Warmongering From the Austrian Perspective

Reply

FleetCenturion Posted: Thu, Dec 2 2010 9:53 AM

rated by 0 users

Warmongering From the Austrian Perspective

No, I do not mean "Austrian" in terms of Hitler or Skorzeny.  Since I am often accused of being a statist for my advocating the merciless beating of actual statists, I feel I may as well explain the use of violence from as non-statist a perspective as possible.

Growing up, I think most of us had mothers who told us to always walk away from a fight.  Well, it doesn't take too many kidney punches before you realize that Mom had never been in a fight in her life.  Force had to be met with equal force if one expected to survive past the second grade.  In today's nanny state, our leaders tell us they will solve these kinds of problems with anti-bullying laws.  Tell me now, which solution is more "statist"?

Many point to Switzerland as a shining example of a nation that can remain neutral regardless of what antagonist is lurking in its back yard.  What most fail to acknowledge, however, is that the Swiss have enjoyed this luxury not because they host peace talks, or that they stay out of international intrigues (which they certainly do not).  Since the 14th century, Switzerland has adopted the kind of militaristic outlook that would make Lycurgus proud.  Every citizen is a member of their local military unit (which we might label a "militia") and every house, by law, has an assault rifle.  Target shooting is a national sport.  A single rifleman in the right mountain pass could keep an entire division pinned down for days.  This is why the Nazis never went through with "Operation: Tannenbaum".  Invading Switzerland was not worth the price of victory (and besides, France surrendered early anyway).  That, and the fact that it would likely put the kaibosh on the German army's payroll.  The Knights Templar taught Switzerland two very important things needed for an independent country-- sound banking and ass-kicking.  It turns out that if you're both well armed and extremely rich, you can actually get other countries to do your looting for you, but that's another topic entirely.

Thus it follows that if you desire peace, you must prepare for war.  This has been a famous quote credited to most great military men throughout the ages, ranging from Sun Tsu to George Washington, all of whom have their own unique spin.  There will always be war and the threat of war, and those who are unprepared for it will always find themselves at some tyrant's mercy.  Such a condition of servitude and living in constant fear cannot be called peace.  Or, for a more concise explanation, see the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n1NOY_iQtU

There is also a difference between a free people at war and the statist/collectivist/Keynesian at war.  Free people will actually want to finish the war, and will desire to do so by means of winning it, so they can continue with honest commerce.  Keynesian theory demands long and pointless war, followed by a mild but badly handled peace, which always leads to another war.  This is toady's mentality, where there is perpetual, managed conflict with no decisive outcome.

Wars should also be brutal enough for people to remember it.  General Sherman is famous for saying that the bloodier a war is, the sooner it will be over, and for the most part, this has held true.  Most people never see war, and this is not a good thing.  Politicians find wars easier to start and to prolong, since most citizens are sitting on the sidelines.  The people, while they may not agree with a war, make no move to end it because they seemingly have no stake in it-- and no, marching down the street with a "Bush is Hitler" sign is not a convincing argument against the war.  Having participated on the frontlines of a major conflict used to all but guarantee someone political office, but this has long fallen out of fashion in American society.  Those who have seen battle truly know what war is.  They are less likely to start a war and more likely to finish one.

Most importantly, war needs to be on a budget.  This more than anything else ensures that war is not entered into lightly, and that it will be finished quickly.  A nation that cannot pay for a war is unlikely to start one.  Africa might be at peace today if third world dictators didn't have AAA credit ratings.  The U.N. might actually be useful if it just helped ensure that countries paid their own way in wartime, instead of helping them get financing.  But again, their idea is to manage war, not to actually end it.  Ever since FDR proclaimed that war is "too important to be left to the generals," the free world has been on a downward spiral.  In their quest to make war follow a set of bureaucratic rules, politicians only make it longer and more costly.

Anyway, that's my perspective.  Comments are welcome; that's why it's here.  If you would like to end wars all together, I too would like nothing more.  So please go and put your ideas into action, since writing about peace in forums does absolutely nothing.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Thu, Dec 2 2010 11:18 AM

rated by 0 users

Have you ever read the book Ender's Game?  The book's main character, Ender Wiggin, follows the brutal logic that says, in order to truly defeat an enemy, one must exterminate him.  So let me ask you, if someone steals your car, do you think he deserves to be killed?  What about if someone hits on your girlfriend?  Or if someone gives you the finger after you mistakenly cut them off on the highway?

Also, why stop at actions?  Why not also wage war against people whom you think are threats?  Of course, everyone is ultimately a potential threat, so in order to truly "win the war" in this sense, literally everyone else must be killed.

That's the lesson Ender learned, the hard way.

Reply

FleetCenturion replied on Thu, Dec 2 2010 11:45 AM

rated by 0 users

Wow, that is so completely the opposite of what the post was about.  Let's see... nope; I don't see the word "exterminate" anywhere.  All men have a right to life, liberty, and property, but unfortunately others live to trample on those rights.  Those not prepared to defend their liberties quickly lose them.  Even Benjamin Franklin abandoned his Quaker ways when he saw no other alternative way for his countrymen to reclaim their rights.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Thu, Dec 2 2010 11:59 AM

rated by 0 users

Okay.  I guess I latched onto the whole concept of "winning the war".  I was afraid you were talking about "winning at all costs".  Thanks for clarifying.  I stand corrected.

I'm sure you're familiar with the Latin phrase "Si vis pacem, para bellum."  ("If you desire peace, prepare for war.")  A more general phrase would be "Si vis pacem, para defensionem."  ("If you desire peace, prepare for defense.")  I see no issue with this.  One should be able and willing to fight for what he has, IMO.

The only issue is whether a given reaction is just.  Again, if Dave steals John's car, and John subsequently tracks down Dave and kills him, was justice served?  Or did John overstep his bounds in killing Dave?

On a more political note, General Sherman's "march to the sea" was done to end the so-called Civil War more quickly.  Yet it involved razing the countryside, depriving the local civilians of their livelihood, along with (relatively) indiscriminate killing of civilians.  While there are many other problems with the so-called Civil War, I challenge the notion that General Sherman's "march to the sea" was justified.  But maybe you agree and I'm arguing a moot point.  Either way, let me know.

Reply

Merlin replied on Thu, Dec 2 2010 1:26 PM

rated by 0 users

Ultimately this is not a question of ethics, in the sense of “what is the right thing to do”, but rather of utilitarianism: can you fight statism by violence? Does it pay? Will fighting endless wars not make you worse of than your enemy? It’s a pragmatic question.

Turning to history, I do not want to place such a big emphasis on the Swiss militia. Perhaps, and I say again- perhaps- back in the day before paratroopers holding passes could work. But I doubt that anyone today would be too discouraged form attacking a country simply because it has a few untrained, demoralized villagers with guns. Napoleon didn’t even have to fight to conquer Switzerland, and logistically the feat was impossible back than.

Afghanistan proves this point, to a degree. The Afghanis are both heavily armed and enjoy a very rough terrain, much worse than the Swiss (the Swiss cannot flee into the Alps, the Afghanis can). Yet Afghanistan has been marred by conflict, either aggression or internal, since one can remember.

Ultimately I find Mises’ argument convincing: a country might be an asset to neighbors, or a liability. No one will be willing to let your government stop free trade for long: too much taxable income is lost. If you do not partake into the division of labor, than it’s a matter of time before someone kicks your ass. The people who are alive today are those who where willing to trade back in the day. Savages have been exterminated.

Now, I’ll not say that free trade is a 100% guarantee against aggression. If Switzerland had been located in some flaty terrain, Hitler probably would have bothered, but as things sttoo  back than attacking the only country that traded more or less freely with you was not an ingenious idea.

I’m a huge fan of nukes because they practically outlaw war, no matter how capsized odds are. But still, I’d rather be a defenseless free trader (basically Switzerland) than a well-armed fascist regime.  Of course one need not chose nowadays. Better safe than sorry. But spending a few bucks on nukes is one thing, and spending millions on conventional armies is quite another.  

Reply

FleetCenturion replied on Fri, Dec 3 2010 1:44 AM

rated by 0 users

Autolykos:

General Sherman's "march to the sea"

I think Sherman behaved like a general should.  His job was to win a war, not to consider the ethics of either why it started or how it should be fought.  Civilians can play armchair general, but it is only the military that can make the decision because they are the ones who have to fight-- and the ones who will likely die if they screw up.  Ultimately, though, the South had to be rebuilt in order for the United States to reassimilate their countrymen, so a "slash and burn" campaign should be absolutely necessary before it is considered.  If the war was ended faster as a result, this may have actually saved money and lives in the long run.  A decision on the battlefield must be left to the commander present, and no one else, not even a nation's sovereign.

Reply

FleetCenturion replied on Fri, Dec 3 2010 1:59 AM

rated by 0 users

Merlin:

Will fighting endless wars not make you worse of than your enemy?

I certainly do not advocate fighting an endless war, but when war is upon you, you have to win it quickly and get back to business, as befits a free state.

Merlin:

I’m a huge fan of nukes because they practically outlaw war

That may be fine until some psycho gets ahold of them, as is happening now.  Nukes only work to prevent war when everyone agrees not to use them, and the more countries there are in the nuclear club, the harder that is to control.

Reply

Merlin replied on Fri, Dec 3 2010 2:10 AM

rated by 0 users

FleetCenturion:

That may be fine until some psycho gets ahold of them, as is happening now.  Nukes only work to prevent war when everyone agrees not to use them, and the more countries there are in the nuclear club, the harder that is to control.

That would be like saying, that the more people have guns, the harder is to prevent civil massacres. We know that not to be true. Now, it does not mean that the occasional madman will not mow down some kindergarten class every now and than, but yet the more guns lay around, the more peaceful, ceteris paribus, a society seems to become.

The very same reasoning applies to nukes. If only a few countries have those, than they can pretty much do as they please. Israel has been bombing its neighbors (not Gaza, that’s another story) for decades with impunity. If you where a Syrian, would you be fine with it?

I look forward to a world where nukes will be cheap as hell, and ever bock could afford one. Sure, perhaps the occasional madman could murder hundreds of thousands every now and than (I do not believe this would happen, but let’s load the dice), but the conventional wars that would be forsaken would save many, many more. If nukes had been around for WW2, 60 million would have survived. If the Iraqi reactor at Osiraq would nto have been bombed in the 80’, 600’000 Iraqis would be alive today.

Reply

Brian LaSorsa replied on Fri, Dec 3 2010 2:12 AM

rated by 0 users

Thus it follows that if you desire peace, you must prepare for war. 

This is what I believe too. There are two reasons people don't get attacked: (1) they leave everyone else alone, and (2) they know how to fight back if provoked.

Good post.

Reply

William replied on Fri, Dec 3 2010 2:37 AM

rated by 0 users

Civilians can play armchair general, but it is only the military that can make the decision because they are the ones who have to fight

And I think this is the main point which ought to refute what you said.  To speak of a bunch of Koreans or whoever about war being a good option when you have nothing at stake in anything is an uglyaesthetic to have.  This is lefty intellectualism at its worst and most barbaric if you ask me.

Reply

Vitor replied on Fri, Dec 3 2010 6:36 AM

rated by 0 users

Merlin, the folks from taliban pay very little attention to accuracy and don't use guns that would stimulate that either.

The Swiss use accurate guns and they praise markmanship. When such a big chunk of the population are potential snipers, thing's get much more grinding  for an invading army.

Reply

Merlin replied on Fri, Dec 3 2010 7:00 AM

rated by 0 users

Merlin, the folks from taliban pay very little attention to accuracy and don't use guns that would stimulate that either.

 The Swiss use accurate guns and they praise markmanship. When such a big chunk of the population are potential snipers, thing's get much more grinding  for an invading army.

I wouldn’t agree.

 First, the Swiss have SIG 556 rifles, which are indeed very good but are just that: .556 caliber. Talibans, on the other hand, employ the famed 12.7mm, which has forced the NATO allies there to scramble into service new (and old), powerful round, as the 7.62 NATO or 6.8 SPC. The point is, talibans are very accurate, and prefer to pick soldier from hilltops. Read any report if you don’t believe me. If there’s any people that will snipe your ass out, its the Afghanis.

 And further, the Swiss could snipe, but they cannot flee into their alps, while Afghanis can flee into hilltops, caves and mountains. At those altitudes, no choppers work. You have to fight them on their own terms. The Swiss you can blow away by gunship or starved out in cities.

 Mountain passes make Switzerland very easy to isolate. No outside help could come to the Swiss, as it did to the Afghanis who got enough Stingers to get themselves some nice air cover.

 Afghanis are poor, and have nothing to loose. The Swiss have very much to loose, and would be less wiling to fight. Albanian Kosovars where willing to take on the Serbs in 1999 when most where farmers. Now, with some degree of wealth having crept in, I doubt many would be willing to defend their country if NATO troops fled tomorrow.

 And finally, the Swiss have not seen a real war since Napoleon (where they capitulated as only the French know how to). The Afghanis live by war. There is no substitute for practice.

 So, Afghanistan is the hardest enemy you can pick,. Switzerland is nothing at all in comparison. If they can do Afghanistan, they can do Switzerland. No one is abstaining from attacking Switzerland due to fear.  

Reply

James replied on Fri, Dec 3 2010 7:16 AM

rated by 0 users

Civilians can play armchair general, but it is only the military that can make the decision because they are the ones who have to fight

That doesn't make sense.  Mechanics and plumbers don't make the decision as to whether or not a car or toilet is in need of fixing.  If they did, every car and toilet in the world would be permanently broken.

Warlords make their money from fighting, and you're suggesting they should be the ones who decide when to fight...?   Lol.

Reply

Vitor replied on Fri, Dec 3 2010 8:28 AM

rated by 0 users

" First, the Swiss have SIG 556 rifles, which are indeed very good but are just that: .556 caliber. Talibans, on the other hand, employ the famed 12.7mm, which has forced the NATO allies there to scramble into service new (and old), powerful round, as the 7.62 NATO or 6.8 SPC."

I think you mixed up some stuff. The 12.7mm is the .50 caliber, the one used for heavy machine guns, it's not mobile at all without vehicles, even the ammo is already quite heavy to carry in any meaningful amont. Some american and canandian snipers employ the 12.7mm for very long range.

What taliban uses the most is the 7.62x39, that although it may pack a little bit more punch than the 5.56x45, it doesn't have any more range. Nobody expects low quality 7.62x39 shot out of worn off AKs to be accurate past 300 meters. It doesn't compare to the much more powerful 7.62x51(NATO).

And you also have to remember that a lot the insurgents live in very harsh conditions and many of them never visited an ophtamologist, and many who need glasses doesn't know that,  this has been noted by the troops.

And the Swiss has plenty of 7.62x51 guns, specially since before the SIG 550 the standard rife was 7.62 and they are well kept, and I would imagine they now also have some .338 Lapua (8.6x70) guns, besides that, the swiss have much better anti-tank guns than the standard RPG.

Of course that Switzerland is not unconquerable, specially given it's size, but Finland in the Winter War that true markmanship makes the enemy think twice.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Fri, Dec 3 2010 8:33 AM

rated by 0 users

Autolykos:

I think Sherman behaved like a general should.  His job was to win a war, not to consider the ethics of either why it started or how it should be fought.  Civilians can play armchair general, but it is only the military that can make the decision because they are the ones who have to fight-- and the ones who will likely die if they screw up.  Ultimately, though, the South had to be rebuilt in order for the United States to reassimilate their countrymen, so a "slash and burn" campaign should be absolutely necessary before it is considered.  If the war was ended faster as a result, this may have actually saved money and lives in the long run.  A decision on the battlefield must be left to the commander present, and no one else, not even a nation's sovereign.

If you're not going to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, then you're necessarily taking a statist/collectivist approach to waging war yourself.  At that point, all total-war options are on the table, including exterminating all potential threats -- which, in the limit, means literally everyone else.

Reply

Merlin replied on Fri, Dec 3 2010 10:22 AM

rated by 0 users

And you also have to remember that a lot the insurgents live in very harsh conditions and many of them never visited an ophtamologist, and many who need glasses doesn't know that,  this has been noted by the troops.

Lol, didn't think of that.   

And the Swiss has plenty of 7.62x51 guns, specially since before the SIG 550 the standard rife was 7.62 and they are well kept, and I would imagine they now also have some .338 Lapua (8.6x70) guns, besides that, the swiss have much better anti-tank guns than the standard RPG.

Sure, but neither 7.62s nor anti-tank weapons are, to my knowledge, held by the population as the SIG 556 is. do you really think that one could get meaningful amount of these weapons to civilians in case of an emergency? Would they even try? Afghanistan is so hard not because it has splendid weapons, which are indeed inferior to what any decent army can field nowadays, but that such weapons are held by many civilians. Albania right after 97 was a case in point: you could find civilians with AAA guns in their backyards (I have no idea how they managed to get those to their mountain homes). Can it get more dangerous that that?

 Of course that Switzerland is not unconquerable, specially given it's size, but Finland in the Winter War that true markmanship makes the enemy think twice.

Again, due to poor weapons being held by civilians, I would not fear Switzerland too much. Afghanistan would seem infinitely tougher to me, and yet here they are, fighting again.   

Reply

FleetCenturion replied on Fri, Dec 3 2010 3:39 PM

rated by 0 users

Autolykos:

 If you're not going to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, then you're necessarily taking a statist/collectivist approach to waging war.

Well, every military is by definition a collectivist organization, just like every government is in varying degrees.  Like government, it is a necessary evil, only to be invoked and given authority only in matters pertaining to a nation's survival.  If a particular sovereign disagrees with how a general is handling a particular conflict, he should relieve that general, not micromanage his army.  Most elected leaders no absolutely nothing about how to win a war.  Lincoln made a good wartime president because he hired and fired his generals based on their ability to win-- and thus, ultimately, to END-- the Civil war.  One can disagree with Lincoln's choices, but I cannot blame Sherman for executing the strategy he thought best when face to face with the enemy.

The ethics of war are a purely academic matter that the military should not have to concern itself with.  They are the executioners, not the judge or jury.  They would not be there in the first place if not sent by someone else.  The military cannot be blamed for doing its job any more than an attack dog can be blamed for attacking a trespasser on its master's property.  The profession of arms requires one to be ruthless if it is to carry out its duty effectively, and giving soldiers conflicting orders from thousands of miles away only fills more body bags.  Blame the politicians who start wars if you feel the outcome too horrible, not those whose job it is to fight it.

Reply

liberty student replied on Fri, Dec 3 2010 3:48 PM

rated by 0 users

I have had a rethink about why Switzerland has stayed out of conflict, and I don't think it is because everyone is armed.  I think it  has a lot to do with their political neutrality and importance (traditionally) as a banking center.

There are much easier ways to conquer a people than with violence.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Fri, Dec 3 2010 3:53 PM

rated by 0 users

FleetCenturion:

Well, every military is by definition a collectivist organization, just like every government is in varying degrees.  Like government, it is a necessary evil, only to be invoked and given authority only in matters pertaining to a nation's survival.  If a particular sovereign disagrees with how a general is handling a particular conflict, he should relieve that general, not micromanage his army.  Most elected leaders no absolutely nothing about how to win a war.  Lincoln made a good wartime president because he hired and fired his generals based on their ability to win-- and thus, ultimately, to END-- the Civil war.  One can disagree with Lincoln's choices, but I cannot blame Sherman for executing the strategy he thought best when face to face with the enemy.

The ethics of war are a purely academic matter that the military should not have to concern itself with.  They are the executioners, not the judge or jury.  They would not be there in the first place if not sent by someone else.  The military cannot be blamed for doing its job any more than an attack dog can be blamed for attacking a trespasser on its master's property.  The profession of arms requires one to be ruthless if it is to carry out its duty effectively, and giving soldiers conflicting orders from thousands of miles away only fills more body bags.  Blame the politicians who start wars if you feel the outcome too horrible, not those whose job it is to fight it.

First, by admitting that every military and government is necessarily a collectivist organization, I take it that you're implicitly conceding my previous point.  This means you admit that your position is inherently contradictory.  You cannot reconcile individual rights with collectivist rights.  An example of a collectivist right is the right of a "nation" to "defend itself" against "outside aggression".

To make it clearer, while you earlier claimed that you believe in certain inalienable individual rights, you now claim that those rights are alienable in the face of "winning the war".  Otherwise, you would necessarily recognize that the individual rights of non-combatants are inalienable.  So again I point you to Ender's Game and the brutal logic it expounds.

Second, by claiming that militaries should not concern themselves with the ethics of war, and that they are the executioners of others' decisions, you are invoking the Führerprinzip.  This is otherwise known as the Nuremberg Defense: "I was only following orders."  However, it takes two to "tango" -- one to give the orders and one to carry them out.

Reply

FleetCenturion replied on Fri, Dec 3 2010 3:58 PM

rated by 0 users

James:

 Warlords make their money from fighting, and you're suggesting they should be the ones who decide when to fight...?

A standing military under the direction of a republic is considerably different from a warlord.  A military should not-- and does not-- decide when to fight.  It should, however, be the only entity deciding how to fight.  If some in Washington might find the outcome of a war regrettable, they shouldn't have sent men to fight it in the first place.

To best explain this, I quote Sun Tzu:  "Your servant has already accepted the position as commander, and when in the field, the commander need not obey all the orders of the sovereign."

Reply

FleetCenturion replied on Fri, Dec 3 2010 5:13 PM

rated by 0 users

Autolykos:

... a collectivist right is the right of a "nation" to "defend itself" against "outside aggression".

A republic has a duty to preserve itself when it means the protection of the God-given rights of its citizens.  That is why the Constitution provides for the funding of an army and navy.  My concern is for the rights of those who act in their own defense and national interest, not with that of the aggressors.  Let each side defend their own rights.  If they were so concerned for their opponents, they shouldn't have gone to war in the first place.  Like I said, it is a necessary evil.

You seem to be leading up to the argument that war is always immoral, since someone's individual rights are always violated in the process.  With this (I'm sure to your surprise), I would agree completely.  It's just that the real collectivists out there do not see it that way.  And so, yes, it is often necessary to kill them.  Refer once again to:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n1NOY_iQtU

Autolykos:

... it takes two to "tango" -- one to give the orders and one to carry them out.

You bring up an interesting point-- and one I'm sure I'll catch even more FLAK  for.  The "just following orders" defense was first thought up by Otto Skorzeny, elected by the other German POW's to represent them.  He was the only one to be acquitted in absentia, having escaped after beating two previous war crimes charges.  Before this, he was actually let out on a furlough and had returned, but eventually got fed up with being accused of groundless charges.  Of course, he did help plenty of others escape who were most certainly guilty.  However, he publically refused to help those escape who were not under military oath-- and, if legend holds true, tracked down and killed several of them.  He firmly believed-- and makes an excellent case for it in his memoirs-- that those in the military had little choice in their actions.  Even those soldiers assigned the most unsavory and fiendish tasks did so under the direct orders and watchful eye of Nazi party members, and would have never have made such irrational choices on their own.

As an interesting side note, he also writes that, "It is every soldier's duty to know when to disobey orders," demonstrating a flexibility that most other soldiers did not possess.  He uses this primarily when referring to how to accomplish a military objective in spite of the ridiculous orders of his own leaders.

Reply

Zangelbert Bingledack replied on Sat, Dec 4 2010 12:42 AM

rated by 0 users

FleetCenturion:

A republic has a duty to preserve itself when it means the protection of the God-given rights of its citizens.  That is why the Constitution provides for the funding of an army and navy.

lol. guess this thread is over.

it is interesting that FleetCenturion seems to be a collectivist through and through, yet he denies it. perhaps it hasn't occurred to him that if it were that easy to identify collectivist thinking in oneself, we wouldn't have so many collectivists in the world.

Reply

FleetCenturion replied on Sat, Dec 4 2010 1:13 AM

rated by 0 users

Seriously, do you think those who believe in liberty can't have more than one opinion about how to preserve it?  Is "collectivist" the new arbitrarily applied smear label?  In order to combat the state eating away at our liberties, I have read very few peaceful solutions here that might actually be effective, and none that would be permanent.  War is the most costly way of preserving freedom, so if you can see a better way, I'm all ears.  Everyone's solution seems to be to drop out of the system, rather than try and change it for the better.  Let me know how that works out when a bunch of soldiers in blue helmets show up at your door.

Reply

liberty student replied on Sat, Dec 4 2010 9:20 AM

rated by 0 users

FleetCenturion:

Seriously, do you think those who believe in liberty can't have more than one opinion about how to preserve it?  Is "collectivist" the new arbitrarily applied smear label?  In order to combat the state eating away at our liberties, I have read very few peaceful solutions here that might actually be effective, and none that would be permanent.  War is the most costly way of preserving freedom, so if you can see a better way, I'm all ears.  Everyone's solution seems to be to drop out of the system, rather than try and change it for the better.  Let me know how that works out when a bunch of soldiers in blue helmets show up at your door.

This isn't entirely correct.  "Everyone" does not have the same solution.

Yes, many people advise dropping the pretense there is a system, that it can protect liberty, that it can be reformed, or that it serves any other purpose than to lie, steal and hurt us.  Most people cannot deal with the fact that most of what they thought they know, and what nearly everyone around them still believes they know, is a lie.  History, the flag, tradition, culture, religion etc.  A lot of it is based on lies.

It takes enormous courage to stand up to the state by recognizing it for what it is, and no longer wanting to participate in its theatre.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Wed, Dec 8 2010 11:23 AM

rated by 0 users

Fleet Centurion:

A republic has a duty to preserve itself when it means the protection of the God-given rights of its citizens.  That is why the Constitution provides for the funding of an army and navy.  My concern is for the rights of those who act in their own defense and national interest, not with that of the aggressors.  Let each side defend their own rights.  If they were so concerned for their opponents, they shouldn't have gone to war in the first place.  Like I said, it is a necessary evil.

Strictly speaking, a republic can neither have duties nor preserve itself, because a republic is not a natural person.  Or did you use "a republic" as shorthand for "the citizens of a republic"?  If so, then where does this self-preservation duty come from?

How is "national interest" to be defined?

Again, there's the issue of proportionality of response to take into account.  If you steal my car and I kill you in response (so you can never steal my car again), would you say I was being proportional?  Would you say I was being just?

What's the difference between someone stealing my car and an armed mob invading "my country"?  Both are cases of aggression, aren't they?

Fleet Centurion:

You seem to be leading up to the argument that war is always immoral, since someone's individual rights are always violated in the process.  With this (I'm sure to your surprise), I would agree completely.  It's just that the real collectivists out there do not see it that way.  And so, yes, it is often necessary to kill them.  Refer once again to:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n1NOY_iQtU

I would argue that the probability of at least one non-combatant's individual rights being violated in any war is high.  Just because someone happens to be "on the other side" doesn't mean they are actively trying to rob, assault, or murder you.  It doesn't even mean they're actively aiding and abetting those who are trying to do those things.  To consider all citizens of "the other side" to be part of the war effort is to no longer distinguish between combatants and non-combatants.  This is known as the total-war doctrine.

Fleet Centurion:

You bring up an interesting point-- and one I'm sure I'll catch even more FLAK  for.  The "just following orders" defense was first thought up by Otto Skorzeny, elected by the other German POW's to represent them.  He was the only one to be acquitted in absentia, having escaped after beating two previous war crimes charges.  Before this, he was actually let out on a furlough and had returned, but eventually got fed up with being accused of groundless charges.  Of course, he did help plenty of others escape who were most certainly guilty.  However, he publically refused to help those escape who were not under military oath-- and, if legend holds true, tracked down and killed several of them.  He firmly believed-- and makes an excellent case for it in his memoirs-- that those in the military had little choice in their actions.  Even those soldiers assigned the most unsavory and fiendish tasks did so under the direct orders and watchful eye of Nazi party members, and would have never have made such irrational choices on their own.

They did make the choices on their own.  Just because they were given orders doesn't mean they were (objectively speaking) obligated to carry them out.  Obligations do not exist in an objective sense.  They only exist within human minds.  Hence all soldiers choose to carry out orders of their own free will.  Pointing this out to them may not be wise (as they tend to react violently to it), but it's nevertheless true.

Fleet Centurion:

As an interesting side note, he also writes that, "It is every soldier's duty to know when to disobey orders," demonstrating a flexibility that most other soldiers did not possess.  He uses this primarily when referring to how to accomplish a military objective in spite of the ridiculous orders of his own leaders.

"When to disobey orders" is, of course, subjective.  Disobeying orders isn't always good, either.  For example, a soldier can disobey orders to capture those who surrender and simply kill them instead.  A lot (if not most) of war crimes committed by soldiers have probably been against their standing orders, but they happened anyway.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Tue, Dec 21 2010 11:23 AM

rated by 0 users

Bump.

FleetCenturion, did you miss my last post?  Or are you letting it stand as written?

Reply

FleetCenturion replied on Tue, Dec 21 2010 2:44 PM

rated by 0 users

Sorry, I did miss the last post. I thought the thread was just about dead.

Autolykos:

a republic can neither have duties nor preserve itself, because a republic is not a natural person

Don't know how you came to that conclusion, but Machiavelli would disagree.  I would only say it is "not a natural person" in the sense that governments that respect individual freedom are the exception in history, not the rule.

Autolykos:

To consider all citizens of "the other side" to be part of the war effort is to no longer distinguish between combatants and non-combatants.  This is known as the total-war doctrine.

No, "total war" is a very recent concept.  That is pretty much how nearly all wars have been throughout history.

Autolykos:

Obligations do not exist in an objective sense.  They only exist within human minds.  Hence all soldiers choose to carry out orders of their own free will.  Pointing this out to them may not be wise (as they tend to react violently to it), but it's nevertheless true.

So many things here...  Yes, obligations are a human concept.  In fact, I would argue it's part of what makes us human.  I would also argue, however, that more damage has been done by the oath breakers in history than oath-takers.  When your "own free will" means you and your family would die horribly as enemies of the state in the place of your victims, the choice is kind of obvious.  I also don't know how many soldiers have reacted violently to you, but I'm willing to bet it's not many-- unless you made it a point to really piss them off.

Autolykos:

"When to disobey orders" is, of course, subjective.  Disobeying orders isn't always good, either.

That's why you have to know when to disobey them.  Soldiers, contrary to the opinions of some on this forum, are individuals as well.  There is no hard and fast rule, but Skorzeny gives many successful examples in his memoirs.  A soldier that can't make decisions when conditions change usually dies quickly.  I would say (and I think Skorzeny would agree) that the lower ranks need dynamic thinkers more than the brass, especially when bullets start flying.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Tue, Dec 21 2010 3:30 PM

rated by 0 users

FleetCenturion:

Sorry, I did miss the last post. I thought the thread was just about dead.

No worries.  That's why I bumped it.

FleetCenturion:

Don't know how you came to that conclusion, but Machiavelli would disagree.  I would only say it is "not a natural person" in the sense that governments that respect individual freedom are the exception in history, not the rule.

With all due respect, why should I care about what Machiavelli would think?

By "natural person" I mean a living, breathing human being.  Only natural persons can think and act.  A collection of natural persons doesn't have a single mind or will, except metaphorically.  Obviously a republic is collection of natural persons.  Does this help?

FleetCenturion:

No, "total war" is a very recent concept.  That is pretty much how nearly all wars have been throughout history.

How are you defining "total war"?  I'm going by the Wikipedia definition.

FleetCenturion:

So many things here...  Yes, obligations are a human concept.  In fact, I would argue it's part of what makes us human.  I would also argue, however, that more damage has been done by the oath breakers in history than oath-takers.  When your "own free will" means you and your family would die horribly as enemies of the state in the place of your victims, the choice is kind of obvious.  I also don't know how many soldiers have reacted violently to you, but I'm willing to bet it's not many-- unless you made it a point to really piss them off.

I think you mean "oath-keepers" instead of "oath-takers".  Obviously oath-breakers also took oaths -- otherwise, how could they break them?

Whether the choice is obvious, kind of or not, has no bearing on the fact that it still exists and is still freely taken.  However, there is never certainty that "[a soldier] and [his] family would die horribly as enemies of the state in place of [his] victims" if he does not carry out any and every order given to him.

FleetCenturion:

That's why you have to know when to disobey [orders].

You seem to have missed my point.  If "when to disobey orders" is subjective, there can be no knowing when to disobey them.  That is, the point at which to disobey orders cannot be factually determined.  It's a question of morality/ethics, not empirical knowledge.

Although your other comments about soldiers are simply irrelevant IMHO, I'd like to note for the record that I do regard soldiers as being individuals.  How can they not be?  They're human beings.

Reply

FleetCenturion replied on Tue, Dec 21 2010 11:53 PM

rated by 0 users

Autolykos:

With all due respect, why should I care about what Machiavelli would think?

Machiavelli, completely contrary to his his historical reputation, was a huge proponent of representative government (and, oddly enough, free markets as well).  He knew, however, that power does not seek those who are virtuous, so The Prince gives the rest of us a fighting chance.  I regard The Discourses as his masterpiece, which argues for a free republic along the lines of early Rome, taking his inspiration and research from the first 10 books of Livy's histories.  The first half of The Art of War is almost an expansion of our Second Amendment, discussing the third and ultimate check on political power.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Wed, Dec 22 2010 6:44 AM

rated by 0 users

FleetCenturion:

Machiavelli, completely contrary to his his historical reputation, was a huge proponent of representative government (and, oddly enough, free markets as well).  He knew, however, that power does not seek those who are virtuous, so The Prince gives the rest of us a fighting chance.  I regard The Discourses as his masterpiece, which argues for a free republic along the lines of early Rome, taking his inspiration and research from the first 10 books of Livy's histories.  The first half of The Art of War is almost an expansion of our Second Amendment, discussing the third and ultimate check on political power.

Once again... why should I care about what Machiavelli would think?

The question is rhetorical.  I have no reason at all to care about what he would think.  Why you think invoking him would be persuasive, let alone germane to this thread, is beyond me.

Now can you respond to the rest of my last post?

Reply

FleetCenturion replied on Wed, Dec 22 2010 10:40 AM

rated by 0 users

Since you put it so nicely, I'd just love to.  Sorry, but I work all day long, plus forums are not my chief source of entertainment during my off time.

Autolykos:

Only natural persons can think and act.  A collection of natural persons doesn't have a single mind or will, except metaphorically.  Obviously a republic is collection of natural persons.

A republic's duties and responsibilities are enumerated in it's founding documents.  This is always done by its founders in order that the freedom they establish might continue.  Our Constitution in particular makes this very clear.  You can disagree with how this has been carried out in recent history (and I often do as well), but when there is a war, someone has to make the hard decision and do the dirty job.

Autolykos:

How are you defining "total war"?  I'm going by the Wickipedia definition.

I often think the current war has lasted so long because most of the foreign citizenry know we won't do anything (at least so long as there is news coverage).  Wars are over faster when the country you're fighting is actually afraid of what you might do.  Is crucifying all resistors and lining the road with crosses all the way to Baghdad really so unreasonable?  (Rhetorical question.  I know you disagree.)

To quote Machiavelli:  "Never do an enemy a small injury."  In other words if you're going to war, be prepared to go Roman on their ass.

Autolykos:

However, there is never certainty that "[a soldier] and [his] family would die horribly as enemies of the state in place of [his] victims" if he does not carry out any and every order given to him.

In the case of Nazis, which was the situation discussed previously, I'd say this was most certainly the case.  Even Rommel and the Haushoffers met such a fate for their (in the case of Karl Haushoffer, alleged) participation in the plot to kill Hitler-- though Rommel's family was spared when he agreed to just commit suicide.  For the more common soldier, the SS had a special department called the SD that took care of this.  A "conscientious objector" among war criminals would certainly say something to the wrong person about what was going on.

Autolykos:

If "when to disobey orders" is subjective, there can be no knowing when to disobey them.  That is, the point at which to disobey orders cannot be factually determined.

Of course it is subjective.  Everyone in combat has to make that decision based on their own experience and judgement.  When faced with accomplishing the mission or following a set of rules, the mission mst come first every time, even if it means paying the consequences later.  Good commands stand behind their men to minimize backlash when a battlefield decision must be made that conflicts with regulations or ROE.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Wed, Dec 22 2010 11:15 AM

rated by 0 users

FleetCenturion:

Since you put it so nicely, I'd just love to.  Sorry, but I work all day long, plus forums are not my chief source of entertainment during my off time.

At the risk of getting too personal, I can't help but read a certain smug superiority in this.  Do you think the rest of us on this forum are unemployed, live in our mothers' basements, and prefer to post here above all else?

FleetCenturion:

A republic's duties and responsibilities are enumerated in it's founding documents.  This is always done by its founders in order that the freedom they establish might continue.  Our Constitution in particular makes this very clear.  You can disagree with how this has been carried out in recent history (and I often do as well), but when there is a war, someone has to make the hard decision and do the dirty job.

So you concede that collections of people are not individuals and thus cannot think or act as one.  Thank you.

FleetCenturion:

I often think the current war has lasted so long because most of the foreign citizenry know we won't do anything (at least so long as there is news coverage).  Wars are over faster when the country you're fighting is actually afraid of what you might do.  Is crucifying all resistors and lining the road with crosses all the way to Baghdad really so unreasonable?  (Rhetorical question.  I know you disagree.)

To quote Machiavelli:  "Never do an enemy a small injury."  In other words if you're going to war, be prepared to go Roman on their ass.

None of the above has any relevance to my question.  It's a response, but I still don't know what definition you're using for the term "total war".  Can you provide one or not?

I hope what you wrote above wasn't an intentional distraction.

FleetCenturion:

In the case of Nazis, which was the situation discussed previously, I'd say this was most certainly the case.  Even Rommel and the Haushoffers met such a fate for their (in the case of Karl Haushoffer, alleged) participation in the plot to kill Hitler-- though Rommel's family was spared when he agreed to just commit suicide.  For the more common soldier, the SS had a special department called the SD that took care of this.  A "conscientious objector" among war criminals would certainly say something to the wrong person about what was going on.

By "certainty", I meant epistemological certainty.  The future is inherently uncertain from an epistemological point of view.  Even if one feels that something is certain in the future, he cannot prove that it is.  For one to know whether something is certain at a given future time, he must arrive at that point in time -- at which point it's no longer the future.

Once again, you introduce statements about things which have no relevance to the general principles I'm outlining.  If you're doing so intentionally, then I'll consider this thread to be over.

FleetCenturion:

Of course it is subjective.  Everyone in combat has to make that decision based on their own experience and judgement.  When faced with accomplishing the mission or following a set of rules, the mission mst come first every time, even if it means paying the consequences later.  Good commands stand behind their men to minimize backlash when a battlefield decision must be made that conflicts with regulations or ROE.

So you concede that there's no way to know when to disobey orders, hence invalidating your earlier statements about the idea of knowing such.  Thank you.

Reply

AnonLLF replied on Wed, Dec 22 2010 4:13 PM

rated by 0 users

I'm all for diversity and a alliances on issue by issue between different anarchists ,minarchists and sometimes even statists on certain issues but to have someone so pro-war on this site is weird beyond belief.What's going on? this guy seems to think Genghis Khan is some kind of libertarian? Are neo-cons on drugs these days?

Reply

FleetCenturion replied on Wed, Dec 22 2010 10:21 PM

rated by 0 users

Autolykos:

I can't help but read a certain smug superiority in this.

Perhaps you should check the tone of your last post.  I like to focus on a main topic instead of picking apart every statement and engaging in ten debates at once.  The message I received was, "I demand answers!"

Autolykos:

So you concede that collections of people are not individuals and thus cannot think or act as one.  Thank you.

I don't recall ever making the argument that they were.  That a group of individuals would think as one is preposterous.  You may have read too much into my original statement.

Autolykos:

None of the above has any relevance to my question.  It's a response, but I still don't know what definition you're using for the term "total war".  Can you provide one or not?

I agree with the definition you use.  I was only saying that most wars throughout history have been "total wars".  It has been the rule rather than the exception.

Autolykos:

By "certainty", I meant epistemological certainty.  The future is inherently uncertain from an epistemological point of view... Once again, you introduce statements about things which have no relevance to the general principles I'm outlining.

The statements I made were taken from the original topic and were put there to show an example.  I didn't know we were debating the definition of "certainty".

Let me illustrate the original point with a scenario:  You join the military to fight a war (humor me on this).  You expect to be assigned as an elite member of a special forces unit.  Instead, you find your job consists of forcing civilians to dig their own graves, machine-gunning them into those graves, then burying them as part of a coverup (whether they're completely dead or not).  You then decide to go to your commanding officer and tell him that what you're doing is wrong.  How certain is it that you will end up in the next mass grave, or be declared a traitor and executed elsewhere.

Autolykos:

So you concede that there's no way to know when to disobey orders, hence invalidating your earlier statements about the idea of knowing such.  Thank you.

*Sigh* - No, nowhere in any manual does it tell you that disobeying orders is OK.  In all cases, it is a judgement call, made by those doing the mission.  I thought I made that pretty clear.  This is why trial lawyers are not sent into combat.

Reply

FleetCenturion replied on Wed, Dec 22 2010 11:02 PM

rated by 0 users

Scott F:

I'm all for diversity and a alliances on issue by issue between different anarchists ,minarchists and sometimes even statists on certain issues but to have someone so pro-war on this site is weird beyond belief.What's going on? this guy seems to think Genghis Khan is some kind of libertarian? Are neo-cons on drugs these days?

So all the rest is all right, as long as it fits into your paradigm?  I believe in free markets, sound money, and limited government, which I used to think was sufficient to be on this forum.  Instead I have found myself in endless debates with anarchists, socialists, truthers, trekies, and holocaust deniers.  I was under the impression that the whole theme of this site was Austrian economics.  Myself and others find it hard to fully commit to libertarianism because it has gone so far off topic.  If the "party" platform is free markets, sound money, and limited government, then consider me on board, but in this forum, those with different opinions about other subjects seem to be outcast.

Incidently, I would have been proud to serve under Genghis Kahn.  The Mongols charged a flat tax, believed in a gold standard, and were the most hands-off rulers in history.  I say, Kahn in 2012!

Reply

William replied on Wed, Dec 22 2010 11:39 PM

rated by 0 users

Incidently, I would have been proud to serve under Genghis Kahn.  The Mongols charged a flat tax, believed in a gold standard, and were the most hands-off rulers in history.

This is a joke right?  You are bringing up probably one of the 5  worst "acts of man" in history; right up there with with other semi barbarians like the Macedonians or  Arab tribes before them that caused a considerable amount of irreperable destruction and grief.

Reply

Merlin replied on Thu, Dec 23 2010 1:31 AM

rated by 0 users

I wouldn’t be so harsh. I don’t remember anyone being specifically treated as an outcast as long as I’ve been around. Of course, argumentation standards are far higher than in many other forums, and one is expected to back up what he believes in. but otherwise, this is the coolest place I know if to disagree in.

Reply

FleetCenturion replied on Thu, Dec 23 2010 4:20 AM

rated by 0 users

William:

This is a joke right?  You are bringing up probably one of the 5  worst "acts of man" in history...

I didn't say that how Genghis Khan and the Mongol hordes came to power was moral; I said that they governed well.  "Well," of course, meaning almost not at all.

Reply

William replied on Thu, Dec 23 2010 4:29 AM

rated by 0 users

But that would not be much different than most of the governments of the time.  There was nothing notably better about Khan styled government (at least in Rus and the Near East).  In fact I would take my chances with the Caliphites, Persian, CHinese, Russian, and Byzantine contemporary governments rather than have a traumatic shock to the world system like a Mongol invasion.  It isn't a question about morality, it is a question about civilization.

Reply

FleetCenturion replied on Thu, Dec 23 2010 5:19 AM

rated by 0 users

William:

It isn't a question about morality, it is a question about civilization.

Yes, the Mongols were outright barbarians.  They slaughtered and looted a country, then they left the nation they had just conquered pretty much govern itself, only interfering when a conflict arose between two of them that would interfere with the Mongols' tribute.

I look at it from the more positive standpoint of what they did not do.  They didn't tell their subjects that paying them their tribute was patriotic, or that they were building a better future.  They didn't promise anything and didn't deliver anything.  They had no bureaucrats, trial lawyers, or ministries.  They had no "good intentions".  They didn't set up puppet governments using other peoples' money; they made their would-be puppets bribe them to be set up.

Most importantly, they did not try and micromanage peoples' lives.  That they did not take a more direct role in the governing of their territory is a shame in this sense, because the other countries you mentioned certainly did.