Ukraine and Endless War for Profit

[Peter]

I quote from Eyal Mozes’ critique of The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, by Randy E. Barnett.
But granted ethics and rights are two distinct issues, what is the relation between them? Objectivist value theory approaches the question of rights by establishing the importance of rationality, independence, and productivity. Specifically, it demonstrates that to live man must guide his actions by his independent, rational thinking, using it to produce the resources he needs to survive. The basic social requirement of man's survival, therefore, is that other people not prevent him from acting rationally, independently, and productively. Fundamentally, the only danger to man's ability to act in this way is the possibility that some other person will initiate physical force against him. Rights are therefore justified as the principles on which society must be organized to fulfill the basic social requirement: to preserve man's ability to act rationally, independently, and productively by protecting him from the initiation of force. Thus, in the logical structure of Objectivism, rights come later than ethics and are based on it. In the words of Ayn Rand, rights are "the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context-the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics." (Ayn Rand, "Man's Rights," The Virtue of Selfishness, paperback edition, p. 92.) end quote

So, I agree with the following. “Fundamentally, the only danger to man's ability to act in this way is the possibility that some other person will initiate physical force against him.”

In Ukraine, who or what entity ‘initiated force?” Who or what entity is continuing to “initiate force?” Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, Peter said:

In Ukraine, who or what entity ‘initiated force?” Who or what entity is continuing to “initiate force?”

Peter,

I can't help it.

I have to paraphrase you.

In Ukraine, who or what entity ‘initiated massive money laundering of embezzled US funds?” Who or what entity is continuing to “initiate massive money laundering of embezzled US funds?”

 

Not even Ayn Rand in the abstract and without context can polish that turd.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How about this one?

I've heard it said often in O-Land circles that embezzlement is initiation of force...

Michael

 

EDIT: Incidentally, I am gung-ho on Bitcoin because it eliminates the embezzlement (the initiation of force) of the Predator Class in their endless war for profit racket.

If there is to be a war with Russia, people are smart enough to recognize a threat and they will fund it by individual choice, individual by individual.

If war with Russia is a racket and Bitcoin is the main currency, there is no mechanism for villains to initiate force and embezzle government money and go to war anyway. 

People get to decide if they want to go to war or not.

What a concept, huh?

 

[Peter]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Not even Ayn Rand in the abstract and without context can polish that turd.

Ah. Somebody embezzled, so they and all the innocents around them must die: Vlad the Impaler Putin: “They made me do it. I had to initiate force and kill them, but I call it retaliation, because they were so mean.

And now to all of you fans of genocide I sing to you:

Having my baby

What a lovely way of saying

How much you love me

Having my baby

What a lovely way of saying

What you're thinking of me

I can see it

Face is glowing

I can see in your eyes

I'm happy you know it

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

54 minutes ago, Peter said:

Ah. Somebody embezzled, so they and all the innocents around them must die.

Peter,

You left out the innocent Ukrainians Zelensky killed because somebodies (from the USA) embezzled.

Why does he get a pass, but Putin does not? 

Do you believe the USA should promote and prop up embezzling and killing like that? Because that is exactly what is happening.

And it's getting worse with the response to Putin. Over $200 billion so far. Most of it embezzled. And lots of dead innocents--Ukrainian innocents--that the Zelensky people killed.

Is it moral for the USA to be a gangster in your thinking? It is not in mine.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To be clear, I am not for Putin. I am not for Zelensky and the Nazis.

I am against both.

And I am not for China.

 

I am not speaking of the common people (or reason-based humans of all classes).

I am speaking about the Predator Class in each country.

Michael

[Peter]

Weird logic? Putin is wrong for invading Ukraine, but some Ukrainians have done some bad things, therefor they ALL deserve to be invaded and murdered. Putin is justified in killing Ukrainians and in committing war crimes because that is the way of the world. And don’t forget about “original sin.” All Ukrainians should be punished for every wrong they ever did going back to World War 2, therefor Vlad is justified in giving them their ‘comeuppance.” Putin is wrong for invading Ukraine, but Ukraine is equally wrong for being invaded.   

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

The same argument holds for the other side.

Putin does some bad things, in other words some Russians do some bad things, therefore you want the USA to nuke all Russians.

How does that work?

I think where I mostly disagree with you, though, is that this Russia and Ukraine thing the USA's problem and that the Military-Industrial Complex represents the American spirit and Ayn Rand.

They do not.

The Military-Industrial Complex, including the intelligence culture, are the cream of the Predator Class.

We actually need to use that $200 billion fighting them, not fighting Putin in the name of Nazis.

 

btw - I think Nazis are evil.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's some more weird logic.

When the USA sends the $200 billion over to Ukraine, most of it is embezzled, but the rest of it does not go to the Ukrainian people. It goes to Nazis.

Since I think Nazis are evil, imagine what my moral evaluation is of funding Nazis in the name of freedom.

Michael

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's another thought on this.

If we want to defend a foreign border, let's at least focus on a country that is productive and serves American interests.

Let's defend Taiwan against the CCP. I'm all in.

Taiwan makes most of the microchips we use in the west.

What's more, that place can never turn into an endless war for profit for a wide range of reasons too long to go into here. 

If war comes about Taiwan, it will either be won or lost.

 

What does Ukraine do for the west? Well, there's money laundering for the politicians...

And endless war for profit for the Military Industrial Complex...

And of course, there are Nazis...

 

Michael

[Peter]

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I think where I mostly disagree with you, though, is that this Russia and Ukraine thing the USA's problem and that the Military-Industrial Complex represents the American spirit and Ayn Rand.

Not I. Not me. I don't think that laddie. At least OL hasn't been hacked by Russians. I think.   

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

33 minutes ago, Peter said:

Not I. Not me. I don't think that laddie.  

Peter,

Ah ha!

I knew it.

 

I bet if I scratch, you don't care much for Nazis, too.

 

Michael

[Peter]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I bet if I scratch, you don't care much for Nazis, too.

I think Nazi’s or anyone who wants to do away with America and the U.S. Constitution are traitors.

I am still dwelling on the idea that Russia is evil for invading Ukraine, and correspondingly, Ukraine is evil for being invaded. Here are a few off the wall, thoughts I jotted down years ago and I think I posted them on Objectivist Living. Peter

Setting someone off. Telling someone something horribly true or even fictitious, in the expectation that they will become violent. Or convincing someone to act in a violent manner, or to harm themselves.

Setting an evil plot into motion that will not conclude until after you are dead. Philosophically Rand stated that Kant was evil, though, his “plot” came to fruition after his death. What if you fired a ‘slow bullet’ that would not kill until after you were dead? Is it the thought that counts?

People who ACT ON, or promote wrong ideas are very wrong and / or evil in a moral sense, to varying degrees of severity. I think the idea of a sliding scale of wrongness or evilness is important, because of the way we should treat these people. A simple advocacy of a wrong position could be considered evil.

The initiation of force is always evil. People who ACT ON ideas that do not correspond to the facts of reality are very wrong and/or evil in a moral sense, to a much greater degree, if they violate the rights of others through the initiation of force or acts of coercion.

[Strictlylogical]

7 hours ago, Peter said:

I am still dwelling on the idea that Russia is evil for invading Ukraine, and correspondingly, Ukraine is evil for being invaded.

What IS "Russia"?   What IS "Ukraine"? A geographic region?  A culture?    A society?  A people?  Each and every person? Certain people in control or under control?

Who here is attributing "evil" to that which you identify AS "Ukraine" or "Russia"?  Is it a valid attribution given your identifications?

 

Certainly there are individuals in this complicated context whose specific actions are evil, but your statement, whether genuine, rhetorical, Socratic, or Sarcastic,  "Russia is evil for invading Ukraine, and correspondingly, Ukraine is evil for being invaded" is irrational, and NOT for the reason you assume or intended.

[Peter]

Strictly Logical quoted “whether genuine, rhetorical, Socratic, or Sarcastic, "Russia is evil for invading Ukraine,” 

That is my un-sarcastic stance. Russia initiated force, even though there are some bad citizens of Ukraine. I think we should give some moral or material support for the victim, even if it is NOT with our military. Some background for that view? Peter

2004/ Liberty & Power: Group Blog Peter Schwartz and the Abandonment of Rand’s Radical Legacy, Part I Introduction. For several years now, I’ve been engaged in a critique of the foreign policy writings of various Objectivists, who, I believe, have abandoned Ayn Rand’s radical insights on the nature of U.S. politics. For those who are not Ayn Rand fans or who don’t care one iota what Objectivists have to say on U.S. foreign policy, this week’s five-part series (which begins today) might not provide the requisite excitement. But for those readers who are classical liberals and libertarians, and who see, on a daily basis, the erosion of the noninterventionist tradition of liberalism, this series will have some merit. Suffice it to say: In fighting for Rand’s radical legacy, I’m fighting simultaneously for that noninterventionist tradition that stands opposed to the welfare-warfare state, while seeking to comprehend the inextricable relationship between the “welfare” and the “warfare” part of that equation.

“Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 96. . . . Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others. end quote

In Rand’s article, "The Left: Old and New" in The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, [p. 89] Ayn Rand wrote: In regard to the political principle involved: if a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is *proved*, the law can and does hold him responsible.  If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and *objective* laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved -- as was done in the case of oil rights, air-space rights, etc." end quote

In “What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal Ayn Rand wrote: The institution of private property, in the full, legal meaning of the term, was brought into existence only by capitalism. In the pre-capitalist eras, private property existed de facto, but not de jure, i.e., by custom and sufferance, not by right or by law. end quote

From Rand’s address to West point’s graduating class: , , , , You have chosen to risk your lives for the defense of this country. I will not insult you by saying that you dedicated to selfless service - it is not a virtue in my morality. In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. THIS is an enormous virtue. Some of you may not be consciously aware of it. I want to help you to realize it.

The army of a free country has a great responsibility: the right to use force, but not as an instrument of compulsion and brute conquest - as the army of other countries has done their histories - only as an instrument of a free nation's self-defense, which means: the defense of a man's individual rights. The principle of using force only in retaliation against those who initiate its use, is the principle of subordinating might to right. The highest integrity and sense of honor are required for such a task. No other army in the world has achieved it. You have. West Point has given America a long line of heroes, known and unknown. You, this years graduates, have a glorious tradition to carry on - which I admire profoundly, not because it is a tradition, but because it IS glorious.

Since I came from a country guilty of the worst tyranny on earth, I am particularly able to appreciate the meaning, the greatness and the supreme value of that which you are defending. So, in my own name and in the name of many people who think as I do, I want to say, to all the men of West Point, past, present, and future: Thank you. end quote

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If we want to defend a foreign border, let's at least focus on a country that is productive and serves American interests.

Let's defend Taiwan against the CCP. I'm all in.

Taiwan makes most of the microchips we use in the west.

What's more, that place can never turn into an endless war for profit for a wide range of reasons too long to go into here. 

If war comes about Taiwan, it will either be won or lost.

 

What does Ukraine do for the west? Well, there's money laundering for the politicians...

And endless war for profit for the Military Industrial Complex...

And of course, there are Nazis...

Here's one of the "freedom fighters" who is helping send hundreds of billions of dollars to Ukraine to launder.

At least he believes in defending US interests, right? Like Taiwan, right?

See for yourself.

“We Do Not Support Taiwan Independence” – Tony Blinken Gives Green Light to Chicoms to Invade Taiwan (VIDEO)

"We Do Not Support Taiwan Independence" - Tony Blinken Gives Green Light to Chicoms to Invade Taiwan (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft | 2

WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM

---

Secretary of State Tony Blinken traveled to China this past weekend to give the green light to the communist regime to invade Taiwan.

Oops...

I thought Blinken wanted to defend American interests and show Putin a thing or two, right?

 

Here's the reason the Predator Class doesn't want to launder money fighting an endless war for profit with the CCP over its upcoming invasion of Taiwan (seeing that the CCP in today's world is an ally of Putin and all).

They already laundered their embezzled money with the CCP.

They didn't get to launder it with Putin, ergo the Ukraine war laundromat.

 

Is this starting to make sense?

 

Michael

[tmj]

That doesn't answer or address 'what is Ukraine'. Eastern European traditions and questions of individualization of nations and their asseveration of sovereignty and how they developed out of their shared past is not something , I think, we in the 'west ' west can draw a straight analogy.

I'm not saying I know the answer, but did/does Ukraine have the moral/legal/historical autonomy to make all of its current or near term present territorial claims?   Do they have , or should they have, the 'right' to determine Russian hegemony over Crimea, is that a historic precedent?measured or solidified by enough 'time' to be a legitimate national identity? why not the Tartars were/ are they Ukrainain?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

24 minutes ago, tmj said:

... what is Ukraine...

T,

Given the constantly changing history of that region, I'm not sure Ukrainians know what Ukraine is.

They just live there.

 

Michael

[tmj]

Yep and you can buy a lot of political will in a population not paying enough attention to identifying before judging , lots of ‘preprogrammed’ knee jerk emotional response , the kind warmongering leaders use to gain and maintain their power.

[Peter]

3 hours ago, tmj said:

Yep and you can buy a lot of political will in a population not paying enough attention to identifying before judging , lots of ‘preprogrammed’ knee jerk emotional response , the kind warmongering leaders use to gain and maintain their power.

You shot my neighbor. You shot my wife. You shot me, Russia . . . Soooo. Ukraine is the villain?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I, for one, shot the Sheriff, but I didn't shoot no deputy...

 

Michael

[tmj]

Whose side should the Sultan of Brunei jump in on, the Hatfields or the McCoys ?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is  one hell of a Twitter thread from Kim Dotcom.

Click on the date to go there.

 

The most disturbing issue to me is the USA funding and developing bioweapons labs in Ukraine.

In short, the USA is paying Nazis to develop more bioweapons to unleash engineered viruses and other goodies on mankind. And Russia, even with an unjust invasion, is destroying those labs.

Come to your own conclusion.

Michael

[Peter]

That is an interesting theory. From an Alt News source, America is supporting Nazi’s and bio labs. Harrumph! Be sure to read number 4. I know, I know, Ukraine somehow initiated the force used against themselves. How quaint. Remember that Kingston Trio hit, “Where have all the flowers and rational thinkers, gone?”

From a Roger Bissell letter: Later, in 1962, in her column "Introducing Objectivism," Rand gave "the briefest summary" of her philosophy:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute--facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man--every man--is an end in himself, not the means t the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own ~rational~ self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4. The ideal political-economic system is ~laissez-faire~ capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as ~traders~, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. it is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and ~no man may initiate the use of physical force against others~. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force ~only~ in retaliation and ~only~ against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Peter said:

That is an interesting theory.

Peter,

It sure is an interesting theory.

Did you look at the evidence in that thread?

It's not just from "an Alt News source."

Most of it is irrefutable and there is a ton of it.

And people can even skim it and understand it.

I understand "rational thinker" to mean someone to whom evidence is a value.

Isn't evidence a value for rational thinking?

 

Michael

EDIT: You wrote, characterizing an argument, "Ukraine somehow initiated the force used against themselves."

That's not accurate. Nazi Ukrainians--during peacetime--bombed the shit out Russian Ukrainians in the Donbas region and elsewhere after the 2014 coup.

The CIA favors the Nazi Ukrainians.