Are taxes justified to support a war? YB says no.

[BaalChatzaf]

That is the damnedst thing I have seen. Everything is one's own fault????!!!!!!. If one catch pneumonia he chose to be where he inhaled the bacteria that sickened him. If one is attacked and murdered he chose to be in the place that he was done in. That is the stupidest line of unreasoning I have seen in a while.

[PDS]

Currently the U.S. military forces are totally volunteer forces. The only thing non-voluntary about them is that the tax payer is compelled to support them. That is true, also in Israel. They have the best army in the Middle East that stolen money can buy.

You mean stolen money, stolen labor and sometimes stolen lives. See Conscription in Israel.

Every army on earth is maintained by some kind of theft. However, consider the alternative: the bad guys with their slave army and Objectopia with no army. Who do you think will survive?

If it's strictly a question of survival, then it may be smarter to be a bad guy. Mao lived longer than Rand, didn't he?

There are some whose consciences are not troubled by forcing someone else to spend three years guarding the border. But if three, why not five? If five, why not ten? Isn't it about having the best military that coercion can extract?

However, some Objectivists (and Aristotelians in general) would argue that rather than mere survival, we should seek the virtuous life. Eudaimonism, human flourishing, or the noble soul is the ideal.

How many slaves can one get away with owning, how many skulls can one pile up before that noble soul evaporates?

Veering a little off topic, I am always surprised that the Stoics are left out of the Objectivist discussion of Eudaimonism.

Is anybody aware of an Objectivist critique or discussion of Stoicism?

[moralist]

In Post #26 you wrote, "America engaged Russia's help to defeat the Nazis. It was a case of using evil people to kill evil people." But why go to that trouble? After all, Hitler and the Nazis were not the source of rights. The civilians of Germany and the rest of Europe were solely responsible, "as it is impossible to enjoy those rights without first living a life which is deserving of them."

There is a difference in our two views because you're still poring over the dead past, while my frame of reference is the present.

So why bother to send soldiers off to Nazi-occupied Europe or any other place? Why not just enjoy one's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness regardless of who happens to occupy the Chancellery in Berlin?

Enjoying the rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness in America is conditional to living a life deserving of them. Just one example, I served my country in the military and so I enjoy those rights. There are also many others, for life has many facets.

Instead of "using evil people to kill evil people," why not just say, "There is no obstacle between me and my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, except me." (Post #29)

Again... you're still stuck in the dead past. That is why you don't hold the view that you are the only obstacle to enjoying your own life, and I do.

So it really doesn't matter what is taught in leftist universities, government subsidized "medrasas," or public high schools.

Those are not two separate items. Universities ~are~ government funded medrasas... where unproductive tenured failures teach Howard Zinn's drivel in Hating Evil Imperialist America 101.

And yes, it does not matter to me... because I have absolutely no control over the policies of government subsidized universities and have nothing to do with their choices of curricula.

The sheep know the voice of their shepherd... and so do the goats.

Even if 99% of Americans believe their government should be a dictatorship of the proletariat, they will continue to treat the 1% "exactly as decent" as they are.

You're still in the dead past. And you also left out that what I said applies the micro direct personal everyday face to face interactions between people. I'm speaking on a personal level because that is within my sphere of influence, and so is also directly my own personal responsibility.

Perhaps supporting evidence for this can be found in history books that are not "someone else's version of what happened."

You're just as free to pore over someone else's version of the dead past as I am to live guided by my real world personal experience in the present.

Therefore, if my gravel truck dumps a two-ton load on your car, the responsible party is you, not I. After all, you have free choice, including the choice not to park in that particular spot on the street.

Yes. It's my own personal responsibility not to become collateral damage from the stupidity of others.

Paying for your own car's damages will teach you to grow up and take personal responsibility for your own life.

Yes. It's good to pay for our lapse of awareness of what's actually going on around us so that we can do better the next time. It helps to keep us from living in the dead past. ;)

[moralist]

Damn, but moralist this is self-responsibility on steroids!

How did you get to this?

Simply by living my life and observing the consequences of my own actions.

It looks like the law of causality gone berserk.

If you do not go berserk... you will not set into motion berserk consequences.

I'm used by now to the thread of a consequentialist morality running through your writing: i.e. that whatever you do that turns out right for other people is 'the good' - conversely, 'the bad'.

Yes. Doing what is morally right creates genuine win/win situations between good people.

But now with this (I acknowledge your consistency at least) you've turned it upon yourself.

I appreciate your being so observant. I'm not exempt from anything I've described. Indeed, I know it by personal experience ~because~ I'm not exempt.

I'm not sure whether to credit this to a desire for omniscience, or to a weird, off-the-charts egoism.

It's not omniscience. Everyone experiences the pain of their lack of awareness, and that pain has two responses. Either to angrily blame (unjustly accuse) others... or to take personal responsibility for our own lives.

Bad things happen,

What you do about them is what makes them either bad or good.

and (beyond a certain point) to take all of it on yourself is zip to do with volition and self-responsibility.

You have no idea how light the burden of self responsibility is, and what an incredible motivation it is to refining our lives.

[BaalChatzaf]

^ ^ ^

There is such a thing as ill fortune, unforeseen, not invited and sometimes unavoidable.

There is no place on earth that is perfectly safe. You could be sitting in your living room and a meteorite can come through the roof and do damage. There is no way of predicting such mishaps. Fortunately they are very rare.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

A meteriorite

^ ^ ^

There is such a think as ill fortune, unforeseen, not invited and sometimes unavoidable.

There is no place on earth that is perfectly safe. You could be sitting in your living room and a meteorite can come through the roof and do damage. There is no way of predicting such mishaps. Fortunately they are very rare.

Ba'al Chatzaf

A meteorite ended up in a bedroom years ago destroying a desk. The homeowner threw the desk away only to learn collectors would have easily coughed up 5 grand for it.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

In Post #26 you wrote, "America engaged Russia's help to defeat the Nazis. It was a case of using evil people to kill evil people." But why go to that trouble? After all, Hitler and the Nazis were not the source of rights. The civilians of Germany and the rest of Europe were solely responsible, "as it is impossible to enjoy those rights without first living a life which is deserving of them."

There is a difference in our two views because you're still poring over the dead past, while my frame of reference is the present.

How were you able to come to the conclusion that "America engaged Russia's help to defeat the Nazis. It was a case of using evil people to kill evil people," without "poring over the past"? Did you merely glance at the past? Does the person whose understanding of the past that comes from quick glimpses have a sounder knowledge of it than one who pores over it?

In any case you still have not dealt with this question I previously posed to you: If Hitler and the Nazis were not the source of rights, and the civilians of Germany and the rest of Europe were solely responsible, why was it necessary for the United State to form an alliance with the Soviet Union?

So why bother to send soldiers off to Nazi-occupied Europe or any other place? Why not just enjoy one's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness regardless of who happens to occupy the Chancellery in Berlin?

Enjoying the rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness in America is conditional to living a life deserving of them. Just one example, I served my country in the military and so I enjoy those rights. There are also many others, for life has many facets.

Did FDR, who did more to reduce the rights of Americans than any other modern president, live a life deserving of the rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness in America? If not, then surely he should have been sitting in a jail, not shaking hands with Joe Stalin and sending half of Europe into slavery.

Instead of "using evil people to kill evil people," why not just say, "There is no obstacle between me and my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, except me." (Post #29)

Again... you're still stuck in the dead past. That is why you don't hold the view that you are the only obstacle to enjoying your own life, and I do.

Let us then stipulate that "you are the only obstacle to enjoying your own life." How does that premise lead to the conclusion that FDR was right to send American tax money to the second most brutal killer of the 20th century?

So it really doesn't matter what is taught in leftist universities, government subsidized "medrasas," or public high schools.

Those are not two separate items. Universities ~are~ government funded medrasas... where unproductive tenured failures teach Howard Zinn's drivel in Hating Evil Imperialist America 101.

And yes, it does not matter to me... because I have absolutely no control over the policies of government subsidized universities and have nothing to do with their choices of curricula.

The sheep know the voice of their shepherd... and so do the goats.

I am still waiting for you to back up your claim that my criticism (and Rand's criticism) of FDR's support of Stalin has anything to do with Howard Zinn or leftists at major universities.

Even if 99% of Americans believe their government should be a dictatorship of the proletariat, they will continue to treat the 1% "exactly as decent" as they are.

You're still in the dead past. And you also left out that what I said applies the micro direct personal everyday face to face interactions between people. I'm speaking on a personal level because that is within my sphere of influence, and so is also directly my own personal responsibility.

If you are concerned only with your sphere of influence, wouldn't your influence be more likely to have an effect in a nation raised on the philosophy of the Founding Fathers rather than that of Karl Marx?

Therefore, if my gravel truck dumps a two-ton load on your car, the responsible party is you, not I. After all, you have free choice, including the choice not to park in that particular spot on the street.

Yes. It's my own personal responsibility not to become collateral damage from the stupidity of others.

Then you should pay for any part of the gravel that gets chips of your car paint on it.

[BaalChatzaf]

A meteriorite

^ ^ ^

There is such a think as ill fortune, unforeseen, not invited and sometimes unavoidable.

There is no place on earth that is perfectly safe. You could be sitting in your living room and a meteorite can come through the roof and do damage. There is no way of predicting such mishaps. Fortunately they are very rare.

Ba'al Chatzaf

A meteorite ended up in a bedroom years ago destroying a desk. The homeowner threw the desk away only to learn collectors would have easily coughed up 5 grand for it.

--Brant

If the home owner had been sitting at that desk he might now have had the good fortune to throw anything away.

[moralist]

^ ^ ^

There is such a thing as ill fortune, unforeseen, not invited and sometimes unavoidable.

But it's what you DO about it that makes it ill fortune or good fortune.

There is no place on earth that is perfectly safe.

[sarcasm]How silly. The government can keep us perfectly safe. [/sarcasm]

Life itself is an assumed risk... which is why it is our own personal responsibility to make it work for the good by how we respond to it.

[moralist]

A meteorite ended up in a bedroom years ago destroying a desk. The homeowner threw the desk away only to learn collectors would have easily coughed up 5 grand for it.

--Brant

That's an excellent example of how a response could have turned a bad experience into a good one. The rest of life is just like that.

Greg

[anthony]

Damn, but moralist this is self-responsibility on steroids!

How did you get to this?

Simply by living my life and observing the consequences of my own actions.

It looks like the law of causality gone berserk.

If you do not go berserk... you will not set into motion berserk consequences.

I'm used by now to the thread of a consequentialist morality running through your writing: i.e. that whatever you do that turns out right for other people is 'the good' - conversely, 'the bad'.

Yes. Doing what is morally right creates genuine win/win situations between good people.

But now with this (I acknowledge your consistency at least) you've turned it upon yourself.

I appreciate your being so observant. I'm not exempt from anything I've described. Indeed, I know it by personal experience ~because~ I'm not exempt.

I'm not sure whether to credit this to a desire for omniscience, or to a weird, off-the-charts egoism.

It's not omniscience. Everyone experiences the pain of their lack of awareness, and that pain has two responses. Either to angrily blame (unjustly accuse) others... or to take personal responsibility for our own lives.

Bad things happen,

What you do about them is what makes them either bad or good.

and (beyond a certain point) to take all of it on yourself is zip to do with volition and self-responsibility.

You have no idea how light the burden of self responsibility is, and what an incredible motivation it is to refining our lives.

Greg, therefore you see yourself, and by extension all humans, as part of a causal chain?

Perhaps you disagree that individual man is an end in himself?

You believe we are the product of anonymous other people's acts, as they are of ours?

Then (and I have no doubt you're a very self-responsible fellow) don't you see the contradiction here?

If all other people were as self-responsible as you, they wouldn't have need of you.

Then the causal chain breaks, no?

[moralist]

Greg, therefore you see yourself, and by extension all humans, as part of a causal chain?

No. Because, as an individual, I have the freedom to choose how I react to the world around me, the only causality I'm bound by is getting the consequences that I set into motion by my own actions.

Perhaps you disagree that individual man is an end in himself?

Each of us writes their own story. So how it ends is completely up to you getting the consequences you deserve as the results of your own actions.

You believe we are the product of anonymous other people's acts, as they are of ours?

No. We are the product of our own actions and reactions.

Then (and I have no doubt you're a very self-responsible fellow) don't you see the contradiction here?

No.

If all other people were as self-responsible as you, they wouldn't have need of you.

Being self-responsible means doing what's morally right ~regardless~ of what others do. What others choose to do is not any of my business. Only what I choose to do is.

Then the causal chain breaks, no?

No. It's not restrictive like a single line as you are assuming. For the causal chain offers a splitting branch of just and deserved consequences at every free choice we make.

[dldelancey]

Reacting in a positive way to a negative situation does not magically turn the situation into a positive one. Shit happens. You reacted well to it? Good for you, but it's still shit.

[moralist]

Reacting in a positive way to a negative situation does not magically turn the situation into a positive one. Shit happens. You reacted well to it? Good for you, but it's still shit.

Ok. That's the way you freely chose to live and you get exactly what you deserve as the result of what you chose.

I look back on my life with different eyes and understand how the "bad" experiences I've had are the very best things that could have ever happened to me because they made me who I am and were absolutely essential to the quality of life I enjoy today.

Each of us creates our own paradise or hell today as a logical result of how we respond to the world around us.

You want hell? Go for it. Angrily blame others for your own self inflicted consequences and it's all yours.

[anthony]

Greg, therefore you see yourself, and by extension all humans, as part of a causal chain?

No. Because, as an individual, I have the freedom to choose how I react to the world around me, the only causality I'm bound by is getting the consequences that I set into motion by my own actions.

Perhaps you disagree that individual man is an end in himself?

Each of us writes their own story. So how it ends is completely up to you getting the consequences you deserve as the results of your own actions.

You believe we are the product of anonymous other people's acts, as they are of ours?

No. We are the product of our own actions and reactions.

Then (and I have no doubt you're a very self-responsible fellow) don't you see the contradiction here?

No.

If all other people were as self-responsible as you, they wouldn't have need of you.

Being self-responsible means doing what's morally right ~regardless~ of what others do. What others choose to do is not any of my business. Only what I choose to do is.

Then the causal chain breaks, no?

No. It's not restrictive like a single line as you are assuming. For the causal chain offers a splitting branch of just and deserved consequences at every free choice we make.

I largely agree with this, mostly because it looks like a departure from your pragmatic, consequentialist position.

So we agree, to be self-responsible means exactly that, responsible to and for oneself. I believe this is the basis of the "Prime Mover" concept.

Inclusive to rational selfishness, is the non-contradictory corollary that one cannot -morally - be blithely IRResponsible about the effects of one's actions on others' lives.

Over and above that, my opposition to 'consequentialism' is,

How can one predict in advance the "right" consequences on others, or the "wrong"?

What if that which (one thinks) is right for them, is what's wrong for oneself (sacrificial)?

At which point is it interfering in their choices?

How far down the (arbitrary) causal line must one's "moral" choice for them be followed, in order to be justified "right"?

I quite liked your "sphere of influence" (I think that was yours - one time, on O.O, maybe) as a valid concept that can be beneficial to all parties. Humans relate in complex and subtle ways, we know. So long as clarity and honesty is non-negotiable, self-responsibility and personal volition would always leave convictions or actions up to the particular individual.

[Samson Corwell]

Currently the U.S. military forces are totally volunteer forces. The only thing non-voluntary about them is that the tax payer is compelled to support them. That is true, also in Israel. They have the best army in the Middle East that stolen money can buy.

You mean stolen money, stolen labor and sometimes stolen lives. See Conscription in Israel.

Every army on earth is maintained by some kind of theft. However, consider the alternative: the bad guys with their slave army and Objectopia with no army. Who do you think will survive?

If it's strictly a question of survival, then it may be smarter to be a bad guy. Mao lived longer than Rand, didn't he?

There are some whose consciences are not troubled by forcing someone else to spend three years guarding the border. But if three, why not five? If five, why not ten? Isn't it about having the best military that coercion can extract?

However, some Objectivists (and Aristotelians in general) would argue that rather than mere survival, we should seek the virtuous life. Eudaimonism, human flourishing, or the noble soul is the ideal.

How many slaves can one get away with owning, how many skulls can one pile up before that noble soul evaporates?

Ah, the consequentialist's predicament. Do the ends justify the means? It's a very haunting question.

[moralist]

How can one predict in advance the "right" consequences on others, or the "wrong"?

You can't.

But you can know whether the actions you took were right or wrong by the consequences they bring upon you. Although it's better to see what the right course of action is before you take it.

What if that which (one thinks) is right for them, is what's wrong for oneself (sacrificial)?

Wow... you just touched another critical moral issue. The free choice in each moment of whether or not to believe in, or act upon, what we are thinking or feeling.

In my opinion, there are no more unreliable sources of moral guidance than our thoughts and emotions... except for the thoughts and emotions of others. This minority opinion begs the question: What is a reliable source of moral guidance? It is our objective self-reflective capacity to observe our thoughts and emotions as if we were someone else... even as we are thinking and feeling in real time.

Consider this. If we were only our thoughts, we would act upon everything that goes through our mind. If everyone indiscriminately emoted and acted upon every thought that went through their minds, they would all be dead or in prison. But we, as rational beings, have the unique capacity to be able to CHOOSE to act contrary to our thoughts and emotions.

Our finest moments can be found whenever we choose to act contrary to our nature.

At which point is it interfering in their choices?

If you are doing what is morally right, you will automatically interfere with others' choice to do wrong. This is good. Both for you, and for them.

How far down the (arbitrary) causal line must one's "moral" choice for them be followed, in order to be justified "right"?

It is impossible to make others' moral choices... only your own.

I quite liked your "sphere of influence" (I think that was yours - one time, on O.O, maybe) as a valid concept that can be beneficial to all parties. Humans relate in complex and subtle ways, we know. So long as clarity and honesty is non-negotiable, self-responsibility and personal volition would always leave convictions or actions up to the particular individual.

Yes. I've referred to it a few times here.

Over the years that simple concept has become clearer and clearer, as it allows me to focus my attention on that over which I have influence and for which I am personally responsible...

...while not being distracted by what is outside of my sphere of influence and over which I have absolutely no control nor for which I have any personal responsibility. This is one reason I don't watch television because it is a distraction. It is about events which are totally outside my sphere of influence, and consequently not my personal responsibility, because they are totally beyond my control.

There is nothing that will make you feel more like a helpless victim than watching television.

Just to be clear.:

I define my sphere of influence as everyone with whom I come into actual direct personal contact.

Everything else outside my sphere of influence, my control, and my personal responsibility, falls within the spheres of influence of others over which they have control, and for which they are personally responsible.

[dldelancey]

Reacting in a positive way to a negative situation does not magically turn the situation into a positive one. Shit happens. You reacted well to it? Good for you, but it's still shit.

Ok. That's the way you freely chose to live and you get exactly what you deserve as the result of what you chose.

I look back on my life with different eyes and understand how the "bad" experiences I've had are the very best things that could have ever happened to me because they made me who I am and were absolutely essential to the quality of life I enjoy today.

Each of us creates our own paradise or hell today as a logical result of how we respond to the world around us.

You want hell? Go for it. Angrily blame others for your own self inflicted consequences and it's all yours.

No, I do not want hell, and I do not choose hell. I enjoy a high quality of life and much joy. Acknowledging the negative experiences I have had does not mean that I am angry about them or that I have laid the blame for them at the feet of others unjustly. It simply means that I recognize them for what they are - negative experiences that I survived and overcame.

[BaalChatzaf]

Reacting in a positive way to a negative situation does not magically turn the situation into a positive one. Shit happens. You reacted well to it? Good for you, but it's still shit.

Ok. That's the way you freely chose to live and you get exactly what you deserve as the result of what you chose.

I look back on my life with different eyes and understand how the "bad" experiences I've had are the very best things that could have ever happened to me because they made me who I am and were absolutely essential to the quality of life I enjoy today.

Each of us creates our own paradise or hell today as a logical result of how we respond to the world around us.

You want hell? Go for it. Angrily blame others for your own self inflicted consequences and it's all yours.

No, I do not want hell, and I do not choose hell. I enjoy a high quality of life and much joy. Acknowledging the negative experiences I have had does not mean that I am angry about them or that I have laid the blame for them at the feet of others unjustly. It simply means that I recognize them for what they are - negative experiences that I survived and overcame.

Nietzche once wrote: Every blow that does not break my back or kill me, makes me stronger.

Normally I do not quote crazy people, but he was right on this point.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[moralist]

Reacting in a positive way to a negative situation does not magically turn the situation into a positive one. Shit happens. You reacted well to it? Good for you, but it's still shit.

Ok. That's the way you freely chose to live and you get exactly what you deserve as the result of what you chose.

I look back on my life with different eyes and understand how the "bad" experiences I've had are the very best things that could have ever happened to me because they made me who I am and were absolutely essential to the quality of life I enjoy today.

Each of us creates our own paradise or hell today as a logical result of how we respond to the world around us.

You want hell? Go for it. Angrily blame others for your own self inflicted consequences and it's all yours.

No, I do not want hell, and I do not choose hell. I enjoy a high quality of life and much joy. Acknowledging the negative experiences I have had does not mean that I am angry about them or that I have laid the blame for them at the feet of others unjustly. It simply means that I recognize them for what they are - negative experiences that I survived and overcame.

Thank you for clarifying your point of view.

[Brant Gaede]

The baby learns to walk by falling down, again and again. Learning to walk is a celebration. Falling down is not what is being celebrated. 14 years later as a teenager he loses his legs in an automobile accident and learns to walk again with artificial limbs. Again, a celebration! The accident is not celebrated. A philosophy that celebrates falling down and accidents is either silly, garbage or the consequence of incomplete thinking.

--Brant

[Samson Corwell]

Ultimately, this question is about whether the ends justify the means. Not being an Objectivist myself, my qualms aren't with "collectivism" (never really liked this word for some reason). It's the belief that people are merely cannon fodder for "the cause" that disturbs me. That people are just tools to use. The advice Niccolò Machiavelli gave to rulers in The Prince was that "the ends justify the means". Maximilien Robespierre and his fellow terrorists did what they did to protect the revolution and we know where that ended up. Lenin thought the bourgeois needed to be toppled at all costs. Joseph Stalin did everything he could to achieve his five year plans as well crush any revolutionaries. Augusto Pinochet instituted neoliberal reforms in Chile after ousting Salvador Allende…at the cost of several thousand tortured and 'disappeared' souls. Post 9-11, we allowed the government to trade our freedom for our security. And so on.

[Darrell Hougen]

It is more complex than that: there is first the matter of entering or not. There is also the matter of what side to enter on. For example, Finland at different points fought with both the Axis and Allied powers.

The alliance with Stalin happened only because the American public was misled about the nature of the Soviet horror state and is misled to this day. Very few citizens even now know that the communists were the chief mass murderers of the 20th century and that arming them may be described as literally a game of Russian Roulette. So there can be no discussion about what should have been the proper course of action in 1940 without first knowing the actual Russian threat and how much FDR concealed it.

You fretted about "the very real possibility that the Soviet Union would have won WWII an taken over all of Western Europe too," and I merely pointed out that the president who took the military course of action you endorse would have been primarily responsible if such a take-over had happened.

I agree that the American public has been misled about the scope of Communist horror. The Gulag Archipelago should be required reading in school.

As to who would have won the war, there are historians that believe the Soviet Union would have won even without U.S. intervention. (I hesitated to link this video because the historian's excuses for and praise of Stalin turn my stomach, but he makes the point that Hitler probably would have continued his campaign of ethnic cleansing on a massive scale if Germany had won the war).

The link provided broke Soviet atrocities into several periods. Comparing Germany and Russia in the same time span shows that Soviet murders were greater.

The truth of World War II is that Hitler was a vicious mass murderer, and in order to stop him the U.S. made common cause with an even worse murderer.

For argument, let's give Stalin the benefit of a doubt and stipulate that Hitler had a higher per annum body count. Now then, by what moral logic does one argue that we must give military aid and logistical support to a killer of 18 million in order to dispatch a killer of 20 million? Does anyone realistically believe that Stalin was the sort of fellow who would reward a handout from a capitalist nation with future loyalty and good deeds? Is that how he treated his fellow commies?

I went back and checked the links you provided. According to my reading of the linked articles, Stalin killed 22 million of his own people and Hitler killed 20 million people through various mass murders, giving Stalin a slight edge in terms of mass murders. However, the figure of 20 million killed by Hitler doesn't include the number of soldiers or civilians killed as the result of prosecuting the war. It only includes the number killed through extermination campaigns. Since, we are discussing whether the U.S. should have entered the war, in my view, it is only fair to also consider the number killed as a direct result of the war. Unfortunately, those figures are not readily available, but I suspect an additional 20 million deaths could be attributed to Hitler's part in WWII. That would make Hitler, by far, the greater mass murderer.

Also, as I said in one of my earlier posts, to some extent, a decision about whether to enter a war depends upon who is being killed. Stalin mostly killed his own people. Hitler, on the other hand, waged war against a long list of countries including Britain, France, Denmark, Norway, and Belgium, and, once he had taken over a country, he deported large numbers of its citizens to be exterminated. Although Russia and Poland probably suffered the worst effects of the war, nevertheless, the Western allies were concerned with turning back Hitler's war machine. If Hitler had followed the same pattern as Stalin and only exterminated his own people, it is much less likely that the U.S. would have gotten involved. Even if Hitler had stopped after taking over Austria, the Sudetenland and Western Poland, I doubt the U.S. would have gotten involved.

So, what was the justification for propping up the USSR? In my understanding, the U.S. was concerned that the Soviet Union would give up and sue for peace before the U.S. was ready to enter the war. If that had happened, Germany would have been able to shift a large fraction of its forces from the Eastern Front to the Western Front making the D-Day invasion almost impossible and making the liberation of Western Europe very difficult. Keeping the Soviet Union in the war made it possible for the U.S. to achieve its war aims.

I responded to your claim "You don't know what the future might have held if the U.S. had not gotten involved," by pointing out that uncertainty about the future is frequently used to justify government intervention. It is true that we don't know the future with absolute preditability, but that is hardly an argument for empowering statists.

I never claimed that the reason the U.S. should not have aided the Soviets was because we couldn't be sure what would happen. In fact, one can make the argument that strengthening a monster will probably increase the likelihood of future bloodshed.

For comparison let's look at another alternate history. Suppose (as Ayn Rand wished) Goldwater had been elected in 1964 instead of Johnson. Isn't it possible a President Goldwater might have escalated the cold war with the Soviets into a hot war? Yes. Isn't it possible hundreds of millions would have died from thermonuclear blasts in major cities and from the radiation poisoning that would have followed? Yes. Are those sufficient reasons to argue that the election of LBJ was good for the world? I say no. But I can offer no airtight proof that a freer America and not a nuclear wasteland would have been the ultimate outcome of a Goldwater victory.

Could the Great Depression have been avoided? I say yes. But I will never be able to offer a convincing argument to someone who thinks that a laissez-faire approach ignores all of the possibilities for what could have happened if the U.S. had made a choice different from the New Deal. Over the years I've argued with more than a few who are convinced that without the New Deal, the hungry masses would have risen up and installed a brutal Marxist dictatorship.

I guess I wasn't very clear. When I said that I didn't know what might have happened in the future, I meant to say that there was a very real possibility that the outcome would have been worse --- that the probability of something much worse happening would have been much higher than the probability that the outcome would have been better. You can dispute that point, but you can't simply ignore it.

Your example with Goldwater doesn't pass the smell test. I mean, I wasn't alive at that time and don't know that much about Goldwater, but the idea that Goldwater would have escalated the cold war into a shooting war is pure speculation with no supporting evidence.

The Great Depression example is even worse. Why would the people have revolted if the economy had recovered quickly --- the most likely result if someone like Calvin Coolidge had been president --- instead of dragging on for a decade?

The problem is that some assertions have more merit than others, so you can't just dismiss any discussion about what might have happened if we had followed a different course. Each possibility has to be argued on its own merits.

Darrell

[Brant Gaede]

For comparison let's look at another alternate history. Suppose (as Ayn Rand wished) Goldwater had been elected in 1964 instead of Johnson. Isn't it possible a President Goldwater might have escalated the cold war with the Soviets into a hot war? Yes. Isn't it possible hundreds of millions would have died from thermonuclear blasts in major cities and from the radiation poisoning that would have followed? Yes. Are those sufficient reasons to argue that the election of LBJ was good for the world? I say no. But I can offer no airtight proof that a freer America and not a nuclear wasteland would have been the ultimate outcome of a Goldwater victory.

Could the Great Depression have been avoided? I say yes. But I will never be able to offer a convincing argument to someone who thinks that a laissez-faire approach ignores all of the possibilities for what could have happened if the U.S. had made a choice different from the New Deal. Over the years I've argued with more than a few who are convinced that without the New Deal, the hungry masses would have risen up and installed a brutal Marxist dictatorship.

(Revised 9:18 pm)

Goldwater would have made a fine President, but no Republican had any hope of being elected in 1964 less than one year after the Kennedy assassination. We were lucky there was no general thermonuclear war (GTW) out of the Cold War, and that's through the Reagan years. Yeah, it could have happened during a Goldwater Presidency, but it could have happened during the Johnson one too. Run all the alternate histories you want; you'll get variations galore all from the same Presidents but all only in your head.

Hitlerian stupidity would have lost Germany the war against Russia. He interfered with the advance on Moscow, forbade strategic withdrawals sacrificing army after army. He also committed Germany to a two-front war. Strategically and tactically, he had shit for brains, declaring war on the United States after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, a strategic disaster in itself in the Pacific.

Herbert Hoover was responsible for the Great Depression, Roosevelt made it stick around.

--Brant

[Darrell Hougen]

The baby learns to walk by falling down, again and again. Learning to walk is a celebration. Falling down is not what is being celebrated. 14 years later as a teenager he loses his legs in an automobile accident and learns to walk again with artificial limbs. Again, a celebration! The accident is not celebrated. A philosophy that celebrates falling down and accidents is either silly, garbage or the consequence of incomplete thinking.

--Brant

Thank you. Someone needed to say that.

Darrell

EDIT: I should also acknowledge Deanna for pointing out the obvious, earlier.