RoR: Forum

Post 20

Monday, February 11 - 4:35pm

Link

Edit

Re: Post 3

Excellent post Bill.

I would add though to your post 17

The function of our police force is to protect our own citizens from crime, not to protect the citizens of other countries from crime. Similarly, the function of our armed forces is to protect our own citizens from foreign aggression, not to protect the citizens of other countries from foreign aggression

I would say Bill as a primary our military should protect our own citizens but that doesn't necessarily preclude as a corollary protecting foreign citizens from foreign aggression. For example a military alliance can prove beneficial to protecting our own citizens by protecting foreign citizens from foreign aggression if they return the favor when the foreign citizens we protect come and aid us if we were attacked. Western Europe survived the cold war free from Soviet attack precisely because it was in an alliance.

Jim

The problem for so many Objectivists, it seems, is that they buy into the notion of pre-emptive war that is sold on the premise of protecting our citizens from foreign aggression. But, such wars dismayingly often turn out to be more about protecting citizens of foreign countries from their own government or foreign aggression.

Which is why I personally don't believe in pre-emptive war -- you can't trust the real motives of the politicians who instigate them.

There is a bit of begging the question here, the notion of "pre-emptive war" by itself devoid of contex is meaningless. It is neither good or bad without that context. For example it would be wrong to go up to someone who committed no provacation against you and club them over the head, but it wouldn't be wrong to use force against a would-be assailant who has threatened to use an initiation of force against you even though that would-be assailant hasn't acted on his threats yet. You don't have to literally wait until the bullets are flying past your head to take action as there are other reasonable means to assess whether you are in danger of attack or not. In that sense pre-emptive war is a bit of misnomer, it's more like pro-actionary force instead of reactionary force.

Secondly, you won't get me to defend every action of the US government regarding its foreign policy, but just because you don't trust politicians doesn't mean philosophically the principle of using pro-actionary force is bad. I don't trust them that much either but my trust in them is a matter of degree, and it's not definitely not zero. Nor do I buy into a lot of the conspiracy theories that Bush was in it for oil to get rich, not that I assign that kind of thinking to you but I don't think the man likes starting to wars, I believe he was reacting to an initiation of force by Islamo-fascist thugs and that is the primary motive for his actions. Now we can discuss whether he made bad or incompetent decisions, and I certainly think he made a colossal amount of errors, but I don't believe he had some kind of moustache twirling diabolical motives to expand some kind of evil empire as some believe. That wouldn't make sense as before 9/11 he never spoke of war, and consistently spoke of taking on a more humble foreign policy almost implicitly chiding his own father's foreign policy.

Post 21

Monday, February 11 - 5:52pm

Link

Edit

"the American government forces their own citizens to pay taxes.

the 7/11 forces customers to pay before leaving with bread. Payment isn't voluntary. Are there 7/11's in Atlantis?"

Wow. This bloody argument rears its head again. OK, here goes:

Buying bread at 7/11 is voluntary. If you don't like their prices or the quality of their bread, plenty of other stores you can choose from. And if all those choices are objectionable, you don't have to buy bread at all. You can buy something else. You aren't required to move to a different country if you don't buy 7/11's bread, and then be forced to purchase bread in that new country whether or not you actually want to buy bread. If you do choose to buy bread at 7/11 because you accept the terms of the contract they are offering (buy our bread at this price), then it is of course incumbent upon you to complete your end of this voluntary transaction and pay them. 7/11 will not shoot you, imprison you, or confiscate your property if you refuse to enter into this voluntary transaction.

Paying taxes is not a voluntary transaction, except in the most meaningless sense of the word "voluntary". You don't have the option of going through the list of services the government is offering, choosing which if any you want to buy, and negotiating if you think the price is too high for a given item. You pay the taxes they demand -- ALL of them -- or very bad things happen to you. You don't have the option of staying in your current residence and opting out of the government. You can try to pack up and move to a different country if you object enough, but if that involves flying on a plane or taking a boat, you first have to apply for a passport, and the government may choose to deny that passport application, making you a virtual prisoner in their country and still subject to the taxes despite you renouncing your citizenship. For now, it is possible to take a taxi to the Mexican border at Tijuana and walk south through the turnstiles unimpeded, but obviously the government can close that option at any time. Try walking north across the border if you're a Mexican citizen, and you'll find that the turnstiles don't turn in that direction and the federales will vigilantly try to stop you from sneaking across elsewhere. Even if you do escape from the boundaries of the U.S. government, there is no place you can go to where some other government-like entity won't force you into the same deal of compulsory payment of taxes, and the U.S. government has the technical right to decide to not accept your declination of continuation of citizenship and dun you for taxes anyway for several years afterward even though you've moved outside their borders.

But yeah, other than these *minor* differences, 7/11 and the U.S. government are exactly alike.

Post 22

Monday, February 11 - 6:03pm

Link

Edit

"There is a bit of begging the question here, the notion of "pre-emptive war" by itself devoid of contex is meaningless. It is neither good or bad without that context. For example it would be wrong to go up to someone who committed no provacation against you and club them over the head, but it wouldn't be wrong to use force against a would-be assailant who has threatened to use an initiation of force against you even though that would-be assailant hasn't acted on his threats yet."

John, you are technically correct about the above, but the real context here is that practically every bloody war that any government wages is justified on both sides, with the instigator claiming "but -- but -- they were about to club me first".

So, the practical (dare I say "objective") reality is that virtually every war sold as pre-emptive is in fact an act of aggression by politicians seeking their own private benefit at the expense of the public who pay or bleed or die, and that much misery would be avoided on average if people refused to go along with the argument/lie that this time it really is preemption. Feel free to rattle off the no doubt long list of wars you think were both preemptive and justified.

How many times does Lucy have to pull away the football before Charlie gets a clue?

Post 23

Monday, February 11 - 7:03pm

Link

Edit

Jim

So, the practical (dare I say "objective") reality is that virtually every war sold as pre-emptive is in fact an act of aggression by politicians seeking their own private benefit at the expense of the public who pay or bleed or die

Jim let's talk concretes. Which pre-emptive war is in fact an act of aggression by politicians seeking their own private benefit? Since you don't seem to disagree with the philosophy I set forth, you seem to think that philosophy has not ever been implemented to any degree. But why do you think that?

John, you are technically correct about the above, but the real context here is that practically every bloody war that any government wages is justified on both sides, with the instigator claiming "but -- but -- they were about to club me first".

So that I can better understand the epistemology you're working from, are you saying both sides from every war was right in their justification for waging war? I don't think that makes much sense. It seems to be an argument for moral relativism. Yes both sides can claim they are justified but they can't both be right.

Post 24

Monday, February 11 - 8:06pm

Link

Edit

"Jim let's talk concretes. Which pre-emptive war is in fact an act of aggression by politicians seeking their own private benefit? Since you don't seem to disagree with the philosophy I set forth, you seem to think that philosophy has not ever been implemented to any degree. But why do you think that?"

The current Iraq war was (originally) sold as a preemptive strike against an Iraqi military about to go nuclear, but appears to have been more about an attempt to control oil fields and allow a petulant president to take revenge upon presumed slights upon his father, among other things. The Iranian war that many politicians would like to instigate is, again, allegedly about a country allegedly on the verge of going nuclear that allegedly is controlled by people foolhardy enough to contemplate launching an attack against a country that has thousands of nuclear warheads, with the instigating politicians jockeying for political position by trying to be the most double-Gitmo macho, not to mention oil -- again. The Vietnam War and the Korean War were both preemptive strikes against countries that had not actually attacked anyone on American soil, and had little capability to do so, instigated by politicians again vying for political advantage. World War I was a preemptive attack upon a nation that had not invaded U.S. soil, in a squabble that we could have stayed the hell out of without any terribly damaging consequences for us, again waged by politicians who stood to gain political advantage. The Phillippines war was ...

And so on.

"So that I can better understand the epistemology you're working from, are you saying both sides from every war was right in their justification for waging war? I don't think that makes much sense. It seems to be an argument for moral relativism. Yes both sides can claim they are justified but they can't both be right."

No, I'm saying most wars are precipitated by at least one side claiming the right to preemption, if not claiming actual victimhood, with the other side at best defending itself, and in many cases (see World War I) many if not all parties involved basically preemptively jumping into a fight they could have avoided, in a series of escalating incidents that any of the parties could possibly have defused. There is no such beast as a war where both sides are in the right.

Both sides can be wrong. No more than one can be right. It's not moral relativism to claim that politicians on both sides in many conflicts plunged their hapless subjects into entirely avoidable and unnecessary wars.

Post 25

Monday, February 11 - 9:02pm

Link

Edit

John ~ Jim ~ Bob ~ Bill ~ Teresa ~ Dean ~ Jeff ~ Kurt ~ Fred

The fate of the first fully free nation in the western hemisphere lies in the hands of these nine individuals. The Commander-in-Chief of Atlantis has asked for a vote from these Nine Statespeople. The outcome of this vote will determine whether or not Australia intervenes militarily on behalf of New Hampshire.

DO WE COMMIT OUR MILITARY MIGHT TO THE CAUSE OF LIBERTY IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE?
YES OR NO?
How do you vote?

Some facts the Nine might wish to consider:
~Our best intelligence estimate concludes that the United States fully intends to launch devastating attacks against New Hampshire. If nothing is done, the fragile free-market nation will most likely have to surrender and rejoin the other 49 States.
~Australia can be confident that they have far greater military power than the Americans. The Barret Defense Shield will keep Australians safe from any American reprisal.
~The Free Nation of New Hampshire was created through bloodshed. Many lives were lost in their fight for independence in 2042. Was their sacrifice in vain?

Some of the Nine have requested additional information regarding the United States and the world at large:
~While Americans travel freely within the country, the borders are closed. Americans have been forbidden to travel outside the country.
~Taxation is approximately the same as in other parts of the globe, which amounts to about 45% of an individual�s income. Exceptions are Australia which has no tax of any kind, and South Africania, which has low income tax, but a high sales tax.
~Americans have freedom of speech privately, but public utterances (in any media) must have clearance from the government. Profanity, irreligiousity, hate, and Anti-Americanism are not tolerated on the public airwaves.
~On the level of individual rights, America is on a par with Euro and Hyrule (Asia). South Africania is somewhat freer and more prosperous. North Africania, along with Central Eurasia is still uninhabitable.
~Americans know about Australia, and some would like to move there if they could. But the majority of American citizens look at Australia with disgust, given its �libertine� morality and lack of central authority. Americans in 2083 are a religious people, and they�ve come to call the Australians the �God-Haters.�

Post 26

Tuesday, February 12 - 1:40am

Link

Edit

Jim:

The current Iraq war was (originally) sold as a preemptive strike against an Iraqi military about to go nuclear, but appears to have been more about an attempt to control oil fields and allow a petulant president to take revenge upon presumed slights upon his father, among other things.

Jim, no offense but this is hard to swallow. We have a President all throughout his first term before 9/11 speaking of taking on a more humble foreign policy, chiding his predecessor Bill Clinton for taking bombing actions in Iraq in 1998, for Kosovo, and for strikes against Sudan, and almost implicitly chiding his own father's foreign policy, to all of a sudden on 9/11 making an about face, and turns into this blood thirsty moustache twirling evil tyrant bent on conquest for stealing oil. Perhaps this isn't even worth addressing as you provide no evidence he just wanted to take oil fields. I like what Dennis Hardin said in another post on an unrelated note:

Arbitrary claims are automatically invalidated. They have no epistemological standing.

Since you arbitrarily claim without evidence Bush just wanted to control oil fields, I must discount this argument as having no epistemological ground to stand on.

In fact I believe I have given enough evidence here to say it is unlikely his motivation was to get rich. Bush is already rich. He responded to what was clearly a life-changing event for him and the rest of this nation (9/11), because he made a 180 degree turn on his view of foreign policy.

Saddam Hussein funded Islamo-fascist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, responsible for killing hundreds of Americans, Europeans and Israelis. Almost every western intelligence agency including agencies belonging to nations such as France believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

To think Bush just wanted oil, considering the facts is patently absurd. There are a dozen weaker oil rich nation states he could've chosen to invade, including Venezuela, Yemen, etc, why pick such a big target?

The Iranian war that many politicians would like to instigate is, again, allegedly...

I asked for concretes, no one has invaded Iran.

The Vietnam War and the Korean War were both preemptive strikes against countries that had not actually attacked anyone on American soil, and had little capability to do so,

The North Koreans and the North Vietnamese who were heavily funded by the Soviet Union and China. The U.S. did not preemptively strike these countries, the communists did.

Post 27

Tuesday, February 12 - 7:11am

Link

Edit

Jim:

Wow. This bloody argument rears its head again. OK, here goes:

I don't mean to conflate the following rwo issues: 1] Can a form of taxation be ethical?   and 2] If it can be ethical, then what is an ethical form of taxation?    If you truly beleive that the answer to 1] is 'no, never', then 2] is moot.   If the answer to 1] is 'yes', then there is a basis to address 2].   IMO, the answer to 1] is 'yes'. If the 'rebirthofreason' illuminati need to cling to 'no', then have a nice life in forever fringeville--complements of those who left their legs in Normandy, etc., and wrestled this last chance at a free world from the tribe.

The 7/11 principle is similar enough in regards to ethics, the ethics are clear: do you have an ethical obligation to pay for benefit that you receive from others? Your argument is "I did not ask to be born in the free United States of America, and although I benefit greatly from the collective actions/decisions of others who made those decision long before I was born, and therefore, I had no voluntary choice in those decisions, I have no ethical obligation to pay for that which I continue to benfefit from as an adult living in this political context."

That is true enough---for as long as you are a child.   But as an educated, capable, able , thinking adult, you are fully able to attempt to calculate the continuing benefit you receive from the fact that the collective actions of the gov't of the USA organized and fought and won WWII, and prevailed in a Cold War, and wrested a portion of the free world from an insane world bent on totalitarianism.    I defy you to today take out your Excel spreadsheet, comfortably sip your Starbucks, and make that calculation. It is incalculable. Like all such economic analysis, those nasty uncalibratable terms "Value of not going up in an oven/living in a gulag" gets brushed under the carpet.  The factual alternative to our imperfect, mixed economies, soft fascism was not 'Galt's Gulch': the factual alternative was Germania and/or the USSR uber alles.    Whatever opportunity/chance this nation or its people individually have to evolve to some utopic 'Atlantis' was paid for by the collective actions of a nation half our present size that put 16 million men and women in GI green and Navy grey and left over 400,000 of themselves in a meatgrinder.   A nation half our size borrowed over $3T in todays dollars from its uncertain future in a do or die bid to create that uncertain future, and Thank God they did.   We may fidget and squirm and rail about the fact that we were 'unwillingly' born free and yet in debt, but that is a fact. We owe every moment and every breath and every dollar we earn in even imperfectly free economies to those who expensively wrestled those opportunities from an alternative, insane future-- whether we ethically acknowledge that debt, or not.

As children, we get a bye. As adults, we can't avoid the ethical reality.   We have an ethical obligation to pay for that which we knowingly continue to benefit from.   As adults, we also have a responsibility to recognize the imperfect facts of how we once faced down totalitarianism and fascism: we did it by unleashing our own imperfectly fettered fascist beast, and that beast has yet to stand down.    There was no practical reality in 1941 of facing down the German fascist machine via a voluntary army funded with use fees for boat ramps or whatever.  (Please.) There was going to be no opportunities to liesurely discuss utopic unreality in any crab spread worshipping, Renaiissance Weekend Do Nothing Fest and/or in-ter-net forum in the future without the focused, collective, nutbusting efforts of human beings who understood not just the Paradox of Violence, but the Paradox of Freedom as well.

Modern conveniently post WWII Libertarians are all over the 'Paradox of Violence.' Cops, Courts, Jails, the military, all funded by traffic tickets or whatnot in utopia.   But, they aren't as embracing of the Paradox of Freedom, because -- well, I don't know why, not my problem.    What is freedom? It is freedom from oppression. Oppression from what? It is and never was 'a' tyrant: it is and always was either 'a' tyrant at the head of a mob, or the very mob itself with its self-annointed 'speakers,' aka, the same thing as a tyrant.   The collective, USA, the imperfect American experiment, is based on the following concept: an individuals right to be free from the unfettered oppressive force that all of us have over any of us. There is no escaping the reality of the force that all of us have over any of us. The key word in our experiment is fettered.   We are not a pure democracy, we are a democracy fettered by a constitution of liberty. The biggest beast in the Jungle is and always was The Tribe itself, and unfettered, that beast will devour even itself. The Paradox of Freedom is, this concept can only be defended in an insane world intent on pushing forward the supremacy of The Tribe if enough free men and women value it as a concept worth mobbing up to defend. We join together, collectively in America, to fight and dies to defend our right and our apparently totally clueless children's right to be free from each other.

To the extent that concept is realized, we in this political context benefit. But, defense of that concept costs, and to continue to enjoy those benefits, while an able adult, without paying for those benefits, is stealing, is unethical, is the antithesis of "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

In AS, the story of 'Galt's Gulch' all tucked safely away in the mountains of Colorado, 'paid for by Midas Mulligan' was always a little too pat, by half.   'Paid for by Midas Mulligan' my sweet ass.   Wrestled from an insane world by those who threw themselves into a meatgrinder to stave off Germania and later, the USSR's vision of totalitarianism. Expensively and collectively.

As adults, you and I do have an option to opt out of the USA collective, imperfect as it is. Move to the Caymans. Hell, a mere 5 seconds on Google yields this: http://www.privateislandsonline.com/ Go for it.

We can say, "It's too expensive, it's too hard, I'm unable, I can't afford it, I've got to pay my mortage.... " on ad infinitum.    Well, some can afford the luxury of their worldviews, and some want to skid by like moochers on the backs of others, and stick around in this imperfect political context realized only through collective action -- as I've defined it above -- and justify their stealing of the 'freedom bread', as adults.

It's also true, at the very same time because the Universe is what it is, that in America, some folks are joining together to re-establish the supremacy of The Tribe.   We can't escape the following : on average, we are average. Escaping that costs effort and more, and is not a birthright, and fighting that battle politically takes time and effort and skill, and is not guaranteed to succeed in this Universe, as it is.

So, back to my original assertion, which was, for as long as we remain in this expensively created political context and enjoy its benefits, we have an ethical obligation to pay for benefits received, that we continue to enjoy as able, capable adults.    If we find ourselves in disagreement with the collective in our political context on any particular policy or issue, our ethical options are:

1] Work politically to change the minds of the owners of skins not ours until we have enough political power to change that policy. Surely, the supremacy of our self-acclaimed perfect arguments should suffice. Stay in the political context, continue to receive its benefits, continue to pay for those benefits.

2] Concede the issue while disagreeing with it. Get on with our lives. Stay in the political context, continue to receive its benefits, continue to pay for those benefits.

3] Leave. "I am unable/it is inconvenient to pay my 7/11 bill" is not a very Randian argument.   See http://www.privateislandsonline.com

failing that, then if you are willing to stake your 'lives and fortunes' on the outcome, and truly believe in the righteousness of your cause, then all that is left is

4] Foment revolution, beg/pray for external intervention, megapolitics, the politics of brute force, which is indeed necessary if you find yourself in what you hold to be an oppressive political context.

But, nowhere in 1], 2], 3] is there an ethical choice which amounts to "Continue to eat the bread at 7/11, but refuse to pay for it because you did not agree to be born into a capitalist state" or same applied to the facts of how our current political context was expensively wrestled from an insane world selling an alternative other than freedom.

OTOH, our own soft fascist beast, an unavoidable requirement, has devolved into the Cronyfest on the Potomac, so the question of 2] above(what is an ethical form of taxation) is totally up for grabs.

I'm sure I've violated several of the JohnGalt3:16 scriptures in the above, especially in pointing out the benefits we as individuals are in fact receiving from the actions of our collective. But, I've carefully characterized the paradoxical nature of our collective, with the Paradox of Freedom. If 'rebirthofreason' means, 'regurgitating Rand verbatim', well, sounds like fun, but I'll abstain.   I've been reading Rand since I was 14, in '69.  She's by far my favorite author, has influenced my life like no other. I get her, she couldn't be clearer if she was writing in giant crayon. I've boiled her down to three words, the most important one repeated twice: "One skin, one driver." It all falls out from there. I also get her 'mindlessly worship nobody--not even me."   But, because I comprehend her, I have never surrendered my mind to her.  I've read most of Hayek as well.

As she might say, "But that's me."   I can live with that, and have.

regards,
Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 2/12, 7:13am)

Post 28

Tuesday, February 12 - 8:04am

Link

Edit

The Vietnam War and the Korean War were both preemptive strikes against countries that had not actually attacked anyone on American soil, and had little capability to do so,

The North Koreans and the North Vietnamese who were heavily funded by the Soviet Union and China. The U.S. did not preemptively strike these countries, the communists did.

Indeed, and it certainly WAS NOT in the US's best interest to sit back and allow murderous despotic communism, whose EXPLICIT GOAL WAS TO CONQUER EVERY NATION ON EARTH, to take over every nation on earth, one after another, merely because they had not attacked 'us' 'yet'. If this kind of isolationist foriegn policy had been embraced during the cold war, we would today be living in the Soviet Socialist Republic of America, and be killed for merely having this discussion.

Post 29

Tuesday, February 12 - 8:36am

Link

Edit

Eric:

There isn't nearly enough detail in this hypothrtical to make a decision regarding the justification of megapolitical action.   As one of the nine, I would like to say "Come back with a stronger case, and more details." I mean, can we spend at least 6 months gathering more details on this? Or, are you saying, the satellite imageyr shows US troops massing at the MASS border as we speak? Well, clarly, even if the matter is pressing, this issue, and context and history did not suddenly crop up 2 days ago. We have a history and a context to fall back on, to guide our decision. Where are those details, the ones that presented themselves over the many years leading up to this crisis?

For example, there is no mention of a secular threat by the Western Hemisphere/NATO Alliance to wipe South Afrika off the face of the earth in the name of nothing more substantive than 'legacy building' among the Alliance, some of whom are more God/Society worshipping fanatics than others.    Is the current POTUS nuts, have he and his sick twist sons , the secretaries of Defense, demonstrated a willingness to invade countries in the past over the slight of "$10 prostitutes", have they projected violence across their borders in the past, were they successfully repelled from their recent invasion of Canada and found to be developing nanobot virus capable of destroying the economic infrastructure of The Great $atan? Has the present nutjob POTUS maintained a constant pressure rope-a-dope presence in the nanobot virus field, biding his time until the often demonstrated impotence and inattention of an ineffective UN finally gets tired and tolerates being bodily thrown from the US?

If Atlantis was to invade the USA, and was to drag the squirrely POTUS out of his spider hole, and 3 days later, his close ally Bermuda fessed up and coughed up theie previously undisclosed 'nanobot virus development programs', would the domestic politics in Atlantis-- you know, the inevitable 'on average, we are average' rot that is inevitable -- ignore that result, and instead claim "but there are no smoking nanobot virus labs found in the USA, at best, they were five years away from a viable program?"   And jarringly, five years after Atalntis forceful invasion, would another internal Atlantian politically motivated report straght facedly claim that "Mexico gave up its nanobot virus development program five years ago" and that had nothing at all to do with our credible invasion of the USA, right next door, five years ago?

Or, would we say we got a ThreeFer five years ago?

I didn't see any analysis of the internal political reality in the USA as regards the Great $atan Australian True Capitalists.   Clearly, the US economies are going to hell, their people are living in squalor.   As you stipulate, although some few see the Atlantian alternative as a positive thing, the leaders in the USA who control the political and educational reality on the ground have clearly convinced their people that "freedom is not the way to go."   In fact, if the economies in Australia are booming, life is good, and Down Under is the Land of Plenty as a result of that, then the political leaders in the USA, clinging to their alternative gig, clearly must reconginze the ultimate 'it is them or us' reality. They will not long last in a bandwidth filled world that unfavorably compares their leadership choices and their political paradigm and their outcomes, unless Australia is painted as Satan incarnate, is shown to be not such a great thing to emulate, which is easy to do by selectively cherry picking the worst examples of excess of its freedoms, and as well, the people are propagandized by images on CNN of Australians running in terror from falling towers, powerless in front of Gods/Societys righteous warriors.    The shrewd politicos in the USA will have carefully caclulated, "It is them or us", and will be employuing every tool of modern totalitariansm to control the educational and political reality in their toolbox to convince their populace, that they hold in thrall, that this is the case...as their only means of clinging to their political power. Clearly, they are succeeding, given your CNN poll of the populace.

When freedom loving people see thugs beating the living crap out of innocents across the street, it is always in their best interest to cross the street to inhibit the first use of violence.    Megapolitics, unchecked, is a shortcut to domination. If we don't want to accede to that worldview, then we must have the good sense to distinguish between Arlington Cemetary and mass graves.    We must embrace both the Paradox of Violence and the Paradox of Freedom.

So, in answer to your question, as a principle:

DO WE COMMIT OUR MILITARY MIGHT TO THE CAUSE OF LIBERTY IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE?
YES OR NO?

I say yes, but only if we value liberty anywhere in the world.

On average, we are average. At the fringe of megapolitics, the following question will forever be asked by the insane: "Excuse me, is this world taken?"   Decades of the free world saying either "Why, no, go right ahead, be our guest" or worse, as in the 90s, 'We abstain" or "We only fly ineffectual NoFlyZOnes for the cameras" or "We deploy half way around the world only to demonstrate our unwillingess to defend freedom."

Our utopic choice is not to use or not use force. Force will be used.   Our only choice is to choose the principles we will defend with force.   Choose well.

regards,
Fred

Post 30

Tuesday, February 12 - 9:16am

Link

Edit

And the votes begin to come in.

The first of the Nine Statespeople, Henry Gates (Piekoffian-Brisbane Region), votes an emphatic yes. His wife is an American Refugee- and has long spoken to him of the perils of being perceived to be one of the �God-Haters� in the Americas. Before she escaped to Australia she was brought before the Grand Republican for a Tribunal at North Gitmo and condemned for heresy- she barely escaped. Gates sees America as a place where potential values like his wife- potential friends, trading partners and allies- are being denied their human rights. He is all for their liberation- not for their sake, but for his own.

The second of the Nine, Aisha Taganov (Brandinian-Adelaide), votes an equally emphatic no. The American problem is for the Americans to solve. What, Taganov asks, is the exit strategy? Even if America were freed of tyranny- would they appreciate it? Without an understanding of rights- rooted in a proper philosophy- would the Americans be able to keep their freedom or would they slide back into the familiar as soon as Australia left? That would be a huge risk for potentially no long-term gain.

The third and fourth, Ragnar Turlbug and Dagny Katt (Independents- New Atlantis) are split- Turlbug voting for invasion on the grounds that New Hampshire is a trading partner of Australia - if we don�t defend our allies it will damage our standing in the world. Katt votes against the invasion saying that the immoral Americans- the Christian Gangs, the Welfarists, would be getting unearned benefits from Australia�s largesse- and New Hampshire must ultimately take responsibility for its own defense- if it can�t, it has no business entering contracts with other nations in the first place. They�ve had 41 years to build up their defense, after all.

The fifth, Tony Edison (Libertarian- Perth Commune), tips the balance against invasion for the first time - voting no -invoking non-aggression as an absolute and saying that a violation of the non-initiation principle can only have bad effects.

The sixth, Sylvan Leonard Piekoff III (Brandinian- Sydney), also votes against the invasion. What we need to do, he insists, is withdraw our sanction from America- refusing to deal with it and letting it collapse under its own weight. He then gives a presentation on the new national ray screen proposed by the Barret Institute.

The seventh, George W. Anderson (son of the former President and Piekoffian-Darwin), votes yes, proposing that we decapitate the American Government with nuclear attacks (despite a good Montessori education he mispronounces �nuclear�) and then drop food packages immediately afterwards so that the survivors (if any) will know that we�re actually really good folks. Note: It is this proposal, beamed nationwide on ONN, that eventually leads to Anderson�s overwhelming defeat in his 2086 re-election.

The eighth statesperson, Dorian Oswald (Independent-New Zealand head of state), gives an impassioned speech on the universal value of liberty and freedom. He describes New Hampshire as �the beating heart of freedom� and the evil Americans as �the cancer of irrationality�. Just as a doctor swears to �do no harm� an objectivist similarly follows a rule of non-aggression. But a doctor will kill cancer cells to protect the value which is the rest of the body. There is no reason to permit evil to thrive when action can be taken to destroy it. Oswald votes yes and asks the Ninth Statesperson (the Australian Head of State) to break the tie in favor of the Liberation of America.

The Ninth Statesperson rises to address the hall and cast his vote. Eight faces look to him expectantly. He glances up to a painting on the wall depicting �Roark & the Board of Directors�. He reads an inscription in the polished gold above it: �In any Compromise between Food and Poison / Only Death Can Win�. He fully intends to vote no. As he begins to speak, however, the sound of a siren splits the air!

The nine rush to the northern windows overlooking the capital city of Valhalla. They watch with horror as a ballistic missile descends in an arc- tracing a curve upon the cloudless sky. It disappears behind some buildings. With brutal clarity, they realize what must come in the next instant- a flash, a shockwave, and the fire of annihilation.

But annihilation never comes. The nuclear missile, they later learn, was successfully defused by the defense system. It failed to detonate- yet it did massive damage to the iconic towers of the Barrett Institute- possibly compromising the generators of the defense shield and opening Australia to a new deadly attack. The missile- obviously American in origin- has both the Flag Decal of the American Military and a crudely painted �cross and eagle�- the insignia of the feared 700 Club terrorist organization. A few days after the attack, 130-year old terrorist leader Mike Huckabee claims responsibility in a video recording sent from his lair in the mountains of Kentucky.

A State of Emergency is declared. Does the 700 Club possess more nukes? If they do, will the shield hold despite the damage from the last attack? Intelligence is murky, but the American Government is definitely protecting Huckabee. The Huckabean Army is sending suicide bombers over the southern N.H. border and into the markets of Manchester. Rumors circulate that Huckabee�s minions have taken advantage of our own porous border and could be among us- hiding their bibles and tracts behind copies of Atlas and the Fountainhead: pretending rationality while secretly longing for the destruction of reason. Sleeper cells of Huckabeans are thought to be planning something big- maybe a biological attack.

In this new context, one day after surveying the ruins in the heart of Valhalla, the Statespeople reconvene to take up the matter of the America Problem. To invade or not invade? The count stands at four to four.

And Head of State Eric Rockwell rises to cast the deciding vote�.

Post 31

Tuesday, February 12 - 1:32pm

Link

Edit

Eric wrote, "The American government forces their own citizens to pay taxes."

Fred replied, "The 7/11 forces customers to pay before leaving with bread. Payment isn't voluntary. Are there 7/11's in Atlantis?"

Fred, you've been around this forum long enough to know what Eric is referring to, and if you don't, you've misunderstood Objectivism big time. The 7/11 doesn't FORCE customers to pay for their food. The payment depends on the customer's choice to buy it. If the customer doesn't pay for it, he's initiating force against 7/11 by stealing their property.

Having to pay for what you CHOOSE to buy is not analogous to being forced to pay taxes to the government. The government doesn't give you a choice to purchase its services. It forces you to pay for them regardless of whether you use them or not.

If you want an accurate analogy to taxation, imagine that you are away on vacation, and that a yard service comes by your house and mows your lawn, trims your hedges and touches up the paint on your house -- all without your consent. Then when you return home, the company demands payment of an arbitrary sum at the point of a gun.

If something like this were to happen, the company would be charged with extortion -- with the initiation of force against you -- and would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That is what taxation amounts to. It is theft, pure and simple.

- Bill

Post 32

Tuesday, February 12 - 2:23pm

Link

Edit

Bravo to Jim Henshaw's post, in which he expresses intelligent reasons for opposing the vacuous floating concept of "pre-emptive wars". As Jim points out, almost always such "first strikes" turn out, on close examination, to be disguised aggression rationalized by scare mongering and the invention of "provocations". A careful reading of the events leading up to the "greatest American crusade", World War II, reveals precisely this sort of scare mongering and invention. Similarly, a careful reading of the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq, as well as of even Afghanistan (!), lays bare lies, deceit, and even treachery by the Bush government for the sake of our "defense." The case of missing WMD's in Iraq, which is no longer controversial, ought to make this pretty clear.

Now the US government has Iran in its gun sight. Bill Dwyer favors attacking Iran "pre-emptively", because he believes Iran is a threat to the United States. How could Iran, which possesses perhaps 1% of American military and economic capability, threaten the United States? Well, the reasoning goes, eventually Iran may acquire nuclear weapons, send them to the US through the agency of suitcase terrorists, and destroy us.

But there are logical problems with this outlook. First, military intelligence is highly unreliable, because it is a state-produced and sanctioned product. The product routinely incorporates purposeful lies, distortions, and institutional bias. Just as state-run "science" has produced a "consensus" that global warming is caused by man's productive depravity, so state-run intelligence yielded a "consensus" that Iraq had WMDs, was close to or already possessed nukes, and threatened not only its neighbors in the region, but the USA as well!

Second, the idea that if we take out Iran, then terrorists would be much less capable of striking a bad blow against Americans has no realistic basis. As I tried to illustrate in links posted to this sight before, the U.S. Army--about the last organization to figure this out--has concluded that Americans are vulnerable right now to biological terrorism. Manufacturing and dispersintg anthrax, for example, is--if what I have read is true--techincally simple and ultra low cost. In contrast, nuclear weapons are highly complex and require great expertise and careful maintenance. In light of this fact, the idea that we can simply blow away "pre-emptively" Iranian or Pakistani thugs--with no disruptions to our lives in the US--is--with no disrespect intended--self delusional.

We are vulnerable, as we will all learn first hand (I fear) in the next few years. This is one reason why we should get out of the Middle East, and elsewhere, right now; to remove the immediate provocation to an attack on our homeland. We are terribly vulnerable to attack, because our monetary and financial system is artificially centralized and fragile--the result of 100 years of coercive federal restrictions. Take out one or two major cities, and the fractitional reserve monetary system, that makes possible payment by checks and credit cards, would crash. Immediately following, the division of labor would implode and starvation would ensue. The cute HBO movie about nukes and "tightened belts" in Kansas is sheer romantic fantasy. The harsh reality is that many millions of Americans would starve.

Third, bombing Iran won't guarantee the results promised, but it will produce perhaps 50,000 Iranian corpses or even more. Since individual rights are important, they ought to be respected, entirely aside from concerns about "blowback". No one today knows with a high degree of certainty that Iran will seek to destroy us by exporting nukes. There is no sound reason to think that a "pre-emptive" strike by the US against Iran would make us safer--far from it. And the recent lesson with regard to Iraq, in addition to many similar episodes throughout history, ought to make us cautious about recommending the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, in Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, or whereever.

Post 33

Tuesday, February 12 - 2:26pm

Link

Edit

As Head of State and dedicated lover of liberty, freedom and peace, I am eager to cast my vote in this matter, but I do so only after serious reflection. One week ago, before the Valhalla attack, I was prepared to vote NO on this resolution to go to war. One of my chief advisors, William Dwyer, made the strongest and clearest case when he said:

�The only legitimate purpose for the Australian military's attacking another country is self-defense (the defense of its own citizens), not the defense of people in other countries.�

This statement makes very clear why my vote was an unequivocal NO last week. It also makes clear why today I will vote an unequivocal YES.

Our country has been attacked, and it is clearly in our best interest to respond with force.

Having made it clear that what we are embarking on is a retaliatory response to an initiation of force made against us, we must now identify our enemy and commit ourselves to, through use of force, achieving a complete and total victory; We seek the absolute and unqualified surrender of our enemy.

One final point to make as I cast my vote to go to war. Our enemy is the Huckabeans, who have claimed responsibility for the Valhalla attack. Huckabee and his followers of Patriot Militias are our prime target, and to the extent the US Government gives them sanction, they are complicit as well.

A word of caution:

For years, there are those in Australia who have dreamed of getting involved in the affairs of Mexico. The system there is quite backwards, and we really should have done a better job at defeating them in the war of 2052. I fear that those same voices that were eager to initiate force on behalf of advancing our financial interests in New Hampshire will now argue that we should target Mexico as well. I fear they will use the legitimate context of going to war with the Huckabeans to justify a nation-building project in Mexico.

I wish to declare now that this would be self-sacrificial and foolish. We have an important war ahead of us that requires our total attention. We must not ever give into the temptation to try to reform a culture at gunpoint. Force may be used as a response to the initiation of force, not for persuading a culture to change. We have a better method for that. It's called Reason.

With that said, I cast the deciding vote:
YES.

Post 34

Wednesday, February 13 - 7:45am

Link

Edit

Bill:

If you want an accurate analogy to taxation, imagine that you are away on vacation, and that a yard service comes by your house and mows your lawn, trims your hedges and touches up the paint on your house -- all without your consent. Then when you return home, the company demands payment of an arbitrary sum at the point of a gun.

I responded to this already above.   You've just compared 'defeating Hitler and facing down the USSR alternative' to 'an unwanted renegade yard cleanup.'    I don't know why. It's true, our parents generation did not wait around to ask us if we thought that was such a good idea. They figured it out on their own.

You've made an equivalence between the benefit received of unwanted unscrupulous unilateral 'commerce' to the forceful creation of every opportunity for free commerce, scrupulous or otherwise, that came as the result of collective action by this political context in WWII and post WWII.   Just because it is impossible to calculate the magnitude benefit received from that hard earned reality does not make that value ignorable.

It's true, you did not ask to be born free in a free nation. That is why you get a bye on this reasoning while you are a dependent child.    But when you are a capable adult, you have every opportunity to weigh the benefit of that expensively realized reality -- the free world, imperfect as it is with its mixed economies -- and either consciously continue to support and enjoy those benefits, even while working politically to change it, or not.   If not, then see http://www.privateislandsonline.com/

Some can, but if you can't afford the luxury of your worldview, ie, establishing your own political context, as well as, in the world as it is, expensively defending that worldview from others, then own up to your responsibility to ethically pay for the benefits you do receive from the collective political context that you, as an adult, consciously decide to continue to take benefits from what is decidedly not 'free' freedom bread.

You also did not ask to be born into a capitalist America with commerce based on exchange of value for value.   You argue that it takes effort to create that loaf of bread at the 7/11, so therefor, it is ethical that you pay for the benefitt received of a loaf of bread when you consciously, voluntarily consume it.   But, you imply that defeating Hitler, etc., and establishing the political context you receive benefit from was 'effortless.'    It was inescapably a collective effort, expensively realized.   As well, as a fully capable/able adult, you conciously choose to continue to receive benefiot from the political context you find yourself in.   That is it too hard, expensive, inconvenient, a bother to buy your own plentifully available island somewhere and effectively establish your own political reality is not an excuse; your 'inability' is not a claim for free subsidy of that which imperfectly exists and was expensively realized.

I don't understand how Objectivist ethics justifies an adult eating freely of the 'freedom bread' without acknowledging the obligation to pay for that benefit. In fairy tales, Hitler's war machine is defeated by a pirate with exceptional pistol skills. In reality, 400,000 Americans threw themselves into a meatgrinder and remained there, selfishly, because the world they valued for their apparently now clueless children was worth that considerable risk and effort.

The concept of a political context dedicated to our individual right to be free from the unfettered force of each other, to some, is worth mobbing up to defend.   aka, the Paradox of Freedom.

You may disagree with any one or several actions/policies of the current political context.   So, here are your ethical choices, as a capable adult receiving benefit from your current collective political context.

1] Work politically to change the current political context, while disagreeing with it. Convince enough minds surrounded by skins not your own that yours is the superior position using Reason or Politics, either one. Continue to realize benefits from your current political context, and continue to fulfill your ethical obligation to pay for those benefits. (What is an ethical form of that payment is another debate, but that there should be such a payment is this one.)

2] Accede, get on with your life, even while disagreeing. Continue to realize benefits from your current political context, and continue to fulfill your ethical obligation to pay for those benefits.

3] Leave. http://www.privateislandsonline.com/    "I can't" is same as "I can't afford to bake my own bread, therefore, I my inability is claim for free bread.."   Not my problem. Some can. If someone wants to volunteer to have you remain and pay your taxes for you, so you can continue to eat the freedom bread that you are convinced is yours as an effortless birthright, with no obligation to pay, that is their decision.   That is why we have charities. Your inability is no automatic claim on those who have expensively created this political context, wrested it from an insane world, and defend it from same, at great expense. Which means, if you do pony up the cash for a private island, be sure you are ready to then defend it from an insane world.   I imagine folks could just put up their own signs on their beachfront condos, "No Force Allowed.   Not Strictly Enforced."

4] If none of the above is acceptable, there is one more option: Megapolitics, the politics of brute force.   If you find your present political context so oppressive that you are willing to risk your life and fortune to overturn it, then foment revolution and/or beg for external intervention.

But, nowhere can I imagine an ethical choice that says "Knowingly continue to receive the benefit of the current political context, but refuse to exchange value for those benefits."   That is stealing. Not when you are child: after all, you didn't voluntarily ask to be born into a free nation.   But, as an able adult fully capable of understanding the value received of the political context you find yourself in, the one expensively wrested from an insane world, to continue to enjoy those benefits without paying for them is indeed stealing.

I don't care that you can't afford to run your own farm, grow your own wheat, build your own bakery, and bake your own bread. I don't care that you did not ask to be born into a capitalist America with commerce based on free exchange of value for value. You still must pay when you take the bread out of the 7/11--even if you haven't the first clue in the world how that bread showed up. We're a political context of laws, not your whim.

Ditto the expensive freedom bread that you eat every day of your adult life.

regards,
Fred

Post 35

Wednesday, February 13 - 9:25am

Link

Edit

Bravo to Jim Henshaw's post, in which he expresses intelligent reasons for opposing the vacuous floating concept of "pre-emptive wars". As Jim points out, almost always such "first strikes" turn out, on close examination, to be disguised aggression rationalized by scare mongering and the invention of "provocations".

Yes, and that whole 'wait until we are attacked' strategy has such a stellar track record.

It's funny Mark that you say

How could Iran, which possesses perhaps 1% of American military and economic capability, threaten the United States? Well, the reasoning goes, eventually Iran may acquire nuclear weapons, send them to the US through the agency of suitcase terrorists, and destroy us

and then not one paragraph later, say this

We are terribly vulnerable to attack, because our monetary and financial system is artificially centralized and fragile--the result of 100 years of coercive federal restrictions. Take out one or two major cities, and the fractitional reserve monetary system, that makes possible payment by checks and credit cards, would crash. Immediately following, the division of labor would implode and starvation would ensue

So which is it, do terrorist nukes pose a threat or not?

The most significant point you are missing, as are most people who walk this isolationist line, is that rapidly growing technology will enable fewer people with less resources to kill ever more people. While nukes and anthrax loom on the horizon now, 10 years from now we might face synthetic viruses designed to attack specific ethnic groups, designed not by a state but by a small team of intelligent and motivated terrorists, and could kill tens of millions of people. 10 years from that we might face nanotechnological phages which could wipe out all life on earth. We will be facing weapons which make copies of themselves

You make the serious and dreadful mistake of being extremely short sighted on this, I think, by taking a static picture of the way the world and technology is now, and drawing out foreign policy implications based on that decades into the future, ignoring the mind numbing pace of technological growth which is completely outside the realm of historical human experiences and thus evolved mechanisms to judge and cope with those. This is a common human psychological tendency, to make future predictions based on the short term recent historical look of progress curve, which appears linear, and ignore it's long term trend which tends to be exponential.

The greatest threat humanity and indeed all life on earth faces is terrorism, today that terrorism is mostly in the form of radical islamic fundamentalism, and the most rational course of action - in the long term - to mitigate that threat is to promulgate the founding and growth of liberal market based constitutional democracies in the biggest hotbed of terrorism on the planet, the middle east. Every nation of which is a murderous theocratic dictatorial hell hole, and through oppressive personal and economic policies and indoctrination, are creating all of the worlds terrorists now. The US's efforts in Iraq are a correct step in that direction, it is debatable if Iraq was the best place to start, but you have to start somewhere.

And yes, acting to mitigate this threat now will cause 'blowback' but the consequences of that blow back *now* are far far far less severe than they will be 10 or 20 years from now, when an individual can kill millions or even billions of people.

These nations also harbor the most pathetic medical infrastructures and will likely be the petri dish for whatever natural pathogen arises to kill millions of people, one of the other biggest threats we face today. Consider SARS only killed people in China, even though it's infection rates were similar, death rates were some 10x higher. This is primarily because they have shit for health care, which is primarily because of their oppressive economic policies, which is primarily because of the non-representational nature of their government.

Just a few years ago the US Government published the genome for the Spanish Flu, which killed some 20 - 50 million people in about 6 months, then suddenly vanished.

This year scientists are on the verge of creating the first synthetic life forms

Scientists builds first synthetic genome, synthetic life just months away
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/synthetic_genome

Luckily, terrorists tend to be pretty stupid about these things, an intelligent person could think of many more effective ways to kill people, but there is evidence they are getting much more intelligent about means to kill others.

Freedom, Justice, and Life all require a plan of long term rational self interest to defend, not a narrow shortsighted one based on technologies and policies that were applicable in 1700's

I outlined more of this position on a post at OL
http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5126&view=findpost&p=44016

I would be interested to hear how you relate these points to your conceptions of foreign policy.

Post 36

Wednesday, February 13 - 9:56am

Link

Edit

The Foreign Policy of Atlantis