Is there really Just War?

Attackdonkey:

thompsonisland:

An urge to punish (and thus, discourage) particular behaviors isn't necessarily sadism. 

 

I believe the urge to discourage particular behaviors in others is universal - the decision-making points regarding which behaviors one has a right to discourage in others, and the methods that would be appropriate or not, is where the differences lie.

It's unfair to blame that passage on thompsonisland - that was me who said that.

Discourage? This is just a beneficial byproduct. The reason we punish is because that is what they deserve. They have homesteaded punishment in proportion to the crime that they committed against their victim in the proportion of their crime. A murder deserves to die, Rothbard says that a rapist deserves to be raped... I say because we are civil we can give this man a noose man’s hood too.

You are welcome to speak for yourself, but in most cases, I punish only when it will serve to prevent the behavior I'm reacting to from happening a second time.  I'll start handing out just desserts when I can, as freely, reward all behavior that I think merits it. The call towards revenge may be strong, but I believe that the urge to control is both stronger, and more widespread.

As much as I despise rape, I don't believe that the death penalty is called for - unless you've got compelling reason to believe that nothing else will prevent further rapine. 

 

As far as the just war goes, yes it is unjust on the side of the wrong. But I dont see how the side on the cause of Liberty is more wrong in fighting a war than not resisting what is evil and proceeding ever more boldly against it!?

This becomes quite sticky.  If I go to war to give my Democrat neighbor more freedom, and he clearly doesn't want this freedom, I'm not freeing him - I'm simply claiming the role of his master, which is not my goal.

 

If we do not resist what is evil, and we do not procede against it, what are we doing. I say for myself and I hope for the rest of you that are in any way associated with this Organization, that the only reason we do not rebel and attempt to restore the Constitution by force of arms is because its not prudent and would be doomed to failure.

War, or fighting for liberty is always justified.

Associated with an Organization?  Huh?  I've just been enjoyin' exchanging ideas on a web site - I don't believe that a login here makes me the member of any organization. 

IMO, respect for and adherence to the US Constitution simply cannot be furthered by violence - we can perhaps win them over by convincing them - it can't be done by pointing guns at them, and forcing it down their throats won't be effective.

Vietnam...  Vietnam was justified... but only for South Vietnam, not for us.   We can't justify putting 1 man in slavery to set another free.  What I would have proposed is that soldiers already in the military could volunteer. and whatever extra expenses are incurred by the war would only be funded by private donations, Or by the S Vietnamise gov't.

The draft wasn't (and can never be) justified - but by agreeing to help the South Vietnamese people resist the violent overthrow of their government by Communist insurgents from outside of their country, we had no just course of action other than to be there.  We, as a group, represented by our government, promised to be there - billing them for it would have been breach of contract.  (If we were unhappy with our elected representative's contracting us to do so, it was our problem - that woudn't invalidate the contract.)

The public reaction to the conflict in Vietnam may have been different if the young people of the time had been better informed of why we were obligated, and the reasons we had taken on that obligation - but the educational system had been largely taken over by socialists by that point.  The average citizen too young to remember WWII had no idea of why we were there - combined with an awareness of the injustice of conscript troops, public support was remarkably split, largely on lines of age.  Most of the people I know socially still don't have a clear idea of why we went there, or what we were trying to accomplish.

After the US's idiotic State Department, I blame the educational establishment.  If we're going to restore a love of freedom in our societies, getting the respective educational establishments converted to a love of freedom will be an essential step.

Danno, probably overdue for bed.

If someone struck me and walked away, what would I do?  The old me would have chased them down.  These days, I would turn the other cheek.  Would I call the police?  Are you kidding me?  I just got hit, how much more trouble do I need?

This is not for religious reasons - I am not religious.  Am I a hippy, well, who knows?  I guess it depends on the definition - does choosing non-violence make one a hippy?

I believe everyone's actions are about themselves.  We cannot control another's thoughts or actions.  I know, I have a toddler!  So, if someone makes war on me, that is about them.  If I choose to participate in his war, I have given that war, and that person, power over my thoughts and my actions.  I opt out. 

The reason I do not take up arms against my oppressor has been, until now, that, as mentioned above, I didn't believe I would win.  However, what kind of principle is that, to stand on?  I do not take up arms because arms are the method of my oppressor.  I subvert him in my heart, just as I love him. 

This last is the sticky part for me right now.  Can I love W?  I believe that I have to, in order to be free.

Your responsibility not to aggress against an innocent victim stems from their right not to be harmed. It is a correlative duty, of a sort.

-Jon 

Jon Irenicus:

Your responsibility not to aggress against an innocent victim stems from their right not to be harmed. It is a correlative duty, of a sort.

-Jon

"their right not to be harmed"?  This is not a right - at least, not in the way I view rights.  If it were, I've had my right to not be harmed violated, almost continuously, since I was born. 

The right to be not harmed, while sounding lovely, sounds very much like the right to an education, medical care, clean water, a rewarding career, a faithful spouse, and an honest government.  I keep hearing about these rights, but they generally boil down to someone else's right to run my life - which I disagree with strenuously, or someone else's being required to provide for me that which I cannot or will not provide for myself - another idea with which I refuse to agree.

I may, indeed, have a moral obligation, in a rational society, to desist from committing aggression against people who have not given me clear cause - but this ain't a rational society.

My own moral standards may prevent me from initiating aggression - but they're my business, and nobody else has the right (or might) to decide my moral standards for me.

I fully understand the siren song of rational, ideal utopias - but history is full of atrocities committed in the quest to make them reality, and I strongly encourage you to rethink your position on the rights that people have.

Danno - kinda surprised

It occurs to me that the political establishment, presently and historically, is most threatened by those that advise non-violence.  Look at the response to Ghandi, to MLK, Jr., to Jesus (and to Ron Paul).  It is easy to drum up patriotic fervor and hysteria against an armed group; harder to do so when the persecuted persons do not represent a military threat.  I believe that our current form of government is fundamentally based on violence (compulsion and coercion); if we respond with violence we beget more violence, ad infinitum.

And markets, which are fundamentally non-violent, are the biggest threat of all to the establishment, and the largest agents of peaceful change.  No one in the political establishment feels threatened by an armed enemy, at least domestically, because they have the most guns.  But an enemy who brings peace, who challenges them at the very root of their corruption, now THAT is an enemy they fear.  They cannot control it, they cannot fight it.

Danno:

The draft wasn't (and can never be) justified -

Why not ?

but by agreeing to help the South Vietnamese people resist the violent overthrow of their government by Communist insurgents from outside of their country, we had no just course of action other than to be there.

Who is 'we' ? What contract are you talking about ? Can I see a copy of it ? Does said contract 'justify' the draft, taxing, killing civilians, etc ?

I fully understand the siren song of rational, ideal utopias

Hm. Having a minimum of decency not to attack people is a 'rational utopia' ?

- but history is full of atrocities committed in the quest to make them reality,

Ah, so all wars have been started by the libertarian army ?

and I strongly encourage you to rethink your position on the rights that people have.

I think that the word 'rights' is shorthand for 'violence is wrong' 'attacking people is wrong' 'using coercion is wrong' 'coercion cannot be justified', etc., etc..

I would think that the draft can never be justified because it is slavery.

As for a contract with the South Vietnamese, I think that any party is free to break a contract at any time, it just invalidates the whole contract.  Now, it may be the case that breaking a contract could be viewed as acting in bad faith, and there are social/business consequences for such action, but I do not think it is unethical to break a contract provided neither party has delivered any goods.

Plus, as mentioned, saying "we" had a contract with the South Vietnamese is a lot like arguing that "we" have entered into a "social compact" which justifies taxation.  No one asked me to sign.

Danno:

Being the son of a man who fought in WWII against the German and Japanese agression, I've always been proud that my family has a tradition of opposing such things - nor do I believe that any non-violent means of opposition would have been effective.

So? We wound up with the Stalinists and Communist China instead of the Third Reich and Imperial Japan. Yeah, much better.

Nothing is ever justified when men are enslaved (drafted) to accomplish it. The powers on both sides were vicious a-holes, and if we want to talk about what nations in general deserved (though I'd rather not), nobody really got more than they deserved in that little conflict. We wound up delivering Eastern Europe to the Soviets. We allied with a man who murdered more people than Hitler. Yeah, we were justified. 

Danno:

I supported the early War in Iraq - we'd promised our allies in the Gulf War of 1991 to depose Hussein, and we were overdue in living up to that promise.  I'd be considerably happier about our continued involvement if I thought we were being effective in our stated goal - but I don't have a lot of faith in the competence of our leadership there, either.

Who's "we"? I didn't agree to sh1t, I was 12 in 1991. They still stole my treasure and encouraged the world to hate me to fulfill "our" promises.

 

 

The right to be not harmed, while sounding lovely, sounds very much like the right to an education, medical care, clean water, a rewarding career, a faithful spouse, and an honest government.

Not at all - the one is the right to demand others provide for me, the other that they refrain from doing something to me.

I keep hearing about these rights, but they generally boil down to someone else's right to run my life - which I disagree with strenuously, or someone else's being required to provide for me that which I cannot or will not provide for myself - another idea with which I refuse to agree.

Right, and prohibiting you from violating the rights of others is one such "right" to run your life that you just have to live with in any given society. More concretely, it is a check on your power to harm them.

-Jon

Danno:

"their right not to be harmed"?  This is not a right - at least, not in the way I view rights.  If it were, I've had my right to not be harmed violated, almost continuously, since I was born.

The right to be not harmed, while sounding lovely, sounds very much like the right to an education, medical care, clean water, a rewarding career, a faithful spouse, and an honest government.  I keep hearing about these rights, but they generally boil down to someone else's right to run my life - which I disagree with strenuously, or someone else's being required to provide for me that which I cannot or will not provide for myself - another idea with which I refuse to agree.

It is more of a summary, though indeed, an imprecise one. Can you wrap your brain around it if we say a right not to be aggressed against or defrauded? As for "someone else being required to provide for me that which I cannot or will not provide for myself" - you mean, like "national defense"?

Danno:

I may, indeed, have a moral obligation, in a rational society, to desist from committing aggression against people who have not given me clear cause - but this ain't a rational society.

So, then, what you're saying is you have a right to aggress in this society.

Danno:

My own moral standards may prevent me from initiating aggression - but they're my business, and nobody else has the right (or might) to decide my moral standards for me.

Well, wait, I mean, this is an irrational society, so I do have the right to decide for you, if I have the force. Right?

Danno:

I fully understand the siren song of rational, ideal utopias - but history is full of atrocities committed in the quest to make them reality, and I strongly encourage you to rethink your position on the rights that people have.

Danno - kinda surprised

Will someone get out the air freshener? It stinks of Neocon in here.

 

Is war just?  Might as well argue about whether hurricanes or earthquakes are "just".  Is a lion justified in eating a zebra?  Is AIDS justified when it kills a young kid?  War is and always has been.  No amount of hand wringing or wishful thinking is going to change that.  War has been a part of the human condition since before recorded history, and if there are two people left alive after the last war, war will continue after recorded history.

 

thompsonisland:

I haven't written in this forum in a long time, but the discussion is often so erudite, and I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on this.

In general, around the libertarian/anarchist haunts I hear that war must be "just," like the War for American Independence or Southern Independence.  However, I have been thinking about where we are now, versus the English, and it seems pretty similar.  So they got to Fabian socialism a little faster.  Well, we had more wars and built our empire out.

As for the South, well, they lost the war and things were totally miserable for a long time, and there are lots of residual effects.

Certainly, there is the right to self-defense.  I am still in a place where I think you can ethically shoot if being shot at.  However, I am wondering if war, as such, is always a sham.

 

 

Class war.

dunkel:

Is war just?  Might as well argue about whether hurricanes or earthquakes are "just".  Is a lion justified in eating a zebra?  Is AIDS justified when it kills a young kid?  War is and always has been.  No amount of hand wringing or wishful thinking is going to change that.  War has been a part of the human condition since before recorded history, and if there are two people left alive after the last war, war will continue after recorded history.

Rape always has been and always will be a part of human existance, nature. It's inherent. Now bend over since it's not unjust to rape you.

 I also like how you compared inanimate/irrational things to rational ones. It's a very convincing analogy.

dunkel:

Is war just?  Might as well argue about whether hurricanes or earthquakes are "just".  Is a lion justified in eating a zebra?  Is AIDS justified when it kills a young kid?  War is and always has been.  No amount of hand wringing or wishful thinking is going to change that.  War has been a part of the human condition since before recorded history, and if there are two people left alive after the last war, war will continue after recorded history.

 

Which is why we can't think about it and come up with arguments against it? We can't try to prevent it as much as possible?

Through the vast majority of history, there were no computers. There was no internet. The bulk of human knowledge was not available to the bulk of humanity. It is now. The spread of information has exceeded the control of our would-be masters. Once, an ignorant populace was not difficult to achieve, it was inevitable. Now, all that has changed. We are in an unprecedented age. I can send a message around the world in fractions of a second. I can travel around the world in a day. And the impact of these changes is just starting to really be felt.

It may yet be that humans will, by and large, act rationally when presented with the information necessary to make a rational decision. This is just the first time in history that information is truly readily available. Who can say what will be?

Niccolò:

Class war.

 

Yo, Nicky! I dun interacted with you b4 (Enlish rules!) so I think you know where you're going, but you may want to clarify a bit here for those less familiar with your unique style. Do you mean to say that "Class war is always a sham", or that "Class war is justified", or what?