RoR: Forum

Bridget:

John: This whole argument is undermined by the fact the United States did not gain her independence from Britain on its own power. It relied significantly on French arms, the French navy, and French troops. You are de-legitimizing the founding of America by making this argument.

Me: No, it's not. Show me in the 2003 invasion where there was any organized rebellion for the whole of Iraq. If there was no, will you concede on that given point?

I don't understand the point for which I should concede to. What's the argument you're making? That American revolutionaries were not exactly the same as Iraqi resistance? Well yeah, I suppose I concede that. They also speak different languages. What's the point? I can take every particular observation from an abstraction and point out superficial differences to them that doesn't negate the abstraction. This is what I mean by being too concrete-bound. The abstraction you make here is that it is only legitimate for a population to seek freedom from their tormentors if they do it on their own. Is that or is it not what you are saying? Because I don't agree if that is what you're saying, the level and success of resistance being higher for Colonial America against Britain than it is for Iraqis against Saddam makes no moral difference. The similarity is that neither could have succeeded on their own. That's the similarity, that doesn't mean that we can extrapolate every single detail about the two examples as being the same.

I never said that on the first question. And the same on the second. My point is no one owes another help by default, regardless if the help is moral to give to not. You seem to think that if it's moral to give, then one must give it, regardless. Or am I reading your statements wrong?

Yes. Because I don't believe it is a moral obligation to help others be free of their tormentors, only that it is not immoral to help. For example to illustrate what I mean, just as you or I have no moral obligation to become police officers to protect our cities, it would not be immoral if your or I or anyone else took the job to be a police officer. But in the absence of any police officers or mechanism of shared defense the the moral obligation is for each of us individually to fend for ourselves. You always have a moral obligation to defend yourself, but not an obligation to do so for someone else. But we can recognize that pooling resources together greatly increases our chances of a successful defense. Because in the absence of this someone who initiates force against your neighbor if left unchecked will sooner or later come around to you. And that is what I mean by an existential threat.

Post 61

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 4:57pm

Michael, why do you keep referring to the invasion of Russia?

Post 62

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 5:20pm

Ships owned by Americans are�American soil, John!

Can U.S. Military Humvees be considered "ships?"

Post 63

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 5:21pm

John: But in the absence of any police officers or mechanism of shared defense the the moral obligation is for each of us individually to fend for ourselves. You always have a moral obligation to defend yourself, but not an obligation to do so for someone else. But we can recognize that pooling resources together greatly increases our chances of a successful defense. Because in the absence of this someone who initiates force against your neighbor if left unchecked will sooner or later come around to you. And that is what I mean by an existential threat.

Me: Careful, you might walk into a fallacy (Argument from Effect).

The effects are bad, but they are not what make not helping bad because of effects unless you're a Utilitarian. Not helping for the sake of mutual survival is more or less morally neutral. As much as not intervening in the self-harm that one may inflict on one's self. The only difference between not intervening in self-harm and not intervening in harm from outside (of people or Nature) is that of degree since in both cases the origin of the harm excludes the observer of the harm. Again, it's cold and callous, but it is not immoral. And it doesn't make you many friends either. The good in intervening is the benefit with regard to improving one's relations with one's fellow beings, thus one gains by such intervention, but loses nothing with respect to what one already had prior to the intervention if one chooses not to intervene.

In essence, I believe our differences on this point of the principle of intervention is a matter of what position in itself is truly immoral as we both tend to agree that intervention under the right circumstances make sense. The difference is that not intervening at all is conceived by me as morally neutral at best and a haphazardly way of living in a complex social world at worse, but you seem to suggest that it is immoral based on the effects of not intervening. Ultimately, I think our differences on this point are minor. So, thanks for all clarifications and corrections.

Post 64

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 5:59pm

No problem Bridget. My apologies for taking such a harsh tone to you earlier.

But just one thing I'd like to address:

The difference is that not intervening at all is conceived by me as morally neutral at best and a haphazardly way of living in a complex social world at worse, but you seem to suggest that it is immoral based on the effects of not intervening.

I don't think its immoral to not take action to help your fellow man defend himself against an attacker. I agree it may seem callous, and understandably since most human beings have the ability to feel empathy as an emotion with the exceptions of sociopaths, but our emotions should not dictate our actions. I think it's a moral option to help, not a moral necessity. I think not helping may result in some long term negative consequences to you (people will exclude you from their mutual sharing of defense, or you increase your chances of attack to you by letting an aggressor remain unchallenged and free to move about and attack again). Being a moral option, it is something that ultimately you would have to decide if the action will have a net-benefit to you. I would never suggest for example making someone help another person since that itself will have long term negative consequences. Only that if no one was willing to step forward and seek a mutual sharing of defense man qua man, our society would undoubtedly devolve to rule by tyrants because thugs have no qualms with banding together to initiate force. Fortunately many humans tend to band together for the purpose of projecting a stronger defense.

Post 65

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 10:06pm

Steve,

I�d like to see if I could summarize your position to your satisfaction.

Helping other nations under attack, just for the sake of helping them, is wrong. It is altruistic and not the job of the US military. Where an intervention is exclusively about helping an embattled victim without any self-defense involved, it is wrong (self-defense being a response to an attack on our soil.) You acknowledge that in many conflicts a bad guy, the aggressor, can be identified�versus the party with virtues, the victim. But that identification alone is not enough to justify action in support of the victim because any support, however small at first, may well lead to becoming entangled in a conflict where we have no substantial interests or defense concerns. Cheer for the good guy when you watch westerns, but don�t let that spirit carry into foreign policy.

Is that a fair summary?

If it is, then I am puzzled by your opinion that our participation in NATO was agreeable at the start but is not acceptable today.

Could you explain?

Post 66

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 10:57pm

LOOONG thread. I must congratulate John on sparking an interesting discussion, even if I disagree with much of what he is saying.

Let's start with the title: "Why Foreign Interventionism is Moral"

and this assertion a few posts in: "I said many times in other threads that it is not a moral obligation that we defend a trade partner that is threatened by an aggressor, but rather it is not immoral to help defend that trade partner."

I would agree with the title with the addition of just four words: "Why Foreign Interventionism is almost invariably not excessively moral". A few * minor * changes in the body of the article would be necessary to comply with these caveats.

/sarcasm

Basically, interventionism is completely moral when all of the following apply (this is not a complete list):

1) The funding for the military action is based on voluntary contributions toward national defense, not involuntary taxation levied upon people who may not agree that such intervention is in their own personal interest and who may view such levies as an altruistic sacrifice demanded of them.

2) No conscription of military forces was involved.

3) The leadership of the nation that is the alleged beneficiary of the action requested the intervention.

4) The people who contributed to the voluntary national defense funding have the ability to cut off their personal subscription to that service if they view the action as being adverse to their personal interests.

And so on.

Basically, a considerable amount of immorality is implicit in every intervention that has occurred in the modern era, and I would argue that the overwhelming majority of such interventions are profoundly immoral.

Note that I would exclude military action in response to an attack on one's countries' soil as interventionism -- that is self-defense, not interventionism.

Post 67

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 12:10am

Jon,

I'm always leery of accepting someone else's words for my position, but let me restate them with as few changes as possible. I put brackets in where I changed out some of your words. I added a section for alliances and treaties, and then I answered your question.
------

Helping other nations under attack, just for the sake of helping them, is wrong [if there is a cost in doing so]. It is altruistic and not the job of the US military [or the US government or the US taxpayer].

Where an intervention is exclusively about [going to war for - or exercising military power for] an embattled victim without any self-defense involved, it is wrong (self-defense being a response to an attack [or immanent threat of attack] on [America*]).

You acknowledge that in many conflicts a bad guy, the aggressor, can be identified�versus the party with virtues, the victim. But that identification alone is not enough to justify [military] action in support of the victim because [of the two issues defined above - altruism and self-defense].

There is a third condition need for any action, but none of us appear to be disagreeing on it. The government should not take any action that is not in our national self-interest.

On alliances and treaties. If they are ad hoc and don't cover future actions that may not be predictable in the present, then the conditions above are adequate and just apply to the the current situation. For example, if we are already in a military conflict, then it is okay to have other nations join with us. And the same with joining other nations in their conflicts - for example, we have been attacked by Al-Queida - the conflict is on-going - it would not be altruistic to help the Philippine government with supplies, equipment, training, or our troops in action.

If the treaty or alliance creates an obligation on us for some future action, we must write the treaty in such a way that it can not obligate us to violate the conditions above (being in our self-interest, not altruistic, military actions require self-defense).
---

* I removed 'soil' because I don't know about airplanes and because I can envision a number of type of attacks that would not be against American 'soil' - for example, if a foreign government assassinated the secretary of state on their own soil. Or if China, 20 years from now, posted nuclear sub off our coast and refused to let any ships of foreign flags to come or go - no physical attack, no sinking of our ships, still would be an attack on America.
----------

The difference between NATO then and NATO now comes from the following differences between now and then:
1. The cold war has ended - the Soviet Union was a serious threat to us then in a way that Russia of today is not (remember the Cuban Missile Crisis).
2. The need to contain the Soviet Union was centered around protecting countries that had been allies of WW II with whom we had a long history and were just coming out of fighting WW II as allies.
3. The combined forces of Europe were a significant force and their willingness to host the bases we needed during the cold war meant we were getting value (not entering a treaty with a tiny country that can't pay its way)
4. NATO has already grow far beyond the original 12 founding countries - it's now at 26. The proposed expanded NATO is a still different animal. And it has become a very different organization and very complex with its Euro partners framework of 24 additional nations (which includes Russia).

It is about putting any country in, even if not our ally in any particular way, but just to lock them up from Russia. Some of these countries we would not want to be partnered with and we are not getting any quid pro quot.

[This doesn't mean I wouldn't have written the NATO treaty to ensure it didn't cause us to go to war if it was provoked by a NATO country or the alleged attack on a treaty partner was serious and major.]

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

NATO Founders

Belgium
Canada
Denmark
France
Iceland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
United Kingdom
United States

NATO Enlarged membership

Greece
Turkey
Germany
Spain
Czech Republic
Hungary
Poland
Bulgaria
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia

NATO Proposed members

Republic of Macedonia
Georgia
Ukraine
Montenegro
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Serbia
Finland
Sweden

There are also 24 Euro-Partner countries (a different framework within NATO)

Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Moldova
Russia
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Austria
Finland
Ireland
Malta
Sweden
Switzerland
Albania
Bosnia and Herzegovina (as part of Yugoslavia)
Croatia (as part of Yugoslavia)
Montenegro (as part of Yugoslavia)
Serbia (as part of Yugoslavia)
Macedonia FYROM (as part of Yugoslavia)
Ukraine (as part of Soviet Union) May join membership action plan in December 2008
Georgia

Russia views the enlarging of NATO as a continuation of the cold war, or as starting up again, and that isn't an unreasonable view point since it IS a military treaty and since Mikhail Gorbachev's promise to Bush senior to not stand in the way of German reunification if there was no further enlarging of NATO. Russian is a tyrant but it is a massive improvement over the Soviet Union. We should be encouraging Russia to be more civilized - something that wouldn't have worked with the Soviet Union.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 8/20, 12:20am)

Post 68

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 9:18am

Jim:

Let's start with the title: "Why Foreign Interventionism is Moral"

and this assertion a few posts in: "I said many times in other threads that it is not a moral obligation that we defend a trade partner that is threatened by an aggressor, but rather it is not immoral to help defend that trade partner."

I would agree with the title with the addition of just four words: "Why Foreign Interventionism is almost invariably not excessively moral". A few * minor * changes in the body of the article would be necessary to comply with these caveats.

/sarcasm

Well Jim, when someone just reads a title of an essay and doesn't bother reading the essay itself thereby understanding the CONTEXT of the title, yeah I guess I can see why you'd think the way you do.

/sarcasm

Note that I would exclude military action in response to an attack on one's countries' soil as interventionism -- that is self-defense, not interventionism.

Oh really? Well what if an attack on US soil and responding in self-defense meant:

1) Funding the military from forced taxation

2) Conscription of the military

3) The leadership of the governors of the states that were invaded never requested the intervention from the federal government

4) The people who volunteered in the army couldn't leave at will until the conflict was over

So would in this context an invasion of US soil be considered immoral for Americans to respond to if the above conditions existed?

You can see you're reasons for dismissing a foreign intervention based on the criteria you provided can easily be flipped against you when you argue for the defense of US soil.

Explain that! Or would you say better for America to be taken over by a Hitler or a Stalin?

Your reasons for dismissing a foreign intervention based on the criteria you provide are hypocritical if you don't want to apply the same criteria if American soil was attacked.

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/20, 9:25am)

Post 69

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 10:00am

John writes:

Oh really? Well what if an attack on US soil and responding in self-defense meant:

I'm not sure of your point John. Are you saying that in times of attack you support these and other measures? Are you saying that the ends (an emergency situation defined as war), justifies the means (a suspension of individual rights)? And if so, who is going to be the person or group that gets to decide when my rights do and don't get tossed in the trash? Congress? George Bush? Obama? You?

If, in your eyes, America looks like it might be in a position to be taken over by Hitler or Stalin, but you cannot convince enough of your fellow citizens of the threat so that an appropriate army can be staffed and a sufficient response can be mounted, are you proposing that you would than take whatever actions you believed necessary to force your fellow citizens to comply with the policy that you deemed appropriate? Are you arguing that this is the appropriate Objectivist position?

I afraid that I have to toss your indignation back at you and say: Explain that!

[There is so much anger and animosity spread throughout this thread that I believe in the rush to crush the opponent, it is clear thinking has become the real casualty.]

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 70

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 10:07am

Jeff:

I'm not sure of your point John. Are you saying that in times of attack you support these and other measures?

No no no, that went right over head Jeff. I'm pointing out the hole in the logic Jim is using as a rebuttal against my arguments.

I'm saying as a philosophical principle if a foreign intervention serves our rational self-interest, just as fending off an attack on US soil is in our self-interest, then you can't negate the morality of this foreign intervention on the basis that in the past a whole bunch of immoral things were used to pull of the intervention, just as in the past a whole bunch of immoral things were used when US soil was attacked. If my opponent gets to use that as an argument to dismiss any foreign intervention because it was funded by immoral means, then the same immoral means should be applied to his argument as well for self-defense.

I'm simply stating Jim can't have his logic cake and eat it too.

Post 71

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 10:17am

Which American war of self-defense, had conscription, forced taxation, and Americans that sided with the enemy?

Answer: The American Revolution.

The states sometimes drafted men to fill units of the Continental army. Soldiers who enlisted had to make 1 to 3 year commitments and could not leave at will before their contract expired and mutinies in Pennsylvania and New Jersey were suppressed by Washington.

Forcible taxation was used to pay off the debt incurred from the American Revolution, as the war was funded primarily by borrowing from foreign powers and the states.

American colonists that sided with the British (torries) joined militias against the American revolutionaries. It was estimated that 40% of the American population at the start of the revolution were considered torries

Does this mean forcible taxation and conscription are moral?

NO, of course not. But any attempts to negate a philosophical argument for a foreign intervention to serve rational long-term interests by stating the way that any random particular intervention in the past was funded by immoral means is philosophically out of whack, because you would have to make ridiculous conclusions like the American Revolution was an immoral war because that too was fought by immoral means. Was it an immoral war or were their particular actions the revolutionaries took that were immoral? But as a whole what they did, defeating the British, was a good thing.

Do you get what I'm saying?

The problem is that any standards for rational evaluation are completely thrown out the window. If some historical event like the American revolution resulted in a whole lot of good but there was some bad that occurred, does it negate the whole lot of good that happened? Can we say absolutely no good came of it? Or do we say look, some bad things happened that were inexcusable and steps should be taken to not do those things in the future, but there was a net-benefit overall here, and that means we can look back and say something good was done.

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/20, 10:31am)

Post 72

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 10:41am

John writes:

Do you get what I'm saying?

If you're saying that the justification for a war can be moral in principle, even while specific actions taken to prosecute that war are immoral, then I can agree with that. But I won't agree that the morality of a war, no matter what the cause, can in any way justify or mitigate those immoral actions taken.

As with many such discussions here, there is probably more agreement than disagreement on fundamentals. What we need to recognize is that different parties are looking at different components of the overall problem with each arguing for a point of view that has little to do with the other's position. In one case, John and others appear to be arguing for the philosophical justifications of war rooted in a rational notion of self-defense, while Steve, Jim and others seem focused on the immorality of the methods used to actually conduct wars. Is this an accurate observation and does it shed any light on refocusing the nature of this debate?

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 73

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 10:49am

Jeff:

If you're saying that the justification for a war can be moral in principle, even while specific actions taken to prosecute that war are immoral, then I can agree with that. But I won't agree that the morality of a war, no matter what the cause, can in any way justify or mitigate those immoral actions taken.

Right, just as the government forcibly taxes you and uses those funds to lock up a criminal that victimized some stranger. The justification for locking up the criminal is moral, but it doesn't mitigate or justify particular immoral actions taken.

So I can say locking criminals is a good thing, I can say "Hey that governor is tough on crime, and I'm glad he's doing a good job, but I wish he didn't force me to pay, I'd rather voluntarily pay" and them comes along the intrincists that say "No way! That governor is pure evil! He taxed me against my will! So locking up criminals is immoral!"

Post 74

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 11:13am

Steve Wrote:

You say, "Yet how do you justify the use of INDIVIDUALS by making them morally sacrificial for the sake of other, unconnected individuals, who have been the victim of a crime." What you have written in that sentence doesn't even make sense. I don't justify sacrifice anywhere! You wrote, "Why should I, as a tax payer, be forced to pay for a law enforcement agency act of delayed retaliation against a perpetrator of a crime who victimized someone else?" Don't you understand that? Or are you being rhetorical? I'll explain it for you. Criminal commits crime. Criminal in doing so relinquishes his rights. Government having been instituted to protect individual rights arrests the criminal, tries him, imprisons him. The government has the right to use force against the criminal because he relinquished his rights by violating rights

I think this has been discussed throughout the rest of this thread but I�m not sure a clear recognition came from it. Obviously you are not noticing the philosophical premise which is common in both these themes. Let me try to convey this in a clearer sense. In the realm of individual civil liberties and the proper role of a government, a government may use money that I contributed (voluntarily or involuntarily) in order to apprehend and sequester an individual who has committed no crime against ME. Why do you consider that just? Because, you say �Government having been instituted to protect individual rights arrests the criminal, tries him, imprisons him. The government has the right to use force against the criminal because he relinquished his rights by violating rights� Yet the only actual rights that criminal violated were those of the VICTIM, not of me. So why are MY contributions to the government (voluntary or otherwise) justifiable used against HIM in the name of the VICTIM, and not ME. I could, for instance, hire a personal body guard.

In other words, If he did not violate MY RIGHTS, why am I forced to pay to punish him for violating SOMEONES RIGHTS, SOMEWHERE?

I think we can agree the justice system servers a more important and complex role than merely �revoking the rights which people have not respected in their victims� we do not automatically kill murderers, we do not completely rescind someone�s right to property because he stole a loaf of bread. The justice system acts as the final arbiter in disputes, maintains a monopoly over the retaliatory use of force, and enacts retribution for crimes, restitution for criminals, and rehabilitation after the criminal has suffered the appropriate punishment. It does not exist only to revoke rights.

The reason we are perfectly ok with our own tax dollars being used to punish a criminal who assaulted someone else is because it is the most rational use of resources, and I don�t want to wait until someone with an established track record of violent actions actually attacks ME before I consider it in my own best interest to do something to mitigate the threat these criminals pay, and because a criminals assault on my neighbors rights is an assault on the very concept of rights humans beings have, and is implicitly a threat and assault on me. I don�t believe anyone would prefer the justice system only acts to defend individuals in the very specific moment they are threatened, and stops defending or persecuting criminals once the threat of the range of the moment ends. Yet this is the exact same standard you hold nations to (which are collections of individuals) in regards to other nations, which are collections of individuals as well.

If an individual has right to act in the long term rational self defense, so do collections of individuals, and so do formally recognized collections of individuals. I do not need to wait until a criminal attacks me for it to be rational and just for me to contribute financially to our law enforcement to apprehend this criminal and punish him if he has attacked others.

Post 75

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 11:17am

John wrote:

So I can say locking criminals is a good thing, I can say "Hey that governor is tough on crime, and I'm glad he's doing a good job, but I wish he didn't force me to pay, I'd rather voluntarily pay" and them comes along the intrincists that say "No way! That governor is pure evil! He taxed me against my will! So locking up criminals is immoral!"

John, I agree with you. However, while I might be wrong in an individual case, I don't think that most people in this forum are intrincists arguing for the conclusion that you present here. I think that they are simply more focused on the direct impact that the immoral government actions are having on them while you are arguing about the indirect consequences that we will face by failing to act in an appropriate way when confronted with aggression. While I agree that there does appear to be some disagreement about how to properly define the limits and scope of what justifies retaliatory force (and I'm probably closer to your views on that), I do not think that anyone is saying that it's immoral to lock up criminals or bomb other nations or groups out to destroy our lives or freedom. I don't think our disagreements are not so much about basic principle, but instead revolve around the proper implementation of those principles. I would be interested to hear from Steve, Jim and others whether they agree with this or think I am way off base here.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 76

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 11:35am

Steve wrote:

You said, "Just as a convergence of interest between individuals within a nations justifies the use of funds in that nation in law enforcement and retaliation against crimes committed against other individuals, the convergence of interest between allied nations with similar ideals justifies the use of funds of that nation in the mitigation of existential threats and opposition to all enemies in the general goal of long term rational self interest." That is the same fallacy that John makes - it take the fuzzy, undefined 'convergence of interests' and uses it to replace individual rights and self-defense. All of a sudden instead of 'we were actually attacked or under threat of attack,' it is "...mitigation of existential threats and opposition to all enemies..."

I don�t read your re-writes as saying anything different than what John and I have been advocating all along. You seem eager to pigeonhole us into a �nuke em all� category, I might as well pigeonhole you into absolute pacificism, where you reward your attackers. Let me re write my statement.

Just as the self defense of individual civil liberties between individuals within a nations boundaries justifies the use of funds in the nation in law enforcement and retaliation against crimes committed against other individuals, so the recognition of individual rights and the right to self defense among groups of individuals acting in voluntary co-operation can also recognize the shared valuation of individual rights among each other AND recognize common threats to those individuals rights beyond the contexts of individuals and in the realm of collections of individuals (free nations) or individuals holding other groups of individuals against their will (non-free nations)

Paying my government to stop a criminal from beating you up is just as much in MY OWN rational self interest as paying my government to help stop the Soviet Union from Invading Great Britain. The standard of justifying that action is the same, actions by nations which threaten individual civil liberties, especially of the inhabitants of allies, we are justified in opposing, but not morally required. Actions which threat the individual civil liberties of inhabitants of non allies we are also justified in opposing, but it is less likely to directly relate to our long term rational self interest (or the benefit may be so long term as to make the opportunity costs too high) Nations which do not respect individual civil liberties of their own people are not legitimate nations, and have no right to self defense. Where it is in our own long term rational self interest to depose one of these nations, or stop one of the grotesque assaults on individual civil liberties, we are certainly justified in doing so. Under the guise that just as a police officer has no right stopping a pick pocket in a crowd with a flame thrower and grenade, no nation is justified in using nuclear bombs to kill one terrorist.

You are all too willing to leap from my claim that �actions in self defense can properly extend beyond our borders� to asserting that we have to nuke everyone that looks at us funny. Why you make this leap is beyond me, but we are talking about whether action AT ALL is proper or justified, we are not yet talking about WHAT KIND OF ACTIONS and to WHAT DEGREE are justified. Quite frankly it�s disgusting and insulting for you to automatically categorize someone who disagrees with you on when and where self defense is applicable into someone who is a blood thirsty maniac. Knock that shit off and have a reasonable discussion, or go f*ck yourself because I�m sick of these snide psychopathic implications.

Post 77

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 1:23pm

Steve wrote:

You spend some long involved paragraphs attacking the Libertarian Party Platform on National Defense - but only after attributing it to me. Didn't you notice that the post of mine being referred to was a criticism of the Libertarian Party - not a joining of their position?

As John suggested when you claimed his essay was written specifically for you, here again you are having some delusions of Grandeur. In post 3 I quoted your critique of the Libertarian party stance on self dense, stating that you wished that just like they were officially �tough on crime� they ought to be tough on matters of securing our defense, like explicitly stating how terrorism should be handled, what would be done in the case of an imminent attack, if we had a strong standing military, etc.

This was merely an opportunity for me to discuss the fundamental philosophical flaw in libertarian ideas on defense, that even though they are �tough on crime� and grant every rational concession to the defense of an individual, they do not do so in the case of their own nation, even though it is a collection of their individuals. Why individuals should lose some aspects of their right to self defense merely because they join up in a group is beyond me, but this is the reason why libertarians will readily say we ought to be �tough on crime� but you�ll never hear them say we should be tough on international aggression. Libertarians must wait until a battleship is steaming up the Hudson before they can actually act in self defense.

Your entire remainder of your post isn't reflective of my positions and your understanding of individual rights and self defense is shown to be inadequate in the following statements: "If the standard of individual self defense within libertarianism were appllied (sic)to national defense, we would - be morally justified in assisting our neighboring nation with common interests against a mutual enemy." There you go, unable to resist claiming the moral high ground by mentioning individual self defense and then abandoning it when you are "shifting to assisting our neighboring nation with common interests with a common enemy.

That harmony of interests IS individual civil liberties, constitutional rule of law, market based economies. It is Freedom. You act as though anything we might whimsically decide is good is our �harmony of interests� even though I have been saying all along that the ultimate long term goal needs to be to rid the world of murderous tyrannies (nations which are explicitly the opposite of everything that freedom means) because they are direct threats to ourselves as free nations and free peoples, they start all the wars, cause all the famines, breed all the terrorists. And by �ridding the world� I do not mean nuking the poor hostages these murderous tyrants keep in check through decades of brutality, but by varying degrees of international pressure and then force, culminating in strategic military strikes directed against the murderous tyrants and their infrastructure. Your tactic of do absolutely nothing until they launch a ground invasion is simply idiotic.

Jeeze, why don't you have the balls to come right out and say "to nuke people that are our common enemies" - instead of all the double talk of "shifting to assisting our neighboring nation with common interests" - it is usually the those advocating going to war with out being attacked that are most timid about saying what they mean.

I hope you finally drop this disgusting scumbag act, this intellectually dishonest charge of my advocating nuclear attacks. Further the implicit assumption in that charge is that you actually give a shit about the people who would be the victims of those attacks, when you clearly don�t, unless they actually happen to live in a shitty country whose tyrannical rulers were idiotic enough to attack you �on your own soil� Then youd care even less than not at all, because I�m sure you wouldn�t care if they were vaporized in a nuclear cloud, hey, after all, it is their moral duty to oppose their tyrannical government right? And people get the government they deserve! The fact of the matter is, chanting �war is not the answer� like some flower child hippie in the name of humanitarianism is a bunch of bull shit, its just sugar coated version �who gives a shit if they are killing each other� under a moral blank check of non-interventionism. I�ll be sure to adopt the moral high ground of non-interventionism should I see you getting mugged and beaten. Fact of the matter is, strategic and controlled military actions usually result in far fewer casualties then the moral cowardice of indifference and sanctions.

It is usually those who don�t give a sh*t about every other human on the planet as long as they got theirs they hide their own moral cowardice behind a veil of moral relativism and irrational standards of self defense.

You conclude by saying, "Just as being "strong on crime" in the realm of individuals creates a free, prosperous society (where crime is assaults on persons or property) being "strong on defense" will necessarily mean interactions with allies who share a harmony of interests and be the best long term strategy toward achieving a peaceful and prosperous WORLD. Again, like every other instance, you shift from individual rights to some kind of confluence of interests as the justification for war. And you ignore that fact of jurisdiction - do you think we have a world government? Are you willing to grant some kind of sovereignty to a supra-national body to exercise our decision of when to wage war?

Here again you adopt the fundamental libertarian flaw. I don�t need a nation�s jurisdiction to tell me I have the right to my own self defense, or the right to assist a fellow sentient human being in defending their. Our rights supersede national boundaries. Just as I can assist my neighbor who is being mugged, I can fly to Afghanstan and assist a shepherd in fighting off a rapist, jurisdiction is irrelevant. Rights superscede nations. And only to the extent with which nations respect individual rights are they just and moral nations and only to that extent do they have a right to their own defense. No nation which does not respect the right to exist of it�s own citizens has any claim to it�s own right to exist.

Your philosophical quip here seems to be the apparent arbitrariness of �confluence of interests� left vague by me because there are no doubt many things which would fall under this categorization, but those interests must always be rational and based on individual civil liberties and man�s right to exist (markets and constitutional law) The whole theme of all of my comments I�ve ever made on this topic centers around freedom and it�s manifestations. You act like John and I are advocating nuking Iran because they won�t let us play Parcheesi with Israel. Extend a modicum of effort into understanding the position of the person you are engaging in discussion with to spare us your own worthless pyschologizing

Post 78

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 2:39pm

Michael wrote:

"Rights superscede nations. And only to the extent with which nations respect individual rights are they just and moral nations and only to that extent do they have a right to their own defense. No nation which does not respect the right to exist of it�s own citizens has any claim to it�s own right to exist."

So the extent to which our own government increasingly violates its own citizens' individual rights suggests our collective right to self-defense is increasingly diminished since "we" are increasingly less just and moral? Perhaps it is sufficient that a nation's constitution merely include somewhwere the words "individual's right to exist" or something similar, regardless of wether or not the goverment and population even believe or practice it?

Anthropomorphizing collective entitities (like nation states) and imbuing them with human capacities such as rationality and morality is dangerous to individual liberty because it automatically justifies to abuse of individual rights for those who live in a nation deemed "less moral". This seems to contradict your statement that "rights supercede nations".

(Edited by Steven Pilotte on 8/20, 2:44pm)

Post 79

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 4:58pm