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

[jts]

Yaron Brook says taxes are not justified, even to support a war. Listen to this audio.

http://www.peikoff.com/2013/07/22/ybrook-in-a-desperate-situation-like-an-arms-race-would-it-be-morally-justified-to-demand-taxes/

[BaalChatzaf]

Yaron Brook says taxes are not justified, even to support a war. Listen to this audio.

http://www.peikoff.com/2013/07/22/ybrook-in-a-desperate-situation-like-an-arms-race-would-it-be-morally-justified-to-demand-taxes/

I would like to see a consortium of private companies put up a military machine that can match China or Russia.

What the hell does YB know about military matters?

We have the best military machine that stolen money can buy.

We won WW2 on stolen money and a draft army (that is involuntary servitude, by the way). So we funded a slave army with stolen money and beat the Fascists and the Japs bloody.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[FuturistNow]

"We" didn't win WWII. "We" don't have the best military machine that stolen money can buy. You don't have any control over that organization. Even if you are a member it is ruled by chain of command and its policies are set by a mixed set of elites (appointed and elected). You have no means of controlling this organization, especially since you are in the political minority.

World War II was a great time for statism, and the myths surrounding the era still endure. Even though the era's problems were caused by earlier wars, and earlier interventions, people claim that historically this time period justifies warfare and interventionism. Even though the supposed enemies that were defeated during this era were societies plagued by constant warfare and hyperinterventionism.

Just like with any government program, the military does what it does without any check on its moral or material costs. Apply any economic reasoning to the draft and taxation during the world wars and one will realize with horror that so many lives and so much wealth was burnt for no reason other than to subsidize the security costs of a leftist Europe.

They lets Nazis take over their stupid continent, and they needed a bailout. Fuck them.

As for Japan, if goods don't cross oceans, navies will.

[caroljane]

Moral and material costs are obviously calculated by this poster on a different scale from that of most of humanity.

[caroljane]

One of the myths still surrounding WWII is that it prevented Nazi Germany from murdering every last person in Europe that they did not want in Europe. I believe that this myth is true .

[moralist]

Yaron Brook says taxes are not justified, even to support a war. Listen to this audio.

http://www.peikoff.com/2013/07/22/ybrook-in-a-desperate-situation-like-an-arms-race-would-it-be-morally-justified-to-demand-taxes/

I would like to see a consortium of private companies put up a military machine that can match China or Russia.

What the hell does YB know about military matters?

We have the best military machine that stolen money can buy.

We won WW2 on stolen money and a draft army (that is involuntary servitude, by the way). So we funded a slave army with stolen money and beat the Fascists and the Japs bloody.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Sometimes things you have to do are also what is good for you...

As a kid, I was drafted and sent to Vietnam and it was one of the best experiences in my life because I grew up from it.

Beneficial personal life experience can be found even in the midst of involuntary servitude in a stolen money military machine.

[moralist]

One of the myths still surrounding WWII is that it prevented Nazi Germany from murdering every last person in Europe that they did not want in Europe. I believe that this myth is true .

I also hold that irrational belief.

[FuturistNow]

One of the myths still surrounding WWII is that it prevented Nazi Germany from murdering every last person in Europe that they did not want in Europe. I believe that this myth is true .

If Europe was worried about the Nazis killing them they should have done something about it before things got out of hand.

Moral and material costs are obviously calculated by this poster on a different scale from that of most of humanity.

So?

That is obvious.

@Moralist

I am sorry that you were drafted, and I am glad that you did not play the victim and actually made something useful out of the situation. However the fact that you were able to make something out of a good situation does not mean that the actions taken against you were justified. Even if the situation benefited you there were a lot of people that it ended up killing for no reason at all.

[moralist]

.

@Moralist

I am sorry that you were drafted, and I am glad that you did not play the victim and actually made something useful out of the situation. However the fact that you were able to make something out of a good situation does not mean that the actions taken against you were justified.

I'm not sorry I was drafted. In fact I'm glad I was. Naturally I didn't like it at the time, but in retrospect it was a valuable learning experience. A lot of things in life are like that. It's totally up to me what I make of them.

Even if the situation benefited you there were a lot of people that it ended up killing for no reason at all.

"It" kills no one.

People kill people.

Some time its good people killing bad people,

and bad people killing good people,

and even bad people killing bad people.

But it's never good people killing good people.

And no one dies for no reason. There is always a reason people die. We may or may not like the reason and we may not even acknowledge the reason...

...but there is always a reason.

[Darrell Hougen]

A little perspective: Although most military inductions were done through the draft during WWII, that may be mainly the result of the fact that voluntary enlistments were not allowed according to this reference.

A total of 10.1 million men were drafted during World War II. At the beginning of the war, men rushed to enlist, but, from Hershey’s perspective, that ruined orderly conscription. He persuaded President Roosevelt in December 1942 to end voluntary enlistments except for men under 18 and over 38.

I'm not trying to defend the draft, but my understanding of WWII is that most of the men who served would have signed up voluntarily even if they had not been drafted. Actually, that is also true of the Vietnam war according to this reference.

Darrell

[BaalChatzaf]

A little perspective: Although most military inductions were done through the draft during WWII, that may be mainly the result of the fact that voluntary enlistments were not allowed according to this reference.

A total of 10.1 million men were drafted during World War II. At the beginning of the war, men rushed to enlist, but, from Hershey’s perspective, that ruined orderly conscription. He persuaded President Roosevelt in December 1942 to end voluntary enlistments except for men under 18 and over 38.

I'm not trying to defend the draft, but my understanding of WWII is that most of the men who served would have signed up voluntarily even if they had not been drafted. Actually, that is also true of the Vietnam war according to this reference.

Darrell

Many would have enlisted but some wouldn't. However, everyone whose number came up and who passed the physical had to serve or else spend time in prison. Only those who could establish themselves as '"consciencious objectors" could avoid combat but even they could be assigned to war work or given the option of being medics. Medics did not carry weapons.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Francisco Ferrer]

One of the myths still surrounding WWII is that it prevented Nazi Germany from murdering every last person in Europe that they did not want in Europe. I believe that this myth is true .

I also hold that irrational belief.

One of the myths of World War II, is that the military opponents of Nazi Germany helped prevent genocide. In fact, genocide within Allied countries exceeded that of the Nazis by several million during the period 1933-1945.

See http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.CHAP1.HTM

and http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM

[moralist]

One of the myths still surrounding WWII is that it prevented Nazi Germany from murdering every last person in Europe that they did not want in Europe. I believe that this myth is true .

I also hold that irrational belief.

One of the myths of World War II, is that the military opponents of Nazi Germany helped prevent genocide. In fact, genocide within Allied countries exceeded that of the Nazis by several million during the period 1933-1945.

See http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.CHAP1.HTM

and http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM

Defending evil with evil... an interesting approach.

[Francisco Ferrer]

One of the myths still surrounding WWII is that it prevented Nazi Germany from murdering every last person in Europe that they did not want in Europe. I believe that this myth is true .

I also hold that irrational belief.

One of the myths of World War II, is that the military opponents of Nazi Germany helped prevent genocide. In fact, genocide within Allied countries exceeded that of the Nazis by several million during the period 1933-1945.

See http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.CHAP1.HTM

and http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM

Defending evil with evil... an interesting approach.

I suppose you mean a defense such as this one:

"The Hitlerite scoundrels have made it a rule to torture Soviet prisoners of war, to kill them by the hundreds, to condemn thousands of them to a death by starvation. They violate and kill the civilian population of the occupied territories of our country – men and women, children and elderly, our brothers and sisters. They have made it their aim to enslave or exterminate the population of Ukraine, Belorussia, the Baltic republics, Moldavia, the Crimea, and the Caucasus. Only villains and bastards devoid of honor and fallen to the level of animals, can permit themselves such outrages against innocent unarmed people.” --Joseph Stalin, quoted in Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia. W. W. Norton & Company, p. 120.

In other words, as long as Nazi evil exists, ignore the far greater evil committed by its military enemy, the Soviet Union.

[Brant Gaede]

One of the myths still surrounding WWII is that it prevented Nazi Germany from murdering every last person in Europe that they did not want in Europe. I believe that this myth is true .

I also hold that irrational belief.

One of the myths of World War II, is that the military opponents of Nazi Germany helped prevent genocide. In fact, genocide within Allied countries exceeded that of the Nazis by several million during the period 1933-1945.

See http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.CHAP1.HTM

and http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM

Defending evil with evil... an interesting approach.

I suppose you mean a defense such as this one:

"The Hitlerite scoundrels have made it a rule to torture Soviet prisoners of war, to kill them by the hundreds, to condemn thousands of them to a death by starvation. They violate and kill the civilian population of the occupied territories of our country – men and women, children and elderly, our brothers and sisters. They have made it their aim to enslave or exterminate the population of Ukraine, Belorussia, the Baltic republics, Moldavia, the Crimea, and the Caucasus. Only villains and bastards devoid of honor and fallen to the level of animals, can permit themselves such outrages against innocent unarmed people.” --Joseph Stalin, quoted in Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia. W. W. Norton & Company, p. 120.

In other words, as long as Nazi evil exists, ignore the far greater evil committed by its military enemy, the Soviet Union.

Obvious WWII propaganda. Probably ghost-written. Thanks to the NY Times and Walter Duranty, mass starvation in the USSR in the 1930s was off the public radar and no one was thinking of it to speak of during the war against Hitler.

--Brant

Uncle Joe Stalin

[moralist]

One of the myths still surrounding WWII is that it prevented Nazi Germany from murdering every last person in Europe that they did not want in Europe. I believe that this myth is true .

I also hold that irrational belief.

One of the myths of World War II, is that the military opponents of Nazi Germany helped prevent genocide. In fact, genocide within Allied countries exceeded that of the Nazis by several million during the period 1933-1945.

See http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.CHAP1.HTM

and http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM

Defending evil with evil... an interesting approach.

I suppose you mean a defense such as this one:

"The Hitlerite scoundrels have made it a rule to torture Soviet prisoners of war, to kill them by the hundreds, to condemn thousands of them to a death by starvation. They violate and kill the civilian population of the occupied territories of our country – men and women, children and elderly, our brothers and sisters. They have made it their aim to enslave or exterminate the population of Ukraine, Belorussia, the Baltic republics, Moldavia, the Crimea, and the Caucasus. Only villains and bastards devoid of honor and fallen to the level of animals, can permit themselves such outrages against innocent unarmed people.” --Joseph Stalin, quoted in Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia. W. W. Norton & Company, p. 120.

In other words, as long as Nazi evil exists, ignore the far greater evil committed by its military enemy, the Soviet Union.

Good people never ignore evil.

They also never justify evil with evil.

That was a situation where evil people killed evil people.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Good people never ignore evil.

Agreed. Therefore, since the wartime governments of the U.S. and Great Britain did not condemn Stalin's murders but in fact produced propaganda to conceal them (for example, FDR’s Office of War Information made sure the script for the film Song of Russia was approved by the Soviet Embassy), we cannot say they were made up of "good people."

They also never justify evil with evil.

Therefore, the actions of the U.S. and Great Britain in fighting one evil (Hitler) by supporting another, greater evil (Stalin) cannot be justified.

That was a situation where evil people killed evil people.

In fact, the Soviet regime, supported by the U.S. government, killed more innocent people than evil people.

As Ayn Rand put it,

“World War I led, not to [Wilson’s] ‘democracy,’ but to the creation of three dictatorships: Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany. World War II led, not to [Roosevelt’s] ‘Four Freedoms,’ but to the surrender of one-third of the world’s population into communist slavery.” (“The Roots of War,” The Objectivist, June 1966)

[BaalChatzaf]

Therefore, the actions of the U.S. and Great Britain in fighting one evil (Hitler) by supporting another, greater evil (Stalin) cannot be justified.

If the Nazis had not been defeated I very well might have ended up as a cake of soap on some Nazi's bathtub.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[moralist]

Therefore, the actions of the U.S. and Great Britain in fighting one evil (Hitler) by supporting another, greater evil (Stalin) cannot be justified.

Of course not. It was a situation of evil people killing evil people. No outcome is ideal. Fascism, Communism and Nazism are all evil secular ideologies created by evil people in their own image.

Good people can never completely destroy evil people.

They can only prevent themselves from being completely destroyed...

...which in this case is exactly what they did.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Therefore, the actions of the U.S. and Great Britain in fighting one evil (Hitler) by supporting another, greater evil (Stalin) cannot be justified.

If the Nazis had not been defeated I very well might have ended up as a cake of soap on some Nazi's bathtub.

Ba'al Chatzaf

To paraphrase Ayn Rand, is there anyone with an ounce of self-esteem who would value the lives of one, 100, or even one million Soviet citizens above his own? In the value system of Me (or insert other name here) no price in the blood of others is too high for the life of Me.

The problem is that it is exceedingly difficult to form moral principles or policy prescriptions entirely from the Point of View of Me.

Alas, those who least benefited from FDR's propping up of Stalin's regime are not here to make their case.

[Darrell Hougen]

Good people never ignore evil.

Agreed. Therefore, since the wartime governments of the U.S. and Great Britain did not condemn Stalin's murders but in fact produced propaganda to conceal them (for example, FDR’s Office of War Information made sure the script for the film Song of Russia was approved by the Soviet Embassy), we cannot say they were made up of "good people."

They also never justify evil with evil.

Therefore, the actions of the U.S. and Great Britain in fighting one evil (Hitler) by supporting another, greater evil (Stalin) cannot be justified.

That was a situation where evil people killed evil people.

In fact, the Soviet regime, supported by the U.S. government, killed more innocent people than evil people.

As Ayn Rand put it,

“World War I led, not to [Wilson’s] ‘democracy,’ but to the creation of three dictatorships: Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany. World War II led, not to [Roosevelt’s] ‘Four Freedoms,’ but to the surrender of one-third of the world’s population into communist slavery.” (“The Roots of War,” The Objectivist, June 1966)

The problem I have with the above argument is that it ignores who was being killed and who was fighting. Germany didn't just invade the Soviet Union. If it had, it is unlikely that the U.S. would have gotten involved. Instead, Germany also invaded Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, and Egypt. It also attacked Great Britain and attacked American ships in the Atlantic --- probably Canadian and other country's ships too. Some of those countries might not have been worth saving, but some certainly were. The U.S. had a direct interest in defending its trading partners and its trade routes. It had an indirect interest in defending the (relatively) free countries of Europe. It probably had an interest in defeating Soviet Communism too, but at what cost? By the end of the war, the Soviet Union had something like 500 divisions each composed of roughly 10,000 to 15,000 men and had something like 20,000 tanks, many of which were quite good. Remember, the biggest tank battle in history was fought on the Eastern Front.

By entering the war, the United States helped to free the Western democracies. If the U.S. had not entered the war, it is possible that the Soviet Union would still have won and would have continued to drive west, mopping up the rest of Europe.

Still, it might have been better to follow Patton's advice (in the movie) and roll back the red tide. I'm not sure what the real Patton said, but here is a clip.

Darrell

[Francisco Ferrer]

Therefore, the actions of the U.S. and Great Britain in fighting one evil (Hitler) by supporting another, greater evil (Stalin) cannot be justified.

Of course not. It was a situation of evil people killing evil people. No outcome is ideal. Fascism, Communism and Nazism are all evil secular ideologies created by evil people in their own image.

Good people can never completely destroy evil people.

They can only prevent themselves from being completely destroyed...

...which in this case is exactly what they did.

First of all, what "good people" are you referring to? It cannot be the FDR administration. For you have stated in Post #16 that "Good people never ignore evil." Yet FDR personally supervised propaganda that hid the murderous nature of Stalin's rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_to_Moscow

Secondly, you have yet to make the case that giving aid to Stalin, who killed more people than Hitler, was a necessary action to prevent the U.S. from being destroyed.

[Francisco Ferrer]

That was a situation where evil people killed evil people.

In fact, the Soviet regime, supported by the U.S. government, killed more innocent people than evil people.

As Ayn Rand put it,

“World War I led, not to [Wilson’s] ‘democracy,’ but to the creation of three dictatorships: Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany. World War II led, not to [Roosevelt’s] ‘Four Freedoms,’ but to the surrender of one-third of the world’s population into communist slavery.” (“The Roots of War,” The Objectivist, June 1966)

The problem I have with the above argument is that it ignores who was being killed and who was fighting. Germany didn't just invade the Soviet Union. If it had, it is unlikely that the U.S. would have gotten involved. Instead, Germany also invaded Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, and Egypt. It also attacked Great Britain and attacked American ships in the Atlantic --- probably Canadian and other country's ships too. Some of those countries might not have been worth saving, but some certainly were. The U.S. had a direct interest in defending its trading partners and its trade routes. It had an indirect interest in defending the (relatively) free countries of Europe. It probably had an interest in defeating Soviet Communism too, but at what cost? By the end of the war, the Soviet Union had something like 500 divisions each composed of roughly 10,000 to 15,000 men and had something like 20,000 tanks, many of which were quite good. Remember, the biggest tank battle in history was fought on the Eastern Front.

By entering the war, the United States helped to free the Western democracies. If the U.S. had not entered the war, it is possible that the Soviet Union would still have won and would have continued to drive west, mopping up the rest of Europe.

Still, it might have been better to follow Patton's advice (in the movie) and roll back the red tide. I'm not sure what the real Patton said, but here is a clip.

Darrell

World War II began when two murderous regimes simultaneously invaded Poland. World War II ended when FDR and Churchill agreed to allow the more murderous regime to continue to occupy Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe.

[Darrell Hougen]

That was a situation where evil people killed evil people.

In fact, the Soviet regime, supported by the U.S. government, killed more innocent people than evil people.

As Ayn Rand put it,

“World War I led, not to [Wilson’s] ‘democracy,’ but to the creation of three dictatorships: Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany. World War II led, not to [Roosevelt’s] ‘Four Freedoms,’ but to the surrender of one-third of the world’s population into communist slavery.” (“The Roots of War,” The Objectivist, June 1966)

The problem I have with the above argument is that it ignores who was being killed and who was fighting. Germany didn't just invade the Soviet Union. If it had, it is unlikely that the U.S. would have gotten involved. Instead, Germany also invaded Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, and Egypt. It also attacked Great Britain and attacked American ships in the Atlantic --- probably Canadian and other country's ships too. Some of those countries might not have been worth saving, but some certainly were. The U.S. had a direct interest in defending its trading partners and its trade routes. It had an indirect interest in defending the (relatively) free countries of Europe. It probably had an interest in defeating Soviet Communism too, but at what cost? By the end of the war, the Soviet Union had something like 500 divisions each composed of roughly 10,000 to 15,000 men and had something like 20,000 tanks, many of which were quite good. Remember, the biggest tank battle in history was fought on the Eastern Front.

By entering the war, the United States helped to free the Western democracies. If the U.S. had not entered the war, it is possible that the Soviet Union would still have won and would have continued to drive west, mopping up the rest of Europe.

Still, it might have been better to follow Patton's advice (in the movie) and roll back the red tide. I'm not sure what the real Patton said, but here is a clip.

Darrell

World War II began when two murderous regimes simultaneously invaded Poland. World War II ended when FDR and Churchill agreed to allow the more murderous regime to continue to occupy Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe.

I know how it began and how it ended, but you're ignoring everything that happened in the middle.

And, what about the very real possibility that the Soviet Union would have won WWII an taken over all of Western Europe too?

Also, Stalin was in power far longer than Hitler. Are you so sure that Hitler wouldn't have killed millions more than he did if he had won the war?

You don't know what the future might have held if the U.S. had not gotten involved. So, you can complain all day about what did happen, but, you can't just assume that everything would have been hunky dory if things had turned out differently.

Darrell

[Francisco Ferrer]

And, what about the very real possibility that the Soviet Union would have won WWII an taken over all of Western Europe too?

Darrell

Only because FDR wished it.

The Soviet Union did not become a military powerhouse as a result of socialist efficiency or native Russian fighting prowess. It was saved from extinction and raised to the military equal of the U.S. by FDR. Lend-Lease provided the Soviets with a constant stream of raw materials and manufactured goods.

Roosevelt's goal was not simply to weaken the Nazis, but to make Stalin ruler of half of Europe. See Roosevelt's Road to Russia.

He cheerfully helped the Soviet secret police round up escapees in Operation Keelhaul.

He gave Stalin all he needed to become the military equal of the U.S. See Hearings regarding shipment of atomic material to the Soviet Union during World War II.

And he prevented anything negative about the Soviets from reaching American citizens. US 'helped Russia cover up Second World War Katyn Forest massacre'

Also, Stalin was in power far longer than Hitler. Are you so sure that Hitler wouldn't have killed millions more than he did if he had won the war?

The statistical comparison I used was for the same span of time: 1933-1945.

You don't know what the future might have held if the U.S. had not gotten involved. So, you can complain all day about what did happen, but, you can't just assume that everything would have been hunky dory if things had turned out differently.

The same argument can be made for any governmental intervention. Things might have been a lot worse if we hadn't had a UN, foreign aid, the Vietnam War, food stamps, the Federal Reserve, TARP, TSA, etc.