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.
Jacob Bloom: I still think the war in Afghanistan was absolutely the right thing to do. It was kind of a joke that we didn't get Bin Laden. He obviously had connections. I thought that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. Hussein was another one of those guys you just can't allow to live. I think that if we hadn't botched the Iraq war so badly, we would've been able to go into Iran and get Ahmadinejad. That guy is a serious threat to the state of Israel. But alas, it is not to be. Israel looks like it's to be dismantled and given back to those lousy Palestinians. So it goes.
I still think the war in Afghanistan was absolutely the right thing to do. It was kind of a joke that we didn't get Bin Laden. He obviously had connections. I thought that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. Hussein was another one of those guys you just can't allow to live. I think that if we hadn't botched the Iraq war so badly, we would've been able to go into Iran and get Ahmadinejad. That guy is a serious threat to the state of Israel. But alas, it is not to be. Israel looks like it's to be dismantled and given back to those lousy Palestinians. So it goes.
The State is nothing more than the individuals that compose it. The crimes these individuals committ don't magically transform because they do them in the name of the state.
Going to fight Iran for Israel is like stealing money from everyone in your neighborhood, using it to fatten the profits of the gun shop in your neighborhood, hiring brainwashed neighborhood muscle to go fight for you in the name of your neighborhood, and standing by while they kill off thousands of innocents in another neighborhood in an attempt to get some bad guy that might hurt or kill your friend.
Why not use your own money to go fight with people you hire yourself, or hire an assassin to do your dirty work for you? If you think that war is so just, why not use your own money, your own life?
kiba: 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. Anarchists don't believe in democracies.
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.
I didn't see this.
The idea that Israel and Israeli zionists are anything but blood-sucking vampires on the land of the world isn't well informed about the culture, history, or nature of the Jewish state. Now, I'm a very open minded person on pretty much everything, but on Israel - even I can see the net loss it causes everyone for that place to even exist.
existence is elsewhere
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: "War is the Health of the State" - Randolph Bourne "War_is_ the State"- onebornfree "War is a Racket" : Major General Smedley Butler
"War is the Health of the State" - Randolph Bourne
"War_is_ the State"- onebornfree
"War is a Racket" : Major General Smedley Butler
"The apotheosis of State power is war." Wednesday, 27 September 2006 4:20:56 AM -
Giles:
"No, it wasn't a just war. The holocaust didn't began until 2 (or three?) years after the war. The final solution was only put on the table when Germany had essentially lost the war. Granted, by the beginning of the war Hitler had done some horrible things, but Stalin had killed 1000 people to Hitler's 1 by the the outbreak of the war, and yet, the British thought it was acceptable to ally with Stalin.
Hitler was never going to attack Britian or France, in fact, he wanted an alliance with Britain. The British also initiated the bombing of the German cities.
Not to mention the whole thing was the result of the ridiculous ToV."
Two points I tink are worth mentioning. You confuse the 'holocaust' with the 'final solution of the Jewish question'. For example, should the deaths caused in the 1938 pogrom not count as part of the holocaust?
Secondly the British only allied with the Soviets after the outbreak of war. Prior to the war they actually rejected Soviet proposals.
Jacob Bloom:1. Democracy is the ultimate in virtuous systems because it gives a chance for the metaphorical prisoners to vote the metaphorical guards out. Like a market does with companies.
Jacob Bloom:2. Individuals will enter the market of their own volition, but they need an incentive. Your plan is a good plan, I like it, but I think there's enough money to both cut taxes significantly and still fund the military and give contributions to Israel.
Jacob Bloom:3. I say that the two state solution won't work because from my point of view, you cannot negotiate with a people who maintain an extreme position. The Palestinians want the whole area. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.
Jacob Bloom:I still think the war in Afghanistan was absolutely the right thing to do. It was kind of a joke that we didn't get Bin Laden. He obviously had connections. I thought that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. Hussein was another one of those guys you just can't allow to live. I think that if we hadn't botched the Iraq war so badly, we would've been able to go into Iran and get Ahmadinejad. That guy is a serious threat to the state of Israel. But alas, it is not to be. Israel looks like it's to be dismantled and given back to those lousy Palestinians. So it goes.
This reminds of Rothbard's article: Invade the World
Rothbard: And so, since no other countries shape up to U.S. standards in a world of Sole Superpower they must be severely chastised by the U.S., I make a Modest Proposal for the only possible consistent and coherent foreign policy: the U.S. must, very soon, Invade the Entire World! Sanctions are peanuts; we must invade every country in the world, perhaps softening them up beforehand with a wonderful high-tech missile bombing show courtesy of CNN.A few isolationist, narrow-minded, selfish, callous, and probably anti-Semitic gripers, however, are bound to complain. They like to talk about various "lessons," for example, Somalia. They like to say: well sure we can get in and "win" easily, but how do we get out? In order to fix up democracy, genocide, poverty, hate, etc., we the United States, must create the country's infrastructure, set up and train its entire army and police (preferably in the U.S.). We must teach the benighted country about freedom and free elections, create its two Respectable political parties, and begin with a massive multi-billion dollar aid program to make everyone healthy, wealthy, and wise, provide an educational program (replete with dropping huge bags of food by plane so CNN can do handsprings – even if some of the "helped" are killed by the bags), outlaw smoking and junk food, and feed them all with tofu and organically grown mangoes... But how will we have the manpower to do the job of occupying? Don't worry about it. In the first place, we can have a 20-million man and woman army, suitably gayized and feminized and Politically Corrected, marching in there with food packages, medicines and hypodermics in one hand, and guns and condoms clutched in the other. We've got plenty of manpower options; we could bring back the draft, we could restore the Peace Corps, and/or we can set up a huge Buckley-Clinton type National Service program, where kids "pay back society" by spending two healthful, fun-filled maturing years setting up infrastructure in Zaire or Haiti or North Korea. With this program, the kids could "pay back" the Earth. What? You say that some of our kids might pick up diseases or get shot along the way? Well, that's OK, because, as they say these days, every failure is a "learning experience."... And of course there are always narrow-minded, backward, selfish dogmatists, who will balk at this program, and claim that it is too "costly." There are always a few rotters who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. But again: not to worry. There will be a massive transpartisan educational effort, from all parts of the spectrum, from the Clintonian or Jacksonian left to the dozens of self-proclaimed "free-market" think-tanks, who, suitably financed by government and by corporate elites, will pour forth tomes instructing us that the program will "pay for itself," that it is in the best tradition of the Free Market and Democracy; that these expenses are not really costly because they constitute "investment in human capital" and will therefore save the taxpayers money in the long run, etc. Thus, clearing up all the hookworm in the world will so reduce medical costs that we will all be paying less money. Eventually.
And so, since no other countries shape up to U.S. standards in a world of Sole Superpower they must be severely chastised by the U.S., I make a Modest Proposal for the only possible consistent and coherent foreign policy: the U.S. must, very soon, Invade the Entire World! Sanctions are peanuts; we must invade every country in the world, perhaps softening them up beforehand with a wonderful high-tech missile bombing show courtesy of CNN.A few isolationist, narrow-minded, selfish, callous, and probably anti-Semitic gripers, however, are bound to complain. They like to talk about various "lessons," for example, Somalia. They like to say: well sure we can get in and "win" easily, but how do we get out? In order to fix up democracy, genocide, poverty, hate, etc., we the United States, must create the country's infrastructure, set up and train its entire army and police (preferably in the U.S.). We must teach the benighted country about freedom and free elections, create its two Respectable political parties, and begin with a massive multi-billion dollar aid program to make everyone healthy, wealthy, and wise, provide an educational program (replete with dropping huge bags of food by plane so CNN can do handsprings – even if some of the "helped" are killed by the bags), outlaw smoking and junk food, and feed them all with tofu and organically grown mangoes...
But how will we have the manpower to do the job of occupying? Don't worry about it. In the first place, we can have a 20-million man and woman army, suitably gayized and feminized and Politically Corrected, marching in there with food packages, medicines and hypodermics in one hand, and guns and condoms clutched in the other. We've got plenty of manpower options; we could bring back the draft, we could restore the Peace Corps, and/or we can set up a huge Buckley-Clinton type National Service program, where kids "pay back society" by spending two healthful, fun-filled maturing years setting up infrastructure in Zaire or Haiti or North Korea. With this program, the kids could "pay back" the Earth. What? You say that some of our kids might pick up diseases or get shot along the way? Well, that's OK, because, as they say these days, every failure is a "learning experience."...
And of course there are always narrow-minded, backward, selfish dogmatists, who will balk at this program, and claim that it is too "costly." There are always a few rotters who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. But again: not to worry. There will be a massive transpartisan educational effort, from all parts of the spectrum, from the Clintonian or Jacksonian left to the dozens of self-proclaimed "free-market" think-tanks, who, suitably financed by government and by corporate elites, will pour forth tomes instructing us that the program will "pay for itself," that it is in the best tradition of the Free Market and Democracy; that these expenses are not really costly because they constitute "investment in human capital" and will therefore save the taxpayers money in the long run, etc. Thus, clearing up all the hookworm in the world will so reduce medical costs that we will all be paying less money. Eventually.
Pure gold.
Btw, the U.S. should've never went to war against Hitler. Even if he was a bad guy. And you stating that that comes of as disrespectful is awfully... presumptuous.
And the U.S. military is a band of mercenaries. They just happen to be employed by an organization that excludes entry into the provision of arbitration services and unilaterally decides the level of payment for this service. It is not obvious why U.S.'s band of mercenaries would be better at providing protection than a band of mercenaries employed by a competitor. Also the fact that the state excludes competitors from entering into the protection services market implies that competitors would provide better better quality services, lower prices for those services, or both; since there would be no need to outlaw and exclude competitors if it could outcompete any potential newcomer.
Also, states are naturally aggressive relative to private individuals or organizations. They can externalize the costs of aggression onto taxpayers. Private individuals cannot do this. They have to pay the cost themselves of hiring fighters and purchasing equipment. They tend to be less likely to start conflicts.
And if you think markets are better than the government at providing services, why not also in defense? What makes defense essentially different from other goods and services supplied on the market, such that a monopoly provider is necessary?
Also, different states are in a state of anarchy relative to each other. When citizens from different countries get into conflict with each other, there are arbitration procedures which are set in motion. A judgement is given and enforces. All without a monopoly over both citizens. So when you say that you don't see how it can work, you are ignoring the fact that it does work.
And as far as right being a matter of majority opinion and enforceability, you're just plain wrong. If most of the people in a room thought that 1+1=3 and enforced it, it still wouldn't change the fact that they are wrong. Truth is independent of what majorities and enforcers think. It is a matter of what can be proven.
Liberals don't mean to destroy people. They just do.
Knight_of_BAAWA: 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.We really don't need warmongers here.
I am not a warmonger. I just know a serious threat when I see one.
Iran isn't a threat to anyone. Nor Ahmadinejad. Israel is the real threat in the area, what with its nuclear stockpile.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Iran isn't a threat to anyone. Nor Ahmadinejad. Israel is the real threat in the area, what with its nuclear stockpile.
Yes he is! He wants to see the dissolution of Israel! And Israel would never bite the hand that feeds.
Stephen Forde: Pure gold. Btw, the U.S. should've never went to war against Hitler. Even if he was a bad guy. And you stating that that comes of as disrespectful is awfully... presumptuous. And the U.S. military is a band of mercenaries. They just happen to be employed by an organization that excludes entry into the provision of arbitration services and unilaterally decides the level of payment for this service. It is not obvious why U.S.'s band of mercenaries would be better at providing protection than a band of mercenaries employed by a competitor. Also the fact that the state excludes competitors from entering into the protection services market implies that competitors would provide better better quality services, lower prices for those services, or both; since there would be no need to outlaw and exclude competitors if it could outcompete any potential newcomer. Also, states are naturally aggressive relative to private individuals or organizations. They can externalize the costs of aggression onto taxpayers. Private individuals cannot do this. They have to pay the cost themselves of hiring fighters and purchasing equipment. They tend to be less likely to start conflicts. And if you think markets are better than the government at providing services, why not also in defense? What makes defense essentially different from other goods and services supplied on the market, such that a monopoly provider is necessary? Also, different states are in a state of anarchy relative to each other. When citizens from different countries get into conflict with each other, there are arbitration procedures which are set in motion. A judgement is given and enforces. All without a monopoly over both citizens. So when you say that you don't see how it can work, you are ignoring the fact that it does work. And as far as right being a matter of majority opinion and enforceability, you're just plain wrong. If most of the people in a room thought that 1+1=3 and enforced it, it still wouldn't change the fact that they are wrong. Truth is independent of what majorities and enforcers think. It is a matter of what can be proven.
1. If you think I'm being presumptuous, I think you're being naive and arrogant and mean spirited.
2. Mercenaries are like individual players in the defense market. They think selfishly and as individuals. The US military trains its men to be soldiers. They do not ask questions, they do as they're told. That's a superior armed force.
3. As long as there are limited resources and unlimited wants and needs, there will be conflicts. The question is "is a private or public military better suited to handle these conflicts?" I think the answer is public.
4. When different countries get into a conflict, they really only have a limited number of things they can do. The first thing they do is try to cut off valuable resources via economic sanctions or embargos. Then if that doesn't get the desired results, the armies are sent in. Now, my position is simply that publicly funded armies are better at handling wars than private ones are. And the wars will happen whether there are governments or not. War is part of human nature.
5. If EVERYONE agreed that 2+2=5 and had the ability to enforce that idea then for the time that they could enforce it they would be correct. Now maybe not theoretically correct, but no one is going to argue with them. This is the problem we have RIGHT NOW with Obama. Everyone thinks socialized medicine is a good idea. Right now, Obama is correct. But he's theoretically wrong. Our goal has to be to convince the populace that he's wrong, in which case, he will no longer have the majority or the means to enforce his opinion.
Jacob Bloom:Yes he is! He wants to see the dissolution of Israel! And Israel would never bite the hand that feeds.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:Yes he is! He wants to see the dissolution of Israel! And Israel would never bite the hand that feeds.I want the dissolution of Israel. Am I a threat? No. And Israel has bitten the hand that feeds, viz. USS Liberty, an unproked and dastardly attack which killed US sailors.
Well...you're not really a threat because you don't possess the means to destroy Israel, nor do I think you will ever have the means to destroy Israel. Basically, you're just an antagonist of Israel. And I think you're getting a friendly fire accident confused with an actual intent to harm the US. Obviously, the attack was a mistake.
Jacob Bloom: 2. Mercenaries are like individual players in the defense market. They think selfishly and as individuals. The US military trains its men to be soldiers. They do not ask questions, they do as they're told. That's a superior armed force.
I rather have mercenaries. They are better trained to control potentially violent situtation than a bunch of yes-men soliders, not to mention that they are probably the most cool-headed and polite men in society. Plus, they actually have a record of fighting oppression.
Ever heard of the blood diamond war? A mercenary company called Executive Outcome, with only 200 men, managed to defeat thousands of bandit bent on plunder and murder within a fricking year.
What the UN do? They let innocent civilians get slaughtered.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
Jacob Bloom: Knight_of_BAAWA: 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.We really don't need warmongers here. I am not a warmonger. I just know a serious threat when I see one.
Warmonger or not. The fact is, most Americans don't have a stake in Israel. It would be unjustifiable to butt into someone's business.
You seem concerned about Israel. Do some of your relatives live there or something?
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