The Nobel War-is-Peace Prize


Ed Hudgins

Recommended Posts

The Nobel War-is-Peace Prize
by Edward Hudgins

October 19, 2009 — Ask the Norwegians who pick the Nobel Peace Prize recipient this question: “Which part of Europe are you from? The part whose butt we saved or the part whose butt we kicked?” They’d have to answer the former but only reluctantly because their answer would open a discussion about the ideology behind their bizarre choice of President Barack Obama as the 2009 prize winner.

The Nobel committee has been widely and rightly ridiculed for that choice since the American president has yet to do anything to make the world a more peaceful place. They gave Obama the prize for making apology speeches that activated the adrenal and other glands (but not the brain) of Europeans who oppose most of the good things for which America stands. We might simply mark down the committee members as fools who are so self-deluded about the world that they’ve jettisoned all rational standards of judgment.

That’s true but also too easy. Let’s look deeper at what moral principles ought to govern war and peace and, more specifically, the role of force in human affairs. This will allow us to judge both the Nobel committee and Obama.

Peaceful society

Let’s start with the purpose of government. America’s Founders said it best in the Declaration of Independence when they stated that we are endowed with “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” which were understood to include the right to private property. Thus, “to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”

This bold statement flies in the face of the implications of the Nobel committee’s applause for Obama’s diplomacy “founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes shared by the majority of the world’s population.” America’s Founders issued the Declaration because “a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind” required a statement of the reasons for the break with Britain, but not agreement from the majority of mankind or anyone else with those reasons. They understood that we do not derive our liberty from majority opinion.

Rather, because we are each ends in ourselves, if we are to pursue our own survival and well-being in society with others, we must be free to act as we see fit while leaving others free to do the same. This means that we must deal with one another based on mutual consent rather than through the initiation of force or fraud.

This understanding also implies that police are justified in using force to stop or apprehend criminals who are violating the rights of citizens. Further, governments can be justified in using military force to stop credible threats to the liberty and security of its citizens or to retaliate against those who use force against those citizens.

In other words, governments should be rights-protectors, trying to preserve, possibly by the use of retaliatory force, the liberty of citizens to peaceably deal with one another.

Obama’s war on Americans

So how does Obama measure up on this standard of peace?

Obama stands clearly against peace on the domestic front. He does not use government to defend the liberty and property of citizens against force but, rather, uses force to limit liberty and take property. His administration is attempting to put the federal government in control of the country’s health care services. He’s attempting to put draconian controls on business and industry, that is, on all workers and consumers, in the name of “climate control.” He already has taken over banks and car companies. And he’s destroying the value of the currency we hold in our bank accounts and pockets with huge government deficits as he transfers hundreds of billions of dollars from those who earned it to those who haven’t.

And all of these efforts rest on the use of government force to restrict the liberty of individuals.

While he didn’t originate statist policies—Republicans and Democrats both practice them—Obama is acting aggressively to take those policies to their logical conclusion: government control of virtually all aspects of our lives. Obama is at war with the American people. He would, of course, prefer that individuals quietly surrender their liberty and submit to the peace of a prison.

No peace without freedom

Internationally, Obama is no better.

He wants the elites of the industrialized countries to work together to break down national sovereignty not in order to better protect the liberty of Americans but, rather, in order exercise greater control over the lives of the people of all nations. He seeks greater international coordination of economic policy. He wants greater authority for international organizations. And, with his fellow statists, he is acting aggressively against countries like Switzerland that have banks that act as havens for those who wish to secure their property against the rapacious grasp of governments. It’s an international version of his domestic policy, a world controlled by political elites.

In the morally-warped world of Obama, war is peace because, to complete the Orwellian analogy, freedom is slavery.

On traditional war-and-peace matters, Obama’s apology offensive has not helped secure Americans from the threat of Islamists. But it has impressed the Nobel committee members who, in the award announcement, stated that “Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.” Damned good thing for them that the United States and its allies didn’t buy the peace-at-any-price premise in World War II when they defeated Nazi Germany, which was occupying Norway! Norway’s politicians learned that lesson anyway, and show it through their membership in NATO, an alliance that stands for carrying a big stick, no matter much one talks.

The jokes about Obama’s prize should give way to sober contemplation by Americans and all individuals who love their lives and liberty. The most serious enemies of peace are those who would use force to take our freedom. We should never value peace at any price but only a peace that leaves us free to deal with one another based on mutual consent.
--------
Hudgins directs advocacy and is a senior scholar at The Atlas Society, the center for Objectivism.

For further reading:

*Ayn Rand, “The Roots of War,” in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 1967.

*Edward Hudgins, “Rejecting the Fetish of United Nations Consensus.” March 20, 2003.

*William R Thomas, “Weighing War.” Navigator, April 2003.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nobel War-is-Peace Prize

Ask the Norwegians who pick the Nobel Peace Prize recipient this question: “Which part of Europe are you from? The part whose butt we saved or the part whose butt we kicked?”

Whoa-Whoa-Whoa, hold the phone, isn’t the Nobel Prize a Swedish thing? Sweden was neutral during WW2, we neither saved nor kicked their butt. A quick Wikipedia search (praises be to Jimbo!) shows some references to Norway, but it still looks like it primarily comes from Sweden. The ceremony is in Stockholm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nobel War-is-Peace Prize

Ask the Norwegians who pick the Nobel Peace Prize recipient this question: “Which part of Europe are you from? The part whose butt we saved or the part whose butt we kicked?”

Whoa-Whoa-Whoa, hold the phone, isn’t the Nobel Prize a Swedish thing? Sweden was neutral during WW2, we neither saved nor kicked their butt. A quick Wikipedia search (praises be to Jimbo!) shows some references to Norway, but it still looks like it primarily comes from Sweden. The ceremony is in Stockholm.

Read a bit more carefully. A five-member Norwegian committee picks the Peace prize.t look at their website:

http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/nomination_committee/members/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sit corrected. The peace prize is from Norway, the rest are from Sweden.

av-1277.gif

Sweden is great for blonds and the first sex change operation (Christine Jorgeson) - so it is ok to be confused about Sweden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Oscars were awarded to the following in a given year:

Best Actor: Marlon Brando

Best Actress: Katharine Hepburn

Best Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Best Score: Sergei Prokofiev

Best Film: Glen or Glenda? (Ed Wood’s 1st ; they couldn’t hold off until Plan 9 from Outer Space confirmed his skill)

no one would take the Oscars seriously. So it is with the Nobel’s, though finding out that the peace prize is awarded by an altogether different committee means I’ll have to revise the blanket dismissal of other Nobel’s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the committee just wanted to meet Obama. That's probably a perk, eh? Whomever they elect, they get to shake hands with. Perhaps next year Johnny Depp will win the peace prize for a cease-fire in the Caribbean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the committee just wanted to meet Obama. That's probably a perk, eh? Whomever they elect, they get to shake hands with. Perhaps next year Johnny Depp will win the peace prize for a cease-fire in the Caribbean.

That's an expensive handshake...$1.4M!

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the committee just wanted to meet Obama. That's probably a perk, eh? Whomever they elect, they get to shake hands with. Perhaps next year Johnny Depp will win the peace prize for a cease-fire in the Caribbean.

That's an expensive handshake...$1.4M!

~ Shane

For the committee, it's "other people's money."

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill:

I have to admit, it would be quite interesting as a "global citizen" to sue the Nobel Committee in the International Court for malfeasance in giving the awards based on a political agenda, etc.

It would be interesting to get into their financial pants using all the discovery tools, e.g., depositions, interrogatories, duces tecum subpoenas...hmm I have to check what discovery mechanisms are available in International Civil Procedure.

See we can be little objectivist Alinskyites too - overwhelm the system.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill:

I have to admit, it would be quite interesting as a "global citizen" to sue the Nobel Committee in the International Court for malfeasance in giving the awards based on a political agenda, etc.

It would be interesting to get into their financial pants using all the discovery tools, e.g., depositions, interrogatories, duces tecum subpoenas...hmm I have to check what discovery mechanisms are available in International Civil Procedure.

See we can be little objectivist Alinskyites too - overwhelm the system.

Adam

Adam - I suspect one of the reasons that the likes of Jessie Jackson, Al Shrpton, and others on the left don't sue authors over books and articles that denounce them as the con-men they are is that they know discovery tools would reveal the ugly details about what they do.

It will be interesting to watch what comes put of the recent ACORN sting by the two young reports. Lawsuits by ACORN could mean going through all their records and wouldn't that be fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill:

I have to admit, it would be quite interesting as a "global citizen" to sue the Nobel Committee in the International Court for malfeasance in giving the awards based on a political agenda, etc.

It would be interesting to get into their financial pants using all the discovery tools, e.g., depositions, interrogatories, duces tecum subpoenas...hmm I have to check what discovery mechanisms are available in International Civil Procedure.

See we can be little objectivist Alinskyites too - overwhelm the system.

Adam

Adam - I suspect one of the reasons that the likes of Jessie Jackson, Al Shrpton, and others on the left don't sue authors over books and articles that denounce them as the con-men they are is that they know discovery tools would reveal the ugly details about what they do.

It will be interesting to watch what comes put of the recent ACORN sting by the two young reports. Lawsuits by ACORN could mean going through all their records and wouldn't that be fun!

Precisely, Mark Levin's Landmark Legal Foundation had former EPA Administrator Carol Browner’s, in contempt because her hard drive was reformatted on January 19, the date the preliminary injunction issued and in violation of that injunction. Status Report [42] at 4, 9.

In addition, former Associate Deputy Administrator Dawn Martin’s hard drive was reformatted on or around February 2, 2001, id. at 5, 13, Michael McCabe’s on or around February 2, 2001, id. at 5 14, and Gary Guzy’s on or around March 2, 2001, id. at 5-6, 15. (3) Corina Cortez’s hard drive had been reformatted because it had become corrupted and unuseable "sometime before" January 19, 2001, which was her last day in office. (4) Id. at 5, 12. The status report states that Guzy’s computer had been checked for responsive documents before it was reformatted, but it is unclear if those of McCabe, Martin, and Cortez had been searched. Id. at 6, 16."

This contempt was triggered by the discovery mechanisms. He has come to the same conclusions about the Brietbart "kids", meaning the young adults that are engaging in the new criminal practice of journalism. He has specifically stated that the Landmark Legal Foundation would be actively engaged in that case.

Additionally, Ed, he has made the same statement as you just did in regards to Sharpton and Jackson, if they actually pursue Rush on the Rams misdirection attack. He states that he does not settle.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sit corrected. The peace prize is from Norway, the rest are from Sweden.

av-1277.gif

Sweden is great for blonds and the first sex change operation (Christine Jorgeson) - so it is ok to be confused about Sweden.

Nuh-uh. Lili Elbe. 1930. Germany. That was the first semi-modern instance of SRS. She died as a result, though.

Transsexuals have been castrated throughout history, of course, as SRS is complex and only recently has medicine become advanced enough to pull it off.

Edited by Michelle R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sit corrected. The peace prize is from Norway, the rest are from Sweden.

av-1277.gif

Sweden is great for blonds and the first sex change operation (Christine Jorgeson) - so it is ok to be confused about Sweden.

Nuh-uh. Lili Elbe. 1930. Germany. That was the first semi-modern instance of SRS. She died as a result, though.

Transsexuals have been castrated throughout history, of course, as SRS is complex and only recently has medicine become advanced enough to pull it off.

Thank you. Did not know that. I guess then Jorgeson was the first public success then? Allegedly.

Lili Elbe (1882 - 1931) was a trans woman and one of the first identifiable[1] recipients of male to female sex reassignment surgery.[2] She was born as a male in Denmark. Born as Einar Mogens Wegener, she identified as male for most of her life and was a successful artist with that name. After the surgeries, however, she took the name Lili (some sources state Lily) Elbe.

Elbe's year of birth is sometimes referred to as 1886. This appears to be from the book about her, which has some facts changed to protect identities. Factual references to Gerda Gottlieb's life indicate that the 1882 date is correct as they clearly married while at college in 1904.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lili_Elbe Give the young lady one of the Kewpie doll from the top shelf!

I will win a bet with that some day.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now