Is there really Just War?

dunkel:

Did I say that war is necessarily just because it is inherent in the human condition?

No. Hence, I hit the edit button and changed the word "just" to "not unjust" roughly 30 seconds after I hit post. Are you implying actions that are not unjust are still "bad", "unacceptable"? If so, how is it still not unjust? I also assumed since you were comparing war to things without "rights", volition, etc. you were implying that it's pointless arguing to abolish or prohibit it as it's an ivoluntary (as far as the acting party is conserned) inherent condition. If it's not to be abolished it must not be unjust.

 

dunkel:

I said it's pointless to discuss whether it's "just" or not...I made no judgements on the subject itself.

Then I don't think you understand the libertarian concept of "just". "Just" is simply adjectively describing whether an action is prohibitable or not going along the lines of the Non-aggression principle.

dunkel:

The only thing that really protects you from war is being better able to wage war yourself than can your potential enemies.

I'm afraid your veiw is slightly skewed. The US government is more able to wage war than Iraq... And that prevented the war?

dunkel:

What color is the sky on your planet?  Here on Earth, we have a blue sky, and war is constant and inevitible. 

Here on earth the sky is green.

 

Because I said it it must be true.

dunkel:

Legitimate to what end? As a means of eventually eliminating war? No.

How do you know ?

As a topic for academic and useless discussion? Sure.

If it is useless discussion, why do you bother ? You shouldn't be posting in this board but doing something more productive.

If you want real results? No.

What plan do you have ?

If you're interested in a way of making yourself feel better about how moral and ethical you are? Sure.

Maybe my intentions are beside the point ? Why should you care about how I feel anyway ?

I have studied history and seen that peace is the abberation, rather than war. I see no reason to believe that the next 5000 of recorded human history will be any different

Okay, that's your opinion. You don't have a logical reasoning to back your prediction

As for the stocks, using the same logic,

What logic ? You talk as if you knew the future, but you don't.

One doesn't have to be God to come to these logical conclusions,

Can you make your 'logic' more explicit ? Why is war logically necessary ?

banned:

No. Hence, I hit the edit button and changed the word "just" to "not unjust" roughly 30 seconds after I hit post. Are you implying actions that are not unjust are still "bad", "unacceptable"? If so, how is it still not unjust? I also assumed since you were comparing war to things without "rights", volition, etc. you were implying that it's pointless arguing to abolish or prohibit it as it's an ivoluntary (as far as the acting party is conserned) inherent condition. If it's not to be abolished it must not be unjust.

Let me explain one more time...just or unjust is not the point.  There is only "is" or "is not".  Whether something is "good" or "bad" depends on which side you're standing on and your frame of reference.  All of that in irrelevant, however.  War will exist no matter how unjust you think it is.  Better to spend your time working on ways to reduce the possible damaging effects war might have on you (collective or individual "you", whichever suits you).

 

Then I don't think you understand the libertarian concept of "just". "Just" is simply adjectively describing whether an action is prohibitable or not going along the lines of the Non-aggression principle.

Ok, prohibit it.  Be non-aggressive, if it makes you feel better.  Vote for pacifist politicians.  War, however, will continue.  Just as murder and rape persist, despite our best efforts to prohibit it.

I'm afraid your veiw is slightly skewed. The US government is more able to wage war than Iraq... And that prevented the war?

It prevented Iraq from directly attacking us.  If Iraq had been more militarily capable, it would have prevented us attacking them.  And, anyway, I said that not even strength can prevent all war, unfortunately.

My point stands.

 

 

banned:

 

Here on earth the sky is green.

 

Because I said it it must be true.

I have 5000 years of recorded human history backing up my assertion that war is not going to end any time soon.  What do you have to back up your statement that the sky is green?

Things are not true because we wish them to be so.  They are true because they are true.

 

Juan:

SNIP

 

I would like to point out again:

One doesn't have to be God to come to these logical conclusions, but the fact that you think along those lines gives me an idea of how your mind operates, and, that being the case, I would rather not deal with any more of what you consider to be rational thought.

I saw nothing in your reply that changed my mind from when I posted the above.

dunkel:

I have 5000 years of recorded human history backing up my assertion that war is not going to end any time soon.  What do you have to back up your statement that the sky is green?

Things are not true because we wish them to be so.  They are true because they are true.

 

Actually, the sky is neither blue, nor green, but violet. That is, the majority of the light from the sky is in the spectrum range we call violet. However, our eyes are better able to see the rather abundant blue light, so it appears blue. I suspect most insects (which can see in ultraviolet ranges) see a properly violet sky. So you see, the things we've always thought were true can be shown not to be true once we have enough information. Thus, again, as i said, since war is based on falsehoods and misconceptions, or at least is promoted by them, a greater ability to dispel such lies may indeed be helpful in ending or at least greatly reducing war.

dunkel:

I would like to point out again:

One doesn't have to be God to come to these logical conclusions, but the fact that you think along those lines gives me an idea of how your mind operates, and, that being the case, I would rather not deal with any more of what you consider to be rational thought.

I saw nothing in your reply that changed my mind from when I posted the above.

 

So, merely having a thought about God makes a person unworthy of your august and supremely rational conversation, eh? Well, no wonder you are so cynical and pessimistic. You would refuse to even talk to the vast majority of humanity. How could you ever convince them not to go to war?

Why, if only we were all godless people who, like you, gave up on ever improving the lot of humanity becuase we'll never get it perfect. That would sure be a better world.

JCFolsom:

dunkel:

I would like to point out again:

One doesn't have to be God to come to these logical conclusions, but the fact that you think along those lines gives me an idea of how your mind operates, and, that being the case, I would rather not deal with any more of what you consider to be rational thought.

I saw nothing in your reply that changed my mind from when I posted the above.

 

So, merely having a thought about God makes a person unworthy of your august and supremely rational conversation, eh? Well, no wonder you are so cynical and pessimistic. You would refuse to even talk to the vast majority of humanity. How could you ever convince them not to go to war?

Why, if only we were all godless people who, like you, gave up on ever improving the lot of humanity becuase we'll never get it perfect. That would sure be a better world.

lol, wow, you totally missed out on what that statement was a response to, hence your clumsy attempt to discredit me without actually addressing the points I was trying to make.

To kind of summarize what was going on, Juan implied that for me to predict that war will continue to be a part of human existence, I must have spoken directly to God.  I was merely pointing out that having God-like wisdom is not hardly necessary when one has 5000 years of recorded human history to use as a guide.

Also, I would like to point out that I have never said that we should give up trying to improve our lives.  I just think we should focus on efforts that, ya know, will actually work.

 

 

dunkel:

I saw nothing in your reply that changed my mind from when I posted the above.

My belief in god or lack of it is irrelevant to your 'argument'. You say that since there 'always' was war, there will always be war. That's just a claim, not an argument

So, please, prove in a logical way that there will always be war.

To kind of summarize what was going on, Juan implied that for me to predict that war will continue to be a part of human existence, I must have spoken directly to God.

Maybe my sarcasm wasn't that clear ? What I meant is that you, like the rest of us, cannot predict the future.

we should focus on efforts that, ya know, will actually work.

Such as ?

That's all very impressive.  It is equally irrelevent.

About as impressive and equally irrelevant as every comment you've made so far. Non sequitur upon non sequitur. The question is, is one ever justified in using force? If so, under what conditions? To animals and criminals these questions are "irrelevant". To courts which actually enforce laws they are of the utmost importance. Do you think debating the justness of war is futile? About as futile as debating whether debating war is just is? So aside from blatant non sequiturs, we have performative contradictions too.

-Jon

Jon Irenicus:

That's all very impressive.  It is equally irrelevent.

About as impressive and equally irrelevant as every comment you've made so far. Non sequitur upon non sequitur. The question is, is one ever justified in using force? If so, under what conditions? To animals and criminals these questions are "irrelevant". To courts which actually enforce laws they are of the utmost importance. Do you think debating the justness of war is futile? About as futile as debating whether debating war is just is? So aside from blatant non sequiturs, we have performative contradictions too.

-Jon

I think debating the justness of war, especially in generalized terms, in an effort to reduce or eliminate the future occurance of war, is exceedingly futile.  If you narrow it to a specific war, I can almost understand it, but even then, what does it accomplish?  Declare the war in Iraq unjust...does that end the war?  Declare the terrorist attacks against the US unjust...does that end their attacks?  Declare the genocide in the Sudan unjust...does that stop the killing?  What does stop war?  Practical action, not debate.

Is one ever justified in using force?  Of course.  What a ridiculous question.  I can understand questioning which situations one might be justified in using force, but the blanket question of using force in general is beyond foolish. 

You do one have one good point...debate about the debate is pretty useless.  However, the difference is that I have no delusions that the debate will ever change anything.

BTW, I have yet to see anything posted here to actually challenge my position...that war can never really be eliminated.

 

 

The point is to establish ex post facto whether it was just or not, that is to say justified and not the initiation of aggression... whether it dissuades the occurences of wars is another matter entirely.

-Jon

Juan:

dunkel:

I saw nothing in your reply that changed my mind from when I posted the above.

My belief in god or lack of it is irrelevant to your 'argument'. You say that since there 'always' was war, there will always be war. That's just a claim, not an argument

So, please, prove in a logical way that there will always be war.

To kind of summarize what was going on, Juan implied that for me to predict that war will continue to be a part of human existence, I must have spoken directly to God.

Maybe my sarcasm wasn't that clear ? What I meant is that you, like the rest of us, cannot predict the future.

we should focus on efforts that, ya know, will actually work.

Such as ?

Ok, I see you are from Argentina, huh?  So English is, I'm guessing, not your first language.  So I'll try explaining one more time, but that's it...

To imply that one must commune with God to be able to predict continued warfare in mankind's future is just, well...stupid.  There is nothing in the last 5000 years of human history that would indicate that peace is going to suddenly break out, now or at any time in the near or far future.  No, I can't look into a crystal ball and see that war will continue...but I can look to the past and see that the root causes of war are still very much in place and show no signs of going away.  It's not a blind stab at the future, it is a reasoned prediction based on past performance. 

Do I need a crystal ball to know that unprotected sex leads to STD's and/or babies?  Do I need a crystal ball to know that the sun will come up tomorrow?  Do I need a crystal ball to know that the weather starts to get colder towards the end of the year and will warm up again in a few months?  Of course not, because those patterns are pretty well established, and nothing has changed to indicate that another pattern will suddenly develope. 

If I looked at history and saw long period of peace, briefly and infrequently broken up by period of warfare, I would think differently.  However, if one studies history, as it is rather than how one wishes it might be, one will find that warfare has been constant throughout the history of every culture on every continent.  Except, perhaps, among isolated tribes here and there that really have no one near them to fight with.  At no time in recorded human history has there been real peace...what makes you think it was different before recorded history?  What makes you think it will be any different in the future?  What advances have we made that would truly put an end to war?

So I ask you this...this is your last chance to impress me with your intellect and convince me that you are worth debating...just one question:

Based on mankind's past performance, what do you think is more likely in the future...war or peace?

 

dunkel:

I think debating the justness of war, especially in generalized terms, in an effort to reduce or eliminate the future occurance of war, is exceedingly futile.  If you narrow it to a specific war, I can almost understand it, but even then, what does it accomplish?  Declare the war in Iraq unjust...does that end the war?  Declare the terrorist attacks against the US unjust...does that end their attacks?  Declare the genocide in the Sudan unjust...does that stop the killing?  What does stop war?  Practical action, not debate.

Is one ever justified in using force?  Of course.  What a ridiculous question.  I can understand questioning which situations one might be justified in using force, but the blanket question of using force in general is beyond foolish. 

You do one have one good point...debate about the debate is pretty useless.  However, the difference is that I have no delusions that the debate will ever change anything.

BTW, I have yet to see anything posted here to actually challenge my position...that war can never really be eliminated.

The reason no one is addressing that is because it is uncontrovertial next to you point that discussion of war in general, and to a degree wars in particular, is futile. It seems to me that, in the case of a particular war, widespread condemnation of the Iraq war has had at least some impact. Has it stopped it? No. But its unpopularity may well shorten it.

No one thinks we will eliminate war altogether, though I suppose that depends, to some degree, on your definition of war. However, wars can be reduced and cultivating an awareness of the evils of war is neither futile nor wrong. Do you really think that the unpopularity of war has not reduced its frequency? Do you really think that increasing that unpopularity would not reduce it further? How do you know? Wars have happened, to be sure. Have as many happened as could have? I rather doubt it.

dunkel:

BTW, I have yet to see anything posted here to actually challenge my position...that war can never really be eliminated.

If by war you mean aggression on the part of one government against another, then if a state of anarchy is ever achieved (such as through agorism) then yes indeed war can be eliminated. Without a monopoly on force operating on stolen wealth, and without a brainwashed population thinking that the social contract is somehow moral, any large scale war is incredibly difficult, if not impossible to arrange.

The question is not whether we can once and for all eliminate theft, rape, murder, war, etc. This is an aspect of free will and at the very least there will always be psychopaths. The question you should be asking is what incentives motivate normal people to wage war. If the incentives are a result of today's statist society, then the answer to the problem is to change the incentives. If we change the system to anarchy, no large military contractors would be able to exist and thus not profit from wars. Power hungry politicians would not have an extant power structure to appeal to, and in a libertarian free market for security, they would have a very difficult task, indeed perhaps impossible, to ever assemble enough military power to start a war. The average Joe, having realised that taxes are theft, and living in a system that is living proof that anarchy works, and works better than statism, would never voluntarily give in to taxation. And since there's no monopoly on force, nobody can really force him.

Thus the question is, how do we decentralise the current state monopoly on force. Think of this metaphor: Imagine that everybody lived in a society where changing your citizenship had zero, or almost zero cost. Everybody lived in trailers, and everyone spoke the same language. Now imagine that the King of France proclaims he wants to militarise, and thus levy taxes. The next day he wakes up to a peaceful, but empty landscape. Everybody left! This is how a free market for security would work, and provides the best incentives<