Foreign Policy and Self-Defense: Bidinotto's Facts

"I ain't buying it" is not a reason. Do you have a reason which trumps the point I just made? Is he a personal friend that you know closely enough or have you read all his writings carefully enough to be certain he has -no- intrinsicist tendencies?

Post 121

Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 7:34pm

"'I ain't buying it' is not a reason."

I agree, and I wouldn't expect you to be convinced by it. But, I prefer not to discuss the issue any further.

Post 122

Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 7:38pm

John Armaos: "I'd also like to point out speeches given by our President laiden with altruistic notions of "sacrifice" doesn't mean that this war is about altruism. Similar speeches can be heard from police chiefs all around this country about the sacrifice of our police officers, but no one would seriously suggest the police stop pursuing criminals because they are confused by their metaphysical reasons for doing what they do."

1. It is exactly because your president is a mysticist altruist collectivist that the war in Iraq makes no sense.

2. I do, indeed, suggest that tax-funded police, modeled after soviet agriculture, stop pursuing people whom they wrongfully identify as criminals. The harm being done starts with their mystical altruist collectivist assumptions. Better for all for profit-seeking businesses to prevent the actions of real criminals. The fact is that the police solve about 17% of all crimes reported. The police do very well at murders -- upwards of 80% and more -- because most people are killed by people they know.

The roots of these problems -- both the war and the police -- are indeed metaphysical.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 12/15, 7:54pm)

Post 123

Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 7:52am

> I wouldn't expect you to be convinced by it. But, I prefer not to discuss the issue any further.

Well, gee, I've learned so much . . . :-)

Post 124

Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 2:51pm

The roots of these problems -- both the war and the police -- are indeed metaphysical.

..said the anarchist

Post 125

Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - 9:16am

Kurt Eichert wrote: Germany and Italy were only bound by treaty to DEFEND Japan had the USA attacked first, not the other way around. Hitler did so anyway in order to try to get Japan's help against Russia.
Michael this is incorrect:
Just to keep the historical record straight, the USA declared war on Japan after Japan attacked American colonies in the Philippines and Hawaii. In response, Germany and Italy declared war on the USA, being bound by treaty with Japan to do so.
Germany and Italy were only bound by treaty to DEFEND Japan had the USA attacked first, not the other way around. Hitler did so anyway in order to try to get Japan's help against Russia.

I was reading a book on codes and ciphers and the case of Richard Sorge was presented. Sorge was a communist agent, working within the German embassy to Japan during World War II. He was executed in 1944 for his treason. The interesting thing here is that Sorge informed Moscow based on what he knew working for Germany with Japan that Japan would not declare war on Russia. This allowed the USSR to move materiel to the German front. Similarly, as we know, the USSR refused to engage Japan until the very end of the war.

However, was all of that not contrary to the policy -- at least among the Allies -- of not signing a separate peace with Germany? In particular Stalin got Churchill and Roosevelt to acceed to his needs in Europe without a quid pro quo in Asia. The same was true of the Japanese, who declared war on the USA (Netherlands, etc.) but not on the USSR.

I am not sure what the ramifications or moral judgments are all to be, but I do want to get the facts straight.

Post 126

Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - 8:46pm

Robert Bidinotto has achieved some great things in his career as a writer. I especially admire his commentary on the green movement and its misanthropic roots. So, it is with some regret that I now find it necessary to write a critical rejoinder to particularly harsh and unfair representations made by him concerning my posts earlier in this thread.

I suggested earlier that objectivists ought to read Robert Stinnett's Day of Deceit, which proves that FDR purposely sought to provoke Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor for the purpose of entering the war against Hitler through "the back door", since Japan and Germany were bound together by a mutual defense act, and Germany had refused to engage the US on the Atlantic despite repeated American attempts at sparking hostilities. Stinnett proves that FDR had ample foreknowlege of the "surprise attack", and that his people had deliberately pursued a policy of depiving Admiral Kimmel, commander of the Pacific Fleet at Pearl, and Colonel Short, commander of the army at Pearl, of crucial intelligence on numerous occassions.

Robert characterized this revisionist history of Pearl Harbor (paraphrasing accuately) as the unproven and crazy imaginings of "Conspiracy nuts". However, Webster's defines a conspiracy as "a planning and acting together in secret, especially for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason. I had pointed out that the revised history of Pearl Harbor depicted a conspiracy, and that we all obviously agree that conspiracies take place within the United States and abroad. Robert protested strenuously that the revised history of Pearl is not about a "conspiracy"; rather, it is an instance of "conspiracy theory".

A "conspiracy theory" is thought by its detractors to be a wildly unrealistic and paranoid fantasy in which Dark and Powerful Insiders control nearly every important event over a considerable span of history. And, in fact, some conspiracy theories do posit such non-sense, wherein the choice of Presidential candidates (and Presidents), the outcome of wars, revolutions and political trends, the rise and fall of famous people, are all determined by the behind-the-scenes machinations of powerful nearly secret organizations and individuals.

But this definition mongering raises an important question: how does one realistically distinguish between a "legitimate" conspiracy, and an "illegitimate" "conspiracy theory"? For in a mixed economy in which many organizations and people wield coercive power, is it so far-fetched that some organizations will exert a hugely disproportionate influence over the outcome of various political events? To take a simple example, the FDA and the AMA wield huge influence over the practice of medicine and the marketing of drugs in this country. There are undoubtedly many unpublicized scandals relating to the abuse of power that can be traced back to powerful insiders within these and other coercive institutions. I haven't read much at all in the genre of "conspiracy theory", but my take is that hard-core conspiracy theorists investigate the back allies of institutions and individuals that wield coercive power and discover a lot of interesting, often shocking, stuff. So the question might be rephrased: At what logical point does one's inquiries into the influence of power wielders in a particular historical context become wrongheaded or "crazy"?

One reaches the point of unreasonableness when the inquiry disregards facts and evidence. Many conspiracy theories probably do neglect careful reasoning in obvious ways: they accept uncritically poor evidence, they skip over inconvenient facts, they "rationalize" as Robert suggested, they simply fail to provide good evidence for their conclusions. However, I suspect that the real culprit in mega-conspiracy mongering is the result of anti-intellectualism, an intellectual virus that runs silent and deep, both among left-wing nihilists and among right wing religious fundamentalists.

For example, a religious fundamentalist might be an extraordinarily bright and productive individual; highly accomplished in some particular field of learning, such as physics or economics or literature. He might write books in his field that are authentically valuable and insightful, filled with logical analysis that employs a myriad of facts, long chains of logical reasoning, and so forth. But this religious individual is infected with the virus of anti-intellectualism, for he chooses as a matter of intellectual policy never to inquire into certain ultimate questions where his faith forbids entry. For this outstanding and accomplished individual, large areas of understanding are "off limits" to understanding, and "acceptable" ideas are relegated to the comparatively mundane and immediate: to business, or economic theory, or history, or discussions of contemporary politics. Ultimate questions involving the nature of man, of knowlege, of volition, of ethics, reside outside the reach of reason, within the realm of religious faith.

To this very smart but somewhat uncurious person, ideas have strictly limited importance in the history of human affairs; for ideas simply are not that important. What is important is God's Will and his conception of the Good for mankind. When man acts against God's Will and in concert with the cosmic forces of evil, he is acting illegitimately and against morality. To carry out his plainly nefarious plans, he and others who share his objectives must sneak, conspire, and plot, often under the cover of willful ignorance that characterises a fallen and careless people.

From this perspective, since ideas have only limited influence in human affairs, human deceit and immorality are both the proximate and ultimate cause of major historical crimes and tragedies. From this perspective, FDR coddled communists because he was conspiring to install international communism. A more reasonable proposition would suggest that FDR was an unanchored and unreflective person, highly susceptible to the fashion-of-the moment in ideas, good at backslapping and wielding power, but not much else. To this person, power was the end necessary to his temporary peace of mind.

Where does all this leave us with regard to conspiracies in history, versus "conspiracy theories"? Ultimately, one must deal with facts first hand. The only rational way to distinguish between good history that explains a conspiracy, and bad history that attributes all of mankind's troubles and suffering to The Puppet Masters, is to take at least some time to actually investigate facts. But this is not a plea for "rationalism"; it is an argument for realism. On the contrary, to argue that one can blithely assume that unpleasant or threatening accounts of history necessarily lie beyond the province of rational thought because they are unpopular, or because they allege official treachery, is to argue for apriori certainty about history. But that argument is itself rationalism.

I won't make a huge issue of Robert's argument that Stinnett is unqualified to write about the history of Pearl Harbor because he is not a cryptologist. For I am almost certain that Robert knows better, when he's not caught up in the heat of argument. Clearly, if cryptology were beyond the understanding of lay people, then Mr. Jacobsen, the former cryptologist from WWII who wrote the review critical of Day of Deceit could not convey mean ingful information about this subject to any of us. Just as clearly, one need not be sanctioned or applauded by those who perch atop the establishment to write insightful and valid history, or economics, or literature, or science, or philosophy. Robert knows this far better than most.

When I get more time soon, I will post a response to the review that criticizes Robert Stinnett's book. I read the review and I need to study it carefully, since it contains terminology with which I am unfamiliar. But permit me one parting shot about all of this. The review was published in April 2000. In May 2000, as described in the "afterward" to Stinnett's paperback edition, a new FOIA release requested by Stinnett came through, too late for inclusion in his book, and including over 4,000 intelligence communication documents. Among these fascinating and highly informative documents, withheld from public knowlege by government censors since 1941, is a letter of November 16, 1941, to Washington DC from Lieutenant Lietwiler, a cryptologist who commanded Station CAST, a US naval intelligence "listening post" and code-breaking post in the Phillipines. The commander reported that his staff had succeeded in intercepting, decoding, and translating (from Japanese into English) the Japanese Naval operations code, the most important operational code of the Jap navy. "We are reading enough current traffic to keep two translators very busy."

In my subsequent post, I'll provide much more in the way of documented facts and events that provide very powerful support for Pearl Harbor revisionism.

Post 127

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 2:40pm

Mark Humphrey wrote:
Among these fascinating and highly informative documents, withheld from public knowlege by government censors since 1941, is a letter of November 16, 1941, to Washington DC from Lieutenant Lietwiler, a cryptologist who commanded Station CAST, a US naval intelligence "listening post" and code-breaking post in the Phillipines. The commander reported that his staff had succeeded in intercepting, decoding, and translating (from Japanese into English) the Japanese Naval operations code, the most important operational code of the Jap navy. "We are reading enough current traffic to keep two translators very busy."

Mark, there is no doubt that the United States military and diplomatic leadership had access to Japanese military and diplomatic communications traffic before the attack on Pearl Harbor. In fact, the State Department decoded the message of war to the Japanese Embassy before the Japanese themselves. These facts are known and established and accepted.

As for World War II, almost everyone knows that the U.S. broke Japan's highest level "Purple Code" before Pearl Harbor. But precious few realize what the breakthrough entailed. The code was based on a rotor system�mazes of wires connecting two or more alphabetic rotors that change ciphers at every punch of a keyboard. The use of two rotors permits 676 different cipher positions; five rotors provide 11,881,376 codes.
The solution of the Purple Code fell to the U.S. Army Signal Corps' chief cryptologist, William Friedman, whom Kahn calls the world's greatest code expert. Friedman and his superb team had a head start. For example, they had already solved lower-level codes, and were familiar with common Japanese forms, such as "I have the honor to inform Your Excellency." As Kahn says, "these constituted virtual cribs."
IURP WKH WURYH*
Time, Friday, Feb. 16, 1968.
THE CODEBREAKERS by David Kahn. 1,164 pages. Macmillan. $14.95.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,837912-1,00.html

In additon to The Codebreakers, the story is also told in:

Ronald W. Clark. 1977. The Man Who Broke Purple: the Life of Colonel William F. Friedman, Who Deciphered the Japanese Code in World War II. Little Brown & Co.
Frank Rowlett. 1998. The Story of Magic, Memoirs of an American Cryptologic Pioneer. Aegean Park Press.

The ability to see clearly into the past enabled Time magazine to point out in a December 15, 1941 story about the attack on Pearl Harbor that this was the same tactic that worked for them against the Russians in 1904 when they took Port Arthur by surprise. (Time, "Lifeline Cut," Monday, Dec. 15, 1941). Even so, Time was optimistic that the Japanese would have to face a challenge if it decided to attack the Philippines. Time even pointed out that Japan's own bases were vulnerable to combined amphibious, sea and air assaults:

Japan's bases near the Philippines are open to the kind of amphibious warfare�land, sea and air attack�that the U.S. Navy has long discussed. Flanking her southward march on the right is Hong Kong, a better-equipped base than the Philippines' Cavite. Ahead of her lie Singapore, the stout secondary bases at Surabaya, Darwin and Amboina... Time, "Lifeline Cut," Monday, Dec. 15, 1941

I originally burdened this post with many citations from Time's archives from 1941 to show that the war was really being fought by the USA before December 7, 1941. The USA occupied Iceland. Portugal warned the USA not to occupy the Azores and sent three complements of troops there. There was talk of America taking Dakar or Cape Verde Islands. All of this, with no formal declarations of war. None was needed. There was no "conspiracy." The plan to enter the war on behalf of the UK that was open and obvious.

Post 128

Friday, December 28, 2007 - 11:47am

Michael, although I agree that FDR was brazen in his campaign to provoke hostilities with Germany on the Atlantic and with Japan through trade embargo, freezing assets, cutting off oil shipments to Japan by US businesses (an embargo that FDR knew was not enforced), inducing the Dutch to refuse oil and other natural resource exports to Japan from Indochina, and by the expedient of FDR's "pop-up cruises"--about which more below--your contention that there was "no conspiracy" is absurd.

For FDR had repeatedly promised the American public that he would not drag the USA into a "foreign war"; as he remarked to campaign aids on board his campaign train in 1936 "Of course I don't intend to engage our boys in a foreign war. If the Japs attack us, it's no longer a "foreign war". Right? The Democrat platform pledged no war unless US territory was attacked. Yet FDR committed to the British and Dutch in 1940 that the USA would go to war against Japan if she attacked British or Dutch possessions in the Far East, or if the Japanese Navy crossed a specific longitude on the Pacific Ocean in internationl waters. He had emmisaries pledge on two occasions in 1939 to the British and French that America would join them in their war against the Axis powers and Hitler. These maneuverings happened against a domestic backdrop in which 85% of Americans consistently opposed entry into "Europe's War."

Moreover, there is abundant evidence in Stinnett's book that Colonel Short and Admiral Kimmel of Hawaii were purposely and secretly cut off from crucial intelligence intercepts of both the diplomatic code and the Jap naval code, which contrary to repeated official denials--had been broken at Station US in Washington by January, 1941. Kimmel knew perfectly well that he was being kept treacherously in the dark about Japan's unfolding war plans, for a two occassions he wrote Admiral Stark--FDR's lackey in Washington--insisting that there be no misunderstanding about Kimmel's receiving important intelligence on a timely basis; but Stark repeatedly chose to keep Kimmel uninformed, because he did not want Kimmel to pursue any defensive activity that would discourage Japan from striking Pearl Harbor or that would precipitate a military engagement on international waters, on the ocean north of Pearl Harbor where American naval stategists had envisioned a Japanese advance over the preceeding 25 years.

In the days leading up to Pearl, FDR and his cabal sweated bullets worrying that Japan might attack Thailand instead of Hawaii, even though they fully understood that Pearl Harbor was a far more likely target. They worried because an attack on Thailand would fall short of the type of provocation that FDR knew was necessary to induce war-reluctant Americans to fall into step behind him. Kimmel was out of the official loop--1945 investigations proved that, and the Senate passed a resolution in 1998 exonerating Kimmel and Short for "dereliction of duty" for this reason--but he had fragments of information that led him to suspect that Pearl was targeted by Japan, despite Stark's attempts to make him believe Japan was expected to strike "anywherer, particularly the Phillipines". On November 23, 1941 Kimmel ordered a reconnaisance voyage on a war-time footing, including 46 ships and 90 aircraft--both fighters and bombers. He warned his crew men to be alert for Japanese ships on the high sea north of Pearl Harbor--warning that they could engage hostile Japanese at any time. He took his flotilla to the exact spot that the Japanese armada two weeks later would use as the launching area of Japnese zeros and bombers from three aircraft carriers. However, on November 25, 1941, Kimmel received orders from Ingersoll, a Washington DC admiral and confidant of FDRs, to vacate the seas north of Hawaii. Kimmel had disputed similar orders imposed a week earlier from Stark; this time he was informed he'd be courtmartialed if he refused. Three hours after receiving the orders, Kimmel gave orders to remove the feet back to Pearl. The message radioed to Kimmel from Washington by Ingersoll was timed about 1 hour after the Japanese fleet left the Kiru Islands enroute to Pearl Harbor.

Kimmel, however, refused to give up. He had one of his Vice Admirals stage a reconnaisance mission with 25 ships plus aircraft back to the same area; this mission was scheduled through December 3 to launch search aircraft from ships parked over the December 6-7 Japanese parking area, but again Washington interceded and forced Kimmel to back down. Later, in testimony in 1945, Admiral Turner admitted under oath that Washington had ordered the seas north of Hawaii--and all the central Pacific--vacated of US and all allied sea and aircraft traffic from November 23, for the purpose of insuring that the advancing Japanese Flotilla was not intercepted or other wise deterred from its "first strike" against Pearl Harbor. This statement is documated, and I can provide the exact source and quote.

In the later days of November 1941, General George Marshall, American hero of the First World War, invited half a dozen news reporters from the greatest US newspapers and announced that what he had to share with them pertained to US secrets; if any objected to keeping these secrets they could leave the premises, no bad feelings. No one left. Marshall then announced to the gathering of reporters that then US had intercepted Japanese military and diplomatic secret communications, that the Japanese "don't know that we know", and that we expect a military strike from Japan in the "first ten days of December".

We know about Marshall's press conference, because one of the reporters year later recounted the experience in his publihsed.memoirs. An enterprising investigative reporter then buttonholed Marshall and asked him if this story was true. Marshall affirmed that it was, in fact, truthful. I can document and prove this rather strange story of official treachery--of a "conspiracy"--as well.

There is a vast amount of good evidence that FDR and his gang conspired to lead reluctant Americans into war with Germany, using Japan as pretext. This evidence includes a great deal pertaining to the two facts that the offcial story has long denied: that the Japanese armada was radio silent from November 23 onward, and that Americans had not broken the naval code. What war worshippers and gauzy eyed WWII enthusiasts want to deny, above all else, is the truth about FDR's treachery. That's why mention of this makes war enthusiasts on this site go ballistic.

A final note: In a cabinet meeting in 1940, FDR is heard on tape describing the "pop-up cruises" that he ordered the US navy to conduct in Japanese waters. These pop-up cruises involved the use of six American cruisers--I don't know if they were light or heavy cruisers, but this is a matter of public record, undisputed--that were to sail unannounced into Japan's waters for the purpose of provoking an incident of war. Evidence is not just the tape recordings in the oval office; witnesses in attendance and minutes of the meeting affirm this incident. FDR said he didn't want to risk losing five or six cruisers in this attempt at provoking war; but he was willing "to lose one or two". How many American sailors worked on a crusier? I don't know, but I'd guess at least a couple hundred. Perhaps several hundred. In short, FDR ordered illegal (in light of offcial US neutrality imposed by Congress) war provocations in which he was willing to sacrifice several hundreds of innocent American lives for his war crusade.

Let this truth silence those who condemn truth speakers about this subject.

Post 129

Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 10:29pm

"1. It is exactly because your president is a mysticist altruist collectivist that the war in Iraq makes no sense." MEM, post 122

What do statements like this mean? First, the assertion is a non-sequitur. The war does make sense, even if you grant that Bush is as you describe him, or at least the question is open, and no war's legitimacy depends on the sanity of the commander-in-chief. Has your Congress put an end to it?

But even your mere reference to "your Bush" is nonsense, and perhaps the most vicious nonsense in your post. How is Bush his president, Michael, but not yours? Are you not an American citizen? Do you contest the fact of Bush's election? Do you reject the basic legitimacy of the Constitution? (I suspect you do, but won't admit it.) If Bush is my president, does that mean that he is my creature? My puppet? My proxy? My fuehrer? Do we share some mystic Vulcan mind-meld? What if your president were elected, and he passed gas in the Queen's presence? Would you feel a vicarious shame or pride?

I think the underlying purpose of such language is to allow the pacifist fallacy. You can accept the protection of the government, while denying the legitimacy of the same government upon which you depend, and against which you do not pledge your life and sacred honor as did such men as Jefferson and Washington when they actually fought against a tyranny with which they disagreed. You have said that governments are mere constructs, and then complained that these mere constructs violate certain concrete restrictions which you would place on them.

Bush is not my president nor John's president. He is the President of every American citizen. Just as was Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter, and Richard Nixon were our presidents in their days.

Are you in a state of rebellion? Have you applied for a Swiss passport? Do you renounce your citizenship?

Vote or vote not, but unless you leave this country you will have to deal with an uncomfortable truth, that whoever assumes office on Jan 20, 2009, be it Huckabee, Bloomberg, Clinton, Giuliani or Gore will also be your president.

Ted Keer

Post 130

Monday, December 31, 2007 - 7:28am

"The point is that while we like to see ourselve as the good guys World War II was a conflict between the factions of governments not peoples. " Michael Marotta

Ted,

This is essentially what it comes down to for Mr. Marotta and anarchists in general: "L'Etat, ce n'est pas moi."

Given that it is imposed on them against their wishes, and has the character it has at present, it's hard not to feel some sympathy for this point of view.
(Edited by Jeff Perren on 12/31, 7:32am)

Post 131

Monday, December 31, 2007 - 7:28pm

Ted Keer asked: But even your mere reference to "your Bush" is nonsense, and perhaps the most vicious nonsense in your post. How is Bush his president, Michael, but not yours?

My statement was based on the fact that John Armaos (generally) supports President Bush and supports (more directly) the war in Iraq. However, Ted, I take your point. Over in Objectivist Living, I have a review of the National Treasure movie. In that I said:

This past semester, I had a class in Social Psychology taught by (what else?) a conflict feminist. Turns out, National Treasure is one of her favorite movies. She considers herself a patriot. She chides her students for calling Iraq "Bush's war." She says that this is still a democracy and that makes this your war: if you did not speak out against it, then you were for it with your silence.
Objectivist Living > Objectivist Living > Movies and Entertainment> "National Treasure (1 and 2)"

I know the argument from my introduction to philosophy. Before a friend of mine handed me Anthem, I had read some of Jean-Paul Sartre, a thin anthology called Existentialism. Sartre said that World War II was "his" war because he accepted responsibility for it, meaning that he accepted his "existential" (we would say "metaphysical") context and that he could do nothing about one way or the other until he did so. It was "his" war because it was his life. Even as I learned to find fault with much else in existentialism, as you can see, that argument stayed with me these many years.

My brother-in-law served 22 years in the Michigan National Guard. A few years back as his duty was coming to an end, he referred to the governor as "that bitch." I chided him, "She's your commander-in-chief."

All of that is fine... But it will make President Clinton your president and you will be responsible for everything she does. It makes you responsible for the income tax, the Federal Reserve System or whatever other horror bothers you.

The idea that the current government (township and village up to the United Nations) is "your" goverment is a strong point with statists of all stripes and one that is argued against by libertarians across the spectrum from anarchists to Federal Constitutionalists of the textualist, originalist and doctrinalist schools.

You were born into an existing system. It might be said that in not leaving, you subscribe to it. But is it not true that it is moral to stay and resist the oppressor? Just because some gangs tag your neighborhood, does that make you a Blood or Crip or a Clown?

And which of the many existing factions within those governments at all levels truly claims your freely given support? Are you with or against the people in the Parks Department who want to replant sumac? Here in Michigan we have liatris gayfeather and zebra mussels as "invasive species." To me, heck, ecologies change... life forms come and go... I want them both left alone. Why get upset.... But some people are for strong action and others caution for more study. Who speaks for me? Why should I accept them as "my" Michigan Department of Natural Resources?

The reason that statists argue for the inclusion of the silent majority is that it validates their minority government. If only 50% of the eligible voters are enrolled and if only 50% of them show up and if only 50% of them say "Yea" to this person or this proposal, then how can this be majority rule? It looks to me like One-Eighth Rule, the 12% System.

On the other other other hand... The decisions are made by those who show up.

... then there is the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy... the plans to remove Earth for a hyperspace bypass were on file in the galactic offices for millions of years, so it's not like you people didn't have a chance to voice your opposition to the destruction of your planet... By that, of course, I mean, that the real decisions are always made in the absence of those who cannot show up.

And again, if I waffle, it is because, Ted, the matter is complicated and worthy of discussion. Last summer (2006), I had a class in Political Science taught by our former Congresswoman, Lin Rivers. A committed liberal Democrat, she said, "It is called the U.S. House of Representatives, not the U.S. House of I Know Better Than You." I think it is the House of I Know Better. That's why we elect the best people we can. It's complicated and I try to see all sides.

Post 132

Monday, December 31, 2007 - 8:27pm

Jeff Perren acknowledged: "Given that it is imposed on them against their wishes, and has the character it has at present, it's hard not to feel some sympathy for this point of view."

Thanks for the nod, Jeff. It is true that conservatives oppose the "illegal" income tax or the "unconstitutional" federal reserve and claim that they do not need to adhere to these immoral laws. Ayn Rand's lawyer defended draft dodgers. The arguments had not changed since World War I. Nontheless as two cases in West Virginia[1] showed, it never hurts to argue your case again.

On the other hand, liberals (including some Objectivists) display religious devotion to the civil disobedience of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi and, of course, Henry David Thoreau.

Sociologists David Matza and Greshem Sykes[2] developed a theory called "Techniques of Neutralization" to explain delinquency as a subculture. Young offenders have an operant theory -- perhaps not well articulated -- that allows them to justify their crimes. This theory has five elements:

Denial of responsibility
Denial of injury
Denial of the victim
Condemnation of the condemners
Appeal to higher loyalties.

Each of these applies to civil disobedience. Thoreau, Gandhi and King clearly took responsibility for their actions, but as such dramas played out then or today, others may not. The other four are right on target. It does not harm anyone for us to integrate the lunch counters or to refuse to pay taxes, and the white racist or fascist statist "victim" deserves what happens. Those who complain about civil disobedience for civil rights (or tax resistance) are the power structure oppressor elite. We follow the dictates of our conscience, the demands of our God or our rational understanding of natural law.

A true political conservative disagrees, of course. Society exists for the benefit of all. Without the rules of society, we have the anarchic state of nature, the war of all against all. While no society is perfect -- because we as individuals are not omniscient and are tempted by passions -- nonetheless, even a bad law is better than no law.

[1] In 1943, Barnette overruled a 1940 decision on the same issue, Minersville School District v. Gobitis. At issue was whether or not you could be forced to salute the flag of the United States. American nationalists -- liberal as well as conservative -- thought it was right to force compliance . As the issues in World War II became clear, so did their heads.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940)
[2] In criminology, to say "Sykes and Matza" is to say "Techniques of Neutralization."

Post 133

Friday, January 4, 2008 - 10:14pm

Joe said:

Now perhaps it's not true. Perhaps this knee-jerk, "crush them all" reaction is actually very well grounded in reality. We don't need allies. We don't need trading partners. Any dispute is best resolved through the full force of the US army killing anything in its path. There will be no unintended consequences. Perhaps. But let's see some proof. Let's see some arguments. So far, I only hear assumptions and platonic ideals.

Wow. And I am the one who gets accused of oversimplification and "intrinsicism." There is no way you could have read what I wrote with any genuine thoughtfulness and proceed to accuse me of saying anything of the kind implied by these comments.

As for detailed arguments in support of a rational defense policy based on genuine self-interest, you can read multiple extensive articles in The Objective Standard. It would be a total waste of my time and energy for me recapitulate them here. (For the record, I have offered detailed explanations of my foreign policy views in numerous other posts on RoR .) But to imply that such detailed arguments and proofs do not exist is sheer nonsense.

Post 134

Friday, January 11, 2008 - 4:10pm

Dennis,

What I read from you was an assumption that helping to create a truly free country is necessarily sacrificial. The only way you could conclude that is to take what is normally considered the benefits of such a result and dismiss them as not real benefits. Since the usual argument (and only one I'm familiar with) for this is that we don't need allies, and we can just crush them all, I thought it natural to think that was your position, although I did qualify it with "which you seem to support". But by all means, explain how it is that there is no possible benefit from having other countries be genuinely free, or even just semi-free democracies?

But in your next paragraph, you go right back to your assumption that only your position is based on genuine self-interest. And once again, you don't offer an iota of proof, except to say that others agree with you.

This is my major disagreement with you, and others who support the ARI position. Your view of self-interest in foreign policy rejects the notion that we can have shared interests with others (like democracies or semi-free nations), and that we can and do benefit from their existence. And if you feel I'm being unfair, I submit that it's the only reasonable interpretation of your assumption that it's necessarily sacrificial to help these other nations. So instead of a selfishness that recognizes a harmony of interests between rational men (or nations), we're left with a caricature of of selfishness that assumes no harmony of interests, and therefore every man (or nation) for himself.

But I don't expect this conversation will be fruitful. You are continuing to make the unwarranted assumption that only your position is based on "genuine self-interest", and that any other position is necessarily altruistic. Until you accept that we all accept that genuine self-interest is the correct standard, and this is an argument about what actions fit that standard best, you'll continue thinking that a proof for self-interest in foreign policy is the same as a proof for your particular foreign policy positions.

Post 135

Friday, January 11, 2008 - 5:13pm

Thanks for your response, Joe. I am hopeful we can have a reasoned dialogue on this. I regret if my previous comments seemed at all arbitrary.

There is a huge difference between appreciating the need for allies and paying the enormous human price of attempting to create them. We need Great Britain, we need Israel. We are justifiably delighted that France suddenly seems more supportive than in the past. Other current allies would likely include Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Germany, Spain, Canada, Mexico, Turkey and South Korea.

How many of these did we create? Of course I recognize the importance of having a harmony of interest with other nations. I just disagree that sacrificing soldiers (whether drafted or not) is either a moral or practical way to make new friends. The only legitimate purpose for sending soldiers into harm�s way is America�s self-defense. Period!

The abortive effort to create an �ally� in Iraq involves: (a) an obscene price in terms of American lives; (b) a huge and unwarranted gamble in terms of the potential success of such an effort. Speaking of allies�Japan happens to be very much an ally, and I am sure you are aware that we rightly chose not to expend American lives to achieve that end. Instead, we smashed them. (I am not, however, saying that we need to smash Iraq. They are not enough of a threat.)

We have had well over 3000 military casualties in Iraq since the war began and over 25,000 wounded. And what are the prospects of that backward hell-hole remaining "free" or even "democratic" after we leave? Zilch. (If you can offer one iota of evidence to the contrary, please do so.) Those dead and wounded were for nothing�NOTHING!!!! 3000 plus dead innocent Americans and 25,000 maimed for absolutely nothing--just as was the case in the very real human tragedy of Vietnam.

Yes, I call that self-sacrifice.

Post 136

Friday, January 11, 2008 - 6:11pm

Dennis,

I'm not unsympathetic to your position. My initial argument was based on the quote that even if the Iraqis established a genuinely free country, it would be a sacrifice. John asked what they could be thinking, and I gave a possible answer. Again, it was the position that it cannot be anything but a sacrifice, even if the result was a genuinely free country. I would think it would be a little more difficult to decide that, unless you come from a philosophical position that we have absolutely no interest in having free countries.

Your latest post brings up the question of whether we think, in reality, whether a genuinely free Iraq is possible or useful, or worth the cost in American lives. While I'm open to new arguments, at this point I'm very skeptical of it myself. But this is not something to decide from an armchair.

So my disagreement is not on the prospects for Iraq, but with the philosophical arguments made to simplify the problem. If we accept that allies and other free countries are a benefit, then we can try to estimate what kind of benefit. If we found that supporting Iraq now gave us a stronger position in dealing with terrorists or Iran, which are both possible for various reasons, then we might still consider it worthwhile. But dismissing it as necessarily sacrificial requires some form or rationalism or intrinsicism.

Another issue, not brought up, is whether there are unintended consequences to the idea of just crushing our enemies. At a more local level, if you're sure that someone has robbed you, you can't simply go "crush" them, even if you have the means. While it might be in your interest to have the robber stopped or punished, it isn't worth it to make enemies out of everyone else. In order to use force, you have to justify it. You have to prove he initiated force, and that you are responding with retaliatory force. Or better yet, have the government do it for you to better make the case for objectivity. And this includes making sure that the retaliatory force is appropriate in degree. Putting him in jail versus killing him, for instance.

When our nation attacks other countries, we have the same interest to make sure that we've made a case for it. This helps keep our allies friendly, and it also helps to clarify to others what we consider intolerable. Naturally, if they don't accept that our own interests are justification for responding with force, we've got a bigger problem. But to the extent that they do, we should make a case. Also, we can avoid making non-friendly countries fear arbitrary attack by showing that our attacks are no arbitrary at all.

This is just another way in which the interests and understanding of others is tied to our own self-interest. And as we already recognize these principles within our country, it's not hard to make the case for recognizing them in our relationships with other nations. The overall point being that while we can recognize our interests in crushing our enemies, we can also that we have other values that we want to pursue and sometimes we need to weigh them against each other.

Post 137

Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 4:22am

Thanks for your thoughtful post, Joe. I have tried to spell out my disagreements as clearly as possible. Please let me know if a specific point is not clear.

Joe: �Your latest post brings up the question of whether we think, in reality, whether a genuinely free Iraq is possible or useful, or worth the cost in American lives. While I'm open to new arguments, at this point I'm very skeptical of it myself. But this is not something to decide from an armchair.�

Sure it is. Where are you going to decide it? While cringing in a foxhole? You decide it by thinking it out using all the evidence available.

Joe: �So my disagreement is not on the prospects for Iraq, but with the philosophical arguments made to simplify the problem. If we accept that allies and other free countries are a benefit, then we can try to estimate what kind of benefit. If we found that supporting Iraq now gave us a stronger position in dealing with terrorists or Iran, which are both possible for various reasons, then we might still consider it worthwhile. But dismissing it as necessarily sacrificial requires some form or rationalism or intrinsicism.�

The definition of sacrifice is giving up a higher value for a lesser one. Your calculus suggests that the possibility that post-Saddam Iraq might have put us in a better position regarding terrorism was worth the cost of over 3000 dead and 25,000 wounded soldiers, and that rejecting that hypothetical gamble amounts to rationalism. You could have said the same thing about Vietnam�that it is possible that killing 58,000 soldiers was worth it based on the domino theory of fighting communism, that this was the best expenditure of our military resources at the time.

Not too many experts would argue that about Vietnam from our current perspective. It was obviously a tragically unwarranted waste of innocent human lives. In military strategy, you do not gamble with possibilities when there are clearly more effective methods and targets for accomplishing your goals.

We went into Iraq out of cowardice because we did not have the moral courage to use the full power of our military technology to attack the true aggressor in the war on terror�Iran. Theorizing over �possibilities� when 3000 soldiers are dead because we knowingly chose the wrong enemy (as well as the wrong methods) is justificative rationalism.

Joe: �Another issue, not brought up, is whether there are unintended consequences to the idea of just crushing our enemies. At a more local level, if you're sure that someone has robbed you, you can't simply go "crush" them, even if you have the means. While it might be in your interest to have the robber stopped or punished, it isn't worth it to make enemies out of everyone else. In order to use force, you have to justify it. You have to prove he initiated force, and that you are responding with retaliatory force. Or better yet, have the government do it for you to better make the case for objectivity. And this includes making sure that the retaliatory force is appropriate in degree. Putting him in jail versus killing him, for instance.�

Police activity and military strategy are not comparable. The use of force always has to be justified objectively, but the criteria for doing so are entirely different. Police must operate on the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty, and respect the rights of the (potentially) innocent. In war between two or more nations, there are no objective laws protecting the rights of the parties involved. The aggressor nation which has either taken military action or threatened to do so is clearly acting in defiance of any such objective restraints on force, so that the presumption of innocence is a nonissue. The nation acting out of self-defense has to take whatever action is required to protect itself, including using technology that minimizes its own losses. We can and should offer objective justification for our military actions at the appropriate time.

There is no �appropriate� level of force other than that which is required to neutralize the threat. For instance, we are under no obligation to insure that Iran does not suffer more deaths than we have lost due to the terrorism they have directly sponsored. Our government�s only obligation is to protect its citizens (including military personnel) the best way it possibly can. �Measured responses� and �rules of engagement� that end up costing us the lives of our soldiers are fundamentally altruistic.

Joe: �When our nation attacks other countries, we have the same interest to make sure that we've made a case for it. This helps keep our allies friendly, and it also helps to clarify to others what we consider intolerable. Naturally, if they don't accept that our own interests are justification for responding with force, we've got a bigger problem. But to the extent that they do, we should make a case. Also, we can avoid making non-friendly countries fear arbitrary attack by showing that our attacks are no arbitrary at all.�

Absolutely. We should make a clear case for any military action we take. No disagreement there. As far as I know, we have always made every effort to explain ourselves and the evidence we have to show that there is either an imminent threat or that we have identified the nation responsible for a prior attack. It does indeed help to keep our allies friendly and to make clear to aggressor nations precisely what they can expect if they cross the line.

Joe: �This is just another way in which the interests and understanding of others is tied to our own self-interest. And as we already recognize these principles within our country, it's not hard to make the case for recognizing them in our relationships with other nations. The overall point being that while we can recognize our interests in crushing our enemies, we can also that we have other values that we want to pursue and sometimes we need to weigh them against each other.�

�Crushing our enemies� means defending ourselves. It means eliminating a threat using the most effective means with minimal loss of American lives. There is no other value that could reasonably rank higher than the value we place on our own lives. In a time of war, that is the government�s primary focus. We can still use diplomacy to reassure our allies and to clarify what we are doing and why. But as far as our enemies are concerned, getting thoroughly crushed is all they should expect. Please tell me what value you could possibly want to weigh against life itself.

Post 138

Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 6:56am

Phillip Coates writes:

PS, In this case �crush the enemy� is a floating abstraction of the kind intrinsicists love. On one level, it�s a valid principle (at least in those cases where you can�t turn or convince an enemy to not be one). But you have to go much further and define who the enemy is, what "crushing" them involves, and so on.

Bob Kolker responds:

Consider how we fought the Japs in WWII. We destroyed their island bases then we went over their homeland and burned their cities to ashes (very literally). And then the final act: we nuke two cities that had not (yet) been heavily damaged. If that ain't crushing the enemy, then I do not know what is.

BTW, crushing the enemy works fine. You bomb them to kingdom come, you set their fields afire, you poison their water and you starve them to death. It cannot fail. If you kill your enemies then you win. That is how we won WWII.

Best line from -- Conan the Barbarian --:

Mongol General: Hao! Dai ye! We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?
Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcon at your wrist, and the wind in your hair.
Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
Mongol General: That is good! That is good.

Oh dat Conan. He sure do know what is what!

Bob Kolker

Post 139

Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 12:35pm