonsense or presenting a very simple logical progression here.

Hammond, in his debate with me, quoted a footnote from our paper, in which we said the following:

But are there no statutes of limitation? Surely, two millennia and counting would more than qualify for any statute of limitations. There is such a thing, for the libertarian, as a “natural” statute of limitations: the further back ones goes into the past, the more difficult it is to encounter any relevant evidence. Since the burden of proof always rests with he who wishes to overturn extant property rights, mere passage of time can serve as a natural limitation.

Now, woe is me, I was not fully versed in every single footnote of our paper on the fly verbatim, so I thought he caught us in a contradiction. This sure sounds like we are accepting the notion of statutes of limitations in libertarianism based on time limits. During the debate, I knew this could not be, but I had no time to skim through the whole paper to look for the footnote as I was writing notes at the time to rebut his opening statement.

Let me be very clear, for Hammond’s sake. He is accusing us of contradicting ourselves with regard to statutes of limitations. On the one hand, we supposedly say that there is such a thing as statutes of limitation, and on the other hand, we supposedly accept the claim of Jews to land obviously and demonstrably previously homesteaded by Jews in Judea. How can we accept these claims and say they are legitimate if we accept a statute of limitations according to this footnote in the paper itself?

In Hammond’s words, this argument “fails even on its own terms” because we both accept and reject a statute of limitations.

OK, follow me so far? I’m going very very slowly here, deliberately, so even someone with zero background in logic can understand. I’m presenting “an argument” to expose Hammond’s dishonesty. He will no doubt say that he has no idea what I’m talking about and that this is not “an argument”. I can’t go any slower than I’m going now. So stay with me. (Obviously I don’t think Hammond is an idiot. He’s just playing one because he knows we caught him on this and he can’t get out of it.)

Now, what is the meaning of this footnote he has cited? As a co-author of the paper, I will give it you. Let’s go sentence by sentence.

Surely, two millennia and counting would more than qualify for any statute of limitations.

Meaning, yes, in general, 2,000 years does qualify as a statute of limitations. How so? הכא במאי עסקינן? במה דברים אמורים? (In what case does 2,000 years qualify as a statute of limitations? תניא (The text states)

There is such a thing, for the libertarian, as a “natural” statute of limitations: the further back one goes into the past, the more difficult it is to encounter any relevant evidenceץ

תיובתא דרפי פרבר? (Is this a refutation of Farber et al?)

אדרבא. Just the opposite.

2,000 years is a “natural” statute of limitations only because in general, the further back one goes into the past, the more difficult it is to encounter relevant evidence of past claims. This is only an observation of general natural trends. The “naturalness” of the statute of limitations for the libertarian is הכי השתא (one and the same as, intertwined with) the lack of hard, relevant, physical evidence of a claim in the first place. The limitation is not inherent in the amount of time passed, which would be a posteriori, but intrinsic only in the lack of evidence generally due to the passage of time.

גופא (going back to the quote) תני תוהא (we already know)

Since the burden of proof always rests with he who wishes to overturn extant property rights, mere passage of time can serve as a natural limitation.

“Can” כתיב, “Must” לא כתיב. It says “can”. It does not say “must”. When “can” 2,000 years serve as a natural statute of limitations? Only when there is no longer any hard physical evidence of past claims due to the “natural” passage of time. This would apply to all land in Israel for which there is no hard physical evidence of previous Jewish homesteading. The Right of Return for non-Jewish Palestinians who do not descend from Jews applies only to that land.

Meaning, if and where there is hard physical evidence of previous claims, the mere passage of time does not constitute a statute of limitations for the libertarian.

Now, what did Hammond leave out of his selective quotation of this footnote? Only this:

However, there can be no man-made statute in this regard, at least not for the libertarian. If there were, injustice would prevail when the plaintiff can marshal proof that a property title is illicit, and yet the court would not uphold it. This would also spell almost the death knell for reparations, surely a basic element of the libertarian philosophy. See on this note 75.

Now, I have challenged Hammond to quote the footnote in full on this dishonest incomplete lazy excuse for a rebuttal on his site here. And suprise suprise, he thinks the rest of the footnote is irrelevant.

Anyone forming pictures of Hillary Clinton in their heads right now? I certainly am!

I actually feel stupid, as if I’m talking to a 10 year old in an introductory course to symbolic logic and Aristotle’s basic premise that contradictions don’t exist. How could this not be relevant? I don’t know. I don’t know what to say anymore other than Hammond is being deliberately stupid so as not to get himself caught in the contradiction he has placed himself in.

What contradiction specifically? He says that our argument “fails on its own terms”. What “terms” are those? The terms that Jews’ claim on land previously homesteaded by Jews in Judea, with hard physical and indisputable evidence of previous homesteading by Jews (Har Habayit, Ma’aarat Hamachpela, most of East Jerusalem in Ir David), is valid because there is no man-made statute of limitations in libertarianism, when supposedly in this footnote that he quotes, without quoting the end of it, we supposedly admit that we believe in a statute of limitations for the libertarian when we do not and we never did.

So let me make this very clear to you Jeremy Hammond and fans, even though I am absolutely positive you all already understand perfectly and are just feigning idiocy in order to stem yourselves from admitting your contradiction:

There is no man-made statute of limitations in libertarianism, nor can there possibly be one, by the very a priori nature of libertarianism itself. The only natural statute of limitations in libertarianism is when there is no longer any hard evidence of previous claims, whether due to mere passage of time or anything else that erases evidence. OR there is an explicit relinquishment of all claims, as in the case of ייאוש.

But in cases where there is hard evidence of previous homesteading and no ייאוש, plus hard evidence that the nearest of kin to those original legitimate homesteaders still exist and claim this land and never ever relinquished their claims…

Well then, all land with hard physical evidence of previous homesteading by Jews, must go to the nearest of kin, which are Jews, by shares of stock in that landregardless of any subsequent homesteader on that land.

Practically speaking then, because there is no man-made statute of limitations in libertarianism, all land with hard physical evidence of previous Jewish homesteading from the Roman period, must go to the descendants of those original homesteaders, given that no one Jew can prove descent from any specific homesteader. Therefore, all of it must go to all verifiable genetic Jews with certain Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA markers by shares, to be determined by impartial third-party judges with zero connection to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim line.

Is this “an argument”?

Will Hammond quote the entire footnote at that dishonest article of his? No, because he thinks it’s “irrelevant”.

Why will he not actually quote the entire thing in reality, when he knows full well that it’s VERY relevant? Because he knows if he does, the stupidity he is currently feigning will become obvious even to the densest of his own readers.

When your only defense is to play dumb (I don’t know what “C” means on these classified emails! I never knew you couldn’t have a private email server! What’s the definition of “is”?) then I may as well be arguing with Hillary Clinton, which really, is not worth anyone’s time.

If Hammond wants to continue acting like Hillary Clinton, he is welcome to it. But if that’s really the best that the anti-Israel libertarian crowd has to offer, it’s really sub par.

Give me and every other genetic Jew on the planet (including Palestinian non Jews with Jewish genes!) Har Habayit by shares of stock. Give us Ma’arat Hamachpela, give us every single piece of land in Israel with verifiable physical hard evidence of previous Jewish homesteading, and the “Palestinians” can have the right of return to the rest. (See? I accept the right of return by Palestinians, but only to land where there is no hard and obvious physical evidence of previous Jewish homesteading. There is no hard obvious physical evidence of previous Jewish homesteading in most of Israel, so practically, we actually agree on much even though he insists I reject the right of return, which  I DO NOT.)

So does our argument “fail on its own terms”? NO. It fails on his terms, which are that libertarianism necessitates a time-bound man-made a posteriori statute of limitations. These terms are wrong.

Dramatic effect follows for rhetorical emphasis only, no violence implied against any government official (skip to 1:21, and FYI Mandy Patinkin is a Jew):

Offer me money. (Not really, not interested.) Power too. Promise me that. (Not interested either.) Offer me everything I ask for. (Har Habayit, Ma’arat HaMachpela, and every parcel of land with hard evidence of previous Jewish homesteading. That I actually DO demand. Not of Hammond. He is irrelevant. Of the Israeli government yemach shemam. They are my real enemy.)

I want my Beis HaMikdash back Binyamin Netanyahu you son of a bitch. The Feiglinites are coming.

The Jews are back. The exiles are gathered. Our only stumbling block left is the Israeli government itself. After this post I will get back to only that, because these Hammondeers only dig in by deliberately acting progressively more ignorant of basic English and logic.

Put the whole quote on the post. Yeah, no chance of that. Because it’s irrelevant obviously. Whatever Hillary. C is for Clinton, that’s good enough for you.