17 Jul 04
Thirty-two years after winning the world championship, Fischer can still stir it up...it is amazing the publicity he gets...no player before or after him can do that...a new world champ has been crowned in a knockout tourney..there are championship matches yet to come...Kasparov is waiting for his shot to regain title...and so much more, but no press coverage...Bobby makes the news and it is everywhere!!...for punishment, they are going to make him analyze my games!!
17 Jul 04
[i]Originally posted by nemesioAnd that's exactly what the Fish did: moved to another country. But., all at once in a presidential election year, the US government has decided that they want him in prison for something that happened 12 years ago. And I refuse to accept your esoteric description of "harm to a country"; the loss of "billions of dollars of exports" was self-inflicted and even you admit the reasoning is dubious.
If it ever got to a point where I could not tolerate a law, I would move to another country with laws that matched my own political or personal beliefs. [/b]
Can't someone in the whole wide world say "I don't agree with the US goverment", leave the country and be done with it? What is your problem? If a Swede brought a postcard in Belgrade in 1992 would you want him to face a 10 year jail sentence?
17 Jul 04
Originally posted by nemesioDon't ever quote Tom Paine in favor of reducing individual freedom; if you read the quote you cited it lends no support for your argument. And Tom Paine left the US for France at the time of the French Revolution because he felt that was the true future of freedom!
He who would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that
will reach to himself. -Thomas Paine
17 Jul 04
Originally posted by nemesioPaul Simon played in South Africa when there were economic sanctions on that country and international agreements not to have anything to do with them.
For a somewhat less biased report, see the NYTimes @
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/16/international/asia/16CND-FISC.html?hp
The short is he knowingly played in a tournament in Yugoslavia during a time when USA had economic sanctions in place restricting him from doing so. He has been on the run from American authorities since.
From the Times artic ...[text shortened]... and, especially of late, viciously anti-American -- he is almost gleeful about the 9/11 attacks.
Why's he not being prosecuted?
17 Jul 04
Originally posted by shavixmirI guess he didn't post anything on his web sites that was too "un-American."
Paul Simon played in South Africa when there were economic sanctions on that country and international agreements not to have anything to do with them.
Why's he not being prosecuted?
17 Jul 04
Originally posted by no1marauderOf course he can. But he clearly 1) retained his US citizenship (as evidenced by his use of a US passport); and 2) broke US law. Let's see... He's subject to a law.... He breaks a law.... He knows he is subject to the law and he is breaking the law...
Can't someone in the whole wide world say "I don't agree with the US goverment", leave the country and be done with it?
Why is there even a discussion here? He can cry "foul" all he wants to, but he's still a criminal. And a hypocrite to boot.
Also, there are many people who disagree with the US government and choose to stick around. Perfectly legal! Isn't democracy wonderful?
17 Jul 04
Originally posted by GoRedSoxHow many ridiculous arguments are you going to trot out? He had to keep his US passport because in this world, run by hypertechnical bureaucrats, you can't travel from country to country without a passport. And why should he have to give up his US citizenship? He was born here! Citizenship is not a gift given to you by our exalted rulers; it something you are entitled to from the moment of your birth.
Of course he can. But he clearly 1) retained his US citizenship (as evidenced by his use of a US passport); and 2) broke US law. Let's see... He's subject to a law.... He breaks a law.... He knows he is subject to the law and he is breaking the law...
Why is there even a discussion here? He can cry "foul" all he wants to, but he's still a cr ...[text shortened]... ith the US government and choose to stick around. Perfectly legal! Isn't democracy wonderful?
I think you're missing the point; you can keep saying he "broke the law", what I'm saying is the government had no right to pass such a law! This country was formed to protect our basic rights and the right to travel from your country is a fundamental human right to be abridged only in dire circumstances. If the US governent had such a problem with Yugoslavia in 1992 they should have declared war!
And no a democracy isn't wonderful when a majority can take away your basic human rights. Athens was a democracy and when the majority voted that Socrates had to drink hemlock, that's what he had to do. Wisely the people who created this country tried to make certain that our rights were protected even from a majority. But we keep letting rich idiots erode our freedoms. I don't need the government telling me what to do; I've got a wife!
Screw the law! Free the Fish!
17 Jul 04
Originally posted by no1marauderUnlike you, Thomas Paine did not advocate "screw the law." He recognized that absolute freedom did not exist (i.e., the freedom "to do whatever you want at any time,) and that government was, at least in its best state, a necessary evil. He knew, that in the absence of a just government, people would "do whatever they want," and those thing would ultimately reduce the freedoms of the whole. He recognized and respected great laws (as representatives of natural law). He did believe that practical freedom required sacrifice, that freedom for the whole of people demanded some limitations on the individual. Thomas Paine never used the axiom "Screw the Law," that's for sure.
Don't ever quote Tom Paine in favor of reducing individual freedom; if you read the quote you cited it lends no support for your argument. And Tom Paine left the US for France at the time of the French Revolution because he felt that was the true future of freedom!
Yes, he left after wrongly persecuted for a freedom he did have, freedom of speech. People didn't like what he said, so they went after him. Bobby Fischer has the right to say all the disgusting things he wants, out loud, on his web site. He does not have the right to go to another country and ultimately do things which raised money for the (presumable) eradication of ethnic Albanians. That's ostensibly why the sanction was there. The early writings of Thomas Paine -- those before he found himself defending his own right to speak -- no doubt, would have said (perhaps idealistically) that no decent, honest tradesman would ever engage in trade where that trade would engender violence.
My quote, which is totally relevant, points out that he wasn't only supporting individual freedom, but and ideal of corporate freedom; not just freedom for self but freedom for all men and women. In so doing, he recognized that Freedom as a principle required sacrifice, that we must all be equally free, not some more free than others. A just government was the vehicle that provided the means for the equal distribution of peace.
17 Jul 04
Originally posted by no1marauderIronic that you would accuse people of ridiculous arguments and state, "If we have a problem, go to war." Surely Paine would have endorsed this (sarcasm).
How many ridiculous arguments are you going to trot out?...If the US governent had such a problem with Yugoslavia in 1992 they should have declared war!...Screw the law! Free the Fish!
No, in fact, it flies in the face of a great deal that he wrote.
You, sir, are an anarchist. Paine most certainly was not. He was the ardent defender of the principle of Freedom.
Screw the law, indeed.
17 Jul 04
Originally posted by nemesioWhat's all this blathering about freedom for?
Ironic that you would accuse people of ridiculous arguments and state, "If we have a problem, go to war." Surely Paine would have endorsed this (sarcasm).
No, in fact, it flies in the face of a great deal that he wrote.
You, sir, are an anarchist. Paine most certainly was not. He was the ardent defender of the principle of Freedom.
Screw the law, indeed.
Can you be openly supportive of communism in your country?
Can you drive a car without a seatbelt in your country?
Can a woman walk around topless in your country?
All very minor matters to no effect or diseffect to anybody but the person involved...where's this freedom?
What about if you want to smoke marijuana in your country? Why is that illegal? Are all these dope heads going to stage a revolution or something? National security perhaps? "Sure son, we don't want too many people watching 'the big Lebowski' and laughing".
tsk.
Don't talk to me about freedom.
If you are free then you are also free to question laws and choose which you should follow and which you should not.
Like was stated at the Nuremberg trials: "Everyone of us has a responsibility to which rules we follow and which we cannot."
Personally, I put the line at: "If it doesn't harm anyone but me, leave me alone."
You obviously are free to disagree.
Now, I don't really know or care about Bobby Fisher and his trip to the Balklands. But if the government suggests he funded ethnic cleansing, let them charge him and show us the proof.
As far as I care he can stay in Japan until proven guilty. It's a global market after all, isn't it?
17 Jul 04
1 edit
Originally posted by nemesioIn a couple of posts you have mentioned' accused no1marauder being an anarchist. You have posted these comments purely as a remark of marauders remarks like: "screw the law".
Ironic that you would accuse people of ridiculous arguments and state, "If we have a problem, go to war." Surely Paine would have endorsed this (sarcasm).
No, in fact, it flies in the face of a great deal that he wrote.
[b]You, s ...[text shortened]... nt defender of the principle of Freedom.
Screw the law, indeed.
If anarchism was pure and solely about screwing the law you would probably be right. But anarchism is a bit more then that. I suggest reading into the basic fundaments of anarchism a bit before accusing anybody being either a anarchist, fascist, communist, globalist or whatever.
The way you put it an anarchist is a madman bomber blowing up every governemental institute he runs into ... what you are really refering too is Chaos, not anarchism. Not one of marauders responds has anything to do with anarchism. His reference to laws being right to him or not is a personal interpretation of law.
Webster's Third International Dictionary, defines anarchism briefly but accurately as, "a political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs."
In short: Marauders comments are not anarchistic in any way. If you think it leads to chaos thats your interpretation .. but don't get anarchism and chaos mixed up.
Let me state as a ending: I am not an anarchist myself, basicly because like communism I don't think it will work in reality. As a ideology it is worth studying the subject though.
17 Jul 04
1 edit
Originally posted by nemesioIt constantly amazes me that people in the US don't understand the basic principles which our country was founded on. The purpose of the government is to protect individual human rights, not to tell us what to do for our own good. And it is certainly not to take sides in the internal political machinations of other countries; I could care less about what happens in Yugoslavia. If it were a crime to go to every country who's government we don't approve of the travel industry would pretty quickly go bankrupt!
Ironic that you would accuse people of ridiculous arguments and state, "If we have a problem, go to war." Surely Paine would have endorsed this (sarcasm).
No, in fact, it flies in the face of a great deal that he wrote.
You, sir, ...[text shortened]... nt defender of the principle of Freedom.
Screw the law, indeed.
And you just don't get Tom Paine! Paine as an upholder of laws that restrict personal liberty???? The brother was a REVOLUTIONARY for cripes sake! "Ardent defender(s) of the principle of Freedom" don't insist that a free man be imprisoned because he went somewhere Big Daddy told him not to.
As to "screw the law" I was talking about the specific laws making it a crime to go to certain other countries, not law in general. And I still think it completely absurd to prosecute someone who has left the country for good for the crime of leaving the country and going to a "bad" place!!!!
Screw the law! Free the Fish!