RoR: Forum

Post 20

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 8:11pm

Link

Edit

Our posts crossed in the night (and mine still end up in some up-to-8-hour delay-queue purgatory), so I missed your 'pseudo-libertarian' definition in my last response. Thanks for clarifying your term, though I don't think it's the most appropriate way to denote the idea. You are really talking about a radical subset of libertarians, but 'pseudo' implies people who are near, but outside, libertarianism.

[who started hostilities with the Arab world]

I see you're already getting some flak over the particulars. In general it does sound like you are going beyond the (unfortunately common) collectivist act of treating everyone in a nation as a uniform collective, such that you are even regarding all of the predominantly Islamic Middle East as one.

Post 21

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 1:10am

Link

Edit

Michael,

-----
I was not clear due to personal history. A habit I picked up in Brazil. I was using the term "Arab" in the Islamic culture sense - not the Saudi Arabian sense.
-----

Okay, I can buy that. The key thing to remember is that not all Arabs are Muslims, nor are all Muslims Arabs. Arabs speak Arabic. The Iranians are Persians, the Aghans and Pakistanis are of various central Asian tribes, and the largest Muslim population is in Indonesia. So there's a big difference between a "war with the Arabs" and "a war with Islam" or even a "war with certain Muslim factions."

-----
But please, do go on. I would be most interested in knowing why all the guerilla warfare over the years has constituted no threat.
-----

I think it's obvious that, broadly defined, "all the guerilla warfare over the years" HAS constituted a threat. I say broadly defined, because some of the activities that you seem to be categorizing as guerilla warfare aren't any such thing -- many of them are just plain terrorism, which in my opinion constitutes more of a threat than the guerilla warfare. For the sake of argument, however, I'll stipulate to your interest as being in belligerent activities in general, not just the ones which could accurately be described as guerilla warfare.

Note, above, that I also stipulated to the activities representing a threat. It does not follow from that stipulation, however, that the response to that threat was either the moral response or the effective response.

In the specific case of Iraq, for example, all that I can see the US has accomplished or will accomplish is to enhance al Qaeda's prime recruitment and fundraising pool by 25 million (while boosting the dedication of their previously existing pool), while simultaneously creating a situation which is going to eventually give Iran freer rein for its expansionist goals and Syria freer rein to menace Israel. And, of course, killing (by even the most conservative estimates) thousands of innocent Iraqis and sacrificing more than 1,500 American troops in the process.

Tom Knapp

Post 22

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 1:32am

Link

Edit

Something that Knapp, et al. know damn well but are too deluded to admit is that in this debate the narcissism is much more prevalent on the anti-war side. Anybody who pays any attention to the world of punditry knows that since the war began, there has been much more self-doubting, second-guessing, and self-questioning among the hawks than the peaceniks. Paradoxically (up until the major turnaround marked by the Iraqi election), the rhetoric of the anti-warons got weaker and weaker as their empirical case got better and better.

So, don't anyone try to pin the narcissist motive on those who got "suckered in." It's a lame way of trying to backpedal in light of the looming possibility that the pro-war side is about to be proven conclusively, monumentally right. It reminds me of someone being caught red-handed at something and then half-earnestly suggesting that the person who caught him is hallucinating.

But my point in this post isn't to re-enter the jungle of justifications for the war, it's to point out something. So, let me ask all you anti-warons one question...

Unless you think this was an evil war no matter what -- in which case you are an anti-American -- the merit of this war should be based entirely on its ultimate empirical outcome. Here's the question and please answer it honestly: is there any possible outcome of this war that would make you change your mind?

If the answer is "no," then you are a disingenuous dogmatist.

I am 100% positive that the true answer for all Rockwellites and many non-Rockwellites, is "no."

Alec

Post 23

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 5:55am

Link

Edit

Alec, I first want to applaud you for engaging others in debate with such a civil, intellectually-respectful manner (a rarity with THIS subject matter). You asked (of those who aren't currently pro-war advocates):

"is there any possible outcome of this war that would make you change your mind?"

Yes, an increase in individual utility for folks in each of the 2 main countries involved. This would involve key things such as: privatization of Iraqi oil, and a reversal of the increase in statism in the US (and lower oil prices in the US).

Ed

Post 24

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 12:50pm

Link

Edit

Ed, I thank you and understand that you are not one of the dogmatists here, but what I don't understand is that you leave out "an increase in national security" in your list of key results.

First of all, as far as Iraqis are concerned, even without the privatization of oil fields their individual utility has already been infinitely increased.

Second of all, a reversal in the increase in statism at home is never a result of a non-civil war. It's the result of domestic efforts. It's simply erratic to judge the success of a war -- which is fought for national security -- based on whether it decreases statism at home. That's like judging someone's presidency by whether it resulted in an improvement of your love-life. (Plus, it would mean no non-civil war was ever successful.)

I'm glad you have criteria by which to change your mind, but that criteria must be realistic. The key things should be: an increase in our national security, first, and an increase in the liberty of the liberated peoples, second.

Alec

(Edited by Alec Mouhibian on 4/09, 1:04pm)

Post 25

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 1:24pm

Link

Edit

Quoth Alec:

-----
Something that Knapp, et al. know damn well but are too deluded to admit is that in this debate the narcissism is much more prevalent on the anti-war side. Anybody who pays any attention to the world of punditry knows that since the war began, there has been much more self-doubting, second-guessing, and self-questioning among the hawks than the peaceniks.
-----

That's debatable, but I'm certainly more than willing to stipulate that many on the anti-war side have been just as unwilling to face facts when things haven't gone their way. I don't think I fall into that classification -- see, for example, this blog post -- but you may judge differently.

-----
the looming possibility that the pro-war side is about to be proven conclusively, monumentally right.
-----

The War Party has been promising, since late 2002, that it will be "proven conclusively, monumentally right" just any day now ... pretty much within 24 hours of each of the many instances in which it has been proven conclusively, monumentally wrong.

-----
So, let me ask all you anti-warons one question...

Unless you think this was an evil war no matter what -- in which case you are an anti-American -- the merit of this war should be based entirely on its ultimate empirical outcome.
-----

You must have got lost on the way to the pragmatist forum or something. The merit of the war must be based not only on its outcome, but on the way in which it has been conducted. If an action is only to be judged by its result, then every liquor store robber with $500 in his pocket is just as morally upright as the guy who cashed his weekly paycheck to get the $500 in his pocket.

-----
Here's the question and please answer it honestly: is there any possible outcome of this war that would make you change your mind?
-----

Change my mind about the way it's been conducted so far? No. Change my mind about the people who've so far misconducted it? Certainly. I'm ready to support the war on terror, absolutely as soon as the US government wants to start fighting it, and I'm ready to credit the Bush administration with correcting US foreign policy, absolutely as soon as they choose to correct it.

Tom Knapp
(Edited by Thomas L. Knapp
on 4/09, 1:27pm)

Post 26

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 6:05am

Link

Edit

Alec,

Your "empirical outcome" test sounds awfully like "lets run a war up the flag pole and see if it flies." Pragmatism at its worst and most dangerous. While I am a supporter of the war against terrorist states -- clearly defined and vigorously pursued on the moral grounds of our own self-interest -- this approach is, in my view, exactly what the "anti-warons" call on in their own defense. There is, after all, one very clear "empirical outcome" for any war in which we are engaged -- dead Americans. In the face of that, it is not the outcome that justifies a war, it is that we are attacked or threatened by attack. And the only justifiable outcome is the defeat of our enemies as swiftly and with as little loss of American lives as possible (if others choose to fight with us their lives are at stake, as well, of course, and if we prolong a war by failing to fight it vigorously to win, we increase the risk that our friends will desert us, not because we were wrong to defend ourselves but because they can no longer support a loosing proposition.

BTW, substituting "merit" for "justification" doesn't keep you out of the jungle.

Post 27

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 8:20am

Link

Edit

I don't think using the term "anti-waron" or other childish epithets is the mark of civil or intelligent conversation (although that seems to be the MO of some people on SOLO).

Regardless, Alec, I explored the value of the outcome of the Iraq War in depth in my post. I listed a slew of relevant facts that prove it wasn't good for America, which is supposed to be the principle that Objectivists use to guide foreign policy.

As for there being an election in Iraq, so what? No one who opposed the Iraq War claimed that the US government was incapable of ousting Hussein and holding elections there. So the elections (engineered by an armed U.S. presence) didn't signify a "major turnaround."

Those who opposed it did so because we believed it was an unprovoked action that would kill thousands of innocent people, cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars, and aid the recruitment efforts of terrorists to the detriment of U.S. security . . . all of which has happened.

If any Objectivist wants to dispute the facts I've listed, or take issue with my logic, I'd be more than willing to listen.

Post 28

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 3:42pm

Link

Edit

Alec,

I must join the rest here in chastizing you.

Why, oh why, did you try to reason with the Saddamite leeches of LewRockwell?

Nothing you say, nothing, will stir anything within them. Their utter contempt for America, and their apologetics for every thug, theocrat and terrorist born, is as close to an 'inherent' trait as one can come to.

Arguing civilly with those that have made context-dropping an art form is an exercise in futility. I strongly suggest you use a very famous line by Lindsay Perigo (once uttered to MH) and wash your hands of it. Actually, cowardice and sedition may be contagious, close association with Rockwellites requires a full shower and a scrubbing with a wire brush.

George

Post 29

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 3:58pm

Link

Edit

Alec, thanks for the response.

In your response, you bring up the idea of national security--which, I agree, is a real good (it is not merely an apparent good--like, for instance, a casino is; to get-rich quick folks--which ends up causing net harm).

But national security is a hard thing to measure. Ron Paul had pretty good comments on this point. While acknowledging increased security spending overall, he --and I--somehow don't feel measurably safer than before.

This "difference of views" (where some don't feel safer, but others do) is probably explained by psycho-epistemology, though I'm not sure yet. And this discrepancy is somewhat of a conundrum--objective benchmarks for security are either extremely rare, or extremely hard to find.

Another point regarding security (whether we do have more, or not), is where it fits in an objective hierarchy of value. On this you said:

-------------
I'm glad you have criteria by which to change your mind, but that criteria must be realistic. The key things should be: an increase in our national security, first, and an increase in the liberty of the liberated peoples, second.
-------------

Now Alec, this is probably an accidental omission of yours--but I realize that there is no increase in liberty for the liberators! Did you mean to omit that (do you feel US citizens already have too much liberty?)?

Also, much from the Age of Enlightenment has been written on this point (ie. where does Liberty "fit in" with security/comfort, etc.?), but I do not want this dialogue to devolve into a War of Quotes. Instead I will offer up a new reasoning tool--from an even older time ...

Aristotle had an idea of a "preference logic" that runs like this:

If you have 2 things of value (A and B), and you want to put them in an objective hierarchy, then follow the following steps:

A is more choice-worthy than B if A is choice-worthy WITHOUT B, but B is not choice-worthy without A.

To make this tool relevant to the present question, we can substitute Security and Liberty (for A and B) and get 2 lines of reasoning, for comparison to one another ...

Security is more choice-worthy than Liberty if Security is choice-worthy WITHOUT Liberty, but Liberty is not choice-worthy without Security.

and

Liberty is more choice-worthy than Security if Liberty is choice-worthy WITHOUT Security, but Security is not choice-worthy without Liberty.

Alec, I realize that the all-none dynamic depicted above is not empirically precise (in the world, we have "levels" of security and "levels" of liberty). However, this does not make the logic useless--as a heuristic to guide our action to what is good.

Alec, when I use this thinking tool--I find myself on the side of liberty (this explains why I think as I do).

Also, when I reflect on recent experience in my life in the US--I find measurable, identifiable decreases in liberty, but I do not find measurable, identifiable increases in security (and this explains more of why I still feel as I do about the war).

War has costs that are immediately identifiable. Identifiable increases in individual utility (stemming FROM post-war conditions) are elusive.

Thomas does have a point regarding means vs ends--I agree with him, but am trying to organize my own line of reasoning, so that I can ADD something to this dialogue, instead of the Attack of the Quotes (in the interests of making progress, and of making myself think hard).

Ed

Post 30

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 4:24pm

Link

Edit

Good post, Ed.......

Post 31

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 5:04pm

Link

Edit

To the rest of you,

My post was specifically in the context of the THIS war, acknowledging that I didn't want to get back into the jungle of justifications. THIS war was not arbitrary nor morally unjustified -- there is a doctrine and several reasons behind it, all true in themselves. Any honest or non-treasonous criticism of this war was based purely on whether it would ultimately increase or decrease our national security. Hence, its outcome is the arbiter of its success. So, please don't pull this "pragmatism" and "oh, so ends justify the means, do they?" crap on me.

To Ed,

You have to understand that "feelings of security" as measured by graphs and charts cannot be a standard by which to judge. You see the inherent flaws -- Bush has been successful in thwarting another attack for almost 4 years now, yet you don't "feel" more secure, perhaps nobody does. Security must be measured in objective ways, such as: are there as many attacks as before? are there as many potential attackors? etc. etc.

A similar silliness has been the asinine claim that one is more likely to be struck by lightening than be victim to a terrorist attack. Um, ok, exactly who set those odds? How can you possibly measure such a thing? Terrorism is utterly random and unpredictable and its damage could range from 2-2 million dead! Does that apply to Nebraskans as much as New Yorkers? You see what I mean.

Point being this. *I* certainly don't feel any less free than before the war. But I am alive. Being alive, I would think, outweighs the importance of waiting an extra 5 minutes in an airport line.

The fact is that many people studying this have realized two things: 1) that there is a whole group of people who want nothing more than to destroy us by any means necessary; 2) there are weapons and circumstances that would soon give them the means to do so.

The only way to prevent this from happening is to PREVENT it from happening. If a particular course of action will be successful to that end, its costs will be significantly minimal compared to its benefit.

Alec

Post 32

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 7:34pm

Link

Edit

Robert, I mean absolutely no disrespect when I say:

Thank you Robert, coming from you, that means a lot!

Robert, all I mean to say by the above is that you are a great critic--but (it is now clear to me that) you are not a cynic.

What is a cynic?: A man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing. - Oscar Wilde

Ed

Post 33

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 6:30pm

Link

Edit

"Unless you think this was an evil war no matter what -- in which case you are an anti-American -- the merit of this war should be based entirely on its ultimate empirical outcome. Here's the question and please answer it honestly: is there any possible outcome of this war that would make you change your mind?

If the answer is "no," then you are a disingenuous dogmatist."

As you've posed your question in an entirely consequentialist framework, you are risking even relegating Randians to being 'disingenuous dogmatist[s]". The pragmatism you now hastily attempt to distance yourself from is inherent in the question. Having the "ultimate empirical outcome" be the benchmark for judging the war requires a 'greatest good for the greatest number' or similar consequentialist approach. Such assessments are intrinsically collectivist and unprincipled, hence incompatible with the individualist principles of Objectivism. Despite the undeniably consquentialist nature of your question, though, I find it of interest because of ambiguity elsewhere.

If you mean 'can any possible consequence (empirical outcome) make you regard the entire Iraq war as ethical', the answer has to be no. The means of waging the war have already embraced substantial initiation of force, in both hemispheres. The particular actions violating Objectivist ethics are already baggage of the war; this is done and cannot be erased, even if the entire Middle East wakes up singing 'Kum Ba Ya' tomorrow.

If you really mean, however, 'can any possible consequence make you regard the war from this point forward as ethical', then yes - it is feasible, if unlikely. If the occupation ends - ending with it the ongoing robbery of US citizens to the tune of $150M/day for its continuance, and if there is an honest effort to bring to justice individuals who committed crimes against other innocent individuals - regardless whether committed with handsaws and IEDs, or M16s and aerial bombs - then yes, a justifiable ethical approach to the Iraq war is possible starting now.

Quid pro quo, Alec - is there any possible empiral outcome of the Iraq war that would make you consider it unethical?

Post 34

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 7:04pm

Link

Edit

"Why, oh why, did you try to reason with the Saddamite leeches of LewRockwell?

Nothing you say, nothing, will stir anything within them. Their utter contempt for America, and their apologetics for every thug, theocrat and terrorist born, is as close to an 'inherent' trait as one can come to."

You begin with the false assumption that myself and other anti-war Objectivists are all your pet enemy, and follow through with a stunning command of ad hominem. I suppose if you simply write groups of people off with a stream of insults, you can save yourself from a lot of thinking. Still, if you ever decide to forego mudslinging and contribute a rational comment to the discussion, please do so.

Post 35

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 8:20pm

Link

Edit

Aaron:

The means of waging the war have already embraced substantial initiation of force, in both hemispheres.

Whew!

That is a start. Small. But a start.

btw - I am NOT a collectivist about Turks.

Michael

Post 36

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 8:30pm

Link

Edit

Aaron, I have sent you a PM (private message).

Post 37

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 8:44pm

Link

Edit

I need to clarify something. In response to Alec's question:

------------
"is there any possible outcome of this war that would make you change your mind?"
------------

... I answered:

------------
"Yes, an increase in individual utility for folks in each of the 2 main countries involved."
------------

At first glance, this appears like I've adopted pragmatism in my search for the good in life--but it just ain't so. I'm merely balancing empiricism against rationalism, trying to arrive at a healthy admixture of the two. How so?

IF individual utility INCREASED in both the US and Iraq, AS A RESULT OF THE WAR, THEN there must have been an aspect of reality that LEAD to that increase (Law of Causality).

In other words, if my "consequentialist-sounding" mutually-beneficial outcome had indeed occurred, then that would mean that I had failed to integrate something when discovering an argument against the war--ie. it would ipso facto MAKE the war self-evidently right and good.

In still other words, I did not regard Alec's question as counterfactual (i.e. But what if reality weren't the way it is, then ... ?), I regarded it as hypothetical, though factual, evidence of a failure on my part to uncover elusive aspects of reality that DO justify the war.

Ed

Post 38

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 9:12pm

Link

Edit

Aaron: so many words, so little sense. You did not understand my post. My question took the morality of this war as a given. It was an ethical war, and if you think the US initiated the force, you are intensely deluded and I have no interest in arguing with you. That's why I said: "Unless you think the war is evil no matter what" -- obviously, if it was an unethical war before, it will be an unethical war after, regardless.

My question was directed at those who claim that their sole disagreement is based on whether the end of increased national security will be accomplished or not.

No, I won't change my mind on whether this was an *ethical* war. I could certainly change my mind on whether it was the right decision or not, based on the outcome.

Please, before the next goon accuses me of pragmatism, read the context of the damn question!!!

Alec

Post 39

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 10:20pm

Link

Edit

I don't think that the Iraq war has anything to do with why the US has not had another major attack on its soil. Far more important was the roundup of potential terrorists that took place in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 (there are indeed some bad dudes held at Guantanamo). Also, the FBI, CIA and other Western intelligence services are much more aware of the warning signs and magnitude of threat, and are working together far more effectively than pre-9-11. The invasion of Afghanistan also may have provided some temporary disruption in the al Quaeda.

The fact is that the Iraq regime change war was being peddled by Wolfowitz and company throughout the 90's, and their reasons then had nothing to do with counteracting Islamic fundamentalist groups. 9-11 just gave them a compelling event to implement the policy.

The only outcome of the war that will change my skepticism is if the Iraq democracy experiment inspires a significant pro-freedom movement which is willing to confront the fundamentalist head on in a civil war. That is an absolutely necessary first step which has not shown any signs of taking place as of yet...