Supporting war is collectivist

[skrzprst]

I often hear from pro-war Objectivists that the Iraq and/or Afghanistan wars are in self-defense. Self-defense of who? The response seems to always be "America". What is America? Certainly not a self. Is it the US government? Is it the people living under the US government? Is it US supporters of the US government? US opponents of the US government? Everyone in North America? South America? Both Americas? Supporters of "the American ideal"?

None of those things are people. They are all collectives. To support war as "self-defense" is to give rights to collectives.

[Brant Gaede]

I often hear from pro-war Objectivists that the Iraq and/or Afghanistan wars are in self-defense. Self-defense of who? The response seems to always be "America". What is America? Certainly not a self. Is it the US government? Is it the people living under the US government? Is it US supporters of the US government? US opponents of the US government? Everyone in North America? South America? Both Americas? Supporters of "the American ideal"?

None of those things are people. They are all collectives. To support war as "self-defense" is to give rights to collectives.

If we refrain from unpackaging your comments and simply accept all of them as valid, the question then is "Then what?"

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

I often hear from pro-war Objectivists that the Iraq and/or Afghanistan wars are in self-defense. Self-defense of who? The response seems to always be "America". What is America? Certainly not a self. Is it the US government? Is it the people living under the US government? Is it US supporters of the US government? US opponents of the US government? Everyone in North America? South America? Both Americas? Supporters of "the American ideal"?

None of those things are people. They are all collectives. To support war as "self-defense" is to give rights to collectives.

The collectives consist of real live people who sweat and bleed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mike Renzulli]

I think this post shows the moral bankruptcy of anarchocapitalists and (so-called) left-libertarians. What the author is regurgitating is nothing more than Kantian skepticism which is mainly what AnCap is based on and is the belief that no one can know anything about anything.

Governments exist to protect individual rights not only with courts to resolve disputes and police to keep the peace but also provide a military to protect said countries from foreign invasion and attack.

In an anarcho-capitalist world there is nothing to stop a Communist collective or thief from being able to attack a capitalist society nor steal one's ideas in order to personally profit from their theft since in ancap theft would not be against the law.

I often hear from pro-war Objectivists that the Iraq and/or Afghanistan wars are in self-defense. Self-defense of who? The response seems to always be "America". What is America? Certainly not a self. Is it the US government? Is it the people living under the US government? Is it US supporters of the US government? US opponents of the US government? Everyone in North America? South America? Both Americas? Supporters of "the American ideal"?

None of those things are people. They are all collectives. To support war as "self-defense" is to give rights to collectives.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think this post shows the moral bankruptcy of anarchocapitalists and (so-called) left-libertarians.

Mike,

I mean no disrespect to Jackie when I say this. But sometimes it is helpful to look at who you are talking to before taking out the scorched earth rhetoric.

The dude's young.

Full of piss and vinegar.

And he has a really good head.

In my book, that's something to be celebrated.

I believe he will grow and get wiser with serious objective challenge and a wider range of conceptual referents (as all young folks do).

I know one thing, Wholesale condemnation of someone you don't know is not serious challenge--and it is not very endearing, so don't expect him to invite you over to hang out.

Michael

[pippi]

I often hear from pro-war Objectivists that the Iraq and/or Afghanistan wars are in self-defense.

I have heard they were there to promote democracy, same reason different day I suppose-whether the people are ready for it or not.

I don't pay much attention to foreign policy because I honestly do not care any more, I am going to start not paying attention to domestic policy as well-there is so much out of my control I am getting tired of paying attention.

They keep draining me with taxes because I actually am on a company's payroll that is in the USA, I would not be surprised if soon I was taxed 50% of every dollar I earn (maybe I already am, I am afraid to check) who would want to work if that was the case?

[skrzprst]

I often hear from pro-war Objectivists that the Iraq and/or Afghanistan wars are in self-defense. Self-defense of who? The response seems to always be "America". What is America? Certainly not a self. Is it the US government? Is it the people living under the US government? Is it US supporters of the US government? US opponents of the US government? Everyone in North America? South America? Both Americas? Supporters of "the American ideal"?

None of those things are people. They are all collectives. To support war as "self-defense" is to give rights to collectives.

The collectives consist of real live people who sweat and bleed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You know who else is a real life person who sweats and bleeds? The innocent Afghan villager whose children died in a drone attack.

Mike,

1. I'm not an ancap. I'm a market anarchist, but I'm not an ancap.

2. My argument isn't based on Kantian skepticism. It's based on individualism.

3. There would still be laws in market anarchy, they just would be enforced non-monopolistically.

[pippi]

You know who else is a real life person who sweats and bleeds? The innocent Afghan villager whose children died in a drone attack.

Mike,

1. I'm not an ancap. I'm a market anarchist, but I'm not an ancap.

2. My argument isn't based on Kantian skepticism. It's based on individualism.

3. There would still be laws in market anarchy, they just would be enforced non-monopolistically.

Can you not speak clearly without labels and antianarchomonopistichanarchocapitalistobjectivistmaterialistdisestablishtarianisnmanorchorealistic rhetoric?

Just sayin'

[Brant Gaede]

The brutal fact of the matter is in war innocent civilians get killed. This is so-called "collateral damage." Sometimes the innocents are deliberately targeted to create a military advantage. The Nazis did this attacking France to fill the roads with refugees so French military units could not move.

It simply doesn't matter how just and right your country is, if it goes to war it will kill innocents.

The last just war the United States fought was against the Barbary pirates. I'm not 100% sure about this. If it fought a "just" war (WWII), it was caused by its involvement in an unjust one (WWI)--that and stupidity.

The United States was well prepared during the MAD and some other years to kill 100,000,000 Soviets during a general nuclear exchange. The U.S.S.R. was willing to do us too. It would have also mussed up Europe.

--Brant

in the real world . . . brilliant people make weapons for morons

[Mike11]

I'm with VH and also with Brant here. On the one hand according to strict Objectivist anti-collectivism national military actions and rhetoric are a problem. So I see VH's point. On the other hand I think Brant is saying that in the real world, such as was the case in WW2 and with the Barbary Pirates, we need to compromise our strict Objectivism with real world issues.

At least that is what I take Brant to mean, forgive me if I am wrong.

[pippi]

The brutal fact of the matter is in war innocent civilians get killed. This is so-called "collateral damage."

I don't understand your point , you mean you have to crack some eggs to make an omelette?

What about what is right or wrong?

I just want to throw some vinegar on these threads - they descend so readily into esoteric chatter, they need to be cleansed sometimes (imho that is)

I don't get what our opinion of the Egypt situation would matter in the scheme of things.

Edited February 2, 2011 by pippi

[Selene]

Pippi:

It is not our opinion, it is the actions covert and overt that our country takes that will push, nudge, direct, pull or maybe control the Egyptian "situation."

Whichever of the above actions does or does not happen, some people will probably die because of it and some will live because of it.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

I'm with VH and also with Brant here. On the one hand according to strict Objectivist anti-collectivism national military actions and rhetoric are a problem. So I see VH's point. On the other hand I think Brant is saying that in the real world, such as was the case in WW2 and with the Barbary Pirates, we need to compromise our strict Objectivism with real world issues.

At least that is what I take Brant to mean, forgive me if I am wrong.

What is "strict Objectivism" here and how is it apropos to any of this? Psychologically, once the Japs had bombed Pearl Harbor, if I had been a young man then, I'd have gotten my hands on their throats until they croaked. But why did they bomb Pearl Harbor? The U.S. had already declared de facto war on Japan. That was the sucker punch. Pearl Harbor was a tactical victory for Japan and a strategic disaster. The ruling elite didn't understand America was filled with people like me. Still is. They didn't appreciate what the North did to the South and why and that would in turn be done to them. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and the United States declared war and Germany stupidly declared war on the U.S., Churchill knew the war in Europe was won--and that the Japanese "would be ground to dust"--and slept like a baby.

--Brant

war is for power-mongers, heroes result--but it ain't the power-mongers who are the heroes

[kiaer.ts]

I often hear from pro-war Objectivists that the Iraq and/or Afghanistan wars are in self-defense. Self-defense of who? The response seems to always be "America". What is America? Certainly not a self. Is it the US government? Is it the people living under the US government? Is it US supporters of the US government? US opponents of the US government? Everyone in North America? South America? Both Americas? Supporters of "the American ideal"?

None of those things are people. They are all collectives. To support war as "self-defense" is to give rights to collectives.

Pro-war? That is a rather broad insult.

My father worked in this building, I across the street, and my co-workers and many of my neighbors died there, one of them at Windows on the World.

I was proud to present Robert Twomey's survivor's with an American flag that had been flow over Taliban prisoners of war.

Maybe this is him leaping to his death.

What happened that day was an act of war against myself and the rest of the civilized world, perpetrated from Afghan soil with the support of the Afghan government.

You need to learn your history.

[Brant Gaede]

So, what is/should have been, the rational response? Did you grab a gun and head to--where? For what? Etc.

--Brant

let's say 50 people were behind 9/11--could have been--war was the rational consequence? The Japanese in 1941 were ignorant and stupid and backed into a corner, but 9/11?--pure brilliance--when I say the United States was bear-baited, do you understand what I mean?--do you begin to understand the consequences?

Edited February 2, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[skrzprst]

Brant, Ted, you're not responding like individualists. As horrible as Pearl Harbor was, we needed to punish only those people who bombed us. Anything else would be a compromise of principles. Same with 9/11.

Edited February 2, 2011 by vaguelyhumanoid

[Brant Gaede]

Brant, Ted, you're not responding like individualists. As horrible as Pearl Harbor was, we needed to punish only those people who bombed us. Anything else would be a compromise of principles. Same with 9/11.

By your lights you aren't either. "We" didn't get bombed. "We" did "punish" "those people who bombed us." The problem was getting at them. So "only" was quite impossible.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Brant, Ted, you're not responding like individualists. As horrible as Pearl Harbor was, we needed to punish only those people who bombed us. Anything else would be a compromise of principles. Same with 9/11.

Nearly the entire adult population of Japan was complicit in the war against the U.S.. The people of Japan revered the Emperor as a god and were obedient to the commands of the Tojo led government. We would have been within our rights to kill the lot of them. The children would be collateral damage. But that is the nature of war. The children always suffer.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Brant, Ted, you're not responding like individualists. As horrible as Pearl Harbor was, we needed to punish only those people who bombed us. Anything else would be a compromise of principles. Same with 9/11.

Nearly the entire adult population of Japan was complicit in the war against the U.S.. The people of Japan revered the Emperor as a god and were obedient to the commands of the Tojo led government. We would have been within our rights to kill the lot of them. The children would be collateral damage. But that is the nature of war. The children always suffer.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This after "we" suckered Japan into going to war with us with an economic blockade, especially oil?

--Brant

[merjet]

This after "we" suckered Japan into going to war with us with an economic blockade, especially oil?

The U.S. action was not unprovoked.

The U.S. ceased oil exports to Japan in July 1941, following Japanese expansion into French Indochina after the fall of France, in part because of new American restrictions on domestic oil consumption. This in turn caused the Japanese to proceed with plans to take the Dutch East Indies, an oil-rich territory. (source)

In 1937 Japan invaded Manchuria and China proper. Under the guise of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, with slogans as "Asia for the Asians!" Japan sought to remove the Western powers influence in China and replace it with Japanese domination.

The ongoing conflict in China led to a deepening conflict with the U.S., where public opinion was alarmed by events such as the Nanking Massacre and growing Japanese power. Lengthy talks were held between the U.S. and Japan. When Japan moved into the southern part of French Indochina, President Roosevelt chose to freeze all Japanese assets in the U.S. The intended consequence of this was the halt of oil shipments from the U.S. to Japan, which had supplied 80 percent of Japanese oil imports. The Netherlands and UK followed suit. With only 1.5 years of peacetime oil reserves that would last only a year and a half during peace time (much less during wartime), Japan had two choices: comply with the U.S.-led demand to pull out of China, or seize the oilfields in the East Indies from the Netherlands. The Japan government deemed it unacceptable to retreat from China. (source)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As horrible as Pearl Harbor was, we needed to punish only those people who bombed us. Anything else would be a compromise of principles. Same with 9/11.

Jackie,

Here are a few of things for you to chew over.

1. Principles, to be valid, must be derived from reality. It is a mistake to deduce reality from them and ignore other relevant parts of reality.

2. If you want an underlying principle, correct identification trumps all. Any principle based on incorrect identification--or any use of a correct principle that is based on incorrect identification--invalidates it or invlaidates its relevance..

3. Morality ends where a gun begins.

4. A civilization that supports an aggressive armed service has a reality that must be correctly identified in order to validly arrive at a principle. This group of people is not fully to blame, nor is it fully blameless. And there are bound to be many outright aggressors along with peace-lovers against the aggressors in any group like that. It's a big mix and killing them all as if they were one is an unsolvable moral problem. Bombing them is a tragic act of hellish proportions no matter how you look at it. And the hostilities actually stopping because of such bombing is also a reality no matter how you look at it.

I don't believe wisdom will be found in moral condemnations here.

Incidentally, I have stated in other places that I would be an anarchist if we could find some way to get rid of bullying in human nature. But so long as bullies exist, you have to stand up to them. Syllogisms don't work when they get violent. It gets worse when they get in groups and arm themselves to the teeth.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

This after "we" suckered Japan into going to war with us with an economic blockade, especially oil?

--Brant

Let's see. We embargoed oil and they tried to wreck our fleet and they killed nearly 2500 Americans. Hardly proportionate.

All the Japanese government had to do was exit Manchuria and the oil would have flowed again. No blood need have been shed.

The Japanese wanted war. Tojo had very large erections for a Japanese male every time he made a war-like speech. The Japanese wanted war and war is what they got.

Why do you make so many excuses for our enemies? The Japanese were a beastly lot and a very evil bunch. Look what they did to Chinese women and children. War they wanted, war they got. We burned them down, we burned them out and we blasted their land to smithereens. They got their just deserts.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mike Renzulli]

I am sure he has a good head I was responding to the cruxt of his argument by pointing out not only the flaws in his philosophy while trying to keep it short. I could write a long, detailed rebuttal but wasn't in the mood.

However, he can't really expect people not to respond with scorched earth rhetoric when they spew piss and vinegar about something they probably don't understand or comprehend. ;-)

I think this post shows the moral bankruptcy of anarchocapitalists and (so-called) left-libertarians.

Mike,

I mean no disrespect to Jackie when I say this. But sometimes it is helpful to look at who you are talking to before taking out the scorched earth rhetoric.

The dude's young.

Full of piss and vinegar.

And he has a really good head.

In my book, that's something to be celebrated.

I believe he will grow and get wiser with serious objective challenge and a wider range of conceptual referents (as all young folks do).

I know one thing, Wholesale condemnation of someone you don't know is not serious challenge--and it is not very endearing, so don't expect him to invite you over to hang out.

Michael

Edited February 2, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Mike Renzulli]

If anyone (civilian or U.S. servicemember) dies in wars like Afghanistan as a result of soldier or drone attacks that is the fault of the regime the U.S. toppled.

In this case the responsibility for civilian deaths is the Taliban and not U.S. forces. Your concern for civilians (while understandable) ignores the wider context of the threat not only to U.S. forces but to the rest of the Afghan population which is the Taliban.

If U.S. forces were not hindered by having so many rules placed on them on when to engage in combat or investigate and take out threats, the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan would not have come about.

Placing rules of engagement on U.S. forces clearly benefits the enemy they are there to fight.

In terms of the rules you speak of under market anarchism the biggest flaw in this is that under such a system if someone damages another party and do not have any insurance coverage they very likely would be out of luck in collecting any kind of compensation.

If one disagrees with your arbtration company's findings against someone or don't want to participate in your litigation regarding the damage they did to you good luck on getting them to comply.

Market anarchism and/or anarchocaptialism is also based on intrincisism (i.e. valuing consistency for the sake of being consistent), really results in a denial of justice and is not compatible with individual rights.

You know who else is a real life person who sweats and bleeds? The innocent Afghan villager whose children died in a drone attack.

Mike,

1. I'm not an ancap. I'm a market anarchist, but I'm not an ancap.

2. My argument isn't based on Kantian skepticism. It's based on individualism.

3. There would still be laws in market anarchy, they just would be enforced non-monopolistically.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[skrzprst]

Brant, Ted, you're not responding like individualists. As horrible as Pearl Harbor was, we needed to punish only those people who bombed us. Anything else would be a compromise of principles. Same with 9/11.

By your lights you aren't either. "We" didn't get bombed. "We" did "punish" "those people who bombed us." The problem was getting at them. So "only" was quite impossible.

--Brant

That sounds awfully like a tu quoque fallacy.

Mike,

1. You can't say that killing innocent people is justified because we're fighting people they are ruled by. The US military takes all responsibility for civilian casualties, morally speaking.

2. Perhaps we could win if we loosened or eliminated the rules of engagement, but at what cost? Any "victory" gained through torture and murder is Pyrrhic at best.

3. There would be strong social pressure against crime in a market anarchist society, including boycotts from private services... and in a market anarchist society, most everything would be private.