RoR: Forum

Post 120

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 2:52pm

Link

Edit

Yes, Adam. I am acutely aware that my point has already been dealt with. My post was written and submitted some ten hours before either you or Mr. Bidinotto wrote, but was delayed while someone scrutinized it at length to make sure it didn't offend any of the delicate sensibilities at SOLO. I'd reply to you and to Mr. Bidinotto, but since there doesn't seem to be much chance that my post would actually see the light of day before, say, Thursday, there doesn't seem to be much point in doing so.

JR

Post 121

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 4:05pm

Link

Edit

Whether Hussein had a massive military or not isn't at issue. At issue is whether there was any credible evidence prior to the Iraq War to suggest that he was plotting to kill Americans (with WMDs, ginsu knives, nail clippers, whatever).

Clearly, there isn't any such evidence and never was. Being a thuggish dictator doesn't qualify, as that can be said about many rulers all over the world (some of whom are still being supported by the US government. Why doesn't anyone comment on that?).

I can see how one would be angry and upset after 9/11. But emotions aren't tools of cognition. And I don't see how anyone can rationally think it's in our interest to spend more than $200 billion of U.S. taxpayer money, help boost Al Queda recruitment, and sacrifice 1,500 American lives in order to oust a dictator who had nothing to do with 9/11 and knew he'd be toast if he ever attacked us.

As for George Bush, even he eventually had to abandon the pretense of going to war for a defensive purpose. Instead, the Iraq War became all about democracy, which will more than likely disintegrate as soon as the U.S. military leaves.

Of course, by that time Iraq will be old news. Zimbabwe, here we come.

Post 122

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 4:05pm

Link

Edit

Linz,

Regarding your Post #115:

Whoa.

Hey, thanks, dude.

(Been hangin' with my daughter a while.)

Maybe the now-notorious post 76 needs a bit of polish for an independent article? I don't know, you be the judge and let me know.

Post 123

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 4:17pm

Link

Edit

Riggenbach: 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. … 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.

Yes, Jeff, that’s what’s called a war. We know what war is; you don't have to patronize us.

Riggenback: By what right are these people impoverished, deprived of their homes and families, maimed, and killed?

And, that happened in Nazi Germany when we invaded the German homeland to defeat the Nazis. If you read the substance of what I write instead of legalistically parsing isolated statements, you’ll see that I’m inquiring about the objection to war – the Iraq war and the war against the Nazis or Imperial Japanese – on the sole grounds that it is unavoidable that civilians will be “deprived of their homes and families, maimed, and killed.”

Let me repeat what I asked Mr. Gregory and ask if you concur: “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?”

PS. I've met "libertarians" who said we aggressed against Saddam because his aggression was not against us. (added in the edit)

(Edited by Jason Pappas on 4/12, 4:30pm)

Post 124

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 4:33pm

Link

Edit

I'm getting nervous...

Tom Rowland liked my post on rights.

Adam Reed liked it.

Even LINZ liked it.

Help me, George...

What have I done wrong??? ;^)

Post 125

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 4:42pm

Link

Edit

Linz (post 115), I agree that Rand's conception of rights appeared to evolve over time -- from the more traditional approach, to the "contextualist" one. I fear that her ambiguity in some earlier passages on this distinction misled more than a few admirers to accept that older view.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 4/12, 4:44pm)

Post 126

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 4:55pm

Link

Edit

Robert's brilliant post earlier on this thread, along with his consistently strong contributions here have convinced me that he is the #1 thinker posting and writing articles on SOLO. After the nonsensical and embarassing thread this weekend, it is nice to come back and see someone tackling important subjects with crystal clear logic and clarity. Well done.

- Jason

Post 127

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 5:13pm

Link

Edit

I wish to add my applause for Robert Bidinotto's post 76 regarding intrinsicism vs. contextual rights. That's the quality of thought that makes Solo exceptional. I learned something important by reading that post and I am grateful. Thanks.

Post 128

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 6:28pm

Link

Edit

Tom Rowland (Takeyes Fornanswer) wrote:

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.

Normally I don't respond to nom-de-plumes, but you've identified yourself so that's OK. I confess I don't know the history to which you've alluded, so do not know the reasons for the initial anonymity.

To suggest failure to agree to a personal message would mean I'm not "game" is to guarantee my non-agreement, so you'll have to Takeno Fornanswer. :-) However, there's nothing to stop you starting a new thread!

Linz

Post 129

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 6:36pm

Link

Edit

Robert (re: post 76)-

Thanks for an intriguing well-stated post. I disagree with some of your side points such as Objectivists supporting roadblocks and anti-gun laws, but the meaty points about the underpinnings of ethics are obviously far more interesting here.

I regard Objectivist ethics concerning rights as a kind of hypothetical imperative, with the the goal of living rationally in a peaceful society. The ethics are principled and consistent rather than capricious and subjective. Context must be taken into account to avoid having the goal of the ethics nullified by an existing too-narrow principle, but this is not done arbitrarily or the ethics would collapse into moral relativism.

I picture the relevant ideas starting with the extreme example of the principled intrinsicist - the pacifist. He acts on principle of not 'violating others' inherent rights', and hence will not use force against others, period. Objectivism recognizes the necessity of man to be able to defend himself - ie. it takes into context that if a man could not defend himself, the goal of the ethics would be moot. Hence this leads to the concept of self-defense (and likewise 3rd party defense). This obviously introduces an exception versus a 'no using force' principle, but has not been done on a whim. Instead the pacifist principle is replaced with a more appropriate principle of not using aggressive force as opposed to retaliatory force. There are ambiguities possible in real world scenarios when judging whether force is in defense. However, clearly the principle itself is meaningful and consistent; recognizing defense is not just an arbitrary rationale for use of force.

The hostage argument suggests the need for further refinement. I agree that not being able to shoot through someone who will die anyway in order to target an assailant would be counter to the goal of Objectivist ethics. It makes sense to consider context of a doomed hostage. A typical explanation I've seen is that the responsibility of harm to the hostage then falls upon the assailant through which you had to shoot. I don't know if that's the best way to state it, but the idea behind it sounds correct, and taking context of hostages into account fits the purpose of the ethics.

The difficulty that quickly materializes when recognizing this though is that there does not appear to be any objective way people view it. Unlike defense, there is not only ambiguity of knowledge of a scenario upon application, but wildly varying interpretations of the concept itself, of what a 'hostage scenario' is. Disagreement exists concerning it ranging anywhere from tightly defined scenarios like you noted, to entire cities or nations. The consistency we have when taking threat into context to justify defense and be able to even describe a principle of nonaggression simply isn't there with hostages. I think there should be a way to objectively define it, but unfortunately trying to consider hostages now has always seemed to be not just contextual, but subjective.

I agree with a contextualist approach to ethics, and think the challenge is keeping adjustments leading to refinements of principle rather than unguided aberrations. I agree with your shoot-through-the-hostage example as you presented it, but haven't seen an objectively interpreted way yet to accomodate that. I see people who would deontologically refuse to shoot the hostage even at risk to their own life - and those who recognize context and the right to shoot the hostage, but do so in such a haphazard manner as to open the concepts of rights and force up to subjectivism. The latter do have an important idea towards refining the ethics, but unless it can be done in a less arbitrary way, the former seem far less dangerous. I'm hoping there is an objective manner to integrate context such as hostage scenarios which can resolve that more satisfactorily.

Post 130

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 6:56pm

Link

Edit

"To call such slavery "Libertarian" is bitter irony. I call it pseudo-libertarian, but evil is probably the best word."

The non-abrasive term I like for what you are describing is DAWL - deontologically anti-war libertarian. Term courtesy of catallarchy.net (also home of the most convincing consequentialists I've even seen).

"If you chop one bad guy off but leave loyal soldiers and lots of guns lying around, you don't need to be a mental giant to see that another bad guy will step up to use them."

This gets into trying to infer from history how menacing dictatorships behave after losing their dictator. Perhaps you have good counterexamples, but I'm thinking of cases such as Attila or Ghengis, where a savagely imperialistic and dangerous force largely fizzled after the death of the leader.

Post 131

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 7:04pm

Link

Edit

Aaron,

The military dictatorships of South America (my neck of the woods) are full of examples of new bad guys stepping up. Thankfully that age is coming to an end with globalization.

Also, Attila and Ghengis used swords, spears, clubs, etc. Not bombs, bio-chemical weapons, tanks, etc. That changes things a bit.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 4/12, 7:06pm)

Post 132

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 8:46pm

Link

Edit

Bidinotto's post was indeed excellent and worthy of the fanfare it's received. However, it does not in and of itself give any objective proof that the Iraq war was a justified undertaking.

Here's part of my hang up with the whole thing:

I believe Rand was on to something when she said that a (relatively) free society has the "right but not the obligation" to topple a totalitarian regime. The question becomes: at what point is the US government obligated to take out a regime? And remember, in the context of the Iraq war, such an obligation involves the death of 1547 soldiers (and counting) and $200 billion (and counting) of tax payer money. Not to mention the collateral damge...

I'm sure most here would say that the obligation comes in when said thugocracy is actively plotting to violate the security and safety of the free society. There is no evidence to suggest that Saddam was in any meangingful way a threat worthy of the aboves costs. All indications show that the sanctions and inspections had effectively neutered the regime. In fact, assuming for the sake of argument that there was serious collaboration between elements of Saddam's regime and elements of al Quaeda, and that Saddam possessed WMD's, there is the very real possibility that such goodies could have been sold off to al Quaeda immediately prior to the invasion (the US telegraphed that they were coming, after all), and those same weapons might now be in the hands of terrorists who are planning carefully to get them inside the US. Heck, it would have been some quick cash for the Baathists who wanted to split and/or fund the insurgency to come. If this is in fact the case (which it very well may not be), then the US invasion might have instead put weapons INTO the hands of terrorists. Either way, it's a possibility that I'm surprised no one discusses.

As I've stated before, the Iraq war was being peddled by neoconservatives for years - long before 9-11. The main justification behind their lobbying was a general belief in the notion of Pax Americana, the idea that America should be the only super power in the world, and that any threat to our hegemony in a specific region should be wiped out before it emerges into something bigger. Any notion of Pan Arabism (secular or religious) or Islamic national unity is not compatible with Pax Americana. This is why Saddam went from good friend to hated foe with his attempt to expand Iraq by invading Kuwait (which, as has been pointed out in other threads, was all but promised to him by the US when we needed to get him on board for taking on Iran).

The current Iraq war is merely a continuation of the first Gulf War (in reality, the first Gulf War never ended - it continued through the Clinton years with no fly zones etc). The hawks simply felt that Saddam got off easy by staying in power after his defiant move in Kuwait and his post war shenanigans. These same hawks siezed on the citizens desire to have the government "do something" in ramming their Iraq war policies through post 9-11. Say what you will about them, but Wolfowitz and company have a strategic vision. All other military ideas on the table post 9-11 were simply reactive and not proactive like theirs. I think that's a big reason why they gathered momentum.

(Edited by Pete on 4/12, 8:49pm)

Post 133

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 9:30pm

Link

Edit

I don't think anyone aggressed against the Nazi regime. World War II, however, did involve plenty of Allied criminal acts against innocents, wholly unnecessary for overthrowing Hitler or preventing the spread of fascism, and indeed ineffective at vanquishing totalitarianism, considering that, as Rand put it years ago, Communist tyranny was the greatest victor of that war.

Post 134

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 10:36pm

Link

Edit

"I believe Rand was on to something when she said that a (relatively) free society has the "right but not the obligation" to topple a totalitarian regime. The question becomes: at what point is the US government obligated to take out a regime? And remember, in the context of the Iraq war, such an obligation involves the death of 1547 soldiers (and counting) and $200 billion (and counting) of tax payer money. Not to mention the collateral damage..."

Pete -- You are not fully comprehending what Rand was saying here. She was arguing against the idea of national self sacrifice. Specifically, she was arguing against the idea that it is a free nation's duty to come to the rescue of a nation that is not free. Thus, if you are basing such a decision on Objectivist ethics then the choice is based on a nation's rational self interest within the specific context in question and not any specific point or threshold in which an action becomes obligatory. So the question you are asking would not be considered in a proper application of Objectivist ethics.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 4/12, 10:44pm)

Post 135

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 3:36am

Link

Edit

Anthony Gregory: World War II, however, did involve plenty of Allied criminal acts against innocents, wholly unnecessary for overthrowing Hitler or preventing the spread of fascism, ...

I guess I've misunderstood you. You’re objection is with how we fought WWII and now the Iraq War? Here I thought you objected to the very war itself - by fighting in a country that never invaded us (Germany in WWII & Iraq now). Silly me, I thought you were objecting to the inevitable nature of war. In Iraq we've achieved historically low levels of casualties on both sides and unusually low levels of collateral damage by historical standards of modern warfare. Oh, that's right Lyndie England ... oh, now I see why your so upset!

Post 136

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 5:25am

Link

Edit

"The military dictatorships of South America (my neck of the woods) are full of examples of new bad guys stepping up."

Are they attacking people in other countries?

"Also, Attila and Ghengis used swords, spears, clubs, etc. Not bombs, bio-chemical weapons, tanks, etc. That changes things a bit."

Though how. I don't know of modern examples of dictators of belligerent empires who died in their prime to serve as an example either way. The war threads are wearisome. Now I'd be happy if you would be free to pay towards the Dictator Disarmament Dept and I was free to contribute to the International Assassination Agency.

Post 137

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 8:01am

Link

Edit

Aaron, I thought you raised excellent issues in your Post 129. Trying to answer them is a big challenge, since so many issues are involved. But I think they all boil down to:

How does one prevent "contextualism" in the application of any moral principle (including "rights") from deteriorating into subjectivism?

That's a subject not for email posts, but for a book! I may weigh in with some preliminary thoughts after I do my taxes and finish my pending work projects...

Post 138

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 8:16am

Link

Edit

Pete (post 132) says,

The question becomes: at what point is the US government obligated to take out a regime? And remember, in the context of the Iraq war, such an obligation involves the death of 1547 soldiers (and counting) and $200 billion (and counting) of tax payer money. Not to mention the collateral damge...

I'm sure most here would say that the obligation comes in when said thugocracy is actively plotting to violate the security and safety of the free society. There is no evidence to suggest that Saddam was in any meangingful way a threat worthy of the aboves costs. All indications show that the sanctions and inspections had effectively neutered the regime.

Pete, I agree with everything you wrote in this passage...up to your final two sentences. In fact, the intelligence that Bush was given up to the time he sent in the military to overthrow Saddam pointed to a very serious, imminent threat to U. S. security and safety (check this link, and follow where it leads you).

That this intelligence was later found to be faulty cannot be blamed on Bush, who had inherited intelligence agencies that had been eviscerated by congressional liberals. His decision to go to war was completely justified within the full context of his knowledge at the time. His efforts subsequent to the invasion have been toward making the best of a bad situation -- and the evidence is getting stronger every day that he is succeeding.

Post 139

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 10:29am

Link

Edit

Aaron,

"The military dictatorships of South America (my neck of the woods) are full of examples of new bad guys stepping up."

Are they attacking people in other countries?

Yup, when they can get away with it.

Or could, to be precise. They even helped each other to do it (Operação Condor, for example.) That age is thankfully passing. But some of them sure wanted to do more real bad.

Their militaries were blessedly too fucking incompetent to do much damage. That is one of the main reasons they kept a low profile on the international stage.

Argentina getting its ass kicked by England over the Falklands did not go unnoticed by our bad guys down there. So they just machine-gunned Indians and tortured their own political dissidents and stuff.

Besides, many of the bad guys down there were up to their eyeballs in running narcotics into the USA and Europe and getting filthy stinking rich doing it. Why pick a fight with their market?

btw - Do they accept checks in Brazilian reals at the Dictator Disarmament Dept?

Michael