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.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. ... Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
War is the health of the State.
War is an excuse for higher taxes. War is an excuse for money supply inflation. War is an excuse to funnel money into the pockets of politically-connected military contractors.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
thompsonisland:However, I am wondering if war, as such, is always a sham.
I have always believed that a "just war" was one fought in self-defense, or in the interest of self-determination. That is what I am struggling with right now. If you are Chechen, or Iraqi, or anyone whose country is occupied by an aggressor, I can certainly see the theoretical argument in favor of organized (or disorganized) armed response. However, war is never clear-cut on the ground. As soon as the "rebels" pick up a gun, are their actions ever entirely pure? Are there no atrocities, no wrongs, committed by said rebels? I have never heard it to be so. Someone always ends up physically oppressed, and some power is always solidified, by parties initiating armed incursions.
Every war is unjust, but some (few) are also just. How so? Every war is unjust for at least one party - the one whose borders it is not fought within, since they have the ability to end it but fail to do so. Some are just defense for the country within whose borders the war is fought, but most (including the war for Southern Independence) also are used as excuses for that government to, as it were, declare war on their own citizens, making them unjust as well.
I don't know that there are any hard-and-fast rules, but sometimes, I could see war being justified.
For an example - if my neighbors to the north lose their grip on sanity, and the French-speaking Quebeqois start ethnically cleansing their area of all English-speaking people, and said English-speaking Quebequois asked for my assistance in defending themselves, I'd be prone to pick up a firearm and help defend them - I'd consider such a cause just, even if I were not personally under attack.
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. I opposed our (USA) involvement in Vietnam, but additional education has led me to the opinion that we were, contractually, obligated to support the government of South Vietnam, and that our mistake there was in not really trying to win that war outright.
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.
Danno, imagining he's just given cause for outrage in several anti-state anarchists. Not my intention, we've got differing worldviews.
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
I was about to respond in a not-very-polite fashion but you probably know the arguments anyway, so bleh :P
If you try to trick the market, it will get its revenge.
Solreyus
I think this question should be predicated with the more fundamental questions, "Have there been, or could there be, examples of Just Individual Force? If so, why would we call them 'Just'?"
Many people would further split this question into considerations of initiation vs. retaliation. I do not. I deny that force may be morally legitimate in any circumstance. Some call this pacifism, but I dislike that term's emasculated position in our vernacular. I choose not to give it a name, and opt instead to let my actions--as distinguished from the flimsy paper mache of semantics--form the impressions on others.
But I digress.
I would recommend beginning with considerations of individual uses of force. That'll be fresh blood the Randians will smell from two forums away, so you're sure to have a long, fruitful (cough...) thread.
Good luck. :)
"Melody is a form of remembrance. It must have a quality of inevitability in our ears." - Gian Carlo Menotti
Dynamix: I would recommend beginning with considerations of individual uses of force. That'll be fresh blood the Randians will smell from two forums away, so you're sure to have a long, fruitful (cough...) thread.
I don't follow.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Randroids are some of the most bloodthirsty adherents of the NAP out there.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Dynamix: Many people would further split this question into considerations of initiation vs. retaliation. I do not. I deny that force may be morally legitimate in any circumstance. Some call this pacifism, but I dislike that term's emasculated position in our vernacular. I choose not to give it a name, and opt instead to let my actions--as distinguished from the flimsy paper mache of semantics--form the impressions on others.
I'd be interested in a few links (or just arguments) as for why self-defense is immoral or unethical.
I do not believe self-defense to be immoral or unethical in principle, but when I start to extrapolate to the practical I come to so many conundrums that I get confused. I do believe in ideology as being important, and arguments from principle effective, so when I find practical conundrums I am always suspicious that, unless the principle has actually become convoluted in practice, there may be a flaw in the argument.
If someone is shooting at you, I think you have a right to shoot back. But what if he is are shooting at your neighbor? What if he isn't shooting at you right now, or yet, but you anticipate that he will? What if he is shooting at you because you are currently in posession of land that your father stole from his father, whom he shot? Rothbard parses this question back to the original appropriator and any consensual acts that follow that appropriation. Well, fine. That's the same as saying that the death penalty is okay if we know for sure that the person being murdered by the state is guilty of the crime. In practice, this falls apart all the time. It is the ultimate justification for so much that the state does, insofar as people assume that the bureacratic apparatus somehow possesses perfect knowledge.
No one can ever cast the first stone. I oppose all theft. But I use public roads. In practice, there may not be a good alternative, but that's not the point. The point is that, in practice, I am regularly in violation of one of my principles.
Nonviolence seems to be the only way to take away one's oppressor's power. Otherwise, we are just stacking guns against each other, which would imply that whoever wins the shootout is in the right.
What if we take the American Revolution. Just or not? Why? Have the past 225 years demonstrated that the experiment failed, less bloodily than the Communist experiment, but certaily not bloodlessly? What might have happened if the Americans had remained under British rule, like the Canadians, is it likely that a velvet revolution might have taken place instead? We hear that the Civil War was okay because the slaves were freed, whether or not this was the point. So, we respond that slavery died less bloodily, and without the other negative outcomes of the US Civil War, in other places. But, would the Civil War have been okay if Lincoln really HAD meant to free the slaves?
Dynamix: I think this question should be predicated with the more fundamental questions, "Have there been, or could there be, examples of Just Individual Force? If so, why would we call them 'Just'?"
Some years back, when I was pretty involved in ballroom dance, I was walking through a park, on my way to a dance studio, carrying a small nylon bag that held my dance shoes. The park was a known homosexual hangout, and a group of 5 college-age lads apparently thought that a guy carrying a small bag must be homosexual. They took offense at this, and attacked me.
Three of them escaped unharmed. One had multiple bones in his foot broken, and perhaps his nose. The other had multiple contusions on his face and neck, and perhaps a cracked rib or two. I thought at the time that if they were going to go gay-bashing, I was happy that they'd mistaken me for a gay - better a victim that can defend himself than another, and I was pleased to demonstrate to them the error of their ways.
Over 20 years later, I still consider my reaction justified. I went beyond the bare minimum necessary to repel the attack, and gave some Skinner-type conditioning to people who considered unprovoked violence acceptable. I'm older, not nearly in as good condition, and a tad calmer - but I'd be happy to offer the same education to such folks tomorrow, if I still could.
Just? I certainly think so. By my lights, whoever opens the door to aggression has no right to complain about how much aggression comes through the door, and people who open that door need a lesson in why they shouldn't. If my reaction prevented those 5 from committing aggression on someone else, later - my purpose was served, and I'd call it a worthwhile task.
It would probably be delightful to live in a world in which violence was a rare abberation, or to be a part of a species that was non-violent. Unfortunately, I know of no such world, and am not a member of such a species.
And I, too, prefer to let my actions speak for me.
But I digress. I would recommend beginning with considerations of individual uses of force. That'll be fresh blood the Randians will smell from two forums away, so you're sure to have a long, fruitful (cough...) thread. Good luck. :)
Well, thanks - this may get to be fun, if not productive. I can't claim to be a Randian myself, but I've read enough to know the territory, and agree with enough of it to make the disagreements interestin'.
I'll respect anyone's right to decide upon a policy of nonviolence, though I consider it unwise myself. Those who beat their swords into plowshares generally end up plowing for the folks who kept their swords.
Danno, who should be outside tilling his garden, oddly enough.
If they attacked you, I think you were justified in fighting back. You do say that you inflicted more damage than was necessary to extricate yourself from the situation, though, right? Do you think that there is an inevitable sadism that springs from one's feeling that one is justified in using violence?
thompsonisland: If they attacked you, I think you were justified in fighting back. You do say that you inflicted more damage than was necessary to extricate yourself from the situation, though, right? Do you think that there is an inevitable sadism that springs from one's feeling that one is justified in using violence?
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.
How about yourself? If someone walked up to you, struck you without provocation, and turned away - would you be justified in striking them back? Would you be justified in allowing them to behave in this fashion by not punishing it? (Personally, I see no practical or ethical difference between punishing them physically yourself and calling in agents, such as police, to do it for you. Do you?)
I can't be the only one with an opinion here....
Danno, notably opinionated.
Fred Furash: I'd be interested in a few links (or just arguments) as for why self-defense is immoral or unethical.
In response to this and a few other posts made I want to make it clear that the "flimsy paper mache of semantics" I spoke about was not a reference to any of the many arguments for just retaliation. I understand that many--virtually all!--people believe in at least some applications of just force, and I'm hardly so coarse as to denigrate their beliefs with that kind of language. (Though I would have when I was not much younger. Live and learn.)
I was instead referring to the label of "pacifism," and how most people, upon hearing the word, experience a semantic reaction wrought with cowardice and free-wheeling, naive hippyism. So I don't use that "flimsy" word when I want to share my beliefs.
Now that the air has been cleared and I'm not such an ass after all, I have to admit that I have no explanation to offer you--at least none to your satisfaction. I based my own ethical premises on the NAP last year, and eventually rejected that foundation for other arguments which I thought were more consistent with my basic worldview. Then, this past spring, I came across a book called Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, which, by providing good (albeit shocking) reasons to deny the "law of identity," turned my entire outlook on philosophy upside-down. I haven't finished the book yet, so I won't speak at length on any of its arguments, but suffice it to say that I'm now trying to reintegrate so many of my puzzle pieces in light of its claims. It's this reason why I won't go far to justify my claims of "you should not retaliate" just yet, as any implied compatibility between my claim and the restrictions of non-aristotelianism would be suspect on account of my inexperience. I don't want to step over the line.
The only reason I replied to this thread is because I think--I think!--that my arguments for non-resistance are compatible with Korzybski's (the author's) non-aristotelianism, and one short step of certainty in that direction seems worth one short step of mentioning it.
Sorry I couldn't be of more help.
I would be interested in an argument that showed that something was not itself.
War has always been fought on the belief that my need to defend myself negates my responsibilities towards innocents. War is thus a political, not a social, endeavor.
If a people who rejected the political means were to engage in war, could they conduct it accordance the demands of social action? Probably.
Peace
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.
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.
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!?
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.
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.
Everything you needed to know to be a libertarian you learned in Kindergarten. Keep your hands to yourself, and don't play with other people's toys without their consent.
JonBostwick: War has always been fought on the belief that my need to defend myself negates my responsibilities towards innocents. War is thus a political, not a social, endeavor.
Oh, boy. Perhaps wars in the past few century were fought in such a fashion - but for the majority of human history, actual wars were fought with an eye toward minimum collateral damage - the blokes we're at war with today will be the folks we're trading with next year, and hard feelings make for poor business. There were raiding parties that looked an awful lot like war, that did prey upon the innocents - but the goal there was loot, not mere victory.
I'm not entirely sure I understand, much less agree with, the dichotomy between social warfare and political warfare - but my understanding is that when one went to war, it was usually with your buddies from your neighborhood, whom you fought beside.
I'm certain that I disagree with the implied "responsibilities towards innocents" - such a concept is a relatively new (historically speaking) concept, and I'm not willing to agree that I have responsibilities towards persons with whom I have not contracted, voluntarily.
It's probably my lack of education, but I'm not understanding the difference between 'political means' and 'social action' - both being descriptive of the methods and customs by which people live as part of a group. Got a pointer or link to something that would enlighten me?
Danno, the mystified. Maybe it's just late, but I don't think so.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 -
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.
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.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
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.
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.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
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.
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?
thompsonisland: does choosing non-violence make one a hippy?
does choosing non-violence make one a hippy?
Gandhi
Martin Luther King, Jr.
William Lloyd Garrison
Leo Tolstoy
...not hippies. Of course, I don't consider MLK, Jr. to really have advocated pacifism because he advocated statism, which, as we libertarians are all aware, must be founded on force or the threat thereof. But he believed he was a pacifist, and he certainly did much to forward the cause of non-violence, so I include him.
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.
I like your approach. Your emphasis on the inextricable (I believe) principles of love and non-violence mirrors my own, though from different starting points.
If I could bring myself to have a nice sit-down dinner with Bush and manage to treat him like someone I love (like maybe as I love my father), I think that I will have come a long way from the days when I couldn't wait to buy a .45 ACP so I could think about blowing the brains out of anyone stupid enough to fulfill my teenage video game fantasy of giving me a reason to "legally" do so.
[Note to those concerned: I never really wanted to kill anybody, but I did want a gun for "self-defense purposes," and the line between the two isn't always clear in young minds.]
Juan: Danno: The draft wasn't (and can never be) justified - Why not ?
Conscript troops? That can't be a serious question, Juan.
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 ?
By 'we', I was referring to the lawfully-elected (mostly) government of the USofA, who had a mutual-assistance treaty with the government of South Vietnam. The contract was irrelevant to the draft or taxation. The deaths of civilians probably had a lot to do with the insurgent's frequent refusal to wear identifiable uniforms, and was unintentional, Calley's misbehavior at Mai Lai notwithstanding.
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 ?
Huh? I was actually not thinking of any wars, per se - but the atrocities committed upon populations by their governments, such as Stalin's purges, Pol Pot's 'reeducation', et cetera.
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..
If that's how the word "rights" is being used, then it's being misused, badly - the sort of conflation I'd expect to see from Socialist "molders of society". The examples you give are of moral decisions - which I may or may not agree with, but which cannot be decided for anyone but oneself.
Nobody can justify the right to decide on a moral code that everyone else must follow. If it's a clearly good moral code, most will see that and adopt it - but that's not for you, me, or anyone else to decide for them - and if you force it upon them, you're committing aggression on them.
The Bad Things (TM) done by people trying to enforce a moral or religious code upon their neighbors have been even worse than governmental atrocities.
Danno, recalling getting along with Juan in the past....
thompsonisland: 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.
You do have a point, but it gets skinny. It may well be better if all governments were minimalist, and anarchy may be even better than that - but that's not the world we live in. (Changing what we have is great - pretending that it's not there is silly.)
If you have consistently spurned the 'social compact' that is the norm in your part of the world, taking no benefit from it, you may be justified in claiming that it is irrelevant to you. If you have, however, taken benefit from it, it becomes harder to claim that you're not subject to it.
Do I think taxation is a good idea, or even justified when based on earned income or property holdings? No. I do, however, have to acknowledge that it is the law of the land I live in, and admit that I have used the results of that taxation. Having benefited (however few my choices were) from that 'social compact', it follows that I can not claim that it does not involve me, or is invalid - else, I'm guilty of fraud.
Changing that social compact is a worthwhile and important endeavor - but it's hard to do when you're busy claiming that it doesn't exist in a valid form.
None of us will get anything worthwhile by ignoring reality.
Danno
Danno:I'm not entirely sure I understand, much less agree with, the dichotomy between social warfare and political warfare - but my understanding is that when one went to war, it was usually with your buddies from your neighborhood, whom you fought beside.
Political actions are exploitive, attempts to gain at someone else's expense. Social actions are cooperative, like economic exchange.
Danno:I'm certain that I disagree with the implied "responsibilities towards innocents" - such a concept is a relatively new (historically speaking) concept, and I'm not willing to agree that I have responsibilities towards persons with whom I have not contracted, voluntarily.
People have an obligation to not violate the property and person of another person. I have no contract with you currently, am I free to kill you at will?
Danno:Oh, boy. Perhaps wars in the past few century were fought in such a fashion - but for the majority of human history, actual wars were fought with an eye toward minimum collateral damage - the blokes we're at war with today will be the folks we're trading with next year, and hard feelings make for poor business. There were raiding parties that looked an awful lot like war, that did prey upon the innocents - but the goal there was loot, not mere victory.
Victory is not a goal, its the condition required to gain your goal. The goal of war is loot.
Danno:but my understanding is that when one went to war, it was usually with your buddies from your neighborhood, whom you fought beside.
The image of war you are presenting never existed.
Wars are fought between sovereigns, who owe their armies to the confiscation of land which reduces the previous owners to the status of dependent. The soldiers then are the first exploited class. This is a political method for raising an army, a social method would be to hire them(without slave contracts) or convince to volunteer.
Once you have an army you have to feed it. The historical method happens to be using political means, confiscating whatever you need. Obviously, social means would be buying or begging.
Franz Oppenheimer created the distinction.
"There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others. Robbery! Forcible appropriation! These words convey to us ideas of crime and the penitentiary, since we are the contemporaries of a developed civilization, specifically based on the inviolability of property. And this tang is not lost when we are convinced that land and sea robbery is the primitive relation of life, just as the warrior's trade - which also for a long time is only organized mass robbery - constitutes the most respected of occupations. Both because of this, and also on account of the need of having, in the further development of this study, terse, clear, sharply opposing terms for these very important contrasts, I propose i. the following discussion to call one's own labor and the equivalent exchange of one's own labor for the labor of others, the “economic means" for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the "political means."
I recommend Albert Jay Nock's Our Enemy, The State
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