The World's Policeman

[Selene]

...the $15 million in voluntary contributions the U.S. Treasury has received over the past five years...

Clarify this please...

[Darrell Hougen]

In this context, the term "welfare state" refers primarily to the old age pension provided by the government, which in this country comes in the form of Social Security. If a person knows that his retirement will be paid for by someone else's children, why bother having his own? If a person knows that his children will end up paying for someone else's retirement, why bother going to all the trouble?

Luckily, people in this country still feel there is enough value in having children that they continue to have about 2 on average, or at least they did up until Obama became President. We haven't quite reached the demographic death spiral of some of our allies in Europe. Isn't Japan's birthrate about 1.4 children per adult woman? If economic output is proportional to population, Japan will be fighting a 30% decline before they even get started. One also wonders where the soldiers, sailors, scientists and engineers of the next generation will come from.

The demographic death spiral is widely attributed to the modern, over-regulated welfare state. Get rid of that and you eliminate a big cause of demographic decline. Don't believe me? That's your choice, but a bunch of "what if's" aren't shedding any light on the matter.

Darrell

Why make the mistake of having children if you will have to look after them and teach them yourself or pay money out of pocket for someone else to do it? Government subsidies run throughout the warp and woof of society. A population slump resulting from closing government schools may be just as likely as a baby boom from ending government-subsidized pensions.

In any case, even if the government is left out of the picture, an organized national campaign to boost the population for defense purposes is nothing short of preposterous and has the whiff of one of Himmler's bouts of madness. Large populations are no guarantors of military strength, of economic growth or of much else. Can anyone claim with a straight face that having four times the population of the U.S. gives India four times its military strength?

Furthermore, the assertion that “economic output is proportional to population” is unfiltered nonsense. By that calculus, Bangladesh would be rolling in money and Australia would be impoverished.

Yes, in the West the 20th century gave us the rise of welfare states and the decline of birthrates. But the most pertinent datum of the era is the change in women's roles. Post WWII, women stayed in school longer, entered the work place in larger numbers, postponed marriage, and postponed motherhood. All this was made possible in large part by more effective contraception and the disappearance of the taboo against unattached women.

Organized campaigns to make babies in order to fill army uniforms (or pay war contributions) makes no more sense than the left's loony crusade to cull the human herd.

Smart people leave these matters to the market. If a country is free, the standard of living will rise and people will naturally want to live there. But if all property is private, the newcomers will have a skill to offer-- they will be quality people.

“More people would help our economy and our military defense”?

Not if they’re the equivalent of the dumb slobs of the past decade who thought they were joining the Army to “fight for our freedom” in Iraq.

I'm a little confused. Are you arguing for keeping government schools? And pensions? I thought you were a bit of a libertarian or Objectivist. Am I wrong?

You really don't like the idea of population growth do you? You must like your space.

When I said that "economic output is proportional to population" it was clear that I meant, "all other things being equal, economic output is proportional to population." In other words, if, on average, every person earned the same amount in real terms, economic output would be proportional to population. Is it necessary to say that explicitly?

It is hard to remain the economic leader. Other countries can catch up by just copying whatever we're doing. And, the average Chinese person would only have to make half of what the average American makes in real terms in order for their economy to be twice as large as ours. In fact, in many places, Chinese real estate prices are already as high or higher than those in the U.S. Chinese by the thousands are moving to this country and buying houses in expensive U.S. housing markets because they have so much cash. China may be much closer to catching up to us than people realize.

Is it a good thing if women feel like they have to have a career? If the shift in attitudes leads to a country with no children and no future, that doesn't sound like a virtue. I wonder how many of them will regret not having children in their later years. Men too.

I'm not suggesting a campaign to make babies. I'm simply suggesting removing the stigma from having more than a couple. Some people are influenced by what other people think. So, some women want to reduce their carbon footprint. I'd prefer if people like that wanted to help the economy instead. Yeah, probably they should be thinking about their own happiness instead, but that's not where their minds are so why not get them to do something that is actually useful?

The brave men and women that went to Iraq had no idea when they went there that Obama would be elected. Calling them dumb slobs after the fact with 20/20 hindsight isn't really fair to them.

Darrell

[Francisco Ferrer]

...the $15 million in voluntary contributions the U.S. Treasury has received over the past five years...

Clarify this please...

Posts #8 and #9 made it clear that national defense should be funded through voluntary contributions. But the gentlemen who took that position also want our government walking the beat in apparently every dark corner of the globe.

U.S. Treasury gladly accepts contributions above what it demands by threat of fines and jail time.

Seems like the ideal solution, no?

[Darrell Hougen]

I've always had a fondness for Rubio. He sounds very prudent and reasonable on foreign policy. Thanks for the link.

Darrell

Since Rubio has four children, he's clearly doing his part for provide sufficient fodder for future World Police wars.

To keep things strictly moral, couldn't we use the $15 million in voluntary contributions the U.S. Treasury has received over the past five years to invade, occupy and nation-build in "Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia"? Don't "our cost of living" and "the safety of our food" depend on it?

Who said anything about invading any other country? You'd like to think I said that because it's easy to argue against a straw man. I think you're out of bullets Mr. Ferrer.

Darrell

[Selene]

U.S. Treasury gladly accepts contributions above what it demands by threat of fines and jail time.

Seems like the ideal solution, no?

Nice chart thanks...

[Francisco Ferrer]

I'm a little confused. Are you arguing for keeping government schools? And pensions? I thought you were a bit of a libertarian or Objectivist. Am I wrong?

You really don't like the idea of population growth do you? You must like your space.

When I said that "economic output is proportional to population" it was clear that I meant, "all other things being equal, economic output is proportional to population." In other words, if, on average, every person earned the same amount in real terms, economic output would be proportional to population. Is it necessary to say that explicitly?

It is hard to remain the economic leader. Other countries can catch up by just copying whatever we're doing. And, the average Chinese person would only have to make half of what the average American makes in real terms in order for their economy to be twice as large as ours. In fact, in many places, Chinese real estate prices are already as high or higher than those in the U.S. Chinese by the thousands are moving to this country and buying houses in expensive U.S. housing markets because they have so much cash. China may be much closer to catching up to us than people realize.

Is it a good thing if women feel like they have to have a career? If the shift in attitudes leads to a country with no children and no future, that doesn't sound like a virtue. I wonder how many of them will regret not having children in their later years. Men too.

I'm not suggesting a campaign to make babies. I'm simply suggesting removing the stigma from having more than a couple. Some people are influenced by what other people think. So, some women want to reduce their carbon footprint. I'd prefer if people like that wanted to help the economy instead. Yeah, probably they should be thinking about their own happiness instead, but that's not where their minds are so why not get them to do something that is actually useful?

The brave men and women that went to Iraq had no idea when they went there that Obama would be elected. Calling them dumb slobs after the fact with 20/20 hindsight isn't really fair to them.

Darrell

Government schools might be just the thing if one's goal is to encourage new mothers to produce future soldiers by collectivizing the cost of daytime holding pens for the under-18 crowd.

Personally, I look at the mess that is public education and wonder how the Texas sub-genius who came up with No Child Left Behind can be entrusted with waste disposal, much less the nation's security.

I'm not opposed to population growth. But I'm not going to drop a quarter in the can to encourage it. I think playgrounds for kiddies are okay, too. Just don't make it a national priority.

If the average resident of India made the same as the average American, India would be many times richer than the U.S.. The stubborn fact is, Indians don't make much money, and there is no conceivable reason why we should worry about boosting our population. Why not worry about growing our incomes instead?

So you're fretting about the Chinese because they are getting richer? Because they can afford to buy property here and can afford to live here? I guess that can mean only one thing: they're going to bomb the crap out of the country that buys so many of their toys and that owes them so much money. That will teach us!

Why does a leveling population mean no future for a country? Since you've already conceded that growing the population does not mean necessarily expanding the GDP, why not leave it to the market? Under laissez faire, supply and demand are allowed to adjust as needed. It works with apples and oranges. It also works with labor.

Women pursuing careers and enjoying them (as Ayn Rand did) had far more to do with the population leveling than stigmas against large families.

Perhaps you're right. The dummies who thought that killing several hundred thousand Iraqis would somehow make America free, were probably too stupid to realize that a liar and war criminal like Obama could easily defeat a liar and war criminal like McCain.

[Francisco Ferrer]

I've always had a fondness for Rubio. He sounds very prudent and reasonable on foreign policy. Thanks for the link.

Darrell

Since Rubio has four children, he's clearly doing his part for provide sufficient fodder for future World Police wars.

To keep things strictly moral, couldn't we use the $15 million in voluntary contributions the U.S. Treasury has received over the past five years to invade, occupy and nation-build in "Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia"? Don't "our cost of living" and "the safety of our food" depend on it?

Who said anything about invading any other country? You'd like to think I said that because it's easy to argue against a straw man. I think you're out of bullets Mr. Ferrer.

Darrell

You like Rubio. Rubio supported the invasion of Iraq and voted to keep troops there. You don't support invasions, but you do like Rubio?

Got it.

[Selene]

Francisco:

So what is your paradigm for our country's structure?

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Bush did much more damage to our country with his war on terror and foreign wars than Obama. A serious case can be made for domestic policy too, but making such a case would be for me a waste of time. The only thing I supported back then was invade Afghanistan, kick some ass and get out. Things got so stupid, however, I knew war, I got radical against almost all government bull shit. Extant government--the State--is run by knaves, supported by fools.

--Brant

Ayn Rand got stuck between two paradigms, the present and should be, thinking the first would lead to the second, which is why Greenspan went to Washington, BTW, and helped make everything a lot worse--maybe that was his intention (accelerate history); I simply think he always was a master politician and that included his relationship with her and, absent that, a seller of match-up political push and pull even in his private business days, or influence peddling, which he needed to do no longer once he got to the top of the heap (oh, yeah, he's an amiable man)

should be: a government scared to death of its citizens and afraid to get too far out of line; how do we get citizens like that?--be one yourself, brother, for starters--get the critical thinking going! (Rand's "should be" ended up as more of a top down thing though hardly that simple)

[dldelancey]

I'm not entirely sure it is wise to wade in here, but I thought you fellas might benefit from a few random thoughts from a woman (and a mother).

It should not be assumed that women feel they have to have a career. It should be assumed that they want to. Stay-at-home parent is a valid career choice for both men and women provided they have the non-coerced support to make it financially viable. If it's worthwhile to remove the stigma associated with large families, then it is equally worthwhile to remove the stigma associated with being a stay-at-home dad. (Incidentally, I live in an area with a large devout Catholic population. There is no large family stigma.)

[Brant Gaede]

I'm aware that many and probably most women want to have children and that many and probably not most women don't, with a lot of in between. What women want they should go get.

--Brant

as a MAN I only want ONE thing! (have some more Madeira my deara)

[Samson Corwell]

Are export controls on "democracy" acceptable?

[Peter]

Samson Corwell wrote:

Are export controls on "democracy" acceptable?

Do you mean exporting or supporting people who are striving for freedom around the world? Sure, if it makes Americans feel good, and the taxation for that government’s support is approved by the taxpayers.

Or, do you mean exporting armaments or drugs? That is a tough one. My gut feeling is that limitations “will always be on” all items that have controls for usage by the citizens of that democracy.

So what if Boulderado legalizes pot? Should the FEDS stop all exports? What if it is to other states or countries that have legalized pot? What if drugs or alcohol reach kids in other countries? I remember there were some legitimate sites where people from one country could order drugs online but the buyer had to be wary. One story about a Chinese drug company said there was plaster of paris in one med.

[Samson Corwell]

Samson Corwell wrote:

Are export controls on "democracy" acceptable?

Do you mean exporting or supporting people who are striving for freedom around the world? Sure, if it makes Americans feel good, and the taxation for that government’s support is approved by the taxpayers.

Or, do you mean exporting armaments or drugs? That is a tough one. My gut feeling is that limitations “will always be on” all items that have controls for usage by the citizens of that democracy.

So what if Boulderado legalizes pot? Should the FEDS stop all exports? What if it is to other states or countries that have legalized pot? What if drugs or alcohol reach kids in other countries? I remember there were some legitimate sites where people from one country could order drugs online but the buyer had to be wary. One story about a Chinese drug company said there was plaster of paris in one med.

I meant things like this:

In other words, it was a joke.

[Peter]

Samson wrote, “In other words, it was a joke.”

Well pardon me for taking you seriously. What a mean chap. That is a cool picture though, and the caption is inspired. What do you think the “LA” on the tail signifies? Somehow that silhouette doesn’t seem right to be a B-52.

The dropped, guided ordinance need NOT mean collateral damage. Instead it could signify some very bad people getting what they deserve for initiating force. If it were a single bomb, possibly a small nuke, then the chance for unfortunate, collateral damage would be greater. I think one of OL’s own contributors, Dennis May, was a load master in the US Air Force.

Crap. My knee won’t stop “jerking.” I guess my point is, America does not have a policy of targeting civilians but a terrorist does. Serving your country, if it is America, is honorable.

[Francisco Ferrer]

By the Pentagon's own count, 66,081 civilians died in the second Iraq war. Calling them "untargeted" or "collateral damage" or "friendly fire" or "unlucky sons of bitches" does not absolve the authors of the war of moral responsibility.

[BaalChatzaf]

By the Pentagon's own count, 66,081 civilians died in the second Iraq war. Calling them "untargeted" or "collateral damage" or "friendly fire" or "unlucky sons of bitches" does not absolve the authors of the war of moral responsibility.

If the war had to be fought in self defense and collateral damage is unavoidable then tough titty to the dead. The responsibility for the deaths is on the parties who started the war in the first place.

Lately the U.S. has not fought a justified war of self defense. The last such war was WW 2.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Furthermore, the claim that "America does not have a policy of targeting civilians" is rubbish, requiring one to ignore the starvation blockade of World War I (763,000 German civilian deaths) and the firebombing of German and Japanese cities in World War II, which was expressly designed to maximize civilian deaths (between 400,000 and 600,000 German civilian deaths and 500,000 Japanese deaths). More recently, the U.S. military-enforced blockade of Iraq (which killed several hundred thousand people) and U.S. bombing of population areas in Iraq and Afghanistan indicate the U.S. government is willing to consider non-combatants as part of the target, not incidental to it.

[Brant Gaede]

Furthermore, the claim that "America does not have a policy of targeting civilians" is rubbish, requiring one to ignore the starvation blockade of World War I (763,000 German civilian deaths) and the firebombing of German and Japanese cities in World War II, which was expressly designed to maximize civilian deaths (between 400,000 and 600,000 German civilian deaths and 500,000 Japanese deaths). More recently, the U.S. military-enforced blockade of Iraq (which killed several hundred thousand people) and U.S. bombing of population areas in Iraq and Afghanistan indicate the U.S. government is willing to consider non-combatants as part of the target, not incidental to it.

Without discussing with you the other stuff in this paragraph, could you reference your last sentence x Iraq?

--Brant

[Selene]

Furthermore, the claim that "America does not have a policy of targeting civilians" is rubbish, requiring one to ignore the starvation blockade of World War I (763,000 German civilian deaths) and the firebombing of German and Japanese cities in World War II, which was expressly designed to maximize civilian deaths (between 400,000 and 600,000 German civilian deaths and 500,000 Japanese deaths). More recently, the U.S. military-enforced blockade of Iraq (which killed several hundred thousand people) and U.S. bombing of population areas in Iraq and Afghanistan indicate the U.S. government is willing to consider non-combatants as part of the target, not incidental to it.

Without discussing with you the other stuff in this paragraph, could you reference your last sentence x Iraq?

--Brant

Yes, I would like to see a source on that also...

[Peter]

Francisco Ferrer wrote:

Furthermore, the claim that "America does not have a policy of targeting civilians" is rubbish, requiring one to ignore . . . World War II . . . and U.S. bombing of population areas in Iraq and Afghanistan ”

I cannot say I am not appalled by the killing of civilians nor am I in total agreement with Rand. I will include some cringe-worthy quotes from her at the end of this letter.

Francisco, I have utilized OL contributor Philip Coates’ ideas concerning “the hostage principle,” in the paragraphs below. Suppose a robber walks into a bank and grabs a person standing by the door and uses him as a human shield. The robber holds the hostage in front of himself and starts shooting at the guard, trying to kill him. There is no exit for the guard. The robber just keeps shooting. The only way the guard can survive is to shoot through the hostage. Self-defense in this case requires that you shoot through an innocent noncombatant to stop the aggression, yet many of us just COULD NOT do that even if we were careful to shoot through a non lethal portion of the hostage. It is a terribly, difficult call.

During *war* if civilians are not targeted, then objective law properly places full moral blame for any deaths on the person who put the innocents in their positions as hostages or shields. In a sense, the aggressor is the ‘cause’ of the deaths of the innocents and is the ‘cause’ of any collateral damage that is unavoidable during the process of self-defense.

Apply this principle on a larger scale. Apply this to a war in which the civilian populations of both Israel and Palestine are used as hostages or shields by the aggressor. The Palestinians who voted for Hamas in the last election, or who now tolerate Hamas’s aggression towards Israel, are not blameless but they are still noncombatants. Yet when protesting crowds are chanting “death to the Jews,” their TRUE impulses are, “We have a right to kill Jews. The Jews have no right to defend themselves.”

If Mexico declared that Texas was their territory illegally seized by the United States, and started lobbing rockets into the Alamo, we would immediately flatten Mexico. Israel has shown amazing restraint. We never would. Yet, blockades are also problematic to me.

Francisco, you are right and I will re-phrase what I said: the United States does not target civilians except in the case of WWII. The “Shock and Awe” campaign at the start of the second Iraq war was precision guided ordinance to kill Saddam and civilians were not targeted. However I would not have done it.

Peter

Notes:

Q: What should be done about the killing of innocent people in war?

AR: This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. Certainly, the majority in any country at war is innocent. But if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their governments we are all paying for the sins of ours. If some people put up with dictatorships some of them do in Soviet Russia, and some of them did in Nazi Germany then they deserve what their government deserves. There are no innocent people in war. Our only concern should be: who started that war? If you can establish that a given country did it, then there is no need to consider the rights of that country, because it has initiated the use of force, and therefore stepped outside the principle of right. I've covered this in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, where I explain why nations as such do not have any rights, only individuals do.

Q: Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union; assume also that within the Soviet Union, there were individuals opposed to the Soviet system. How would you handle that?

AR: I'll pretend I'm taking the question seriously, because this question is blatantly wrong. I cannot understand how anyone could entertain the question. My guess is that the problem is context-dropping. The question assumes that an individual inside a country can and should be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts, willingly or unwillingly (even if he is fighting it he still accepts it because he hasn't left the country), and that others should respect his rights and collapse to aggression themselves. This is the position of the goddamned pacifists, who wouldn't fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people. If this were so, nobody would have to be concerned about his country's political system. But we should care about having the right social system, because our lives are dependent on it because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it. So if we fight a war, I hope the "innocent" are destroyed along with the guilty. There aren't many innocent ones; those that exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps. But nobody should put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self- defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have an ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him with force, never mind who he is or who stands behind him. If he's out to destroy you, you owe it to your own life to defend yourself.

end quotes

The United States Military Code of Conduct, Article One, begins:

I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

Explanation: Article I of the CoC applies to all Service members at all times. A member of the Armed Forces has a duty to support U.S. interests and oppose U.S. enemies regardless of the circumstances, whether located in a combat environment or in captivity.

Article II

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

Article III

If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

Article IV

If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

Article V

When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

Article VI

I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

End of quotes from Code of Conduct.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Furthermore, the claim that "America does not have a policy of targeting civilians" is rubbish, requiring one to ignore the starvation blockade of World War I (763,000 German civilian deaths) and the firebombing of German and Japanese cities in World War II, which was expressly designed to maximize civilian deaths (between 400,000 and 600,000 German civilian deaths and 500,000 Japanese deaths). More recently, the U.S. military-enforced blockade of Iraq (which killed several hundred thousand people) and U.S. bombing of population areas in Iraq and Afghanistan indicate the U.S. government is willing to consider non-combatants as part of the target, not incidental to it.

Without discussing with you the other stuff in this paragraph, could you reference your last sentence x Iraq?

--Brant

Furthermore, the claim that "America does not have a policy of targeting civilians" is rubbish, requiring one to ignore the starvation blockade of World War I (763,000 German civilian deaths) and the firebombing of German and Japanese cities in World War II, which was expressly designed to maximize civilian deaths (between 400,000 and 600,000 German civilian deaths and 500,000 Japanese deaths). More recently, the U.S. military-enforced blockade of Iraq (which killed several hundred thousand people) and U.S. bombing of population areas in Iraq and Afghanistan indicate the U.S. government is willing to consider non-combatants as part of the target, not incidental to it.

Without discussing with you the other stuff in this paragraph, could you reference your last sentence x Iraq?

--Brant

Yes, I would like to see a source on that also...

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah_during_the_Iraq_War#U.S..E2.80.93Iraqi_offensive_of_November_7.2C_2004

here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2mPAydpXXg

here: http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php/features/afghanistan-pakistan/7425-us-night-raids-killed-over-1500-afghan-civilians-in-ten-months

and here: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7376

[Selene]

Your "source" number three (3) is a propaganda site...>>> http://www.worldcant...s-in-ten-months

Wiki is not a reference site in too many cases.

Now, I am suspicious of your motives.

A...

[Francisco Ferrer]

Your "source" number three (3) is a propaganda site...>>> http://www.worldcant...s-in-ten-months

Wiki is not a reference site in too many cases.

Now, I am suspicious of your motives.

A...

The civilian death toll from night raids in Afghanistan is well known and hardly controversial. Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_raids_in_Afghanistan

[Brant Gaede]

War, yes or no. If "yes" what is right and wrong conduct for your forces and why?

After the first year, if not sooner, we had no good excuse to be any longer in Afghanistan. The longer the war the more the civilian impact, assuming it wasn't horrendous at the beginning.

The Iraq invasion in 2003 was unjustified. I was absolutely against it at the time. I came to the inevitable conclusion we were ruled by stupid, ignorant and dangerous knaves. Going back to the First Gulf War, the State Department effectively gave Hussein the green light to invade Kuwait. At least that President Bush wasn't so incompetent as to send an army deep into Iraq for purposes of "regime change."

--Brant