Political Theory

Re: Is there really Just War?

Attackdonkey — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:59:00 GMT

Danno:

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.

"merits" and "urges" the first word is more appropriate than the latter. the first speaks of justice, the second.. well there is an urge to seize the property of the rich, and divide it up between the poor. So lets talk about the merits. An eye for an eye. and the rapist merits rape himself. but this is something law abiding men abhor. execution is different. either way I don't think this is a great rift. The main point is in what the rapist deserves, whatever it is, that is what is needed, regardless of whether or not it will deter that person or anyone else from commiting a crime is not the reason to punish a person. if they have done something wrong they deserve to be punished.

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.

I'll agree with that. but even if there is a town that isn't free and in that town 80 people like it that way and 20 want freedom, we are justified in helping those 20. I'm not interested in the wishes of the government. I think it could even be said that we are justified in liberating a country even if only 1% of the country desire liberty.

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.

I am a member of the Mises Institute. and you are associated with them even to a small degree by having a screen name (and blog)

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.)

But I say the government should not have made that promise. I don't find the justice of stealing from one group to fund the liberation of others.

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.

and we agree on the rest...

Re: Is there really Just War?

Danno — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 06:18:04 GMT

banned:

Danno:
"The individuals currently in control of the government processes and committees in the country known as China, taken as a whole, with an intent to gauge the goals and plans that are likely to be acted upon"

Yes, because that removes the connotation that around one billion individuals are intent on seizing other people's land.

Whoever said that this was about individuals? I'd thought we were talking about wars - in which groups of individuals join together to go to battle other groups of individuals who have joined together.

When individuals do it to other individuals, it's called "fighting". War takes groups of people, unless one of them is Rambo - and he just lives in movies.

From every scrap of history I've ever read or heard of, people have been forming into groups since before any records were kept - it's one of the few constants in anthropology. Groups of people behave differently (and more predictably) than individual people.

I'd be unsurprised to find a study that showed that over 80% of the participants in any given war would have, individually, preferred to be somewhere else, doing something entirely different. It matters not - in groups, they tend to fight - over ideology, territory, loot, or for defense. Those groups may have individual leaders - but the leaders, themselves, cannot go to war - it takes a group that's following them to do that.

I'm not going to argue whether politicians or statesmen desire seizing individuals land, they do It on a regular basis, both within and outside of their mental fabrication. It's not in their nature to do such things, it's just that they have such a position of exaultation that they can do these things without repricussions.

Um - if it weren't in their nature, they wouldn't do it, mostly. Very few act against their own nature. One does have to keep in mind the difference between the nature of the individual and the nature of the person as part of a group - because there is a difference.

Even still, you've designed an argument around the Actions of government officials. If we were to say: "What evidence do you have that that the students at that elementary school have no imperial ambitions?" do you think the answer would be different to that of some individuals within a government? Not all people are predisposed to violence, y'know.

We were talking about wars - take another look at the subject line. Mostly, wars are decided upon by leaders of governments or leaders of religious groups - if you can find a war that was started between two individuals, I'd like to hear of it - because I know of none.

And there have been, by anyone's count, lots and lots of wars.

To say violence is an inherant consequence of existance, like the sun rising in the sky, is rediculous. Only rational human action can be inherant, how that action is manifested, is not.

Find me any reasonably-well recorded part of the history of this silly planet with a period of an entire 10 years without a war goin' on, and you may have a point - but you'll be hard-pressed to find any such example. If they've been near-constant, and nothing has changed to make that less likely, the smart money bets on them being near-constant in the future. If something happened to change that, nobody would like that more than I - but it hasn't.

@ dunkle: you completely missed the point of my post.

Not the way I saw it - it looked to me like he's caught the point and clearly countered it. Mayhaps there was a post I missed? It was a lot of catch-up when I got back after a few days' absence.

Danno

Re: Is there really Just War?

Juan — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:48:38 GMT

Today's Daily Reckoning - quote

The sensible thing for the United States to do, following the fall of its one and only major enemy[Russia], would have been to cut the defense budget down to a nub...and invest the money in infrastructure and capital improvements, so Americans would be able to compete on better terms with the rising economies of their former enemies. It was obvious that with billions of people entering the modern economy for the first time, the world was beginning a new, more competitive phase of development...and that without huge capital investment, labor rates for marginally skilled workers were doomed to fall.

But what kind of world would it be if people always behaved sensibly? Instead, it was party time in the U.S. of A. Americans went on a binge of spending, borrowing and soft-headed thinking. Colleges switched from teaching engineering to letting students emote on subjects such as gender and racial equality. The leading profit makers switched from manufacturing to finance...from making things to lending money...from Detroit to Wall Street. New regulations imposed higher operating costs...and more lawyers and more delays. And lobbyists got billions in special favors.

No lobbyists were as successful at squeezing the public tube as those who work for the defense industry. People come to believe what they must believe when they must believe it. The United States is an imperial power with one major leading industry: defense. But with no enemies capable of inflicting real damage to the country, the defense industry had to invent one: terrorism...and the people had to believe it.

Re: Is there really Just War?

banned — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:17:47 GMT

Danno:
"The individuals currently in control of the government processes and committees in the country known as China, taken as a whole, with an intent to gauge the goals and plans that are likely to be acted upon"

Yes, because that removes the connotation that around one billion individuals are intent on seizing other people's land.

I'm not going to argue whether politicians or statesmen desire seizing individuals land, they do It on a regular basis, both within and outside of their mental fabrication. It's not in their nature to do such things, it's just that they have such a position of exaultation that they can do these things without repricussions.

Even still, you've designed an argument around the Actions of government officials. If we were to say: "What evidence do you have that that the students at that elementary school have no imperial ambitions?" do you think the answer would be different to that of some individuals within a government? Not all people are predisposed to violence, y'know.

To say violence is an inherant consequence of existance, like the sun rising in the sky, is rediculous. Only rational human action can be inherant, how that action is manifested, is not.

@ dunkle: you completely missed the point of my post.

Re: Is there really Just War?

dunkel — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:47:27 GMT

Remnant:

thompsonisland:

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.

I have come to the same conclusion. In the UK, people tend to believe that WWII and the Falklands War were examples of Just Wars. But, books such as "Human Smoke" by Nicholson Baker, and Pat Buchanan's "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War" show that this is far from being the case as far as the Second World War is concerned. And, I learned on Lewrockwell.com that 150 years before Falklands War, the British invaded what was a Spanish colony, deported the Spanish settlers and brought in British ones instead. In other words, the British did what the Argentinians did in 1982.

So now WW2 is an example of a Just War? Unnecessary, I might buy. If not for the Grandaddy of All Appeasers Chamberlain, WW2 might never have been fought.

Re: Is there really Just War?

dunkel — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:44:32 GMT

banned:

Danno:
What evidence do you have that China has no imperial ambitions?

What evidence do you have that a figment can posess emotion?

So the only wars that count are wars of imperialism? How about trying to hold onto Tibet and Taiwan? How about the political oppression of the Chinese people, themselves? Sooner or later, the two biggest, baddest kids on the block go at it; history has shown that over and over (of course, you don't believe in looking at history to help make predictions about the future, right?), so whether it's a new Cold War, proxy wars, or all out fighting (over some silly thing such as Taiwan or whatever), China is going to be involved in a war. Whether it fits your neat little definition of what constitutes a war that would be acceptable as evidence that war, in general, is perpetual is another matter, of course.

And yeah, I know that we need China to stock our Wal-Marts and they need us to buy their cheap junk...but if China is one thing that we are not, it's forward looking. They, unlike some people here on this board, understand history and remember it, and they know that they do not need to take their enemies out today or tomorrow; they can bide their time, wait until they are strongest, and then strike.

In other words, just because YOU don't see what the future might bring (because you fail to recognize the importance of the past), doesn't mean it's not out there. I do not pretend to give specifics, but China is going to prove as big a danger, if not bigger, than the Soviet Union ever did.

All that is irrelevant, however, because even if you were completely correct, and China is not imperialistic, it does little or nothing to prove that warfare is not going to remain an integral part of the human condition for the forseeable future.

Re: Is there really Just War?

Danno — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:31:13 GMT

banned:

Danno:
What evidence do you have that China has no imperial ambitions?

What evidence do you have that a figment can posess emotion?

1. Ambition is an intention, perhaps - it's not generally considered an emotion.

2. Would you be happier if I forsook the shorthand for "The individuals currently in control of the government processes and committees in the country known as China, taken as a whole, with an intent to gauge the goals and plans that are likely to be acted upon"?

Being intentionally disingenuous is not conducive to either understanding or reasoned argument - but you knew that, didn't you?

Danno

Re: Is there really Just War?

Remnant — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:32:18 GMT

thompsonisland:

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.

I have come to the same conclusion. In the UK, people tend to believe that WWII and the Falklands War were examples of Just Wars. But, books such as "Human Smoke" by Nicholson Baker, and Pat Buchanan's "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War" show that this is far from being the case as far as the Second World War is concerned. And, I learned on Lewrockwell.com that 150 years before Falklands War, the British invaded what was a Spanish colony, deported the Spanish settlers and brought in British ones instead. In other words, the British did what the Argentinians did in 1982.

Re: Is there really Just War?

banned — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:24:53 GMT

Danno:
What evidence do you have that China has no imperial ambitions?

What evidence do you have that a figment can posess emotion?

Re: Is there really Just War?

Danno — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 06:20:03 GMT

Niccolò:

It's pretty obvious you don't know what you're talking about, especially referencing a place like the Sudan (a country of villages primarily made up of 50 or so people all armed with the same weaponry, though ignore the fact that almost all fighting there has ceased, George Clooney)

That doesn't alter the truth of the point - that there is just as much war in the world today as there has been in the past, and that the past is one long story of wars. Regardless of the justice of it, we don't seem to be a peaceable species - there's no evidence that I can find that supports that theory - and there's nothing in recent history to give any indication that this is going to change.

The pre-Roman Celtic culture in Europe enjoyed remarkably small government, for thousands of years - and near-constant war, to go with it. Everywhere we can find any historical record - we find record of middlin' frequent war.

or China (a country that has no imperial ambitions except for the few border states like Tibet).

Oh, well - if you let them have a few exceptions, here and there, then you can claim that war hasn't been happening. What evidence do you have that China has no imperial ambitions?

Never met anyone on these boards quite that ignorant... Usually they at least have a decent concept of the global implications and pressures that accompany them.

I guess I must be ignorant, too - I only read current events and watch occasional news stories - I have missed the pervasive evidence that world peace is about to break out all over. Perhaps you can point me toward the evidence that war is a thing of the past?

Also, I don't think most people will punch someone on the street because they're more enlightened than you are - not to mention the empirical findings and the fact that its not in their best interests.

WHAT empirical findings? What fact? Conquest is, indeed, profitable for the conqueror, and more so if there's a satisfying moral point made by the war to go with the loot. Nor does it take "most people" to make war, or violence in the street - which is just one reason it's so damnably difficult to put an end to.

Back to the caves with you!

I truly enjoy polite, reasoned argument. Perhaps you'd be interested in trying it some time.

Danno

Re: Is there really Just War?

dunkel — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 04:44:36 GMT

Niccolò:

It wasn't a point, it was a fact and it has little to do with psychology.

The practicality of documenting every action that does not involve an extreme circumstance of violence is very difficult. Typically extreme acts of violence that you are referencing are documented for purposes of justice or ethical education. It is difficult to bring justice to acts that are not unjust and to learn of what is immoral from acts that are moral, "dunkel."

So let's me see if I have this right. You're saying that peace was not generally recorded because it was commonplace and boring.

War, on the other hand, was recorded because it was so rare. However, even if it was commonplace, it will would be recorded, for a variety of reasons.

Do I have that right? I want to be perfectly clear on the subject.

And what's with putting my name in ""? Just curious...are you attempting an insult? Or something? I don't get it...

Re: Is there really Just War?

dunkel — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 04:40:10 GMT

Niccolò:

Yes.

Wars are not homogenous and the mere implication that you say "one conflict" implies that war is not perpetual.

So because today will eventually end (in about 40 minute), I cannot be reasonably sure, despite the fact that countless days have proceeded it, that tomorrow will ever come.

I think you're on to something here.

There was, and then it ended.

There was a war and another and another. One ends and another begins, as far back as we have recorded history. Yet it's sheer lunacy to think that the cycle will continue, even though there's no evidence to show that there's any signs of it changing...?

What are you talking about? Your point was that wars are perpetual, but they aren't. If one war is not perpetual, then the nature of war is such that it cannot be perpetual. This is called intelligence, "dunkel."

No, that's called some of the craziest logic I've ever heard.

What was your point? That there is only all out war or all out pacifism? I am not a pacifist. If someone tries to hit me, I will defend myself.

I guess even your instincts are too slow to react...

My point? My point is that once again, you've proved my point. All war is neither just, nor is all war unjust. Sometimes violence is justified, and war is just violence on a larger scale. So it would appear that we agree on this point.

So our only point of contention is the inevevitibility of war in the future? That one is easy to solve, and like I've said in this thread several times, I don't even have to really prove it myself...the proof will be in the headlines every day from here until the end of man's time on Earth...war after war after war will prove that I'm right. You may disagree with my reasoning, but you won't be able to disagree with the fact that war is continuing day after day, year after year, century after century.

Sigh... I did not really give a definition of enlightment; I gave a reason why most people don't violate the rights of others on a regular basis, which is a variable of enlightenment.

Furthermore, that is not even close to an accurate derivative of my "admission." Violence itself is not the issue, violation of rights is. It isn't about efficiency, it's about... - gasp - enlightenment.

You said this:

Most men understad the simple logic of defense and probability of success with violence in a world of ever larger and stronger people - these are enlightened people.

So, sorry, you did not provide a definition per se...you just provided a description of "enlightened people". You said nothing about violation of rights...you specifically said that enlightened people are smart enough to figure out probabilities of success.

Or did I misunderstand?

First, you're using the assumption about the definition of enlightenment to create implications of the definition. I don't care to reply to it because it has nothing to do with what I said.

It may not have had anything to do with what you wish you said, but it did have something to do with what you actually said.

Second, when someone deserves to be punished, when retribution must occur, when atonement is necessary, it is not only right, but virtuous to take it - this is called justice.

I agree. Some violence is justified. War is just violence on a grander scale. Thus, it is logical that some war is justified. So we do not disagree on this point.

Its easy to prove a point when you create a strawman... That's kind of the purpose.

Actually, if you look, we agree completely on the point.

Now we just have to figure out if war, in general, will go on forever. I say it will. You say it won't. Let's wait a year or 100 and see who's proven right.

Re: Is there really Just War?

Niccolò — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 04:20:46 GMT

dunkel:

It makes sense according to your theory. I'm contending that warfare, rathar than peace is the norm. You're saying that really it's peace that was the norm and warfare was the exception. As proof, you're offering that we hear so little about peace. Why? Because people get tired of writing about what happens every day.

So clearly, if warfare was truly the norm, people would get tired of writing about it, so we'd hear very little about it.

Or did I miss something in the point you were trying to make?

It wasn't a point, it was a fact and it has little to do with psychology.

The practicality of documenting every action that does not involve an extreme circumstance of violence is very difficult. Typically extreme acts of violence that you are referencing are documented for purposes of justice or ethical education. It is difficult to bring justice to acts that are not unjust and to learn of what is immoral from acts that are moral, "dunkel."

Re: Is there really Just War?

Niccolò — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 04:17:07 GMT

dunkel:

I see...so one conflict ending, while others rage on, is proof that war is not perpetual.

Yes.

Wars are not homogenous and the mere implication that you say "one conflict" implies that war is not perpetual.

dunkel:

Well then, I guess there was no war before the Sudan either, right?

There was, and then it ended.

dunkel:

Surely you must realize that I did not say that ALL wars are perpetual, right? I mean...seriously, if you were to imply that I am wrong because one single war has reached a lull, you do realize how retarded that would be, right? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you are not that stupid...

What are you talking about? Your point was that wars are perpetual, but they aren't. If one war is not perpetual, then the nature of war is such that it cannot be perpetual. This is called intelligence, "dunkel."

dunkel:

Actually, you just proved my point. Setting aside the fact that I am awed by your awesome show of internet badass-ness (wow, you broke every bone in his hand? You are a BEAST!!), the story perfectly illustrates the point I was wanting to make. I was hoping I could lead you into saying something to prove my point, but I had no idea you'd do it so perfectly.

What was your point? That there is only all out war or all out pacifism? I am not a pacifist. If someone tries to hit me, I will defend myself.

I guess even your instincts are too slow to react...

dunkel:

Even by your own definition, "enlightenment" is only being better able to calculate the risk versus reward equation. By your own admission, it's not that "enlightened" people simply do not have the urge to use violence, but rather they are better able to determine when an attack might meet with success. Using that definition, if I am smart enough to figure out who to attack so that my chances of success are maximized, would I also then be considered enlightened?

Sigh... I did not really give a definition of enlightment; I gave a reason why most people don't violate the rights of others on a regular basis, which is a variable of enlightenment.

Furthermore, that is not even close to an accurate derivative of my "admission." Violence itself is not the issue, violation of rights is. It isn't about efficiency, it's about... - gasp - enlightenment.

dunkel:

Also, by your definition, I am actually "enlightened". I have never taken a swing at anyone for looking at me wrong, mostly because I have always made the risk v reward calculation and have never determined that taking the swing would be in my best interests (for whatever reason). You, on the other hand, broke every bone in a guy's hand for taking a swing at you...did you first do a risk versus reward calculation? What if he had a gun or knife tucked in his belt? What if he had friends with him? Did you take all that into account, or did you just retaliate out of anger and a desire for vengence? Why did you not simply hold him down or push him away? Why did you not simply remove yourself from the area? Why did you not reason with him and try to understand his motivations? You might have crippled him for life, affecting his ability to work and provide for his family...all over a relatively minor offense. Especially considering that you are such a beast of a man that you were able to break every bone in his hand...surely you were strong enough to find a less debilitating answer? Or did you do it because he "deserved it"? Did he have it coming for what he did to you?

First, you're using the assumption about the definition of enlightenment to create implications of the definition. I don't care to reply to it because it has nothing to do with what I said.

Second, when someone deserves to be punished, when retribution must occur, when atonement is necessary, it is not only right, but virtuous to take it - this is called justice.

dunkel:

Now, for the sake of argument, how would you have felt about it if he swung at you, you attempted to retaliate, but failed and he proceeded to stomp you into the ground? Who would have been the enlightened one in that case? You would have failed to adequately calculate your chances of success of your counterattack...what would that have made you? Or what if he had used a gun or knife, instead, dramatically increasing his odds of success?

Ok, you get the idea. And you've proved my point. Thanks.

Its easy to prove a point when you create a strawman... That's kind of the purpose.

Re: Is there really Just War?

dunkel — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 04:01:37 GMT

Niccolò:

Read that again and tell us if it makes sense.

It makes sense according to your theory. I'm contending that warfare, rathar than peace is the norm. You're saying that really it's peace that was the norm and warfare was the exception. As proof, you're offering that we hear so little about peace. Why? Because people get tired of writing about what happens every day.

So clearly, if warfare was truly the norm, people would get tired of writing about it, so we'd hear very little about it.

Or did I miss something in the point you were trying to make?