What are the general thoughts on WWII here on Mises.org?
Were the Allies justified in fighting WWII?
What would have happened if the US wouldn't have gotten involved in the European theatre? Should they have?
I have always been interested in this time period, so I was curious what you guys thought on the issue. Any articles or books discussing the war from a Libertarian standpoint are very welcome.
1) i find your moral relativism scary. have you not considered how if the consensus amongst german nationals is that to kill jews is a moral good. then by your argument it is good.....If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
Jacob Bloom:2. Individuals perform actions in the name of the United States. In that sense, the individual is like a hand of the state. But I am responsible for the actions of that individual and the state because I am a part of the same group he is.
Maybe I am reading this naively but this seems like an admission of criminal guilt on your part.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Mercantilism is a form of economic theory, not one I agree with, but one nonetheless.
we are not in dispute about that then
nirgrahamUK: 1) i find your moral relativism scary. have you not considered how if the consensus amongst german nationals is that to kill jews is a moral good. then by your argument it is good.....If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859 Jacob Bloom:2. Individuals perform actions in the name of the United States. In that sense, the individual is like a hand of the state. But I am responsible for the actions of that individual and the state because I am a part of the same group he is. Maybe I am reading this naively but this seems like an admission of criminal guilt on your part.
1. Human nature is scary, not moral relativism.
2. What crime?
Jacob Bloom: nirgrahamUK: Jacob Bloom:Hitler was a really really bad guy. he was certainly a disgusting guy. I suppose to answer the question of whether he was bad, i would look to see what crimes he committed. On deep analysis it might turn out that individuals in the SS , army, private citizens, whom phsyically killed people and/or stole property in the spirit of the words that Hitler spoke were the really really bad people. Yes, they were bad too. But the source of the...infection was Hitler.
nirgrahamUK: Jacob Bloom:Hitler was a really really bad guy. he was certainly a disgusting guy. I suppose to answer the question of whether he was bad, i would look to see what crimes he committed. On deep analysis it might turn out that individuals in the SS , army, private citizens, whom phsyically killed people and/or stole property in the spirit of the words that Hitler spoke were the really really bad people.
Jacob Bloom:Hitler was a really really bad guy.
he was certainly a disgusting guy. I suppose to answer the question of whether he was bad, i would look to see what crimes he committed. On deep analysis it might turn out that individuals in the SS , army, private citizens, whom phsyically killed people and/or stole property in the spirit of the words that Hitler spoke were the really really bad people.
Yes, they were bad too. But the source of the...infection was Hitler.
Jacob, again I ask. What crimes are you referring to? If you're referring to mass concentration camps, you have your history kind of backwards. Concentration camps as extermination camps didn't start until after the US entered the war making it clear to Hitler that he could not win in the ways he expected to.
There were other complications, but the main point I deduce from history is that absent the US, the holocaust as we know it never would have occurred.
I suggest Pat Buchanan's book on this subject.
existence is elsewhere
Wilmot of Rochester: Jacob, again I ask. What crimes are you referring to? If you're referring to mass concentration camps, you have your history kind of backwards. Concentration camps as extermination camps didn't start until after the US entered the war making it clear to Hitler that he could not win in the ways he expected to. There were other complications, but the main point I deduce from history is that absent the US, the holocaust as we know it never would have occurred. I suggest Pat Buchanan's book on this subject.
Ok, so let's say we assume Hitler was going to lose the war no matter what. And as soon as he realized this, he was going to start his final solution. So then, if you're right, the death camps would've started later, but they would've started nonetheless. So what difference does it make?
Jacob Bloom: 1. What's right to you might be wrong to me. Right and wrong need an enforcer, otherwise they are just opinions.
1. What's right to you might be wrong to me. Right and wrong need an enforcer, otherwise they are just opinions.
OK. I can accept that. Morals are for the dead.
So why are you defending the US entering the war against Hitler on moral grounds?
Jacob Bloom: Ok, so let's say we assume Hitler was going to lose the war no matter what. And as soon as he realized this, he was going to start his final solution. So then, if you're right, the death camps would've started later, but they would've started nonetheless. So what difference does it make?
Jacob,
You're oversimplifying that. Human behavior is not about variables and equations - well, some of it is, but this case not so much - you could say that potentially, the death camps would have started if Hitler stayed in power, didn't get what he wanted (the rest of pre-WWI Germany), and if it was not so obvious that he would lose as opposed to being more or less a loss in the Eastern front and a stalemate in the West.
Those are a lot of ifs, however, and it still doesn't guarantee that death camps would have occurred later on.
On what's the difference, this is kind of the point about WWII, isn't it? The funniest thing about the war, the absolute comedy of it all is that the result was pretty much the same anyways.
Wilmot of Rochester: OK. I can accept that. Morals are for the dead. So why are you defending the US entering the war against Hitler on moral grounds?
Because a majority of the people in the United States thought and still thinks that WW2 was just and necessary. So you've got a majority opinion and an enforcer. That's all you need to be right. And yes, I understand how..slippery a slope that is, but that's the way things work.
Wilmot of Rochester: Jacob, You're oversimplifying that. Human behavior is not about variables and equations - well, some of it is, but this case not so much - you could say that potentially, the death camps would have started if Hitler stayed in power, didn't get what he wanted (the rest of pre-WWI Germany), and if it was not so obvious that he would lose as opposed to being more or less a loss in the Eastern front and a stalemate in the West. Those are a lot of ifs, however, and it still doesn't guarantee that death camps would have occurred later on. On what's the difference, this is kind of the point about WWII, isn't it? The funniest thing about the war, the absolute comedy of it all is that the result was pretty much the same anyways.
I admit there are a lot of ifs. But we had to act. And maybe it would've all been the same either way. Maybe. But maybe not. I think not. I think it was right to fight Hitler. I think it was just. And I think a lot of people would agree with me. Now...that doesn't necessarily mean I'm right. But it does mean that if it were possible to go back in time and do it all over again, we would probably do the same thing. Anyways, trying to figure out who's right and wrong in a war...is kind of a fools errand if you ask me.
Jacob Bloom: Because a majority of the people in the United States thought and still thinks that WW2 was just and necessary. So you've got a majority opinion and an enforcer. That's all you need to be right. And yes, I understand how..slippery a slope that is, but that's the way things work.
Fair enough, if you're in a situation where every American is in the same room and armed.
However, a situation, much like morality, is relative. In a room full of libertarians, you're the nut.
Jacob Bloom: I admit there are a lot of ifs. But we had to act. And maybe it would've all been the same either way. Maybe. But maybe not. I think not. I think it was right to fight Hitler. I think it was just. And I think a lot of people would agree with me. Now...that doesn't necessarily mean I'm right. But it does mean that if it were possible to go back in time and do it all over again, we would probably do the same thing. Anyways, trying to figure out who's right and wrong in a war...is kind of a fools errand if you ask me.
I don't think the US had to act; it should have done nothing at all and gone Swiss. Let the Europeans fight each other to the point of collapse and then we're all done with any further wars - not to mention we could save the whole Israel catastrophe from ever occurring.
I think Roosevelt was on par with Hitler and Mussolini for the "bad-person award." Stalin licked 'em all, of course.
Jacob Bloom: Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:It's my personal opinion that the US and Israel are allies and as such an attack against one is an attack against the other. Therefore, what happens to Israel matters and the US must maintain a deep commitment to backing Israel. Plus, appeasement won't work, it never has. Ahmadinejad has to be eliminated. Why must we maintain it? And what is this nonsense with appeasement? Has anyone been invaded? Because Israel is the bastion of democracy in the middle east. Now, I don't believe you can spread democracy with a gun. But I do think that what Bastiat said about "where trade crosses borders, armies will not" is true. The existence of a democratic capitalistic market in the middle east will ultimately lead to trade with barrier countries, which will then make them want to institute free markets of their own. Appeasement started the minute Obama said he favors the idea of a two state solution. Which is impossible.
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:It's my personal opinion that the US and Israel are allies and as such an attack against one is an attack against the other. Therefore, what happens to Israel matters and the US must maintain a deep commitment to backing Israel. Plus, appeasement won't work, it never has. Ahmadinejad has to be eliminated. Why must we maintain it? And what is this nonsense with appeasement? Has anyone been invaded?
Jacob Bloom:It's my personal opinion that the US and Israel are allies and as such an attack against one is an attack against the other. Therefore, what happens to Israel matters and the US must maintain a deep commitment to backing Israel. Plus, appeasement won't work, it never has. Ahmadinejad has to be eliminated.
Why must we maintain it? And what is this nonsense with appeasement? Has anyone been invaded?
Because Israel is the bastion of democracy in the middle east. Now, I don't believe you can spread democracy with a gun. But I do think that what Bastiat said about "where trade crosses borders, armies will not" is true. The existence of a democratic capitalistic market in the middle east will ultimately lead to trade with barrier countries, which will then make them want to institute free markets of their own. Appeasement started the minute Obama said he favors the idea of a two state solution. Which is impossible.
Anarchists don't believe in democracies.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
Jacob Bloom: Wilmot of Rochester: Jacob, again I ask. What crimes are you referring to? If you're referring to mass concentration camps, you have your history kind of backwards. Concentration camps as extermination camps didn't start until after the US entered the war making it clear to Hitler that he could not win in the ways he expected to. There were other complications, but the main point I deduce from history is that absent the US, the holocaust as we know it never would have occurred. I suggest Pat Buchanan's book on this subject. Ok, so let's say we assume Hitler was going to lose the war no matter what. And as soon as he realized this, he was going to start his final solution. So then, if you're right, the death camps would've started later, but they would've started nonetheless. So what difference does it make?
Hitler started the final solution because no other countries want to accept the Jews. If the US government has not been an ass it has been, most of the Jews would be saved.
Problem solved.
Representative democracy creates 2 different social classes, a productive one and a parasitic one. It's immoral.Direct democracy is highly impractical. It just doesn't work.Democracy is collectivism; is the dictatorship of the majority, the mob rule. It oppresses the individual."Nothing indeed can be a stronger presumption of falsehood than the approbation of the multitude" - David Hume
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap