Yaron Brook and the ARI

I'm sure this was mentioned elsewhere, but Mr. Brook was on the O'Reilly Factor on December 17th. I was just browsing the ARI site and I came upon a recording of the interview. I've listened to other interviews and read op-eds by the various big names in that orginization and I am constantly struck by their fervent nationalism and their advocacy of what would normally be considered as war crimes. Their advocacy of these things doesn't seem to stem from any Objectivist principles, but instead from a stern "right wing", macho nationalist mentality. For example, Mr. Brook in his interview with O'Reilly advocated "brutal attacks" against the Iraqi civilian population and seemed to advocate the use of nuclear weapons against Falluja. I recall an interview (I believe with "Prodos" following 9/11) with Leonard Piekoff in which he also offhandedly advocated the use of nuclear weapons. Andrew Bernstein in a recent radio interview (avaliable on the ARI website) advocated "nuking" Iran. There may be cases in which attacks against civilian populations or the use of nuclear weapons are morally justified and tactically necessary but these are not topics that should be thrown around lightly. If the case for such actions isn't made clearly, I don't think it is wise for people representing themselves to the public as advocates of Ayn Rand's Objectivism to make what seem to be extreme, outlandish statements. If a television interview doesn't provide a good format for intelligent argument about these serious matters then the ARI should use a different medium when discussing them. Mr. Brook's O'Reilly interview and the recent Tsunami article are good examples of this orginization's lack of common sense in their supposed advocacy of Objectivism.

- Jason

Post 1

Saturday, January 8, 2005 - 4:32pm

Well Brook is just stating a major objectivist position, he was just describing the use of nuclear weapons matter-of-factly because that�s exactly what it is. �what would normally be considered war crimes� would only be considered that by the left who wrote them. Unlike leftists, Objectivists consider guilt or innocence when determining war crimes. We also consider protecting ourselves when in combat; we don�t sacrifice our lives for others especially others who are sympathetic to the enemy. If nuking Fallujah will save the life of a marine, so be it.

You said we sound like "right wing", macho nationalists, well we do and we should. A key comparison between objectivists and conservatives is that we both believe in an objective morality and although that morality may come from different sources, they do frequently match up or at least have the same goals. They might want to �punish the heathens� while we want to defend ourselves but it works out all the same. The left, including libertarians, just want to stand back or surrender and try to cloud up their speech with lies and half-truths. Conservatives and objectivists do this the least and are the most clear in what they want; at best liberals might say �stronger measures� while both conservatives and objectivists will say �nuke the bastards�. Or something similar.

I�m not going to talk about the justification behind it, check out the �Are civilians guilty in some wars?� thread to see what I said there but shortly, saying how we want this war run is not extreme or outlandish, its just how it should be run and when asked, we shouldn�t evade or tone down answering the question. Yes ARI is advocating objectivism but they are also following it and that means telling people their positions regardless of how it sounds.

Post 2

Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 12:36am

"Well Brook is just stating a major objectivist position, he was just describing the use of nuclear weapons matter-of-factly because that�s exactly what it is. �what would normally be considered war crimes� would only be considered that by the left who wrote them. Unlike leftists, Objectivists consider guilt or innocence when determining war crimes."

I don't understand the logic behind this first sentence. How exactly did Dr. Brook state ANYTHING that can be considered a "major Objectivist position" in the O'Reilly interview?   Maybe Ayn Rand discussed this topic somewhere in depth, but if she did I am unaware of it.   The ARI sticks to a very strict definition of Objectivism as you are probably aware. Objectivism, according to them is contained "only in the writings of Ayn Rand and others that she approved of during her lifetime".

It is good that "Objectivists" consider guilt or innocence in these matters. I'm not sure how this principle relates to directly and indiscriminantly targeting civilian populations with carpet bombing or weapons of mass destructiion. Maybe you can explain this to me. Mr. Brook certainly didn't, and thus should refrain from making such outlandish statements about serious issues like mass murder unless he is able to back them up with well thought out arguments. A 5 minute TV interview obviously isn't the place for this.

"You said we sound like "right wing", macho nationalists, well we do and we should. A key comparison between objectivists and conservatives is that we both believe in an objective morality and although that morality may come from different sources, they do frequently match up or at least have the same goals. They might want to �punish the heathens� while we want to defend ourselves but it works out all the same."

This is another brilliant paragraph. So "Objectivists" SHOULD sound like right wing, macho nationalists. I didn't realize this was a necessary part of the philosophy. And I also didn't realize that there is a similarity between one group that wants to "punish the heathens" and another group that wants to defend itself. That doesn't seem to "work out all the same" when I think about it.   Those are two very distinct positions.

"The left, including libertarians, just want to stand back or surrender and try to cloud up their speech with lies and half-truths. Conservatives and objectivists do this the least and are the most clear in what they want; at best liberals might say �stronger measures� while both conservatives and objectivists will say �nuke the bastards�. Or something similar."

Ayn Rand promoted the idea of acting based upon well thought out principles.   The liberals' ethical wishy washyness has been well documented and was thoroughly taken apart by her various writings.   The alternative to their ethical inconsistency is not dumbed down "shock value' responses like "nuke the bastards".   Just because a person is "morally certain" about something doesn't mean his system of morality isn't evil. When dealing with important issues like using nuclear weapons it is incredibly important that we provide clear and coherent arguments. At the very least the issue should be treated with far more respect.

"I�m not going to talk about the justification behind it, check out the �Are civilians guilty in some wars?� thread to see what I said there but shortly, saying how we want this war run is not extreme or outlandish, its just how it should be run and when asked, we shouldn�t evade or tone down answering the question. Yes ARI is advocating objectivism but they are also following it and that means telling people their positions regardless of how it sounds. "

That thread didn't seem to come to any real conclusions when dealing with the topic. My opinion (and you are welcome to challenge it) is that all military attacks should be directed at the government or orginization that is guilty of initiating force.   Goverments and orginizations that initiate force do so through their use of military and police force.   Targets can also include the suppliers and financiers of the force initiators. So in this case, the attacks should be directed very harshly against those involved in Iraqi insurgent orginizations and those that can be directly linked to them as suppliers or financiers. If civilians or other innocent people happen to be in the area when the attacks are made there is no way to avoid some level of innocent casualties and these possibilities should not stop a military from agressively targeting and destroying their enemy. If the attack is reasonably directed against a "guilty" party (and the reasonablness of the use of force is a contextual decision based upon the intelligence and military technology that are available) then civilian casualties are not the fault of those who directed the attack. The key here is where the force is directed.   If you direct force against a blanket populated area then you are not properly responding to an initiation of force. You are guilty of an unjustified initiation of force yourself because there is no way, when using this type of action to decide who is "guilty" and who isn't. Soldiers' lives should be protected as much as possible but "valuing the lives of our soldiers more then Iraqi civilians" should not be used as justification for commiting indiscriminant mass murder or any other unethical actions. This of course does not apply to a situation where one government uses weapons of mass destruction against another group of people. In that case a response in kind would be proper because it would be a matter of emergency self defense.

I'm not an expert on the ethics of war, but I think an argument like the one I just wrote is far more useful then simply stating my "position" in the most shocking and attention getting manner possible.

- Jason

Post 3

Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 6:16am

Jason,

At the very least the issue should be treated with far more respect.

Tact and respect are not ARI's strong suits. Just check out the their 'advanced essays.' How many different ways can someone call their opponents 'man-haters'?

I'm not an expert on the ethics of war, but I think an argument like the one I just wrote is far more useful then simply stating my "position" in the most shocking and attention getting manner possible.

Rand once turned down the opportunity to speak to a college class because she refused exactly what Brooks here accepted: to share her conclusions without time for sharing the reasons that support them.

Jordan

Post 4

Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 2:57pm

Jason

The �major objectivist position� I was talking about isn�t part of the fundamentals but comes as a result of the wars; that is, we should minimize coalition causalities by taking a tougher stance toward war in urban areas. Not quite WWII type cluster bombing but something similar. �Nuke Fallujah� was a common theme and pretty much summed up the position of major objectivists thinkers. Now since you said you weren�t sure, let me explain to you guilt or innocence in wars even though we cover that in the other thread. You said it didn�t reach any conclusions but you�re talking to me and I reached a conclusion: unless you�re completely non-productive in helping an evil regime or rebelling against the regime, you are just as culpable as they are. Also if you�re in the way of us defending ourselves move or suffer the consequences.

If you�re doing a 5- minute interview with O�Reilly, he is just going to ask you straight and hard questions. What was he to do but answer them? Have you ever tried to explain objectivism in 5 minutes? And it wasn�t even about that. What you believe is a 5-minute interview, why you believe is much longer. As for his statements being outlandish and advocating �mass murder� all I have to ask is what pipe have you been smoking? Do you watch TV? Don�t you see how our men are being killed every day? This is self-defense plain and simple. We have to defeat the Iraqis first before rebuilding them.

As of objectivists sounding like right wing nationalist, read ALL of what I wrote. Especially the why part; objectivists and conservative sound like we do because we are convinced in the moral rightness of our decisions. That�s why we sound similar, not because we are that much alike but because, unlike liberals, we are sure of our decisions and don�t hesitate to say so.

You said,
�The alternative to their ethical inconsistency is not dumbed down "shock value' responses like "nuke the bastards". Just because a person is "morally certain" about something doesn't mean his system of morality isn't evil. When dealing with important issues like using nuclear weapons it is incredibly important that we provide clear and coherent arguments. At the very least the issue should be treated with far more respect.�

I don�t know to say here, I really don�t even understand why using nukes is such a big deal especially in a situation like this. There are bombs, really big bombs, and nukes. This isn�t MAD and we can bomb them at our pleasure. What I don�t understand, and maybe you can help me here is why the hell would any commander send his troops in harms way without first giving them the best chance of survival. If that means using nukes then I�m all for it and I can�t think of a single reason why someone would not be. And I wasn�t defending conservatives, just stating the obvious that they want this war as much as we do.

Now I agree with most of your last paragraph, you said,
�all military attacks should be directed at the government or organization that is guilty of initiating force. Goverments and orginizations that initiate force do so through their use of military and police force. Targets can also include the suppliers and financiers of the force initiators.�

Let me give you a hint, who are the �suppliers and financiers� of evil regime? It�s the people who go the work everyday and pay their taxes to an evil dictatorship. They�re compliance allows him to perpetuate his evil and that makes them guilty. When war comes, stopping a civilian from producing to help an evil regime is just as important and morally permissible as stopping a soldier helping that regime.

You also said, �"valuing the lives of our soldiers more then Iraqi civilians" should not be used as justification for committing indiscriminant mass murder or any other unethical actions.� What does that mean, if our soldiers are tasked with taking a city full of enemy soldiers, they can�t bomb the city? And besides, who was advocating �indiscriminant mass murder�? I wasn�t and neither was Brook.

And finally, as for your proportional response, read

http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=1077

he states our reasons better then I.

Post 5

Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 11:57pm

Alright, I didn�t intend for this thread to move in this direction but some of this is so horrific that I�m compelled to address it. So here we go.

�Now since you said you weren�t sure, let me explain to you guilt or innocence in wars even though we cover that in the other thread. You said it didn�t reach any conclusions but you�re talking to me and I reached a conclusion: unless you�re completely non-productive in helping an evil regime or rebelling against the regime, you are just as culpable as they are. Also if you�re in the way of us defending ourselves move or suffer the consequences.�

This definition is far too broad to properly define the guilt or innocence of individuals for the actions of their government. If taken to its logical extreme it means that a government taking military action in self defense has the right to massacre every single citizen in the responsible nation. This definition allows for total, blind, targetless massacres of large groups of people with no sense of proportion or human rights. What you do here is place citizens of �evil regimes� in two categories. The first is those who are economically productive or in any way supportive of the regime. The second are or those who are �in the way.� This makes everyone a target, and based on your ethical argument below for the use of nuclear weapons, their total destruction would seem to be the only logical solution. If we would have just killed every person in Iraq with some kind of weapon of mass destruction there would have been no need for the initial invasion of Iraq. No American troops would have ever been in danger. Since everyone in Iraq is in some way guilty or �in the way�, according to your rationalization, there would be no ethical problems with the scenario I just described.

More importantly, lets apply your definition to the current situation in Iraq. What evil regime exists? None at the moment. The U.S. has destroyed the previous regime in Iraq and now holds the country as an occupying police force. So how does this apply to the various splinter groups and factions fighting against the U.S. military in Iraq?

Allow me to quote Ayn Rand, because this is the only writing I know of off hand where she dealt with these types of issues. You are welcome to challenge my use of Rand in this context but I think her argument fits perfectly and I agree with her entirely here.

This is from the Virtue of Selfishness, in the essay �Collectivized Rights� on page 122.

�Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free country had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen�.. It is not a free nation�s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self sacrifice, but the free nation has the right to do it when and if it chooses.

This right, however is conditional. Just as the suppression of crimes does not give a policeman the right to engage in criminal activities, so the invasion and destruction of a dictatorship does not give the invader the right to establish another variant of a slave society in a conquered country.

A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized and the conqueror has no right to violate them. Therefore, the invasion of an enslaved country is morally justified only when and if the conquerors establish a free social system, that is, a system based on the recognition of individual rights.�

So such an action is only acceptable when individual rights are recognized by the conqueror. The U.S., in order to establish a free society in Iraq must destroy the elements within Iraq that currently oppose it. These elements should be perused with the full weight of justice that any force initiators bring upon themselves and unfortunately this type of police action will cause casualties among innocent people who are �in the way�. However, in pursuing these criminals the individual rights of the other citizens must be taken into account. It is one thing to direct force against a specific target and accidentally cause collateral damage and civilian deaths. It is another thing to directly and indiscriminately target urban areas in order to suppress and �cause fear� as suggested by Dr. Brook in his interview. This type of action is a direct invalidation of individual rights. This is especially true when considering the context of the American occupation of Iraq in which it is no longer fighting against a specific, united government.

�If you�re doing a 5- minute interview with O�Reilly, he is just going to ask you straight and hard questions. What was he to do but answer them? Have you ever tried to explain objectivism in 5 minutes?

No and I never intend to. I am saying that Mr. Brook, if he is serious about addressing serious topics, should not be taking part in 5 minute interviews about things like war. Ayn Rand never made herself into a media �talking head� and the leader of the organization that advertises itself as the foremost advocate of her philosophy shouldn�t either.

�And it wasn�t even about that. What you believe is a 5-minute interview, why you believe is much longer. As for his statements being outlandish and advocating �mass murder� all I have to ask is what pipe have you been smoking? Do you watch TV? Don�t you see how our men are being killed every day? This is self-defense plain and simple. We have to defeat the Iraqis first before rebuilding them.�

But here is the problem with both your position and Mr. Brook�s position. The U.S. is not fighting against Iraqis �in general� it is fighting against various splinter groups within the country and these must be hunted down aggressively and destroyed.

�I don�t know to say here, I really don�t even understand why using nukes is such a big deal especially in a situation like this. �

If you don�t understand why using nuclear weapons is a big deal in ANY situation, then I don�t believe you are capable of logical thinking.

�There are bombs, really big bombs, and nukes. This isn�t MAD and we can bomb them at our pleasure. �

Brilliant. This brainless drivel doesn�t even deserve a response. I highlight it because it does serve as a gross contradiction to the remarks at the end of your post.

�What I don�t understand, and maybe you can help me here is why the hell would any commander send his troops in harms way without first giving them the best chance of survival. If that means using nukes then I�m all for it and I can�t think of a single reason why someone would not be.�

Like I noted earlier, valuing the lives of American troops does not give us to right to commit crimes in order to ensure their safety. Killing people indiscriminately in mass numbers because they �might� be a threat is a gross violation of individual rights on a mass scale. Targets must be selected based on certain criteria. Blowing up an entire city, in the context of the current situation in Iraq is not an acceptable solution for the purpose of saving the lives of American soldiers.

�Let me give you a hint, who are the �suppliers and financiers� of evil regime? It�s the people who go the work everyday and pay their taxes to an evil dictatorship. They�re compliance allows him to perpetuate his evil and that makes them guilty. When war comes, stopping a civilian from producing to help an evil regime is just as important and morally permissible as stopping a soldier helping that regime.�

Targets I was thinking of when I included suppliers and financiers include industrial and military factories. Economies are not built based upon paper money or taxes. They are built upon wealth creation. Wealth is created by industry and thus industry is a valid target because it supplies and finances governments and their military forces. The key to such military operations is destroying the means of production and not direct targeting of the workers themselves. There ARE direct financiers of the militant groups in Iraq. These people should be hunted down whenever possible. The direct targeting of homes and schools, as suggested by Dr. Brook is not an acceptable use of military force under most circumstances for reasons I highlighted above. This is especially true in the context of the current situation in Iraq.

�You also said, �"valuing the lives of our soldiers more then Iraqi civilians" should not be used as justification for committing indiscriminant mass murder or any other unethical actions.� What does that mean, if our soldiers are tasked with taking a city full of enemy soldiers, they can�t bomb the city? And besides, who was advocating �indiscriminant mass murder�? I wasn�t and neither was Brook. �

Listen again to what he said and re read what you wrote. That is exactly what you are both advocating.

- Jason

Post 6

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 9:00am

Sorry Clarence, it must seem as though I'm chasing you...

"If nuking Fallujah will save the life of a marine, so be it."

This is one of the most ludricrous statements I've ever read. You must remember that we ininatated force against them, we invaded their land and beat their army. Of course we now have every right to defend our soldiers there, but advocating the use of nuclear weapons against civilians is just wrong, and if you cannot at least empathise with these people I suggest you at least try and do so.

By the way, I'm of course assuming there are civilian targets in Fallujah. If there are not I apologise and agree wholeheartedly.

Post 7

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 11:49am

Clarence,

Would you link me to the thread "are civilians guilty in some wars"? I can't seem to find it.

Jordan

Post 8

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 1:24pm

Jason,

Thank you for the quote from Rand. I suspected that Yaron Brook's statement, to the effect that "enemy civilians have no rights," explicitly contradicted Rand - so I thank you for providing chapter and verse.

Post 9

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 5:45pm

I�m going to keep this short, I just got back to New York from vacation and I�m tired as hell.

Andrew you said, �you must remember that we initiated force against them� What kind of crud is that? If you want to defend yourself, you don�t wait for the other guy to draw his gun first. Now I was using Fallujah as an example and most of the civilians were gone, we told them to get the hell out. We should have nuked the damn place and not risked a single soldier to take it. You also made my case when you said,

�Of course we now have every right to defend our soldiers there, but advocating the use of nuclear weapons against civilians is just wrong�

The key word is �but�, you don�t compromise morality by saying that. You either do defend your soldiers or you don�t and if you aren�t doing everything in your power to do so then you�re not.

And the same goes for you Jason; it doesn�t matter if the nation exists or not, it�s the actions of people who determine their guilt or innocence. As for your interpretation of my definition, that�s bull; the logical conclusion depends on the situation. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had very little military or industrial value, but their destructions were just and right. By the way, the �civilians guilty in some wars� thread is on the second page of the forum.

Your rand quote is right but your example isn�t. The military is not a police force and the police in a more civil society are charged with enforcing the law and supporting order, not protecting individual rights. The military is an instrument is war and under a just nation they are charged with defending their country. That includes any means necessary to do that job and defend themselves doing it. I suggest you watch the movie �Rules of Engagement� with Samuel L. Jackson. It shows the perfect example of what I�m talking about; a military unit defending an embassy in Yemen is surrounded by a crowd of protesters, SOME of the protesters pull out AK�s and start to fire. Jackson�s character see that and yells to his men �Waste the Mutherfuckers!� and they open fire on the crowd. Was he right to do so? I�ll save the ending if you never seen it but you know my answer and you should know why, they were being shot at and had every right to defend themselves. If a criminal is shooing at you, think objectivist!, your life comes first and if someone innocent is hurt it�s the criminals fault for putting their life in danger.

You have the ABSOLUTE right to protect yourself from those who wish you harm and there is no conflict from the rights of others because they have the same right if they are just.

You spend your whole post thinking I just wanted to nuke all the cities and get it over with. In my opinion, the invasion of Iraq was done as it should but the occupation is flawed. Saddam was holding his entire country hostage and we stopped that. No one was forcing people to stay in Fallujah, at least not to the degree that Saddam as and most people evacuated.

As for Brook, read what I wrote! He didn�t go on O�Reilly to talk about objectivism like Rand was, he went there to talk about the war and his views on it, period. He went there, gave his two cents, then left.

�If you don�t understand why using nuclear weapons is a big deal in ANY situation, then I don�t believe you are capable of logical thinking.�

Uh let me see, 1 +1 = 2, well I think I can think logically. You want to insult me you gotta be more creative then that.

Finally who said anything about committing crimes? I sure as hell didn�t and you have yet to explain how you can have a moral imperative to defend yourself yet be apprehensive on the methods?

Here, I�m going to give you a creative insult: I think you are morally weak and will compromise your principles whenever they make you feel uncomfortable. You are not committed to wining the War on Terrorism because you are not committed to killing terrorists. There.

Post 10

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 7:14pm

Ok. Now he's back peddling, trying to sneak in red herrings and then finishing with 'arguments from intimidation'.  Unfortunately this is what I expected.

"Your rand quote is right but your example isn�t. The military is not a police force and the police in a more civil society are charged with enforcing the law and supporting order, not protecting individual rights. The military is an instrument is war and under a just nation they are charged with defending their country. That includes any means necessary to do that job and defend themselves doing it. I suggest you watch the movie �Rules of Engagement� with Samuel L. Jackson. It shows the perfect example of what I�m talking about; a military unit defending an embassy in Yemen is surrounded by a crowd of protesters, SOME of the protesters pull out AK�s and start to fire. Jackson�s character see that and yells to his men �Waste the Mutherfuckers!� and they open fire on the crowd. "

I don't take movies or Samual L. Jackson as authorities for ethical questions and I don't know why you are chosing to break out with this rather then dealing with implications of the Rand quote. I addressed situations like this thoroughly in my last post. In that circumstance (if it were REAL) his actions would be entirely reasonable and ethically imperative to the preservation of his own life. This has nothing to do with directly targeting civilians or using nuclear weapons on entire cities. My quote from Ayn Rand fits the current Iraq situation perfectly.   The U.S. military has invaded Iraq, defeated the previous regime and is now an occupying police force. It's role is to agressively combat force initiators (terrorist elements) within the country while respecting the individual rights of those who are not guilty of initiating force to the best of their ability.   Friendly fire and collateral damage will happen, but a distinction must be made between collateral damage and the direct targeting of a collective group of people for the purpose of creating fear and "submission" (as Dr. Brook advocated in his interview).

"Was he right to do so? I�ll save the ending if you never seen it but you know my answer and you should know why, they were being shot at and had every right to defend themselves. If a criminal is shooing at you, think objectivist!, your life comes first and if someone innocent is hurt it�s the criminals fault for putting their life in danger."

I think I was very very clear that I agree on this point. Read my last post again.

"As for Brook, read what I wrote! He didn�t go on O�Reilly to talk about objectivism like Rand was, he went there to talk about the war and his views on it, period. He went there, gave his two cents, then left."

Clarence, I feel bad for you here.   You are the one who needs to re read what you wrote. You said in your initial post that Dr. Brook was stating a "major objectivist position". Now I guess he wasn't??? :)

"Uh let me see, 1 +1 = 2, well I think I can think logically. You want to insult me you gotta be more creative then that."

Ok, I will amend my stance here. You can do basic addition therefore you have the logical ability of a 6 year old. (Sorry, I know that was a cheap shot but your comment here screamed for this response. )

"Here, I�m going to give you a creative insult: I think you are morally weak and will compromise your principles whenever they make you feel uncomfortable. You are not committed to wining the War on Terrorism because you are not committed to killing terrorists. There."

I am committed to rational thinking about serious issues. When people begin throwing around outragous assertions about dreadfully important topics like Yaron Brook and yourself, you had better be able to back up what you say very effectively. If you are posting it on an Objectivist forum under the pretense that you are represening major Objectivist positions or telling people what "we" as Objectivists think then you had better have a solid knowledge of Objectivism. And let me clue you in on something, since you claim to understand logic. My ethical stance on indiscrimantly bombing civilian targets does not equate to any lack of commitment on my part to "killing terrorists".   My arguments were based on the ethical implications of the former since that was the topic of this discussion.

- Jason

Post 11

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 8:20pm

The military is not a police force and the police in a more civil society are charged with enforcing the law and supporting order, not protecting individual rights.

I'm really not following this thread, but this statement stood out to me. Are you suggesting that in a civil society, “enforcing the law” entails something other than protecting individual rights?

Post 12

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 10:02pm

Yes, I noticed that one too, but this thread has turned into a rout and I didn't want to throw another TD pass with 30 seconds to go in the 4th quarter to pile it on. Looking at the last post I was already being a little too agressive.

I have one suggestion for you Clarence. Read The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand. If you want to understand real Objectivist positions on ethics get them from the source. Individual rights for human beings is what Ayn Rand advocated for almost her entire life and she created the best ethical system yet known for the establishment and protection of individual rights. For example, she explains why the ONLY role of a police force is to protect individual rights. This is a truely vital Objectivist position and it is the key to the building of a free society.

- Jason

Post 13

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 10:13pm

Nature, no I'm just saying the military isn't the police and we can't and don't expect them to act that way.

Jason, you can try a Hail Mary in the last 30 secs if you want but you'd still be down a point and I will spike the ball. It's after 12 here so I'll answer that garbage you call a post tomorrow and end this thread.

Post 14

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 7:23am

Clarence (or ANYONE),

While you're at it, please link me to "are civilians guilty in some wars"? I can't find that thread.

Jordan

Post 15

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 12:08pm

Clarance, I will await your post then, but if you continue to claim that you did not state something that you clearly stated in a previous post then I don't know how real discussion is possible. You must either remain consistent to what you said before, or admit that you were incorrect in your statement. Otherwise your posts cannot be taken seriously.

Clarence : "The military is not a police force and the police in a more civil society are charged with enforcing the law and supporting order, not protecting individual rights."

Nature : "I'm really not following this thread, but this statement stood out to me. Are you suggesting that in a civil society, �enforcing the law� entails something other than protecting individual rights?"

Clarence : "Nature, no I'm just saying the military isn't the police and we can't and don't expect them to act that way."

That is EXACTLY what your sentence said and if you were in error then either admit it and if you think you aren't in error then you are obligated to back up your statement if a rational discussion is to take place.

And in response to your last statement on the matter (if you REALLY meant what you wrote this time) then I must again bring up the quote from Ayn Rand that I posted earlier and you are welcome to challenge her logic or my use of her quote in this context.   Remember, in the context of the current situation in Iraq, the U.S. is an invader, operating as an occupying police force that is attempting to establish a free country in Iraq.

"Just as the suppression of crimes does not give a policeman the right to engage in criminal activities, so the invasion and destruction of a dictatorship does not give the invader the right to establish another variant of a slave society in a conquered country.... A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized and the conqueror has no right to violate them."
-- Ayn Rand

And she clearly means here that the invader is not permitted to directly and indiscriminantly violate the individual rights of those it has conquered, just as a police force is not allowed to wantonly violate individual rights in attempting to suppress crimes.

- Jason

Post 16

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 1:13pm

http://www.solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0309.shtml

That's the link to the "Civilians" thread. I guess with a Hegelian conception of guilt like that of Clarence, Rumsfeld could be rightfully jailed for enabling Saddam.

Cheers.

Post 17

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 7:35pm