Home | Community | Message Board

World Seed Supply
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Libertarians, War & Consistent Application of Principles [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1968908 - 10/01/03 08:17 AM (20 years, 3 months ago)

EchoVortex writes:

It was not "retaliatory" force exactly since the Ba'athist regime did not attack the United States. Perhaps we need a word somewhere between "initiatory" and "retaliatory".

See my previous comments on whether or not one has the right to defend others against those who initiate force against them.

By your definition, it is not retaliatory force when police arrest criminals either. After all, the criminals did not initiate violence against the police, but against their victims. Do only the victims themselves have the right to use retaliatory force, or do others acting on their behalf have that right?

But just to clarify: are you saying it is okay for the United States to interfere in the economic activity of the Iraqis and dictate to them who will build their wireless networks, who will repair their oil wells, etc?

Since that is outside the scope of Rothbard's essay (which I was originally asked to comment on) I will move on to your next point. If you care to re-ask your question in a different thread, I will address it there.

Where do we set the bar? 1%? 10%? 20%?

I actually don't care where you feel the bar should be set. I was pointing out that Rothbard sets the bar at 100%.

For example: if the Iraqi people were so miserable under Saddam's regime that they would be willing to risk their lives to remove it, they probably would have engaged in at least a few massive, popular uprisings.

They did. And at least one frequent poster to this forum has excoriated the US for not coming to their assistance then. Interestingly enough, that same poster is a staunch opponent of the recent assistance, but that is not relevant to Rothbard's points.

So it's okay to kill thousands of civlians if only one of them believes that the regime should be changed?

So it's not okay to assist a group of people if even one of them believes the regime should not be changed? That is Rothbard's position.

In the abstract, the moral blame for the deaths of the INNOCENT BYSTANDERS (not the original victims) does indeed rest at the feet of the rescuers UNLESS all possible means of restraining the wrongdoer are attempted BEFORE using force which is lethal to innocent bystanders.

And which possible means of restraining the Ba'athist regime from continuing their killing of Iraqis were NOT tried before the invasion? I can't think of any, nor apparently could the UN or any member nations of the UN.

This precondition MAY be negated in cases where IMMEDIATE action is necessary, but if the force used is still excessive to the task (the nuclear bomb example given by infidelgod) then once again the rescuers are to blame.

It has not been shown that the actions of the coalition in Iraq were in fact excessive to the task. There was no carpet bombing of cities. Troops held their fire rather than damage mosques, etc.

However, even if some incidents come to light which in retrospect illustrate the opposite, that does not mean that in principle the very act of invading Iraq was in and of itself an initiation of force against peaceful civilians. It was not. It was the retaliatory use of force against the Ba'athist regime.

Simply CREATING a situation does not make the initiator responsible for ALL subsequent actions carried out by ALL parties pursuant to that initiated action.

Agreed. For example, if the coalition which entered Afghanistan seeking to capture al Qaeda operatives had instead just lobbed a half dozen nukes onto random Afghani population centers, the resulting deaths could not morally be laid at the feet of either al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

But Rothbard's point is that if even a single civilian death occurs at the hands of the rescuers, it is the rescuers who are morally culpable.

In the case of Iraq, there was no recognized need for immediate action since the murderousness of the regime was hardly at its peak at the time.

Do you know that for a certainty? If the "peak" is a thousand people killed per week and the "trough" is a thousand killed per month, does it really matter?

All possible targeted and/or non-lethal means of restraining Saddam's regime were not attempted beforehand.

Such as? And how long is one to wait for these other means of restraint to begin working, while the murders continue? "Well, twelve years of sanctions haven't stopped the murders, fellas. Should we draft an eighteenth resolution and give it a year or two to start working while thousands of Iraqis continue to be murdered? Lemme see a show of hands, here."

The specific desires of the "beneficiaries" were not known.

Of every single beneficiary? You are correct.

There were numerous strings attached to the aid that the "beneficiaries" would clearly have rejected.

Every single beneficiary? Or even the majority of the benfeficiaries? Do you know that for a certainty? For example, I doubt the Iraqis much care whether their infrastructure is rebuilt by an American firm or a French firm, especially since it is not their tax dollars paying for it.

In other words, there were so many pieces of the puzzle missing that to argue this as a "moral" war is a very rickety argument indeed.

Was every single one of the many coalition actions taken since the first cruise missile landed moral? Nope. My only point was that Autonomous was incorrect to claim that "Yes, the U.S. did initiate force against thousands of Afghani and Iraqi civilians."

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: Libertarians, War & Consistent Application of Principles [Re: Autonomous]
    #1968967 - 10/01/03 08:49 AM (20 years, 3 months ago)

That was a very good read!

I really like the part about the state creating the illusion that it is defending its "people" by executing a war against other states, when in reality it is using the people to protect itself.


--------------------
I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest
-----------

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 4 months
Re: Libertarians, War & Consistent Application of Principles [Re: Phred]
    #1969004 - 10/01/03 09:13 AM (20 years, 3 months ago)

By your definition, it is not retaliatory force when police arrest criminals either. After all, the criminals did not initiate violence against the police, but against their victims. Do only the victims themselves have the right to use retaliatory force, or do others acting on their behalf have that right?

From the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition:

Retaliate: transitive verb : to repay (as an injury) in kind
intransitive verb : to return like for like; especially : to get revenge
synonyms see RECIPROCATE

You cannot "repay" or "return" or "reciprocate" something you yourself have not received. Police do not "retaliate" when they arrest a criminal: they merely administer the law. Their job is not to "repay in kind" or to "return like for like" but rather to a) prevent crimes and b) bring criminals to court where justice will hopefully be served. Third parties may have the right in certain instances to intercede with use of force on behalf of others, but to call that "retaliation" is imprecise.

I actually don't care where you feel the bar should be set. I was pointing out that Rothbard sets the bar at 100%.

I wasn't asking you whether you care. Did you actually read my post? I was asking you where you think the bar should be set. If Rothbard's 100% is wrong, and if 50% is wrong, what is right? Please don't evade the question this time.

They did. And at least one frequent poster to this forum has excoriated the US for not coming to their assistance then. Interestingly enough, that same poster is a staunch opponent of the recent assistance, but that is not relevant to Rothbard's points.

Massive, popular uprisings? In other words, nationwide? I'm just curious--when?

By the way, what does said "frequent poster" have to do with this discussion? With me? Since you're such a stickler for keeping things in their proper threads, please start a new one to cast aspersions at said "frequent poster."

So it's not okay to assist a group of people if even one of them believes the regime should not be changed? That is Rothbard's position.

I wasn't endorsing Rothbard's position. Just to get the ball rolling I threw out 50% and then asked you for your suggestion, which wasn't forthcoming.

And which possible means of restraining the Ba'athist regime from continuing their killing of Iraqis were NOT tried before the invasion? I can't think of any, nor apparently could the UN or any member nations of the UN.

Assasinating Saddam and his inner circle, for one.

Threatening to invade if Saddam didn't stop killing his own people. We never did that. We only threatened to invade if he didn't destroy WMD that he didn't even possess. Stopping the killing of his OWN people was never linked to the possibility of invasion.

If stopping Saddam's killing of his own people were ever a real issue to the United States, that last approach would have been tried.

It has not been shown that the actions of the coalition in Iraq were in fact excessive to the task. There was no carpet bombing of cities. Troops held their fire rather than damage mosques, etc.

Baghdad and the environs were pounded hard in order to "soften up" the defenses. Probably the majority of the civilians killed were killed during that time. This was obviously done NOT to protect civlians but to protect the lives of American soliders. In other words, the lives of the American soliders were given greater weight. Of course, from a "real world" point of view, those soldiers had every right to do everything necessary to defend their own lives. But it shoots holes in the idea that they did everything necessary to protect the lives of innocent civilians.

However, even if some incidents come to light which in retrospect illustrate the opposite, that does not mean that in principle the very act of invading Iraq was in and of itself an initiation of force against peaceful civilians. It was not. It was the retaliatory use of force against the Ba'athist regime.

Without the consent of those peaceful civilians, it was an initiation of force.

But Rothbard's point is that if even a single civilian death occurs at the hands of the rescuers, it is the rescuers who are morally culpable.

Rothbard's position is extreme and untenable. But I think we can expand the scope of this thread beyond merely demolishing Rothbard and try to arrive at some answers of our own.

Do you know that for a certainty? If the "peak" is a thousand people killed per week and the "trough" is a thousand killed per month, does it really matter?

No, you're right, I don't know. But it does matter if invading will result in more innocent deaths than not invading.

Such as? And how long is one to wait for these other means of restraint to begin working, while the murders continue? "Well, twelve years of sanctions haven't stopped the murders, fellas. Should we draft an eighteenth resolution and give it a year or two to start working while thousands of Iraqis continue to be murdered? Lemme see a show of hands, here."

As you yourself said, there is no obligation to help in any event. The effects of wars cannot be predicted with certainty beforehand. Nobody knew exactly how many civilians would die in this conflict, and whether that number would be so high as to result in a situation worse than the status quo. In fact, we still haven't stopped counting how many people are still going to die because of this invasion. If civil war breaks out, many more may die than would have if Saddam had remained in power.

Every single beneficiary? Or even the majority of the benfeficiaries? Do you know that for a certainty? For example, I doubt the Iraqis much care whether their infrastructure is rebuilt by an American firm or a French firm, especially since it is not their tax dollars paying for it.

Do you know for a certainty that Iraqis don't care much? I think logic would dictate that they WOULD care whether their wireless network is built by a company that knows what it is doing or not. Your last remark is a variation on the "beggars can't be choosers" line of thought, which is inappropriate since the Iraqi people didn't ASK us to invade. But we're getting off the topic of this thread, now aren't we?

Was every single one of the many coalition actions taken since the first cruise missile landed moral? Nope. My only point was that Autonomous was incorrect to claim that "Yes, the U.S. did initiate force against thousands of Afghani and Iraqi civilians."

The exact wishes of the Iraqi people may never be known with certainty. But the fact remains that the burden of proof as to whether a lethal action is welcome ("retaliatory") or not rests on the party that employs the lethal force that will inevitably result in the death of innocent civilians. Since the United States invaded without first satisfying that burden of proof, they did in fact initiate force against the thousands of Iraqis who died in the invasion.

Edit: typo.


Edited by EchoVortex (10/01/03 09:16 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Libertarians, War &amp; Consistent Application of Principles [Re: Phred]
    #1972626 - 10/02/03 11:36 AM (20 years, 3 months ago)

that link to the Washington Post article requires registration, so I'll post the relevent section here (emphasis mine):

Data Reveal Inaccuracies in Portrayal of Iraqis

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 29, 2003; Page A14

Top Bush administration officials in the past weeks have been citing a pair of public opinion polls to demonstrate that Iraqis have a positive view of the U.S. occupation. But an examination of those polls indicates Iraqis have a less enthusiastic view than the administration has portrayed.

For example, in testimony before Congress, L. Paul Bremer III, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz both cited a recent Gallup Poll that found that almost two-thirds of those polled in Baghdad said it was worth the hardships suffered since the U.S.-led invasion ousted Saddam Hussein. Bremer also told Congress that 67 percent thought that in five years they would be better off, and only 11 percent thought they would be worse off.

That same poll, however, found that, countrywide, only 33 percent thought they were better off than they were before the invasion and 47 percent said they were worse off. And 94 percent said that Baghdad was a more dangerous place for them to live, a finding the administration officials did not discuss




let me also point out that your position is as extreme as Rothbard's. following your logic, it would be morally justifiable for us to invade every country in the world where the government initiates deadly force against it's people, even when we're not asked to, and any innocents that are killed wouldn't be our fault because we're merely "retaliating" against the initiation of force by their government.

of course, it's not entirely our fault either, some blame has to go to their government as well. but to completely absolve ourselves of any moral culpability by claiming that we're retaliating is not only ridiculous, it's irresponsible.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Libertarians, War & Consistent Application of Principles [Re: infidelGOD]
    #1973820 - 10/02/03 06:34 PM (20 years, 3 months ago)

infidelGOD writes:

no. because, as I stated above, these are emergency situations where immediate action is required.

And this differs from Iraq in what way? Are you saying that the Ba'athist regime had ceased murdering innocents? How do you know this?

and furthermore, a guy who uses a gun can have a reasonable expectation of only harming the criminals. so if innocents are killed, he can be forgiven for being a bad shot. the same can be said of the SWAT hostage situation, but not in war.

But an artillery team cannot be forgiven for being bad shots? A bombardier cannot be forgiven when the guidance system on his smart bomb malfunctions and the bomb lands not on its targeted SAM missile battery but on a nearby hut?

as Rothbard pointed out "For it is precisely the characteristic of modern weapons that they cannot be used selectively". don't ignore this crucial point. it fundamentally changes the moral equation. in war, it's not if innocents will be killed, they will be killed.

Actually, Rothbard's phrase "they cannot be used selectively" applies to WMDs (or NBCs as they were called at the time Rothbard wrote the essay), not to all modern weaponry. In actual fact, artillery shells, grenades, aerial bombs and missiles can be used selectively. All of them have a known blast radius. However, they do occasionally go astray -- as do bullets, arrows, javelins, and rocks thrown from slings. And they can be deliberately targeted at civilians -- as can bullets, arrows, javelins, and rocks thrown from slings.

Rothbard's point is that knowing that you'll kill innocents and going to war to defend a group is not the same as a guy with a gun trying to defend others.

And the logical conclusion to Rothbard's point is that one may not participate in wars -- even wars of self-defense -- with anything other than handheld weapons, because any projectile weapon may go astray. This is why I say his position does not conform to what we know to be true of reality. In practical terms it means that if the aggressors choose not to play by the rules, the defenders in reality may not morally defend themselves. He is espousing a contradiction.

there's no contradiction. he says "Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor" with the caveat: "is it within the right of Jones to commit violence against innocent third parties as a corollary to his legitimate defense against Smith? To the libertarian, the answer must be clearly, no" this doesn't mean that it's impossible to consistently defend yourself or others. you are free to initiate force against an aggressor, even in defense of someone else, as long as you don't harm innocent civilians. his philosophy might be inconsistent with your worldview, or with "reality", but it's internally consistent. there is no logical flaw.

In discussions of morality, all must be validated against observable reality. As you yourself point out -- "his philosophy might be inconsistent with your worldview, or with "reality", but it's internally consistent." A philosophy which is "internally consistent" yet bears no relation to reality may be intellectually tidy, but is of no use to humans. Humans live and die in the real world. In the real world, projectiles go astray. In the real world, mistakes are made, since humans are not infallible. In the real world, aggressors exist who choose not to play by the rules. In the real world, to follow Rothbard's tenets as he describes them means nothing more than "might makes right".

no. see above, but a SWAT member doesn't go into a situation expecting to shoot innocent civilians.

Incorrect. A SWAT member hopes he won't shoot innocent civilians, but is aware that the situation may develop in such a way that he will end up doing so.

a figher pilot on a bombing missions knows he's about a kill innocent civilians.

Incorrect. There are many bombing runs made where there is no chance of killing innocent civilians. Depends where the target is located.

well duh, I'm not saying hundreds of thousands of civilians died in the war. but the 300,000 - 450,000 figure you quoted, what time interval does that cover? 20 years? 30? how many Iraqi civilians died in the last six months as a result of the war? I think the rate of deaths would be comparable.

Even assuming there were as many innocents killed during the last six months as would have been the case had the invasion not taken place, the killing of innocents by the Ba'athist regime has ceased. The number of those killed now through being caught in the crossfire during guerilla incidents is less per month than the average toll prior to the war, according to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. I will point out that I personally am in no position to verify their numbers, however.

even if there are less Iraqis being killed now, the point is they are still being killed on a regular basis after they've been "liberated".

Killed by whom?

then I'd say we can nuke it in self-defense. or if we know for certain that in 24 hours, a missile will launch and kill millions of people elsewhere, it would be morally acceptable to sacrifice the lives of a few hundred people living nearby in order to save millions. but that is an emergency situation requiring immediate action.

You would say so. Rothbard does not. I was asked to comment on Rothbard's position. I did so.

do you honestly believe that dictators around the world are thinking twice about oppressing their people because they fear an invasion by the US?

Note my deliberate use of the word "perhaps". There is no way of knowing to a certainty, is there? But I'll venture to guess that the leaders in the states surrounding Iraq are putting a lot more thought into their policies today than they were a year ago.

we didn't go into Iraq for moral reasons. we went in to disarm Saddam of his WMD. remember them? the whole "saving the Iraqis" thing is just a fallback justification in the total absense of any WMD.

Although this is off topic, I will address it anyway. You are incorrect -- it was not a fallback position. The justification for deposing Hussein has always been tied directly to his refusal to comply with the UN resolutions describing the terms of the conditional ceasefire. As has been pointed out here countless times in the past, those terms involved a lot more than merely providing credible proof of destruction of weaponry. There was not a single speech by Bush or by the US representatives to the UN which did not mention the Ba'athists' ongoing human rights abuses.

and if we consistently applied your principle for justifiable moral wars, half the coutries in the world would be fair game for full scale invasions.

Perhaps not half, but certainly many would meet the criteria, if all other measures failed.

I'm trying to deal with the principles without bringing up flawed analogies.

You are not dealing with them very well. You claim that Rothbard is correct, yet say under certain circumstances you would nuke a missile site knowing it would result in the deaths of innocents. You can't have it both ways.

no. Japan and Germany were treaty allies, attacking one is attacking both.

When did Germany attack America?

if it was crucial to self-defense (for example if civilians get killed while bombing a factory), then it is justified.

Again, you believe it was justified. Rothbard does not.

you seem to believe that you can kill innocent civilians without any moral culpability as long as you did not create the initial situation.

As do you. See your own comments above re the nuking of the missile launch site and the bombing of German factories.

I think this is a completely morally bankrupt philosophy. it excuses you from examining your own actions and it's consequences. it is tantamount to killing innocent bystanders, pointing your finger and saying "he started it".

I refer you to my comments in my first post in this thread. I personally remain unconvinced it was correct for the US et al to have deposed the Ba'athist regime by force at the time they chose to do so. The difference is that Rothbard would not allow anyone to have done so at any time through any means other than swords and clubs.

and you write as if I'm having difficulty understanding your position. I assure you I understand perfectly well what you're saying. I just don't agree with it.

It seems sometimes you agree, and sometimes you don't. For example, you have no difficulty with the US invasion of Normandy, even though Germany never attacked the US. You have no difficulty with the bombing of factories in Germany, even knowing innocents died. You would have no difficulty nuking a missile launch site knowing innocents would die.

and I can't believe you're still calling the war against Iraq a retaliation. it's not as if we had no choice in going to war.

It's not as if we had no choice in participating in the Allied invasion of Hitler's Europe, either.

we chose to fight a war and civilian lives were lost.

See above.

if you want absolve those responsible for it by calling it a "retaliation", go right ahead. but it's a stretch, liguistically and morally.

Was the US invasion of Hitler's Europe not a retaliation against the force initiated by Germany against the rest of Europe (not against the US)? If not, by what principle do you justify it?

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Libertarians, War & Consistent Application of Principles [Re: Phred]
    #1976042 - 10/03/03 11:39 AM (20 years, 3 months ago)

no. because, as I stated above, these are emergency situations where immediate action is required.

And this differs from Iraq in what way? Are you saying that the Ba'athist regime had ceased murdering innocents? How do you know this?


I repeat: I never said that Saddam has stopped killing Iraqis.
it seems to me you are expanding the definition of "emergency" just as you expanded the definition of "retaliation" to suit your needs.
from Websters:
emergency n. sudden unforeseen thing or event needing prompt action.

I'm sorry but this war doesn't fall under the ethics of emergencies. and its interesting that the US government supported the Baathist regime in the past when they were just as murderous, if not more so than the period before the war. when did we decide that the situation there was an emergency?

But an artillery team cannot be forgiven for being bad shots? A bombardier cannot be forgiven when the guidance system on his smart bomb malfunctions and the bomb lands not on its targeted SAM missile battery but on a nearby hut?

these weapons can't be used selectively. sure, they can be used in the open battlefield. but in an urban situation (like in Baghdad), they can harm innocent civilians, even when they work flawlessly.

In actual fact, artillery shells, grenades, aerial bombs and missiles can be used selectively. All of them have a known blast radius. However, they do occasionally go astray -- as do bullets, arrows, javelins, and rocks thrown from slings. And they can be deliberately targeted at civilians -- as can bullets, arrows, javelins, and rocks thrown from slings.

you know, nuclear bombs also have a known blast radius. the only difference, in this context, is that WMD have larger areas of effect than conventional bombs or artillery shells. and no, they cannot be used selectively. not in real combat where military targets are mixed in with civilians. when a bomb is dropped on a military target inside Baghdad (as happened many times in the war), civilians will be killed, whether the bomb goes astray or not. a bullet, on the other hand, does not have a blast radius (to be more technical, its blast radius falls entirely within the boundries of the target. if it didn't, for example if you wanted to kill an ant in a swarm of ants with a bullet, then you would not be able to use it selectively) and a bullet will only harm the intended target unless it goes astray.

In discussions of morality, all must be validated against observable reality. As you yourself point out -- "his philosophy might be inconsistent with your worldview, or with "reality", but it's internally consistent." A philosophy which is "internally consistent" yet bears no relation to reality may be intellectually tidy, but is of no use to humans. Humans live and die in the real world. In the real world, projectiles go astray. In the real world, mistakes are made, since humans are not infallible

he is stating a moral principle - that we should not initiate force against non-agressors. "thou shalt not steal" is also a moral principle that can't be "validated against observable reality", because you can certainly come up with scenarios where stealing is acceptable "in reality". when a moral principle can't be applied blindly to ALL cases, does this mean that the underlying principle is flawed?

Rothbard is saying that collateral damage is unacceptable. it might not be a practical position, but it's a perfectly valid moral principle, much like "thou shalt not kill". and you can't call it a contradiction based on the fact that it can't be applied evenly to ALL situations. following your line of reasoning, any moral principle that can't be applied to every situation, is contradictory and flawed.

morality isn't black and white. oftentimes "in the real world" morals are in conflict with each other. for example, a man who steals bread to feed his family has to balance his obligation to provide for his family, with his obligation to society not to steal. this does not mean that any of the underlying morals are flawed.

no. see above, but a SWAT member doesn't go into a situation expecting to shoot innocent civilians.

Incorrect. A SWAT member hopes he won't shoot innocent civilians, but is aware that the situation may develop in such a way that he will end up doing so.


what part of that statement is incorrect? incomplete maybe, because of course he's aware that deaths could result from his actions, but in no way is he expecting it.

a figher pilot on a bombing missions knows he's about a kill innocent civilians.

Incorrect. There are many bombing runs made where there is no chance of killing innocent civilians. Depends where the target is located.


riiiiight... I was obviously stating that every pilot on every bombing mission knows he's about to kill innocent civilians. :rolleyes:

even if there are less Iraqis being killed now, the point is they are still being killed on a regular basis after they've been "liberated".

Killed by whom?


some killed by coalition troops, some killed by terrorists, some killed by Iraqi resistance fighters. it really doesn't matter. if we really went over there to defend the Iraqis, their security is our responsibility. to say "hey, we're not killing them, the terrorists are!" is really a copout.

Although this is off topic, I will address it anyway. You are incorrect -- it was not a fallback position. The justification for deposing Hussein has always been tied directly to his refusal to comply with the UN resolutions describing the terms of the conditional ceasefire.

you're right, we had more than one excuse for invading. but your position is that the moral reason alone is enough to justify the war. if it was presented that way to the American people, I doubt there would have been the broad support that we saw, especially considering the hundreds of billions we spent and the hundreds of coalition casualties we suffered.

I'm trying to deal with the principles without bringing up flawed analogies.

You are not dealing with them very well. You claim that Rothbard is correct, yet say under certain circumstances you would nuke a missile site knowing it would result in the deaths of innocents. You can't have it both ways


nope, I never claimed Rothbard was correct. I stated early on in the discussion that I do not agree with everything he says. I think he brings up some good points and I agree with what he's saying when looked at as a moral principle, not as a pragmatic, realistic way of setting foreign policy. I recognize the impracticality of his position. and yes, I said that under certain circumstances, the loss of innocent life is acceptable. just as under certain circumstances stealing is acceptable. this, of course, doesn't invalidate the underlying morals that it is wrong to harm innocents, and it is wrong to steal, respectively. In all the examples you brought up, whether it was missile sites or school shootings or hostage situations or WWII or little crippled girls getting raped, I consistently applied my principles (not Rothbard's) along with their exceptions (self-defense or emergency situation). I am not having things both ways. there are no inconsistencies. the only reason it appears that there are is because you are bringing up completely different situations where the same principles don't apply.

you seem to believe that you can kill innocent civilians without any moral culpability as long as you did not create the initial situation.

As do you. See your own comments above re the nuking of the missile launch site and the bombing of German factories


you are oversimplifying my position and ignoring context. I qualified my statements with exceptions where initiating force against innocent civilians is acceptable, such as in self defense, or in an emergency. there may be other exceptions, invading a sovereign country half way around the world to free a people that didn't ask for our help isn't one of them.

It seems sometimes you agree, and sometimes you don't. For example, you have no difficulty with the US invasion of Normandy, even though Germany never attacked the US. You have no difficulty with the bombing of factories in Germany, even knowing innocents died. You would have no difficulty nuking a missile launch site knowing innocents would die.

context!

Was the US invasion of Hitler's Europe not a retaliation against the force initiated by Germany against the rest of Europe (not against the US)? If not, by what principle do you justify it?

as for your example of WWII and the invasion of Germany, I thought I had already answered it. Germany and Japan were treaty allies. for all intents and purposes, they were the same military entity that was a direct threat to the security of the United States. on 12/7/41 Japan attacked the US, the next day, the US declared war on Japan, three days later on 12/11/41, Germany and Italy declared war on the US. generally speaking, when someone declares war on you, they mean you harm. we attacked Germany in self defense even though they didn't attack us, because they were allies with Japan and because if Germany had been allowed to conquer all of Europe, it would have been a direct threat to the US itself.

but ignoring for a minute that they were allies and the fact that Germany declared war on us (you seem to have no trouble ignoring this). there were other reasons for our involvement. Germany wasn't just oppressing its own people, it had attacked other sovereign nations in naked aggression. and we were implicitly or explicitly asked for help by the British, there are other reasons of course, and none of them taken alone would be justification for war, but they should all be considered. so when we place all these things in their proper context, our involvement in Europe in WWII was justified. however, what wasn't justified was the bombing of civilian centers in WWII, as I pointed out earlier.

I hope you're not attempting to compare our involvement in Hitler's Europe to our involvement in Iraq. first of all, you're ignoring context, and as far as I know, the US was the only country that declared war in the Iraqi conflict. you are reeaaaally stretching here. I know you'll probably say that in principle they are the same, or something like that... you're way off here. I think its safe to say that WWII was a unique situation where we had to act. Iraq is not really unique, there are many countries in the world with murderous dictators running amok. since you're such a stickler for consistency, shouldn't we intervene in all those countries?

and finally, don't you think it's a bit odd that president Bush only started talking about the plight of the Iraqi people after he made the decision to go to war with them shortly after 9/11? was their plight really an issue to us during the few decades when hundreds of thousands of them were being murdered? nobody really raised a stink about it, except some human rights groups, until president Bush started making his case for war, which leads me to believe that their plight was used as another excuse to justify a war based on realpolitik and geopolitical strategy, not morals.

 


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Libertarians, War & Consistent Application of Principles [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1982910 - 10/06/03 12:39 AM (20 years, 3 months ago)

Echovortex writes:

You cannot "repay" or "return" or "reciprocate" something you yourself have not received.

Okay then, let's use a different word than "retaliate" to describe responding to the initiation of force with force. Hmmm... "respond" will do, I guess.

Police do not "retaliate" when they arrest a criminal: they merely administer the law. Their job is not to "repay in kind" or to "return like for like" but rather to a) prevent crimes and b) bring criminals to court where justice will hopefully be served.

Sophistry. Police routinely use force in carrying out their duties. When they arrest (forcibly restrain) someone who has assaulted another, it must be remembered that the assailant did not assault the police, he assaulted a third party.

I wasn't asking you whether you care. Did you actually read my post? I was asking you where you think the bar should be set. If Rothbard's 100% is wrong, and if 50% is wrong, what is right?

You made a statement earlier in the thread that gives an acceptable answer --"While it is not immoral to come to the aid of others, in order for that "aid" to be legitimate it must be either be specifically requested or, at the very least, implicitly desired." I can agree with you that the bar may be set at "implicit desire".

The problem with trying to arrive at a universally applicable deciding percentage of those with "implicit desire" is that those being persecuted are often in the minority. Blacks enslaved in America, for example, unquestionably constituted a minority of the population, as did Jews in Hitler's Europe. Would you argue their desire (explicit or implicit) for assistance didn't count since they constituted less than a majority of the population? And of course those being killed by Hussein's regime were also a minority -- no one is suggesting he intended to kill 50% of his population.

Regardless, neither of us has any way of knowing what the percentage (pre-invasion) of Iraqis who desired an overthrow of the Ba'athists by invasion actually was. It might have been more than 50%.

Massive, popular uprisings? In other words, nationwide? I'm just curious--when?

Is it your contention that the uprising must be nationwide in order to indicate an "implicit desire" of the Iraqi people for freedom?

Assasinating Saddam and his inner circle, for one.

As you probably remember, I had advocated that option more than once in this forum. For all either of us know, attempts (by the CIA or the Mossad or others) had in fact been made to do just that, but have not yet come to light.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 4 months
Re: Libertarians, War & Consistent Application of Principles [Re: Phred]
    #1983691 - 10/06/03 11:26 AM (20 years, 3 months ago)

Sophistry. Police routinely use force in carrying out their duties. When they arrest (forcibly restrain) someone who has assaulted another, it must be remembered that the assailant did not assault the police, he assaulted a third party.

Sneaky move, that, shifting the terms of the debate from lethal force that kills innocent bystanders to the mere application of force. I don't know about where you live, but in my neck of the woods police do not "routinely" kill innocent bystanders in the pursuit of their duties. They would face jail time, riots, or both if they did.

The problem with trying to arrive at a universally applicable deciding percentage of those with "implicit desire" is that those being persecuted are often in the minority. Blacks enslaved in America, for example, unquestionably constituted a minority of the population, as did Jews in Hitler's Europe. Would you argue their desire (explicit or implicit) for assistance didn't count since they constituted less than a majority of the population? And of course those being killed by Hussein's regime were also a minority -- no one is suggesting he intended to kill 50% of his population.

I see your point, but when I asked for your opinion I didn't assume the figure had to exceed or equal 50%. There are of course many problems with setting a universally applicable rule, but not setting a rule is equally problematic. Under that reasoning, Hitler was justified in invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, etc. in order to "rescue" the small numbers of local Nazi sympathizers who were facing execution for their activities. To NOT set a universal standard is to admit arbitrary decisions IN PRINCIPLE, which opens the floodgates to abuse without the intervention of "common sense." But if we're going to make appeals to common sense, we should drop this charade of deciding everything according to "principle" and just apply common sense on a case by case basis. I can't imagine that such an approach would appeal to you. Another problem with that, of course, is that different people have different notions of "common sense."

Is it your contention that the uprising must be nationwide in order to indicate an "implicit desire" of the Iraqi people for freedom?

Not at all. What is in question, however, is not their desire for freedom but rather their desire for an American invasion in which they could (and many did) lose their lives. Two very different things, bro.

As you probably remember, I had advocated that option more than once in this forum. For all either of us know, attempts (by the CIA or the Mossad or others) had in fact been made to do just that, but have not yet come to light.


Well, the Mossad wouldn't count because they weren't the ones doing the invading. Of course it is possible that such attempts were made that we're not aware of, but once we enter into the world of hypotheticals there is potentially no end. I could posit, just as hypothetically and with as little proof, that no assasination attempt was made because a successful hit would obviate the purported "necessity" for an invasion, which was in fact the main goal of the administration all along, for reasons having to do with perceived domestic political and economic gains rather than the liberation of the Iraqi people (I say "perceived" because the reality is not as rosy as they had anticipated). So how about this: I'll promise not to impute motives for which I don't have solid evidence if you promise not to give credit where none is called for by the facts available.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Libertarians & War
( 1 2 all )
silversoul7 3,538 25 10/13/04 01:21 AM
by hound
* roll call... do libertarians support child labor?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Anonymous 8,495 126 08/27/04 10:11 AM
by silversoul7
* What are Libertarian ideals/views?
( 1 2 all )
FileSoup 4,048 32 09/03/03 12:05 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Libertarians, Land Ownership and Sucession... retread 768 6 09/29/04 08:52 PM
by retread
* Libertarians on Abortion DigitalDuality 941 13 09/02/04 12:34 PM
by Evolving
* Protest drug war & paraphernalia laws: Smoke bongs in public
( 1 2 3 all )
Baby_Hitler 7,535 54 03/05/14 03:36 AM
by Baby_Hitler
* Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 5,091 39 11/02/04 03:11 PM
by Phluck
* libertarianism
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
domite 11,591 131 09/23/03 03:26 PM
by Autonomous

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,016 topic views. 3 members, 4 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.022 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 13 queries.