RoR: Forum

What do you mean by "we"?

It is usually possible to engage in trade, regardless of the apparent circumstances. When the Reuthers worked in the USSR, it was at a Ford factory.

"A good merchant does not argue religion with his client." Ernst Samhaber in Merchants Make History. Trade enables change at a profit to both sides. War denies profit to both sides. Therefore, trade is better than war. That is why I voted that the the hypothese is flawed. The hypothesis said that after war, trade would be possible. Trade is possible before war, without war.

I could feign ignorance by suggesting that "Nastonia" is the United States and the moral "nation" is a coalition of Switzerland, Liechtenstein, the Cayman Islands and Bahrain. In that case, "we" (see above) would be morally bound to support the invader, i.e, the "Liberator."

That brings up the option of any rational trading person who values their own life emigrating here and now from the USA. It is interesting to see where blind logic takes you... That is one of the fallacies of nominalism qua Objectivism, that as "non-contradictory thinking" logic (as opposed to "reasonableness") should guide our actions.

People have the government they deserve. It is not up to "us" i.e, you to decide what other people prefer for a government. Yes, the extreme case is easy to argue, but where does it stop? Do you invade the neighbor who allows state religion? (As does Switzerland, a nation rubberstamped as moral by Wolfer himself.) War is a losing proposition. The only question is whether you choose to lose more or less. If you wait until you are invaded, you lose less, because the enemy is forced into difficult circumstances, a case made and proved by Sun Tze long ago and far away. If invasion held any hope for gain, then the Spanish crown would not have been bankrupted (which they were) by the looting of the Americas for gold and silver. Every boatload of bullion impoverished the Spanish people all the more. Even as the morality of Catholicism (read "Objectivism") was forced on the natives of the Americas.

Post 1

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 8:22pm

Darn, Michael, you threw your vote away!

If Nastorians had suffered limited property rights, as one assumes would be the case from the hypothetical, and then they were liberated, the amount of trade would have increased. So, if there are flaws in the hypothetical that isn't one of them.

And by the way, that argument about increased trade is NOT mine. It is one of the arguments I've heard from other people who are justifying a war of "liberation."

You said,

Do you invade the neighbor who allows state religion? (As does Switzerland, a nation rubberstamped as moral by Wolfer himself.)

Whoa... I didn't rubber-stamp Switzerland as moral! I pointed out differences that were pertinent to the thread - two things that we should emulate - that's all.

And when I voted on this poll question, it was for the belief that it is immoral to invade unless we are threatened with attack.

Post 2

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 8:43pm

I chose it would be immoral to attack. They should already have enough people in their country to liberate themselves if they want to. But the people who have the initiative to do anything about it all like the corrupt government. I don't see how killing a large number of people would change how they would govern themselves in the long term.

I very well may choose to assist in helping the population overthrow the current government, if there is clearly a large majority of the population that desires this and can likely create a better government.

Is this hypothetical government North Korea?

Post 3

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 10:00pm

Hi Dean,

No, it's not North Korea. It doesn't represent any real country. I just made up a country for the purpose of working on what are the criteria for going to war.

Post 4

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - 4:25am

You said,
Do you invade the neighbor who allows state religion? (As does Switzerland, a nation rubberstamped as moral by Wolfer himself.)
Whoa... I didn't rubber-stamp Switzerland as moral! I pointed out differences that were pertinent to the thread - two things that we should emulate - that's all.

You endorsed the Swiss system of strong local governments. In that system -- which operates at the commune level before rolling up to the canton -- most of the "states" have churches. The clergy are considered civil servants.

Considering what religion is -- certainly what Calvinism and Catholicism are -- it seems to me to follow that if your neighbor is religious, then you have a moral obligation to kill them before they come for you... assuming the premises of this hyptothetical invasion based on the "immorality" of the target peoples. The scenario presented would validate France (which has no state religion) for invading Swiss cantons (which do).

To be perfectly clear -- as too many people here read too quickly -- I reject the invasion. There is no right to invade an "immoral" neighbor until and unless the threat is clear and present. The word for "hitting someone back first" is "aggression."

Post 5

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - 6:23am

There is no right to invade an "immoral" neighbor until and unless the threat is clear and present. The word for "hitting someone back first" is "aggression."

You ignore the rights of the Nastonians who are robbed, enslaved, and killed by the dictator. They have a right to defend themselves, and everybody who chooses to has a right to help them. Helping them fight the dictator is a * defensive * use of force, and I honestly can't understand by what stretch of imagination you can call that "aggression."

In case somebody objects because of the death of innocents� Let's accept, for the sake of the argument, the premise that there must be casualties. Not going to war because of that is like abolishing the profession of surgeon because surgeons sometimes kill the patients they're operating on. It is an attempt to rewrite reality. In reality, you have no guarantee to succeed. Any human activity causes accidents, and some of them are bound to be lethal.

I guess I don't have to mention that while everybody has a right to invade that country and set the slaves free, there is no duty to do so.

Post 6

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - 7:32am

This discussion explains why, on the Iraq thread, I raised the hypothetical example of whether it would be immoral for you to forcibly intervene as an individual if you eyewitnessed a crime in progress -- say, someone physically assaulting a woman or child.

The first thing to determine is whether, on an individual level, any third party has the moral right to intervene in stopping a crime in progress. My answer is: Of course such a right to intervene exists.

The second thing to ask is whether a criminal aggressor retains the any "right" to be protected against such third-party intervention. My answer is: Of course he doesn't.

The third thing to ask is whether, on the level of governments, a "third-party" government has the right to intervene against a government that is either committing atrocities against its citizens, and/or aggressing against other nations, and/or posing a coercive threat to one's own nation. Limiting this question to the issue of "rights" alone, my answer is Rand's: Yes. (Whether a third-party government SHOULD intervene in a given case is quite another matter, colored by considerations of self-interest and practicality. And HOW it may intervene -- e.g., whether it uses volunteers or conscripts, etc. -- is morally crucial, too.)

The fourth thing to ask is whether an aggressor state retains any "national sovereignty" or "right" to be immune from such third-party intervention. My answer is: Hell, no.

A fifth consideration is whether, on the level of governments and warfare, such intervention can be morally proper when it is inevitable that the war will harm innocent civilians. My answer is a resounding: yes. (To argue otherwise is to argue against participation in any war, even one of national self-defense; it amounts to de facto pacifism, based on a platonic conception of individual rights, rather than one arising from the morality of rational self-interest.)

Time permitting (and please understand: I have a magazine to edit and to write for!), I'm comfortable explaining and defending any of my answers, which I regard as perfectly consonant with the Objectivist views of morality and of rights.

Post 7

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - 8:59am

(Whether a third-party government SHOULD intervene in a given case is quite another matter, colored by considerations of self-interest and practicality. And HOW it may intervene -- e.g., whether it uses volunteers or conscripts, etc. -- is morally crucial, too.)

Emphasis mine. This is why I rejected the invasion as immoral. I can't think of a feasible way to fund such an invasion, other than taxation, which I oppose. It is context dropping to ignore that.

Post 8

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - 10:33am

Very well Robert Bidinotto, now what if you know that going to war to remove the dictator will simply result in another similar dictator coming to power? Or how does a government, a society change from being corrupt to being more Capitalist?

Post 9

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - 11:53am

Michael,

You are putting words in my mouth. I did not endorse a system of strong local government. I endorsed a system where the federal government was held in check by the local governments and mentioned that our states used to select our senators. I have always opposed any mixure of state and religion. And, to repeat, I voted against invasion.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Alexander,

You said,

Not going to war because of that is like abolishing the profession of surgeon because surgeons sometimes kill the patients they're operating on. It is an attempt to rewrite reality. In reality, you have no guarantee to succeed. Any human activity causes accidents, and some of them are bound to be lethal.

But a patieint signs a consent form, volunteering to face the risks, and the arrangements for payment for the surgery are voluntary and are worked out ahead of time and the patient agrees to the procedure because it looks to be better than not doing it.

With Nastonia, we are certain of deaths of innocents. They have not been contacted and have not agreed. And the invasion is financed by coerced tax dollars. You say, any human activity causes accidents, and that is true. Like a robber who only intends to steal some money, but ends up killing the shop owner. Or, like driving while drunk. Saying that human activity causes accidents is not a defense against the deaths of thousands when bombs are dropped. Only the threat of an attack against our country can justify taking an action that might kill innocent lives. If Nastonia were a threat to our country in such a way as to make self-defense reasonable then the those deaths would not on our heads, but rather on the head of the dictator. If it Nastonia isn't threatening us then we are morally responsible for the deaths. That is the reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Robert,

I like your approach with the five steps you applied to the problem to work out your answers. But I disagree with part of what you said in step five:

A fifth consideration is whether, on the level of governments and warfare, such intervention can be morally proper when it is inevitable that the war will harm innocent civilians. My answer is a resounding: yes. (To argue otherwise is to argue against participation in any war, even one of national self-defense; it amounts to de facto pacifism, based on a platonic conception of individual rights, rather than one arising from the morality of rational self-interest.)

Notice that you said "...governments and warfare," - but in the hypothetica we aren't yet at war. War can't be made into a pre-existing condition since that would be an entirely different hypothetical. The question is whether or not we should initiate a war. You then jump to attack a strawman position of "any war" being impossible to prosecute if the death of innocents will always be immoral. But my point is that the death of innocents is on the head of the aggressor if, and only if, you are being forced to respond out of self-defense. And, I don't understand why you have changed your position - because on the thread that contains this hypothetical you wrote:

As you describe it, I don't see clear grounds here for invasion. Were Nastonia to be a nation with demonstrated practices of invading other nations (demonstrating aggressive behavior), producing and using WMD, harboring/aiding international terrorists, issuing threats against our own country, interfering with our ability to travel to or trade with other nations, etc., then that would be another matter, and invasion would be justified. [emphasis added]

On that reply you were opposed to invasion. I am still hoping you intend to follow through on the reply to you promised in the Iraq war thread. I am more convinced than ever that there is a very serious flaw in the use of "rational self-interest" to justify a war outside of the context of self-defense.

Post 10

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - 2:16pm

I agree with everything Robert B. said in Post 6.

Of course, my argument against national militarism isn't based on the "rights" of foreign tyrants or their citizens. It's based on rational self-interest. I think that, like individual criminality, national militarism is actually altruistic; the harm done to the country that undertakes it is greater than whatever the benefit to that country might be. Iraq is just the latest example in a long series of that time-tested principle.

By "militarism," I'm not referring to a case in which a country has been attacked by the target in question or is in the process of being attacked by that target.

That's why Steve is also missing the point when he says, "I am more convinced than ever that there is a very serious flaw in the use of "rational self-interest" to justify a war outside of the context of self-defense." There is no war oustide the context of self-defense (as defined above) that can truly be in a country's rational self-interest.

Post 11

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - 5:40pm

Jon,

You said you agree with everything Robert B. said in Post #6 where he appears to be in agreement with invading Nastonia. But please note that he does not say so explicitly in that post and as I pointed out above, he was opposed to invading Nastonia in the post he made on the other thread, just yesterday. So, I�m confused as to Robert�s position on the hypothetical - despite his very clear writing on his reasoning process.

Now, let me know if I understand your positions correctly.

You are opposed to national militarism, reasoning that it harms the country more than it helps. We certainly agree on that.

You are not concerned with the "rights" of foriegn tyrants. We agree on that. They have no rights because they are tyrants.

Your argument against national militarism isn't based upon the rights of their citizens. As you stated it, you didn't need to. I believe we have to consider their rights but we are NOT the ones violating them when we are threatened with attack - so this isn't a place where we disagree.

Your point that national militarism is altruistic is well taken. I wish more people grasped that point.

Then you specifically exclude that situation where a country is attacked or in the process of being attacked. Again we definitely agree on this.

But you say I�m missing the point when I claim that attempts to use �rational self-interest� divorced from self-defense is a flawed argument. I don�t understand.

You say,

There is no war oustide the context of self-defense (as defined above) that can truly be in a country's rational self-interest.

I agree that it is not in a country�s self-interest to get into a war for other than the reason of self-defense. But other people do say that. They think that it is okay to start a war of liberation even if our country isn�t threatened with attack � and at the same time, they say it is in our self-interest to get into that war. I disagree. Can you say more on why you think I�m the one missing the point?

Post 12

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - 7:31pm

Steve,

I don't see any contradiction in my positions, as you claim in your post #9. To declare that I see no grounds for an invasion of fictional "Nastonia," under the specific conditions that you posit, in no way necessarily contradicts my fifth condition, which deals only with a single, narrow issue: whether wars would be invalidated per se simply because of the likely deaths of innocents. (Regarding "Nastonia," the parenthetical portion of my 3rd condition would apply, and it would tend to rule out intervention in that case.)

My five conditions were meant to apply to the morality of forcible responses to aggression generally, and were not meant to justify (or invalidate) a forcible intervention in the limited case that you posit.

As it is late at night, my reply to the Iraq thread will have to wait until I have time to do a thorough job.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 4/03, 7:36pm)

Post 13

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - 8:45pm

Steve,

I said I agreed with what Robert said in Post 6, which doesn't mention any position he took regarding your prior example. You acknlowedged this.

As for my other points, you understand them and agree with them.

Then you write: "I agree that it is not in a country�s self-interest to get into a war for other than the reason of self-defense. But other people do say that. They think that it is okay to start a war of liberation even if our country isn�t threatened with attack � and at the same time, they say it is in our self-interest to get into that war. I disagree. Can you say more on why you think I�m the one missing the point?"

Sure. As I understand it, your argument here seems to be [1] It's not in our rational self-interest to invade a country that hasn't attacked us (or is in the process of doing so); [2] some people--including self-identified Objectivists--say otherwise; [3] therefore, "rational self-interest" isn't a proper standard by which to judge whether we should attack another country or not.

This argument isn't a sound one, because the second premise is objectively wrong. Regardless of who mistakenly believes otherwise, historical fact and logical inference prove that invading and occupying other countries is a net loss for any nation that chooses that path (which equals altruism on a national scale). Therefore, I don't think you can infer anything about the standard of rational self-interest.

As I said earlier, "rational self-interest" in the context of foreign policy does NOT include attacking nations that aren't attacking you, no matter how odious they are. This is true for the same reason that "rational self-interest" in the context of personal policy does NOT include attacking other people who aren't attacking you, no matter how odious they are.

Post 14

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - 9:11pm

Robert,

Initially, I read your fifth point as a position on Nastronia - which was the only confusion I had. My apologies for that mistaken reading. Being as this thread is for the Nastonia poll you can see how that happened.

Later I begin to think that maybe you weren't referring to the hypothetical and were making a general point - but by then I'd written replies. I understand now.

Post 15

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - 9:19pm

Jon,

We agree on all points as far as I can tell. You said,

..."rational self-interest" in the context of foreign policy does NOT include attacking nations that aren't attacking you, no matter how odious they are.

That is the point I've been trying to make.

Post 16

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - 10:30am

I voted: moral to invade, not in our national interest. A dictator has no moral standing or legitimacy. Therefore, it is moral to forcibly remove him. Any casualties in the process are the fault of the dictator not the defenders trying to remove him.

This said, given the parameters of the hypothetical, it would be a poor decision by our President/Congress in that there isn't a national interest in removing the dictator. The use of the US Army should only be to defend the US. If a case were made that removing the Nastonia Dictator would help defend the US, then fine - do it.

Post 17

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - 10:37am

Jordan,

If we could remove the dictator, like we did Noriega in Panama where we didn't launch a war, then the only question is, as you say, one of national interest.

But if the only way that we can topple Nastonia's dictator involves killing innocent civilians, then we are only justified if it is needed to defend our country.

If we kill innocent civilians as a result of Nastonia threatening an attack on our country, their deaths are on the head of the dictator. If we kill those civilians even though we are not defending our selves, then we are morally responsible.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 4/04, 10:43am)

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 4/04, 10:44am)

Post 18

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - 10:46am

FYI- Several hundred to several thousand (estimate vary widely) civilians were killed in the invasion of Panama to depose Noriega.

Post 19

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - 11:17am