RoR: Forum

So, your point is that government enforced freedom is good? How can it then be freedom, when you have to impose it on people?
Unlike in Afghanistan, the people did not stand up and help the liberating/invading U.S. troops, but rather waited whether they got a wulf in a sheep's fur (like in gulf war I).

I don't think that the term freedom would apply to the blief that liberty is made by government intervention (even Ayn Rand was sceptical to the intervention of the United States in World War II).

But don't let us start another Iraq debate, because we all know that some are pro-war and some are against it. In the long run, you will see that it was a mistake and the European historical memory will remember it as a war based on lies, while the U.S. Fox-informed historical memory will remember it as a crusade by George Bush.

Post 1

Monday, January 24, 2005 - 3:05pm

I suggest an old term for those who agree with Rummel: fool.

Post 2

Monday, January 24, 2005 - 10:34pm

Great article. Especially the part that hiding behind our borders just isn't going to work. Looking forwards to seeing more from you.

Max,

So, your point is that government enforced freedom is good?

What other kind of freedom is there?

How can it then be freedom, when you have to impose it on people?

Do you have any clue what you're saying? Because it came out as garbled nonsense. To impose freedom can literally only mean one thing. To use retaliatory force. How would enforcing the non-initiation of force principle not be freedom? Only an anarchist, with their floating abstractions, would get confused and think that retaliatory force must be voluntary or it's not really freedom.

Mark, interesting argument by intimidation. I wonder how many people you've convinced with your intellectual clarity.

Post 3

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 5:35am

"To enforce/impose freedom" is a paradox in itself, thus it was only an illustration of the problem involved. It may be that some Iraqis want that liberty, but as you can see by now, the majority would like to be left alone.

Of course, this is an anarchists argument, that nonetheless does not lack examples in Objectivist theory, like Ayn Rand and her own struggle with the US intervention in the 2nd Wold War.

"retaliatory force" is an option that is used against an obvious threat to the initiator of this option. However, there was no JUSTIFIABLE or OBJECTIVE threat by Saddam Hussein.
With Afghanistan it is a different thing, because the Afghans had the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden, being enough proof for the war.
But until now, there was only deceiving propaganda by the government that tried to disguise lies as facts.

1. WMD = there were none and no programs for the forseeable future
2. Al-Kaida = There was no Al-Kaida BEFORE the US invasion, there however are now many splinter cells of those "bast****".
3. Sadam was a Dictator = Sure, enough, but there are many more dictators that could have been a lot more dangerous to the US, thus should have been priority.

"Retaliatory force" could only be an option if there were a threat, however, there has not been one, except Saddam the Dictator. But in regard of Saddam, he had not even been on the military level of pre-Gulf War I and might have been a threat to Israel or the Iraq people (rhetorically), but those are no reasons for the United States to act in its self-defense.

So, I don't think retaliatory force arguments go that way. Instead we have nation-building and nation-building is foreign occupation for the Iraqis (and they expressed it that way multiple times), thus our government should have no business in Iraq, now. So, how did this accomplish freedom in the truest sense of the word?

Post 4

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 3:52pm

Max, you are trying to define freedom as "doing whatever you want". That might be fine for anarchists who are intellectually sloppy anyway. But Objectivists reject that. Freedom cannot include the freedom to initiate force against others. The concept of political freedom would be meaningless.

So sure, by your definition of freedom, those people who demand the "right" to kill and maim are no longer free, and that "freedom" is enforced. But that's no tragic loss. If political freedom means a non-initiation of force, then it not only can be imposed or enforced, it must be. You're not free if others are allowed to come kill you. You are free if they are prevented.

Also, retaliatory force is not limited to when you personally are attacked. If some guy starts attacking a woman in broad daylight, your theory would require everyone to stay out of it (after all, freedom can't be imposed!!). In fact, anyone can come to her aid. Anyone can use retaliatory force. The fact that he initiated force on only one person does not mean only she is allowed to respond. Naturally, when you apply the principle to foreign policy, you get equally ridiculous ideas.

Next, while you argue that Saddam was a dictatorship, you argue that there are more threatening ones that should be a higher priority. But we both know you would be opposed to wars with them as well. You've said as much with your perverse theories of "freedom" and "retaliatory force". So this is a smoke-screen. You make the suggestion to make it seem like you acknowledge the right to remove a dictatorship and you just disagree in this case, when in fact you believe in the freedom of the dictator from interference.

As has been argued a million times, Saddam had the obligation to get rid of his existing WMD, and to validate that he had done it. He didn't. He lied, cheated, and kicked out the inspectors, while repeatedly launching attacks against our planes. For years the inspections were a joke because Saddam declare hundreds of buildings off limits to the inspectors, as just one example of his tactics. And you think we should have taken him at his word? Why do anarchists always assume brutal dictatorships always tell the truth, and Western democracies always lie? One has to wonder who's side you're really on.

Post 5

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 3:30pm

I t doesn't surprise me that this issue divides objectivists, I have been one for 25 years and I still tend to waffle a bit. Recently I have come down more in agreement with Rummel, and his article is persuasive to me.

Max: " It may be that some Iraqis want that liberty, but as you can see by now, the majority would like to be left alone."

I have to agree with Joseph, you are stil not being clear. What is the difference between the Iraqis that want liberty and the Iraqis that wish to be left alone, because I would say they are the same crowd. If you want to draw a distinction, it is between those liberty/leavemealone Iraqis, and the ones that wish to impose some sort of post Saddam dictatorship.

My knowledge of Ayn Rand is not perfect, but I cannot ever recall her writing anything negative (or positive) about the US in WWII. However, since the US was attacked, I would hardly call it an "intervention". I seriously doubt she wrote disaprovingly of WWII, although it would not surprise me to see her dissaproving of US aid to Russia to defeat Germany.

I do know that Rand wrote somewhere that she thought a free country always has the right (though not the obligation) to invade a dictatorship, and I share this view, for exactly the same reasons that I think I have the right (though not the obligation) to help prevent a mugging I see in an alleyway.

Iraq is really not the big deal the media makes it out to be, frankly. One or two soldier deaths a day is not really newsworthy. If they reported deaths on the highways in the same way they reported the Iraq war no one would ever leave the house: http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-fatal57+.htm
Thats nearly a thousand a week. The fact that the Iraq war deaths get more air-time is just how the medias (unintentional) bias works. We will lookback in 20 years at the democarcay that Iraq (and possibly neighboring countries) became, and marvel that anyone ever thought it was a bad idea.

Post 6

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 4:17pm

People have to discover freedom for themselves, otherwise freedom is not appreciated, understood, valued or kept. Freedom can not be imposed from on high.

If I were the first Libertarian President of the USA I would encourage individuals to volunteer to join the freedom fighters in Cuba, Burma, the Middle East or any where else in the world. (like the Socialists did with the Abraham Lincoln Brigade during the Spanish Civil War.) These volunteers would need to fight under the direction of the local freedom fighters. I would donate my personal money to buy weapons and hold Liberty drives so others could donate as they saw fit.

This future Libertarian President would do everything he can to help the locals discover, win and keep their freedom but I would not send in the Marines. An army from another country will always be resented and resisted. Think about what Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would have thought and done if the French army decided to stay for a few years after the American Revolution. If the locals do not rise to throw off the shackles of oppression they have chosen to be slaves instead of free men.

Post 7

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 6:56pm

Joseph Rowlands writes:

To impose freedom can literally only mean one thing. To use retaliatory force.

No. That would be defending freedom.

Also, retaliatory force is not limited to when you personally are attacked.

Retaliatory force most certainly is limited to the person being aggressed against. Others can assist his retaliation. Others can act as his proxy. But the retaliation as such is his alone.

If some guy starts attacking a woman in broad daylight, your theory would require everyone to stay out of it (after all, freedom can't be imposed!!).

What a silly notion! The victim's cry of "Help" explicitly authorizes others to act on his behalf and in fact obligates the victim to recompense any who do come to his aid.

Of course others can intervene at their own risk. But what if it turns out that the supposed victim was really the thief and the supposed aggressor was reclaiming his property?

Joe, you are misusing 'impose'. You can't impose freedom because the object of your usage of 'impose' is not the same person whose freedom you're talking about.

Freedom is the absence of initiatory force. Unfortunately freedom often has to be defended, but defense is not necessary unless there is an initiation of force to defend against. Retaliation is not a distinguishing characteristic of freedom, though it is often required.

As Robert K Stock wrote:

People have to discover freedom for themselves, otherwise freedom is not appreciated, understood, valued or kept. Freedom can not be imposed from on high.

That is absolutely correct.

Post 8

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 7:33pm

Robert K Stock wrote:

People have to discover freedom for themselves, otherwise freedom is not appreciated, understood, valued or kept.

I'd suggest that Westerners change their skins and go live like natives in some totalitarian countries for a while. That's probably the best way to discover exactly what freedom means and to understand and appreciate it.

"Discover" is a good word to use here. However, for many people who have lived their whole life without freedom, and even without the knowledge of freedom, how and where can they discover freedom?

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 1/25, 7:34pm)

Post 9

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 8:59pm

Rick,

A brief counterexample of your argument. If you kill someone, then your argument is that no retaliatory force is possible. So are you really suggesting that murder is okay, but anything less can be prosecuted? I find that hard to believe, and yet it follows from your argument.

And the woman on the street only gets to have help if she's conscious? But if a man knocks her out, and proceeds to rape her in front of everyone, it's okay? Nobody can interfere or they will be arrested themselves for attacking the man? Waiting for your "implied consent" rebuttal that opens the door to anyone retaliating (my point).

Now back to imposing freedom. The original statement was "So, your point is that government enforced freedom is good? How can it then be freedom, when you have to impose it on people?". The argument is that it's not freedom if it's not voluntary. This argument, in the context of the article, is saying that a nation cannot be forced to be free against "their" wishes, or it isn't freedom. Freedom, in this sense, is the freedom of "self-determination" of a nation (doing whatever "they" want), and interference is necessarily opposed to freedom.

That's not the case at all. Political freedom is an objective fact. It is not doing whatever you feel like, including violating the rights of others. Freedom is not a kind of action. It's the absence of something (the initiation of force). Can it be imposed? Yes! Can it be enforced? Yes! And how do you do it? By retaliatory force. And you can ensure someone's freedom without their permission, and your act of doing it is not a violation of their rights.

You can use force to make someone free, not by coercing that person, but by retaliating against those who would initiate force against him. Of course it's ridiculous to think you can apply force to a person in order to make that same person free, but then nobody is arguing that. It's a strawman used by the anti-war crowd to mock the idea of establishing freedom in another country. What it aims to hide is the fact that when you establish freedom, it is the rights violators that you are using force against. When you "impose" freedom, it's not the free person you're using force against, but the would-be rights violators. And you don't need their permission.

Now Robert makes an entirely different argument that if people don't understand and appreciate freedom, it will be hard to maintain. That's true in the US as well as any other country. Unfortunately he falls into the same trap of saying you can't impose it, when his argument really just says that there are difficulties with doing it.

Also, Robert had to qualify his example to show how it's not exactly accurate. He claims he wouldn't send in marines because they'll be resented. But the french came to American soil, and were greeted and loved for their help (as much as anyone can love the french). Sure if they had stayed too long, people would get upset. But this is an argument for staying too long, not for sending in troops when they're wanted/needed. As the example shows, the context is decisive for this kind of judgment. Blanket statements like that the marines should never be sent in ignores that context.

Post 10

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 6:36pm

So, your point is that government enforced freedom is good? How can it then be freedom, when you have to impose it on people?

The phrase "enforced freedom" is like the phrase "dry water" - it's a contradiction in terms and therefore meaningless. So freedom can't be "enforced" by the government, it can only be defended or upheld, by enforcing laws that promote the non-initiation of force principle.

Post 11

Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 8:12am

I see this debate challenge got posted to the ISIL list today.

2. Freedomist vs. Libertarian: A debate challenge
----------
Democratic Peace/Professor R.J. Rummel
posted 01/16/05
"My libertarian friends have been upset with my defense of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've gone conservative, they claim. One calls me a liberventionist (see link below). Okay, lets debate it. A challenge. I will turn over a page on this blog to any libertarian who wishes to make a reasoned argument for isolationism, or from a libertarian perspective, an argument against our war in Iraq. I will respond in a page, and then the libertarian will have a page to rebut me."
http://tinyurl.com/45erj

It's the very last thing in the list, but it's a good start. Thanks to Mr. Knapp for including it.

Michael Dickey

Post 12

Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 5:42pm