RoR: Forum

https://web.archive.org/web/20040803215658/http://www.jfklibrary.org/forum_kerrey.html

Steve:

And if so, what was he told, what was he promised?

This was -exactly- the context of Kerrey making this disclosure.

And at the risk of going to jail for saying this-- Because part of the problem, in my view, in national security is we keep too many secrets. And when you're making a decision, especially if you're a guy, and you've got a bunch of guys sitting around making decisions, there's a tendency to make bad decisions. And if you don't have anybody checking your work, like every now and then, your wife comes in and says, "Are you nuts?" Is this what your thinking? "Well, that's what I was thinking." "Well, you're crazy. This isn't right." Because we have so many secrets, oftentimes decisions get made that are really bad. For example, we kept from the American people the secret of what the Soviet Union looked like in 1988. I campaigned for the Senate for the first time in 1988. We presumed the Cold War would go on forever. All we needed was one of those top secret pictures to see that they were farming with ox carts, for god's sake.

Anyway, this is all leading to, we had covert operations in place in Iraq starting in 1991. I suppose I could go to jail for disclosing that, for all I know. I don't know. But I was the senior Democrat on the intelligence committee, and I had to sign off on them. It isn't just that we had a bunch of guys over there, trained to overthrow Saddam Hussein. We were signing up people. There were Kurds in northern Iraq who believed us, who believed that we'd stick with them, that, "Oh, yeah, you can overthrow Saddam Hussein, and we're going to be right there with you, and we'll stick it out with you." And we didn't.

DICK GORDON: You're talking about after the war.

BOB KERREY: Nineteen ninety-six, both of the main Kurdish forces were rolled up and killed, and driven out of Iraq as a consequence of Saddam Hussein sending military forces up, even with our no-fly zones being maintained. There were a lot of Iraqis who died. A lot of them tried to come to the United States. We wouldn't let them come here. I just said at the time, 1998-- Now comes the administration again saying, "We want you to sign off on another covert operation. We're going to get him this time." And I said, "I'll sign off on it if you make your open policy the same as your closed policy. Don't sign people up to risk their lives if we're saying publicly we don't think it can happen, and we don't favor it publicly. That's when we wrote the act. On Halloween, 1998, that was the first time the United States' over policy and covert policy was identical. And that's the first time that we could honestly say, both in Washington DC and in Kirkuk or Mosul or wherever else you were trying to sign people up, that we were telling them the same thing.

I've posted this dozens of times. People look at it and blink it away. This nation can't be that corrupt--that totally rotten to the core. Can it?

Benghazigate? Our ambassador got raped and killed. Handful of others. A slow news day.

For years, this talk has been removed from the JFK Forums website. Unlike almost every other talk that is still available on line. I've long had to resort to using the Wayback machine to recover it.

Attention shoppers: cleanup in aisle nine. Even Dick Gordon above, giving Kerrey a chance to fix his gaffe. Oh, you mean, Bush 41, right after Gulf War I?

No, he means 1996, when it happened on the cusp between Clinton's first and second tern, and 1998 when Clinton was covertly going after Saddam's head, and Kerrey, once burned, said 'Not so fast, sparky."

The outcome was the 1998 ILA, which was hardly a secret. It was US Law.

regards,

Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 4/01, 12:51pm)

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 4/01, 12:55pm)

Post 41

Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - 1:44pm

Fred,

If you believe Bob Kerry, then what happened on the ground in 1996 in this nation's name can't be tolerated as acceptable.

Agreed. There should have been heads on pikes.

------------

The nation did not, and we, as individuals who still benefit from, have not withdrawn our support from this nation, must accept the national consequences and shame of that which we continue to support, as a nation.

Here I get a little uncomfortable - maybe just a matter of phrasing. I have never given my support to this unconscionable act. I don't believe I received any benefit, but if I did, it wasn't sought after or agreed to by me, and isn't supported by me. And, I'm very opposed to anyone accepting shame for acts they weren't responsible for.

To the extent that you are talking about the levels of political ignorance and apathy that exist in the population... that's a big problem but that particular phrasing only seems to address what the weasel did to the Kurds in a way that suggests:

1.) We, the people in this nation, should not have allowed ourselves to be ignorant of what was happening, yet it was kept secret, and

2.) We should have arisen to do all that could be done to make things right, although how this would happen if we were ignorant, I don't know.

I'm not sure that is a valid way to look at the assignment of moral blame for that event, or a way to judge the state of our nation.

------------

The problem is not that we are world policemen; the problem is, we aren't policing our own government being world policemen.

My perspective is that there are two problems: That we are behaving as world policemen, which we shouldn't. And second that we are doing it very poorly.

------------

We were for sure world policemen in WWII. It gave the world a few more years of freedom.

We were attacked, and we retaliated and defended. That's not being world policemen. The freedom other parts of the world received was a side effect - a good one, but not the reason for going to war.

When we send soldiers for the purpose of securing freedom for someone else, we make them into objects of altruistic sacrifice.

------------

There is nothing left of America, to speak of. Not sure what we are talking about these days.

There is one thing that will always be left of America: The heritage left by the Founding Fathers - an ideal of a government whose purpose was the defense of individual rights, and the structural blueprints for making that real. And those examples of our actions in support of those ideals. And from these, we can retain the understanding that these ideals are not pipe dreams, and that they can be made real in the future. That is an intellectual seed that can one day bloom, even if it will be some future generation that gets its benefit.

If every political hope is totally taken away and every single freedom destroyed and every person but one has become a nasty parasite looking for something to feed on, that one who still grasps that ideal and that understanding that it was real once before and it can be made real once again, that one person is far better off than those parasites, and far better off with the sad knowledge of what once was, and of all that was lost, and what could someday be. Far better of than looking out at a totally bleak political landscape and think this is all that ever was and all that ever could be.

It is important for me to know what is the good, to hold it firmly in mind, to know that is possible (even if I can't make it happen), and to draw strength and comfort from that experience of these ideals and the appreciation of those that have held them in the past.

-------------

Cheer up, have another beer :-)

Post 42

Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - 2:54pm

Steve:

I for sure will(have that beer.) You too, or your fav bev.

I was thinking in terms of that five level political context seive I envision. It's just my model -- our ethical choices as adults in a hard won political context.

As children, we get a bye(we didn't ask to be here.) But then we become of age, and we are responsible. There is an ethical responsibility.

When the national/collective political context that we continue to accept -- to benefit from -- undertakes an action that we do not agree with, we have(in my mind-- there might be other choices, please feel free to modify/extend, I made these up)what seems like five ethical choices:

1] We can accede, and accept. We choose our battles, not everything is worth further action or comment. But when we accede and accept, we ... accede and accept.

2] We can diasgree, and argue politically for a change in policy or action. We can declare our disagreement and express our non-consent, propise alternatives, explicitely disavow the actions. But politically, and within the national political context we still accept benefit from.

In 1] and 2], we are still taxcpaying, supportinve citizens. We support the national political context.We are supportinve of the nation that committed the acts-- even, acts we do not agree to. We support that nation anyway, and enable it -- empower it -- to continue to act in that manner.

3] We can find the action so egregious that we can no longer support the current political context. We leave for Canada, or Spain, or an island in the Gulf. We withdraw our support of the national action.

In 1], 2] and 3], we are acting ethically within the bounds of the political context, which in our case, includes the right to leave it(unlike past alternatives surrounded by walls and barbed wire and guns.)

4] We can stay and scofflaw, if possible, the egregious act or law. We can be criminals within the existing political context. But an example is Ann Frank, in her political context. So the ethics of this can't be decided in advance, other than, we'd be acting criminally in our current political context. As well, this remedy is not necessarily a remedy for all instances. However, we could regard Snowden in this light. He acted criminally. Did he act ethically in the face of criminal acts by our government? He also left, but as a criminal.

5] We can find with others the acts so egregious that they demand collective revolutionary action. But this is an example of all or nothing, of rolling a boulder up a hill. It either succeeds and is pushed over the top by revolutionary heros of the next poltiical context, or it rolls back down on criminal terrorists in the current political context.

So my argument is, while we are 1] or 2], we yet share a responsibility for this nation's acts; that responsibility, if we truly find those acts egregious, should raise the volume of our voices and objections.

Regards,

Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 4/01, 2:56pm)

Post 43

Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - 6:12pm

Fred,

I keep coming back to a requirement that my integrity, and my responsibility be judged based upon my acts, and not the acts of a government. If I have ANY opportunity to object, vote, protest, etc., to something that I'm opposed to and don't take it, then my integrity might be in question.

Responsibility is an obligation to live up to your contracts, your agreements. Let's go back to the Vietnam era, say there are two people and one of them is aware of the immorality of the draft, and the other person has an honest belief that the draft is an obligation carried by any able-bodied citizen of our country. We know that the draft is a terrible violation of individual rights. We know that it could not be eliminated unless it acquired a degree of national unpopularity. How could you sort out the issue of responsibility in that case? Take the person who knows the draft is immoral. Is he more responsible because he is right? Is his level of responsibility higher - maybe to the point of having to leave for Canada? What about the other fellow? Does ignorance give him the benefit of not being responsible for acting against the draft? Is he responsible for the harm caused to people that are drafted?

I have a primary responsibility to myself - otherwise someone is starting from the premise of altruism. If I am acting on that primary responsibility to make myself happy and moving towards success in my career as a major goal, and then my government, despite my votes, despite my objections and protests, starts doing horrible things, am I somehow obligated to destroy my career pursuit and move to another country? I dont see that. What I need to see is that nexus where my self-interest would suggest that it is better to leave the country than to stay and pursue my current career goal.

Your item #3 - the one about moving out of the country - says, "We can find the action so egregious that we can no longer support the current political context." This could be understood in a couple of ways. A person could be so deeply involved in something, like protesting the draft years ago, that if it were resurrected he would move out of the country for emotional reasons - not irrationalism, but a conflict between something that he has made central to his life, his core values, and his passions. Then there is someone like the fellow from Facebook who rather than pay millions in taxes, and decides to give up his citizenship and moves to Singapore. That may well have been a rational decsion where the pros and cons were balanced. But those are both extreme situations.

On item #3, you continued by saying, "[by leaving the country] We withdraw our support of the national action." And here is the crux of what I see differently. I see three responses:

1). Support (advocating, donating, sponsoring, voting in favor of, etc.),

2.) Not supporting (Not doing anything in that context apart from what you are forced to do - pay taxes.)

3.) Working against (Objecting, advocating against, voting against, donating to the opposition, leaving the country over the issue, etc.)

So, bottom line, I think that item #3 has to a personal decision based upon personal circumstances and personal beliefs.
-----------------

Note that "Support" can exist on a spectrum from minor to major, and the same for "Working against." But "Not supporting" is neutral. I'd say that one is obligated to be rational and stay focused, and not go against their principles - these aren't legal obligations, but they are ethical obligations. And beyond that anyone can choose to focus on their life and has no further obligation to sacrife aspects of their life to turn the government - they can take up the position of "Not Supporting."

When things go to an extreme, like in Nazi Germany, requirements change. And I don't have a lot of confidence about where to find the dividing line between when you are obligated to the more extreme actions. When a nation's citizens lose the right to assemble, free speech, freedom of the press, and integrity of the vote... then there is no peaceful mechanism for pursuing liberty and it will require items #3, #4 or #5.

Post 44

Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - 6:29pm

Everyone seems to be a little "nervous" when it comes to Iran pursuing a uranium enrichment capability. There is too the possibility of North Korea or Pakistan selling the bomb to them.(or even Russia). Given that Iran funds and trains every single muslim terrorist cell in existence it is easily understandable why Israel for example is on edge 24/7. If America is going to act at all against Iran they need to understand the way these guys think. If your policy is based on appeasement the Iranians look at this as a sign of weakness so will continue to act as they always have, deflect and twist all the while doing what ever they want. Including giving the F-bomb to the UN and its cries for inspecting their facilities.

They only understand strength and the US has crippled itself by the adoption of "progressive" liberal man by pamby hand holding kumbaya wimpery when it comes to Iran.

What they should do is ignore the rest of the world and state the facts. They should give Iran an ultimatum and tell them "we have SUSPICION that you are actively pursuing a nuclear armament program. You have three days to completely shut down all of your nuclear facilities or we are going to come in there and destroy them and declare war upon you. We will them completely and utterly wipe you off the face of the earth. At the same time though you have to offer them a carrot. If you comply with these demands and prove in good faith that your intentions are good we will remove all sanctions, help you in other ways with your infrastructure and even open up free trade.

you cannot give them an inch of wiggle room or they will take that as weakness.

Post 45

Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - 6:53pm

I'm not a "little nervous" about Iran getting a nuclear weapon - very concerned would be a better description. They have already declared war on the US. They have already killed Americans. They openly advocate destroying our country. They are the main sponsor of terrorism on the planet. They are a terrorist nation.

I think that it is criminal on the part of the President to not be taking far, far stronger steps to stop them from getting the bomb. We have already been attacked, and we are already facing the threat of a major future attack. There is a very large and strong opposition to that theocracy within the country and because of that, there is a tipping point - not that far away - that would result in the replacement of this tyrannical government.

They only have one refinery that makes gasoline. If that were disabled, and the import of fuel was prevented with an embargo, it would end that government in a month or less. The embargo and all of the other sanctions should be pulled off only when that country is disarmed - not just their nuclear equipment, but also all of the navy, and all of the missles, and all of the Republican Guard.

Post 46

Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - 7:45pm

I would not be opposed to wiping them off the face of the earth. Including the children. Let me clarify, only the Basiji children they have an army of child soldiers that they used to run sachel bombs under Iraqi tanks during the 8 year war. The entire political regime and all the mullahs that are holding the nation hostage need to die. Not comfortable with calling it a war on Islam? Too bad as Islam has declared war on you. They hate us. Give them a reason to fear us too. We fucked up in 2009 they had a revolt and all the resistance needed was a little nudge... Not a peep. So they were crushed.

Also Obama is Muslim he is already weakening support and ties to Israel. He is a traitor to everything the USA stands for.

(Edited by Jules Troy on 4/01, 7:52pm)

Post 47

Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - 8:44pm

Jules,

I totally disagree with you .

There is no justification for killing a nation of people when the problem can be address without going nuclear. Killing children because other children were used by the Basiji paramilitary organization... that's just wrong. The political heads of Iran, that I agree with - they are guilty of heinous crimes.

As to declaring war on Islam, that doesn't make sense. It is half religion and half political system and the political system has to be taken up by people and acted on in violent ways before I would target them. There are billions of muslims and our problems are with a small portion who use it's insane political doctrines in an extreme fashions.

I think that you are so far from Objectivist principles on this that you should take some time and rethink things.

Post 48

Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - 10:13pm

You miss understood me, I am not talking about killing any civilians at all just the government and the revolutionary guard and the mullahs. I am not talking about all children christ that is fucked. I am just saying that they use Basiji children in their army, 100000 children in their own division. Every one that dies is accorded full military honors and their own state ceremonial burial ground reserved for martyrs. It could be psychologically awful for soldiers to kill them but they will be killing us. The president does not run the country the Khomeini and the mullahs do. I am also not talking all of Islam I am speaking of the tyranical abomination running Iran. I should have clarified for that I am sorry. Iran is the big bully on the block. I think if they were neutralized the rest of the Middle East would breathe a sigh of relief, as would the west. Before the Iranian revolution Iran was actually the only middle eastern country to recognize Israel's right to exist. It used to be the "Paris" of the Middle East. I think many there wish a return to that. When Ruhollah Khomeini was seeking power he promised the Iranians that the universities would be the same, that the people would retain all of their current freedoms that the only difference would be that the oil royalties would be divided equitably and the standard of living of all Iranians would greatly increase. He lied of course...

The current military generals at the time as well as most of the upper ranks were shah loyalists. Some two hundred thousand were butchered. Ironically this left the country with no one who knew how to fight so Iraq seeing an opportunity invaded. 8 years of two countries that hated each other slaughtering one another mercilessly.

Going toe to toe in a conventional war with Iran won't be a cakewalk but.....

If Iran goes nuclear then it will spark an arms race in the Middle East that will completely disable the entire region. Also if Iran is dealt with the rest of the Middle East would not be a problem. What I am saying is Iran is the head of the snake. Sooner rather than later the USA is going to end up drawn into a war with them. I would think conventional would be far preferable to nuclear but it won't be easy. As far as nukes? As soon as they get them they are going to use them. Just saying..

PS: Who gave Iraq biological weapons technology that they used in that 8 year war with Iran? Oh yeahhh WE did.

(Edited by Jules Troy on 4/01, 10:30pm)

Post 49

Wednesday, April 2, 2014 - 12:21am

Thanks for clarifying, Jules. Good to hear.

You said, "I think if they were neutralized the rest of the Middle East would breathe a sigh of relief, as would the west." I agree. And even more, I think there would be a surprising turn around even on the part of the other fundamentalist.

Post 50

Wednesday, April 2, 2014 - 12:48am

Perhaps one day Iran can become more like the UAE. I have some friends from Dubai and they say it is just an amazing place. People are prosperous there and on a human rights scale UAE ranks higher even than the US.

Post 51

Wednesday, April 2, 2014 - 7:50am

Steve:

I keep coming back to a requirement that my integrity, and my responsibility be judged based upon my acts, and not the acts of a government

Our government is a necessary part of the political context we arrive at as adults, with options. (Options that are afforded to us, in this instance, by that political context.)

When we arrive at same as children, we are given an ethical bye, IMO. But then we grow up as adults, and IMO, bear at least some responsibility for that which we not only actively continue to support, but benefit from.

We can say, "Hey, wait a minute; what are you doing?" and vehemently disagree with national policy implementation, but in the end, if we continue to actively support and benefit from, we are, and maybe the nature of this is in question, in some way 'stained' by that which we actively support and continue to benefit from as adults with choices.

But to your point, yes -- it should be. But your acts include support and receipt of benefit from that national government, don't they? Our hard fought for political context includes the right to leave itm unlike many examples of others.

Perhaps the reconciliation is in the nature of the 'stain.' As far as your personal integrity and responsibility, I'd agree that a sufficient firewall is, without actually leaving, expressing an appropriate withdrawel of consent; "I do not agree with either this national policy or its implementation." And what I am calling 'stain' is just a kind of de facto association with the nation we continue to support and receive benefit from, not a personal stain.

But I can't resolve around the following, or wish it away; government is necessary to freedom, and government is a collective entity, not a personal entity. Our personal choice to support and receive benefit from that collective entity as capable adults(enabled by our political context at great expense) does not, IMO, shield us personally from the nature of collective responsibility. We can claim there is no such thing as collective responsibility or collective action, or that government is not a collective entity, but that is hard for me to wrap my head around.

We can live on an island but when we don't, we aren't.

I've accepted the fact of the requirement for government to establish the opportunity for individual freedom. What is most interesting to me is, what are the necessary constraints on that necessary element to keep it from being the destroyer of freedom. IMO, an absolute firewall between its actions and any individual responsibilty by those necessarily individuals who support and receive benefit from it is not a way to constrain it. Yes, in the implementation, those in government who act are held responsible.

By whom? Who is responsible for holding them responsible?

regard,

Fred

Post 52

Wednesday, April 2, 2014 - 10:59am

Fred,

But I can't resolve around the following, or wish it away; government is necessary to freedom, and government is a collective entity, not a personal entity.

True.

Our personal choice to support and receive benefit from that collective entity as capable adults(enabled by our political context at great expense) does not, IMO, shield us personally from the nature of collective responsibility.

Mostly we agree on the essence and the primary values and the key issues. But here is where we disagree - mostly on the phrasing.

The benefits I receive from a proper government are no more than it should supply, and my responsibility is to pay that very, very minimal tax or fees (if any is required) to support a minarchy-sized government and to observe the laws (assuming they are all properly related to protecting individual rights).

There are benefits that I seek where I make agreement with someone and I give them something they want to get what I want, and I do it in seeking my goals. But what I want of government is already mine by right. I have no moral need to ask for my rights, to plead for them - they are already mine. There are mechanical efforts and costs involved to maintain the mechanism that supports my rights, but that isn't the same.

I have a right to lock the door of my house. I understand that doors and locks don't grow on trees and there is a cost to them and their installation and even a modest effort to maintain and use them. But I need to ask no permission to having a locked door. These are separate issues - this moral right which by its nature requires no permission and entails no responsibility to others, and the costs and efforts entailed in the mechanism where I express my right.

The government that is not minarchy-sized or not liberty oriented creates no additional obligations upon me (to say otherwise would be to say that the more my rights are violated, the more I'm encumbered with moral responsibilities owed to others). And I acquire no extra obligations because I'm forced to accept "benefits" that are not part of a minarchy type of government. (I have a personal responsibility not to seek the unearned, but that is because it would be toxic for my psychological well-being. But accepting an inheritance, or a gift from someone, or some of my FICA back in social security is no personal sin).

You mention benefits enabled by our political context. I emphasized the word "enabled" because it can be misleading. From where we stand in a mixed economy that is getting worse and worse, while imagining what Objectivists know could exist, we can feel such a yearning for liberty and what it would bring. It would be such an increased benefit to our lives to have more liberty. And we are used to paying for the values we seek. But we shouldn't forget that the proper establishment of an environment that protects rights isn't a gift requiring gratitude. It is what is ours by right (despite the fact that it is a product of knowledge, effort and cost). The very essence of moral right is that we need no ones permission. For that reason it is dangerous to let ourselves stray down a road where see obligations or responsibilites being levied as payment for what is ours by right. It might seem like a trivial difference when we observe the requirements and preconditions and efforts and costs to create and maintain the political structures needed for liberty. But those are mechanical causes. Responsibilities and moral obligations are different. We don't want to think in ways that imply liberty is not ours by right.

Post 53

Wednesday, April 2, 2014 - 11:17am

Fred,

We can claim there is no such thing as collective responsibility or collective action, or that government is not a collective entity, but that is hard for me to wrap my head around.

Government does entail a group of people and like any organization we can say that in that sense it is a collection of individuals. But it would be better to use other language than "collective" since political and moral collectivism carry different meanings from "collection of individuals."

We all share the same universal responsibilities that arise where the moral principles are universal: like respecting individual rights. And, we also "should" be polite where appropriate but that is different in that it isn't the kind of responsibility that should be enforced by government - rudeness doesn't violate rights. So, that's one difference in the kinds of responsibilities that can exist - those that government should enforce and those that it should not.

We should pay those taxes or fees that would be needed to support a minarchy-style government. That would be almost a universal moral principle (not applying where one is on an otherwise deserted island) - and it is a principle that should be enforced. I still don't like calling it a collective responsibility since in moral actions there are no entities but individuals that make choices and are subject to moral judgment for the actions flowing from those choices. And paying taxes to support a minarchy would not be a form of "collectivism" as the word is commonly used.

And where we don't have a minarchy, we should pay what taxes best suit our self-interest (which is an individual decision regarding things like audits, civil penalties, criminal liabilities, etc.) Nothing collective there.

Speaking out to support or to object to political issues as our values dictate is, I believe, a personal responsibility. We all have the same responsibility but it is owed to ourselves not others, to maintain our self-esteem, to protect our integrity, to support our values. When a high portion of the population speak out against wrong, it helps ensure they have a society that everyone will benefit from. But each one should be acting out of their self-interest. To say otherwise on this would make us enslaved as political apparachiks to one faction or the other of all important political issues.

So, when I parse this I come up with the following:

All moral issues or principles can be categorized as either universal (they arise out of human nature) or individual in context.
All moral issues or principles that are individual are things like individual preferences or individual goals or personal values that arise out of an individual's context and may differ from another individual.
Some universal moral principles should be enforced - but only those that directly relate to individual rights (or free vs. forced association in Fred-speak :-).
If a moral principle, even if universal, does not directly relate to individual rights (or free vs forced association) they should not be enforced.
So, two political rules can be established: The only things that can be enforced must be universal AND required to protect individual rights.
Responsibility is a moral, psychological, and/or legal state that can only apply to an individual. Even if we establish that a nation has entered into a treaty such that there is a legal obligation to do X, the state of being legally responsible will always resolve to one or more individuals exercising or failing to exercise the specified actions. A rock can't be responsible. To be responsible presupposes being human. To be responsible only applies where there is choice.
Terms like collective responsibility shouldn't be used because they can be confusing in two ways: Conflated with Collectivism, and becoming free floating to the degree that it unhooks responsibility from individual choices.
Terms like collective shame are far worse, because even if every single individual is responsible for doing X, a given individual who does X but lives in a country where a majority does not do X should not have to feel shame. Shame belongs to the individual as a psychological consequence of failed integrity. A person can say, "I'm ashamed of where our country is going," but the psychological meaning is different and it would have been more accurate to say, "I'm saddend by where our country is going." A person might say, "I'm ashamed of my child's bad behavior," and that might be better said as, "I'm saddened that my child behaved badly, and I'm ashamed that I didn't raise him better." Another person might say, "I'm ashamed of where my country is going," and more accurately should have said, "I'm saddened about where my country is going, and I'm ashamed that I voted the way I did in recent elections."

Post 54

Wednesday, April 2, 2014 - 11:28am

Being benefited by something that should not exist, like the social security system, is not wrong in itself. I believe we have to break down the issue something like this:

There is the creation of the system,
there is the continuing existence of the system,
there is the confiscation of the money to be sent out as social security checks, and
there is the accepting of the checks by those retired.

On creation: It was wrong to create this system - wrong in a way that is a violation of univeral moral principle that violates individual rights.

On continuing the system: In any instance where there is an opportunity (a choice) to discontinue it (phase it out, privatize it, etc.) then we have a personal responsibility to make those choices we can to do this (to speak out, to vote, etc.)

On government confiscation: When the government takes FICA money from individuals, without their permission, it is a violation of individual rights.
When employer's withhold FICA money from individuals, without their permission, they would be morally wrong except that a gun is at their head which removes choice and thus takes it out of the moral realm for them.

On accepting: When the government sends out social security checks it isn't a new wrong because it isn't violating any rights anew.
When a person accepts and spends the social security checks is isn't wrong unless they change how they support that which is morally wrong - the creation or failure to eliminate the system.

People can argue that if you take the money, it is supporting the system. But that is the intended trap of the Progressives. They are trying to bribe the recipients for their support and to incentivize more people to be bribe recipients and supporters. But, if someone takes the money but refuses any implied deal to support the system, the bribe doesn't work. People can argue that many, many people will allow themselves to be bribed and become supporters... and that is true. But it goes to the moral understanding and moral practices of the individuals that make up the population and if they will become supporters, then that is the problem, not the payment. And the prior problem is that we have a population that votes for a bribe paying government. And the root problem is the acceptance of the confiscation of the money that is to be paid out by the government.

We need to have a significant portion of the population who understand that we should all make our own lives, our own rules (within the framework of individual rights), and tolerate all of the different ways of being that spring up, and all of the changes that go on... except for the initiation of force which should never be tolerated from any source, especially government. This is a psychologically and educational issue - long before it can be changed politically.

Post 55

Friday, April 4, 2014 - 8:33am

Jules wrote:

... on a human rights scale UAE ranks higher even than the US.

How so?

If this means "free health care" based on the standards of the evaluators ... well ...

Post 56

Friday, April 4, 2014 - 7:46pm

Machan wrote:

" The crucial issue is whether a champion of a fully free society can back a war that does not involve national defense. And I do not believe such a person can do so."

OK, his challenge is clear: under what conditions might a war that does not involve national defense be justified?

Well, lots of the responses dwelt upon the theme that Saddam 'might' have been a threat (who knows?), so better safe than sorry. This, I find lamely thin, to say the least.

Others posted eschewed the moral principle altogether. Might makes right, and he was a really bad guy. Now the problem here is that holders of this attitude must becessarily assume to know that what would replace Saddam is less-bad than Saddam himself. In other words, if not first-principle, then consequence. But this case, the holders are seriously amiss in judgement.

By standards of realism, Saddam was our friend in suppressing the Shiite majority in the south, with its ties to the real enemy, Iran. Furthermore, Saddam held together an ad hoc rig-gup of a national entity from which we had always obtained good deals on oil. So what we did is sacfifice our own bad guy for the expensive sake of policing the country ourselves. even at the white trash bars with which I'm familiar, this really isn't a good deal.

This is not to say that I necessarily agree with Machan's categorical standard of national defense; one must always leave the conceptual door open for issues of mercy, such as freeing Europe from Hitler. Likewise, 'national defense' does, admittedly slide off into sourcing raw materials. yet the problem still rermains that Bush offered both of these excuses without a shred of evidence.

Bush had no plan as to who or what would govern after Ba'ath was overthrown. Likewise, his 'yellow cake' story was a complete lie.

One can therefore respectfully disagree with Machan on having imposed an absolutist standard on the conditions of warfare. Yet by far the larger truth is that no reasonable standard for having gone to war with Iraq has ever been discussed. Machan, therefore, wins easily by default.

(Edited by will f harraway on 4/04, 9:34pm)

Post 57

Friday, April 4, 2014 - 10:15pm

Will,

Nice post. Mostly I agree but have a couple of minor things to mention:

This is not to say that I necessarily agree with Machan's categorical standard of national defense; one must always leave the conceptual door open for issues of mercy, such as freeing Europe from Hitler.

The day after Pearl Harbor, Hitler declared war on the US. So, it wasn't an issue of mercy. Freeing Europe was a side effect. (And, had it been a primary, we would have found the need to push Stalin back before he welded his Iron Curtain in place.)

------------

You wrote:

... 'national defense' does, admittedly slide off into sourcing raw materials.

I'm not sure where you were going with that one, but for me, national defense is defense against the initiation of force, or imminent threat of initiated force on a national level. The only way that I can imagine raw materials would come into that scenario would be if some nation attempted to create an embargo, say with their ships of war stopping anyone from coming into or going out of our ports... or something like that. Then it would be about the threat of force, not the raw materials.

------------

One can therefore respectfully disagree with Machan on having imposed an absolutist standard on the conditions of warfare. Yet by far the larger truth is that no reasonable standard for having gone to war with Iraq has ever been discussed. Machan, therefore, wins easily by default.

I like absolutist standards :-) If nothing else, they are such a refreshing change from the Progressives, who being unable to openly espouse their principles (like, "We want to totally control everything, and to take away stuff from people who earned it so we can give it to people who didn't, and we have an almost sexual reaction to far, far left things"). And without the principles they have to resort to "nuance" - too many years of aruments where one side only nuances is like being nibbled to death by ducks.

Absolutist standards are good when they are rooted in absolute, universal moral principles that are rational. (Absolute doesn't mean that knowledge is now somehow devoid of context.)

I certainly agree that no reasonable standard was met for going to war with Iraq.

Post 58

Friday, April 4, 2014 - 10:20pm

Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute. Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter’s stomach, is an absolute.
----------

“There are no absolutes,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute.
----------

Just as, in epistemology, the cult of uncertainty is a revolt against reason—so, in ethics, the cult of moral grayness is a revolt against moral values. Both are a revolt against the absolutism of reality.

---------- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Post 59

Friday, April 4, 2014 - 11:32pm