A show of supremacy: USA moves embassy to Jerusalem

[JJM 777]

Just to ensure that nobody in the Middle East can fail to notice that USA sees itself as above everyone else, beyond criticism and discussion, too powerful to be prevented by anyone whosoever from doing whatever it pleases, USA moves its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

How helpful this slap on the face of the defenseless will be, remains to be seen.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Just to ensure that nobody in the Middle East can fail to notice that USA sees itself as above everyone else, beyond criticism and discussion, too powerful to be prevented by anyone whosoever from doing whatever it pleases, USA moves its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

How helpful this slap on the face of the defenseless will be, remains to be seen.

The embassy should be in whatever city the knesset is located.

 

[ddt]

The embassy should be in whatever city the knesset is located.

The state should not even be in the business of establishing embassies.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The state should not even be in the business of establishing embassies.

I disagree. As long as no tax dollars and involved and no foreign policy position is advocated, they are perfectly fine to exist.

 

[ddt]

I disagree. As long as no tax dollars and involved

How do you plan to build an embassy and man it with personnel without spending tax dollars?

and no foreign policy position is advocated,

Which is the prime raison d'être of embassies. Stuff like visas and support for citizens who get caught up in legal proceedings are done by consulates, not embassies.

they are perfectly fine to exist.

So no. Why do you suddenly abandon your anarcho-capitalist principles and have become a staunch statist over this issue?

 

[The Don]

How do you plan to build an embassy and man it with personnel without spending tax dollars?

Voluntary subscription to get it built, and then some kind of naming contract to fund it in the long term.

"Welcome to the Jerusalem US Embassy by Hyatt. The Ambassador will see Hyatt Platinum and Gold rewards members today, other guests may have a longer wait......"

 

[3point14]

So no. Why do you suddenly abandon your anarcho-capitalist principles and have become a staunch statist over this issue?

Because he doesn't have a firm underlying philosophy and just makes it up as he goes along.

Read enough of it and this becomes apparent.

Bob's primary aim in any discussion is to disagree, no more than that.

 

[Amazer]

Which is the prime raison d'être of embassies. Stuff like visas and support for citizens who get caught up in legal proceedings are done by consulates, not embassies.

That is technically not true. Visas and citizen support is also undertaken by embassies. It's just that embassies have more duties than consulates. Consulates are subordinate to embassies.

 

[BobTheCoward]

How do you plan to build an embassy and man it with personnel without spending tax dollars?


Which is the prime raison d'être of embassies. Stuff like visas and support for citizens who get caught up in legal proceedings are done by consulates, not embassies.


So no. Why do you suddenly abandon your anarcho-capitalist principles and have become a staunch statist over this issue?

A) donations
B) I never been a capitalist. I 100% support whatever economic system people develop when given the choice.
C) I have not said I was an anarchist but I am open to it. I get called a statist a lot (this isn't the only forum I post on).
D) I didn't realize the divide between consulate and embassy were so delineated. I do not support the existence of embassies, only consulates.

 

[ddt]

And for completeness' sake: there's already a thread on this in US Politics.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Because he doesn't have a firm underlying philosophy and just makes it up as he goes along.

Read enough of it and this becomes apparent.

Bob's primary aim in any discussion is to disagree, no more than that.

How is my position different from the children thread where I talked about how public education is cool?

 

[ddt]

A) donations
B) I never been a capitalist. I 100% support whatever economic system people develop when given the choice.
C) I have not said I was an anarchist but I am open to it. I get called a statist a lot (this isn't the only forum I post on).
D) I didn't realize the divide between consulate and embassy were so delineated. I do not support the existence of embassies, only consulates.

As to (D), see Amazer's correction to my post.

As to the rest, why do you deny the principles you've espoused in many other politics threads. It's like Peter denying Christ. So sad.

States should not be in the business of doing foreign policy, not even in the business of advocating for their citizens. Leave that all up to private initiative, then people can subscribe to whatever "consulate" they think will best have their interests at heart. And companies like United Fruit Company and Anaconda are perfectly capable themselves of looking after their interests abroad.

 

[BobTheCoward]

As to (D), see Amazer's correction to my post.

As to the rest, why do you deny the principles you've espoused in many other politics threads. It's like Peter denying Christ. So sad.

States should not be in the business of doing foreign policy, not even in the business of advocating for their citizens. Leave that all up to private initiative, then people can subscribe to whatever "consulate" they think will best have their interests at heart. And companies like United Fruit Company and Anaconda are perfectly capable themselves of looking after their interests abroad.

What principle did I espouse previously that I am not doing now? My position is the government has a role in protecting negative rights. That is where my posts in support of public education and the FDA comes in.

 

[ddt]

What principle did I espouse previously that I am not doing now? My position is the government has a role in protecting negative rights. That is where my posts in support of public education and the FDA comes in.

What "negative rights" does an embassy enforce?

 

[BobTheCoward]

What "negative rights" does an embassy enforce?

No idea. I said they are perfectly fine to exist. Whether they are a cost effective means of advancing the objective is not something I'm commenting on.

 

[ddt]

No idea. I said they are perfectly fine to exist. Whether they are a cost effective means of advancing the objective is not something I'm commenting on.

When you can't name those negative rights, then they're probably not there, so what government role is there in having an embassy in the first place?

 

[BobTheCoward]

When you can't name those negative rights, then they're probably not there, so what government role is there in having an embassy in the first place?

I can name some negative rights. I never took a position that there is an exhaustive list of negative rights. I see one of the roles of elected government as answering questions of what are the negative rights.

If there is no negative right, then there is no purpose for an embassy. If there are and the embassy advances it, then there is a purpose. I have no interest in those questions. My interest stops at identifying a valid logical basis for construction (if x is true, then y is permitted). If x is true is a different debate.

 

[ddt]

I can name some negative rights. I never took a position that there is an exhaustive list of negative rights. I see one of the roles of elected government as answering questions of what are the negative rights.

If there is no negative right, then there is no purpose for an embassy. If there are and the embassy advances it, then there is a purpose. I have no interest in those questions. My interest stops at identifying a valid logical basis for construction (if x is true, then y is permitted). If x is true is a different debate.

Now you've moved your philosophy into hypothetical-land.

You could at least try to name one plausible negative right that an embassy is useful for enforcing. Otherwise it's tax money wasted (and no, it's not plausible you'll get enough donations to cover its costs when you're not even able to articulate its usefulness).

 

[BobTheCoward]

Now you've moved your philosophy into hypothetical-land.

You could at least try to name one plausible negative right that an embassy is useful for enforcing. Otherwise it's tax money wasted (and no, it's not plausible you'll get enough donations to cover its costs when you're not even able to articulate its usefulness).

My philosophy has always been very heavily into hypothetical land. See the thread where I spent pages and pages arguing back and forth soundness vs valid logic as being necessary to call an argument reasonable.

I have no particular interest in making a case that embassies should be built. I care if they can exist under certain assumptions, and if they can, that putting one in a capital is probably useful.

 

[Mycroft]

Just to ensure that nobody in the Middle East can fail to notice that USA sees itself as above everyone else, beyond criticism and discussion, too powerful to be prevented by anyone whosoever from doing whatever it pleases, USA moves its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

How helpful this slap on the face of the defenseless will be, remains to be seen.

I don't see how that's a show of supremacy.

As far as I can tell the reason it wasn't done back in 1980 was to avoid ticking off people who irrationally hate Israel and who control a lot of oil, so it could be argued that the failure to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital for more than three decades was an act recognizing Arab supremacy, fearing retaliation like the oil embargo of 1973.

I'm not sure if Trump's move is a good move or not, but you can't do the same things forever without also expecting to maintain the status quo forever. If the Palestinians themselves will never change then the world must change around them.

The status quo hurts the Palestinians more than it does the Israelis.