Comments Elsewhere

The argument over arbitration and hypothetical land claims by individual Palestinians has already spiralled pretty far out of the orbit of the comments section of a post about historical gaffes at LewRockwell.com; so I’ve continued it elsewhere, and I imagine the comments section there may be a better forum than the comments section here to continue it in-depth. The short of it is that I think Starr’s defense of third-party arbiters misses the point (because what third party arbiters are good for determining isn’t actually the determination that I was talking about) and that his attempt to suggest that the unjustifiable aggression of some “Arab/Palestinians” (whatever that’s intended to mean) against some Israelis somehow cancels out the obligations owed by different, unrelated Israelis to different, unrelated Palestinians doesn’t exactly undermine my charge that he’s engaging in tribal collectivism. The long of it is at GT 2006-02-09: Collectivism and Compensation.