RoR: Forum

Post 100

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 11:57am

Link

Edit

Ed,

You wrote:

In my mind, there are only 3 available choices for the governance of nation-states:

1) anarchy (based on unlimited liberty; ie. license)

2) limited government (based on justice and rights)

3) unlimited government (based on welfare and security)

To nitpick, you should add bloody dictatorships to No. 1, since anarchy always degenerates into multi-tribal warfare.

btw - Thank you for your kind words. I've never been called a Grand Observer before...

//;-)

Michael

Post 101

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 11:58am

Link

Edit

Anthony Gregory: The U.S. government did not initiate force on Hitler, but it certainly did initiate force on innocent Germans in Dresden and elsewhere. … The war in Iraq killed thousands and thousands of people who weren't Saddam Hussein, who weren't serial aggressors, and who were thus initiated force upon.

Thus, I take it you see the war against Nazi Germany, where the collateral damage was several orders of magnitude greater than the Iraq War, was a far more egregious moral monstrosity in your book. By your standards, what we did in WWII was far worse than Iraq. And our involvement in that war, to the extent that carnage was part and parcel of the war, was unequivocally evil. Do I understand you, Mr Gregory?

Post 102

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 12:22pm

Link

Edit

Byron, you want links to the stuff on my blog justifying the Iraq invasion. Okay, you asked for it. Here is a lot of material drawn from my blog entries. Follow the links...then connect the dots.

"Why do they hate us?" Because of our imperialistic foreign policy? Or is it because of this? Or maybe this? Likewise, why 9/11? Well, consider this.

My overview of the rationale for the Iraq War can be found here, as well as here, here and here.

Saddam and WMD? Try here, and here.

Was Bush (gasp!) right about Iraq? As the movie title says: Analyze This. Or, Analyze That.
Or this, or maybe that.

Finally, for positive (i. e., unreported) news about the consequences of our invasion of Iraq, try here, and here, and here.

Or better yet, why not just visit my blog regularly, and spare me the need to do all this homework for you!

Post 103

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 12:28pm

Link

Edit

Robert,

Thanks for doing my homework for me! :-) In my defense, I love your ecoNot blog and I refer it to everyone who thinks environmentalism is a good thing. I will make more of an effort to peruse through your other blog.

Post 104

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 12:58pm

Link

Edit

Michael....

In my mind, there are only 3 available choices for the governance of nation-states:

1) anarchy (based on unlimited liberty; ie. license)

2) limited government (based on justice and rights)

3) unlimited government (based on welfare and security)

To nitpick, you should add bloody dictatorships to No. 1, since anarchy always degenerates into multi-tribal warfare.

btw - Thank you for your kind words. I've never been called a Grand Observer before...

//;-)

Interesting...

But, that may not be true, and what makes you think you can limit 2 absolutely from degenerating into 3?

To most people, rhetoric is the call of the day. They are moved by emotion. To most people, they value security over freedom, which by the way, are at opposite ends of the scale. Most will sell their souls to have security over greatness and freedom, and politicians know this, it keeps them in power.

In the end, the only way we will live in a free society or a free world, is when people begin to believe in themselves, and take responsibility for their lives. When they no longer "LOOK UP" at others as if they are exalted, and begin to look inside and see they can be also.

Regards,

Shane Hurren

(Edited by shane hurren on 4/12, 1:02pm)

Post 105

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 1:00pm

Link

Edit

Ed wrote (post #88):

If someone can forfeit their rights via their conduct; then can their rights ever be thought intrinsic? I reply that this is a contradiction--though I eagerly await other views on this.

You're right, it is a contradiction, Ed. Because the notion of "intrinsic rights" simply makes no sense. A great deal of confusion and mischief will be undone if we can just drive a stake through the heart of that misunderstanding.

Think of "rights" as you do any other moral principle, like honesty. Do we say that "honesty is inherent in Man" -- or that "Sam possesses intrinsic honesty"? No, because moral principles are not possessed, like some faculty or trait; they are identified and applied. Principles are not some sort of things; principles are human creations -- abstract ideas. Why do we then say that men "have" the moral principle of rights? Because traditionally, it's not viewed as a moral principle, but as some kind of platonic essence or stuff, woven into human nature.

Applying rights and "having" rights are vastly different views, with vastly different consequences. The former holds that rights are a concept that helps us identify and apply proper social boundary lines. But the latter is a purely platonic notion which, applied consistently, leads not to human liberty and well-being, but to all manner of fanaticism and destruction. Why? Because by subordinating rational self-interest to a platonic conception of "rights," one ends up sacrificing real people in the name of "principle."

"Intrinsic rights" is thus another road to altruism.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 4/12, 1:02pm)

Post 106

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 1:08pm

Link

Edit

Post 105 (above) by Robert Bidinotto can only be described with one word:

Stunning.

Bravo Robert!

Sincerely, your Boswell

Post 107

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 1:14pm

Link

Edit

George, thank you so much for that. Let me add that I'm a big fan of your wonderful posts here. Keep 'em coming.

Post 108

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 1:16pm

Link

Edit

Thanks for your civility, Robert.

But I'm not convinced that the Iraq War itself is a matter on which reasonable people can disagree (or at least people who are committed to facts and logic in this case). That depends on what credible evidence exists that proves Hussein was an imminent threat to our national security, of which I've seen none so far. All the arguments I've heard in support of the war amount to "Hussein was bad and hated our government." I don't consider that a rational justification for a war that helps breed new terrorists.

Which specific entries in your blog provide evidence showing that Hussein was about to assault or invade America? I'd definitely change my position if I saw it. (Of course, if Hussein had any weapons necessary to seriously harm America, I think he would have used them once it was obvious he was finished.)

Post 109

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 1:34pm

Link

Edit

First, to Linz and to Robert (for his willingness to take the time and effort), I appreciate it.

To Michael,

While I appreciate your arguments, and while I'm always open to criticism of my methods, I didn't particularly appreciate your classification of me as merely a "name-caller." I entered this thread having argued extensively -- and very civilly -- for this war since the month before it began, when my friend and I squared off against some peaceniks in a formal debate on the war in front of 600 students at my high school. We convinced a great deal of them -- in an intensely liberal part of California. My advocacy has continued on SOLO, although I didn't come to SOLO until after the heat of war-debate passed over.

I posted on this thread, specifying that I had no intention of getting into the ethics argument, to pose a simple empirical question. This was promptly ignored and taken out of context, and back we came to the question of initiation. I posted a very fundamental refutation, which was promptly evaded (they *still*, minus all the verbiage, believe that a policeman is initiating force when he arrests a murderer) and responded to with a list of 60 peripheral non-sequiters, to which I simply don't have the time nor the fetish for futility to respond.

Now, after so much has been said and done, we have one of the "initiation" Saddamites (Jon) saying the very same thing I said in my first post! --

"The ultimate question is this: Is America safer as a result of the Iraq War?"

On top of this, we have one person who has shown on another thread that he *wants* to believe that most Iraqi civilian deaths are a result of American force, despite the conclusions of every major scholar and analyst of this war, none of which he cares to read. We have yet another sage who has pulled the golden "why aren't you serving?" arrow out of his quiver of brilliance.

So, Michael, please.

Alec

Post 110

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 1:39pm

Link

Edit

There's a terrible naivete in assuming that U. S. interests can only be damaged by an adversary with a massive military. I would have thought that 9/11 -- a devastating attack launched by a small group of men armed with boxcutters -- would have been an effective counterargument for all time.

Saddam didn't have to possess massive armaments to try to launch his own strike against America. In the aftermath of his aggression being repelled by America in Gulf War I, he attempted to assassinate George H. W. Bush.

Even Bill Clinton had the guts to respond.

Or, by libertarian contortions of the "rights" concept, was that response "aggression" against a "sovereign nation"?

It's abundantly clear that Saddam had the track record, the will and sufficient strength to be an ongoing menace. In the aftermath of 9/11, and given what was then known about Saddam, what requires justification is not George W. Bush's military response. What requires justification is the belief of some here that his thugocracy, with a long record of aggression, atrocities, assassinations and expansionist aims , should remain immune from attack.

In my book, if he'd left Saddam in power, George W. would not have been doing his job of protecting the American people.
(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 4/12, 1:40pm)

Post 111

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 1:55pm

Link

Edit

Michael, this is going to seem controversial, but I have to defend Alec here, too!

When he entered this discussion, I credited him as a great exemplar of civil, rational debate--and I do NOT retract that statement. In my view, Alec has been about as patient as is rationally appropriate--for the context at hand. He has been misinterpreted as to be championing pragmatism, and his arguments have sometimes been twisted and thrown back at him in a less-than-civil manner. Yeah, he developed some contempt, but he didn't totally write-off all discussion (or he wouldn't still be posting)--and notice how he has reasons for contempt. We ought to judge folks over their reasons, not their conclusions

Once mud-slinging starts, I try to pay more attention to how I defend my points--and for some folks, it is just the opposite. I don't know the solution, but I do know what the solution is NOT (the solution is NOT full termination of dialogue).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/12, 1:56pm)

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/12, 2:01pm)

Post 112

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 2:01pm

Link

Edit

Oh, and by the way, you're STILL the Grand Observer (one misapplied truism does not mean anything--at this high-level of meta-discussion).

Keep us on our toes!
Ed

Post 113

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 2:05pm

Link

Edit

Robert,

You've hit the nail on the head with respect to rights. Like all moral principles, the principle of respect for the rights of others is derived from one's own self-interest. Therefore it is useful to keep the derivation in mind, because its premises have a specific scope - and it is a scope violation, an error in logic, to apply the principle of rights outside the scope of those premises. Rand's derivation (in VOS, starting on p. 93) is:

A. My interest requires that I act only in ways that safeguard the conditions ("rights") required for my own life qua man.

B. I will benefit from cooperation and trade with others only if they respect those conditions.

C. My potential trade partners are rational men like myself.

D. Therefore they will only trade and cooperate with me if I respect their rights.

E. Therefore, to benefit from cooperation and trade with other men I must respect their rights.

Now consider a situation in which some men - for example, the subjects of a dictatorship - are being prevented from trading with us. This means that they are outside the scope of (B) until they become free to trade - that is, the principle of rights will not become applicable to them, until the dictatorship over them is defeated. Defeating that dictatorship first is necessary to bring them into the scope of the principle of rights. It is a scope violation - an error in logic - to insist that our struggle to defeat that dictatorship be restrained, by having to "respect rights" that the subjects of our enemy do not yet have.
(Edited by Adam Reed
on 4/12, 2:25pm)

Post 114

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 2:12pm

Link

Edit

"(they *still*, minus all the verbiage, believe that a policeman is initiating force when he arrests a murderer)"

A policeman is not initiating force when he arrests a murderer. Please at least be intellectually honest enough to stop misrepresenting your opponents' views.

"On top of this, we have one person who has shown on another thread that he *wants* to believe that most Iraqi civilian deaths are a result of American force, despite the conclusions of every major scholar and analyst of this war, none of which he cares to read."

More misrepresentation. I've been willing to admit I don't know how body count figures break down, and have not audaciously claimed to know the "absolute truth". Even if it's references to some scholars and analysts who actually did research, I'm open to reading your supporting evidence if you present it.

Post 115

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 2:14pm

Link

Edit

Brother Bidinotto—that's the best exposition of the nature of rights I've seen. And I would say, the most truly objective. Too many Objectivists fall into the intrinsicist trap of thinking rights are metaphysical givens, rather than *concepts* formed by logical inference *from* man's metaphysical characteristics, to be applied in a social context. The reason for this confusion I believe is that Rand herself was not clear on the matter. Just the other day I came across a passage in her Letters where she said that one has rights by virtue of being born. Yikes. Anyway, Sir Robert, I'm gonna turn your post into an article & post it tonight, assuming you have no objection?

I disagree, though, that this confusion can be used as an excuse for Saddamy. The arguments re the Iraq war were raging here on SOLO long before you & some of the other protagonists signed on. All the points that have been made recently were made previously, over & over. In two cases—Cameron Pritchard & Duncan Bayne—Saddamites changed their minds, because they were "good faith" Saddamites (Lenin's "useful idiots") who were open to persuasion. There remain some Saddamites who are useful idiots, but far & away the majority are scum, condemned out of their own mouths. I shall watch with interest your ongoing efforts to persuade, but I myself, like Alec, have abandoned the project!

Linz

Post 116

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 4:05am

Link

Edit

"I made a statement that you can’t aggress against Saddam. I assume Mr. Gregory concedes this by bringing in other considerations of what is part and parcel of a war but avoided at all costs in a civil disturbance. Let me ask you Mr. Gregory the following simple question: do you think we aggressed against Hitler and Nazi Germany?"

It is difficult to read this and avoid concluding that it is the product of outright intellectual dishonesty. Who has ever maintained anywhere that it was a violation of the Non-Initiation of Force (NIOF) principle to use force against Saddam Hussein? No one. Who has ever maintained anywhere that it would be a violation of NIOF to use force against those who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks? No one. This is a straw man, and a rather pathetic one at that.

What libertarian critics of the Iraq War have complained about from the beginning is the initiation of force against innocent Iraqi citizens who had nothing to do with 9/11 and cannot be held responsible for the crimes of Saddam Hussein. By what right are these people impoverished, deprived of their homes and families, maimed, and killed?

Address the issue, folks, instead of stroking your non-existent beards and prattling on about the need to take action against aggressors. No one denies that. The question is exactly who those impoverished, maimed, and killed Iraqi citizens ever aggressed against.

JR

Post 117

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 2:35pm

Link

Edit

Jeff,

Your point has been dealt with already, in this very thread, in post 76 by Robert Bidinotto and my post 113.

Post 118

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 2:36pm

Link

Edit

Linz,

I agree with the substance of your post, but one thing caught my eye that I want to comment on -- the reference to Rand's letters. This isn't the place to pursue this off-topic discussion so maybe a personal message would be better. Are you game? Contact me either through the SOLO mail, or at the email in my profile.

Tom Rowland

Post 119

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 2:49pm

Link

Edit

Alec wrote:

I didn't particularly appreciate your classification of me as merely a "name-caller."

Ed wrote:

Michael, this is going to seem controversial, but I have to defend Alec here, too!

LOL.

Sorry guys. Boy did I ruffle some feathers! Wasn't my intention...

I do respect your intellect, Alec, and I do consider you as much more than a name-caller. You have a body of work on SOLO that attests to that. And I am one who enjoys and learns from many of your posts.

I admit I am a latecomer to this Iraq invasion discussion. But that gives me another perspective that maybe you don't have. I stayed out of this before on purpose, precisely because of the predominance of mind numbing go-nowhere long-winded discourses and constant baiting.

But there are a still many folks lurking around reading all this who have not made up their minds yet. And I think we all want to reach them.

When the name-calling starts - and then is held up by the, er... ahem... should I say... Saddamites... as an example of the total lack of substance of the defenders of kicking Hussein's ass, these pseudo-libertarians come off as being the rational ones.

I just wanted to call your attention to that - for you to keep it in mind when your blood starts boiling again. Do accept my apology for not being clear.

As a matter of fact - with respect to a post of yours on another thread about shoving statistics up Ward Churchill's ass, I too have indulged in a bit of bombast - here.

I quote:

Ward Churchill is a lowdown despicable mealy-mouthed mediocre pygmy-chimp-sized intellectual scumbag.

Robert - That was me sanctioning you on Post 105. You're hot today dude. The quote below should be engraved in Objectivist canon:

"Intrinsic rights" is thus another road to altruism

Shane - I could walk right into your trap but I won't. "Limited government (based on justice and rights)" can descend into statism if undefended. I'll even agree that big government is one culprit. But madmen with the means to blow stuff up is one enemy I won't ignore - and they certainly won't go away and be nice if you don't do something about them and their weapons.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 4/12, 2:53pm)