Supporting war is collectivist

[Selene]

Jackie:

Without assuming what my opinion is of a market anarchist society, how would that "society" handle a:

1) Charles Ponzi; or

2) Bernard L. Madoff;

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

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

War is what "we" wanted and war is what "we" got. I'm not making any excuses for the evil Japanese. They probably killed more Chinese in Nanking than Japanese died at Hiroshima.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

War is what "we" wanted and war is what "we" got. I'm not making any excuses for the evil Japanese. They probably killed more Chinese in Nanking than Japanese died at Hiroshima.

--Brant

Balls! They struck the first blow. And in doing so they sealed their fate.

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.

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.

Is it? You only seem to be responding to my first sentence. Four more follow. Strike the first sentence. Notice how the rest don't need it? This is no more argumentum ad hominem than than your, "Brant, Ted, you're not responding like individualists." You can strike that too. It doesn't affect the rest.

--Brant

[Martin Radwin]

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. civilians die in attacks like the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, that is the fault of the U.S. government that provoked the attack. In this case, the responsibility for U.S. civilian deaths is with the U.S. government and not Al Qaeda. Your concern for civilians (while understandable) ignores the wider context of the threat to Muslims in the Middle East and Central Asia posed by the U.S. government."

Imaginary quote from Osama bin Laden

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.

Oh yes, U.S. forces are terribly hindered by their rules of engagement! So far, at least a hundred thousand Iraqis have been killed in Gulf War 2. Some estimates are much higher. Millions of Iraqis have been driven from their homes and turned into refugees. Whole sections of Iraq have been ethnically cleansed of Sunnis. Why don't you do some research on the Fallujah massacre carried out by U.S. forces before bleating about the horrible restrictions imposed by the rules of engagement? All to fight a damnable war of aggression that the U.S. had no right to fight, a war fought without even a pretense of being fought in self-defense.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

I don't see the real value of talking about just and unjust wars when the American State is jumping up and down on everybody without surcease.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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.

Mike,

I have thought long and hard about this and I reject this position. This is promoted by ARI and I believe it is wrongheaded.

This implies Person A can assign a moral price tag on the life of Person B in order to get at Person C, kill Person B and then blame it on Person C. But in my view, not one human life, especially when it is being lost, is the moral end of the other's means. There is no morality here. There is decency and concepts like that, but not morality..

The soldier knows best at the time and, within a certain balance, what he does should be his subjective call--or that of his commanders.

In situations like this, I believe you take out the bullies with as much care as you can muster, lament the innocent dead and maimed, spit to get the bad taste out of your mouth and to hell with blaming anyone, and get back to morality.

That's what I believe decent people do.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

War is what "we" wanted and war is what "we" got. I'm not making any excuses for the evil Japanese. They probably killed more Chinese in Nanking than Japanese died at Hiroshima.

--Brant

Balls! They struck the first blow. And in doing so they sealed their fate.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If I really knew physics and math we could have, I suspect, intelligent conversations.

--Brant

[Mike Renzulli]

I disagree on your interpretation but agree with what you stated and is quoted below, Michael. My comments were in a general sense and if engagement is undertaken then the deaths or injuries to civilians should be avoided and kept to a minimum if at all possible.

However, it should not distract from the overall goal of taking out the enemy. Especially if the opponent calls for their deaths as a sacrifice to their cause such as what is seen at Hamas rallies in the Gaza Strip.

In Gaza I have read of accounts where participants at Hamas rallies (including children) swear oaths to sacrifice their lives in order to kill their enemies. I would assume this includes committing acts of terrorism.

If you have an enemy (such as Hamas) that has openly declared they will committ acts of aggression and praise suicide bombers and terrorist groups, then in my mind all bets are off.

The soldier knows best at the time and, within a certain balance, what he does should be his subjective call--or that of his commanders.

In situations like this, I believe you take out the bullies with as much care as you can muster, lament the innocent dead and maimed, spit to get the bad taste out of your mouth and to hell with blaming anyone, and get back to morality.

That's what I believe decent people do.

Michael

Edited February 3, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

My very point is all bets are off in war.

Most fight-or-flight responses don't even make it to the conscious level.

And you do what you gotta do to get the bad guys and make them stop. I have no problem acknowledging that reality.

My objection is the pretense of morality that some try to spin on this--and mostly how they rationalize turning an innocent human being's life into the means for their ends as if this were a moral good.

This is a recipe for sanctioning tyranny at best, and sanctioning psychopaths at worst.

Michael

[skrzprst]

Jackie:

Without assuming what my opinion is of a market anarchist society, how would that "society" handle a:

1) Charles Ponzi; or

2) Bernard L. Madoff;

Adam

Well, Ponzi was the financial planner for fascist Italy, so he'd be out of a job.

Madoff could be punished for fraud.

[Selene]

Jackie:

Without assuming what my opinion is of a market anarchist society, how would that "society" handle a:

1) Charles Ponzi; or

2) Bernard L. Madoff;

Adam

Well, Ponzi was the financial planner for fascist Italy, so he'd be out of a job.

Madoff could be punished for fraud.

Jackie:

Agreed as to punished for fraud, but by whom?

Ideally. I am an anarcho-capitalist and these are questions that are difficult to solve, not impossible, difficult.

However, as George just commented on today on another thread which has been going on forever and a day with Shayne, any mini-anarchist would be more than happy to exist in Ayn's limited government with voluntary contributory taxation.

So, how would you answer the "by whom" question above.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I disagree on your interpretation but agree with what you stated...

Mike,

Based on our exchange, I decided to show, not tell.

I just wrote a short story that probes some of the depths of this: Lethal Guilt.

This is the part I find missing in the recent Objectivist blanket moral judgments about killing innocents--moral judgments that I believe run way too loose in our subcommunity.

Michael