Several people on this forum seem to be of the belief that Nazi Germany should have been left alone and no embargo should have been placed on Japan. Yet Mises himself was actually in favour of a pre-emptive attack on the Nazis and repeatedly stated that he wished the nations of Europe had crushed Germany early on.
Now, my own views are rather simple: The main issue here is the First World War, which the US definitely didn't have to join. Had the US not joined, Germany probably wouldn't have been definitively crushed, and the war would have ended in a stalemate. Without Versailles, the Nazis would have lost most of their motivation.
Going past that, the US should have allowed Jews to immigrate from Europe with no barriers. That would have probably saved thousands of lives. The US should not have declared war, but the embargo on Japan (which led to Pearl Harbour) was justified; the goods being sent would have been used to murder and rape in China, a rather blatant violation of property rights. Once Japan attacked the US (something it really didn't need to do), followed by a German declaration of war, the US was fully within its rights to attack both nations.
I roughly agree. The best outcome, of course, would have been if that whole progressive era dealio could have been averted. No modern arrogant statism, no world wars.
I dont see how you can make a humanitarian case for WWII. You'd have to repeat the holocast 5x over to get close to the total number of deaths.
If "freedom" (relative to nazis and fascists) isn't woth fighting and dying for, than it's not worth anything at all.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
I have to agree with Buddy on all points here.
My Buddy: Going past that, the US should have allowed Jews to immigrate from Europe with no barriers. That would have probably saved thousands of lives. The US should not have declared war, but the embargo on Japan (which led to Pearl Harbour) was justified; the goods being sent would have been used to murder and rape in China, a rather blatant violation of property rights. Once Japan attacked the US (something it really didn't need to do), followed by a German declaration of war, the US was fully within its rights to attack both nations.
I could see the argument being made for European countries getting involved in a war against Nazi Germany. Interwar continental Europe was hardly a hot spot for libertarian-liberal governments of any degree though so I cannot say I would root for any one side to win. If things were fortunate such a hypothethical war would end with the death of all the whole lot of politicians and leave the european people free.
I do not however see any reason why the United States, Latin America, or even the British Empire had to get involved.
Could you provide an ecerpt?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Well, Mises also endorsed conscription at a point, didn’t he?
As for the Japanese embargo, what right did the US government have to make moral decisions in the name of it s citizens? If they though that trading with Japan was abhorrent, than they would have stopped it. It’s like me stealing all your goods because I don’t approve of you selling to my ex.
As for the German declaration of war, people tend to declare war when you’ve been hitting their subs for years. If the US had made a clear and steadfast commitment to observe strict neutrality ala Swiss, neither Japan nor Germany would have attacked it. This much sems clear to me.
I can’t see how sending millions of young men to their deaths and to be psychically scared for the rest of their lives can in any shape or form be justified. So, at the very least the US should have fought WW2 with a professional army, not a conscripted one. You can do pretty much whatever you want with a professional army.
The problem is that we allied ourselves with a man whose regime killed more people than the Nazis or Japanese ever did. It seems that by your logic that we should intervene with an embargo whenever people and property are being destroyed, whether by a domestic state or a foreign one. If that's the case then the US would be even more overextended and imperialistic than it already is.
This is making me rethink my our involvement now.
Your own or USAs??
Okay, conscription was bad. But then, it probably wasn't neccesary anyway, as the US had plenty of volunteers
The embargo was preventing a violation of the NAP through the use of American supplies. If, in an Ancap society, I armed a gang of thugs with weaponry and they went on a rampage shooting people and stealing things, I would be responsible for having sold them the weapons, and I would be liable to be punished. Likewise, Japan was being armed by American oil in particular, and it was entirely justifiable that they were embargoed. Mind, that only applied because Japan was embarking on blatant imperialistic adventures, so the same train of logic doesn't apply to, say, Iran or Cuba.
My Buddy: Okay, conscription was bad. But then, it probably wasn't neccesary anyway, as the US had plenty of volunteers
Try to say to the families who lost brothers, sons and husbands: “we killed your pal for no reason at all, we had all the volunteer we needed”!. That should be fun.
And than again, what arbiter would accept this as a defense for murder: “yeah, I wacked him, but I need not have done it. So, I could have avoided it, hence I’m not guilty”?
PS: speaking of the needlessness of conscription, I’m sure in the first weeks after Pearl Harbor there where enough volunteer. But what after a year of crappy massacres in the pacific. How many soldiers would have remained on duty? Note that soldiers should be free to quit at any time they wish. Try fighting a global war that goes anything but perfectly well with that kind of army.
With that standard, I believe no war in the history of the US would have been fought, but the Revolution, some guerrilla movement in the South after secession and, perhaps the Kosovo war.
My Buddy: The embargo was preventing a violation of the NAP through the use of American supplies.
The embargo was preventing a violation of the NAP through the use of American supplies.
You can’t stop a violation of the NAP by committing another such violation.
My Buddy: If, in an Ancap society, I armed a gang of thugs with weaponry and they went on a rampage shooting people and stealing things, I would be responsible for having sold them the weapons, and I would be liable to be punished.
If, in an Ancap society, I armed a gang of thugs with weaponry and they went on a rampage shooting people and stealing things, I would be responsible for having sold them the weapons, and I would be liable to be punished.
Most certainly you wouldn’t! Not by a long shot. What happened to ‘guns don’t kill people, people do”?
My Buddy: Mind, that only applied because Japan was embarking on blatant imperialistic adventures, so the same train of logic doesn't apply to, say, Iran or Cuba.
Mind, that only applied because Japan was embarking on blatant imperialistic adventures, so the same train of logic doesn't apply to, say, Iran or Cuba.
Iran is actively supporting insurgent in the ME trying to expand its sphere of influence in the region. Isn’t that imperialistic enough?
"If, in an Ancap society, I armed a gang of thugs with weaponry and they went on a rampage shooting people and stealing things, I would be responsible for having sold them the weapons, and I would be liable to be punished."
Wait what?
I am saying that conscription was bad, but even without it the US would have easily had enough volunteers, so it isn't a breaking point of any kind.
On the issue of arms dealing, I believe the term would be "aiding and abetting criminals".
I would agree on the point of embargos being morally justified. If you know someone is a serial killer and you voluntarily sell that serial killer weapons or give aid to him in any other way, then you should be held accountable in some way.
Political Atheists Blog
krazy kaju: I would agree on the point of embargos being morally justified. If you know someone is a serial killer and you voluntarily sell that serial killer weapons or give aid to him in any other way, then you should be held accountable in some way.
Hm, on these ground an embargo with each and every country that ever was and shall ever be would have to be imposed, because every country murders daily its won population. An autarkist’s wet dream!
My Buddy: On the issue of arms dealing, I believe the term would be "aiding and abetting criminals". Is the shop downstairs, which sells me, the criminal, bread, also to be held accountable? The guy from whom I rent my house? My employer in my day to day job? Why by selling you some particular items I’m aiding while others are held to be innocuous? My Buddy: I am saying that conscription was bad, but even without it the US would have easily had enough volunteers, so it isn't a breaking point of any kind. It is for two reasons: 1) its abhorrent and 2) the US volunteers would have quit the army within a year of entering, after seeing actual combat. Without conscription the US could never have fought WW2. The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms. | Post Points: 20
Is the shop downstairs, which sells me, the criminal, bread, also to be held accountable? The guy from whom I rent my house? My employer in my day to day job? Why by selling you some particular items I’m aiding while others are held to be innocuous?
My Buddy: I am saying that conscription was bad, but even without it the US would have easily had enough volunteers, so it isn't a breaking point of any kind. It is for two reasons: 1) its abhorrent and 2) the US volunteers would have quit the army within a year of entering, after seeing actual combat. Without conscription the US could never have fought WW2.
It is for two reasons: 1) its abhorrent and 2) the US volunteers would have quit the army within a year of entering, after seeing actual combat. Without conscription the US could never have fought WW2.
Problem with the embargo point is that while some of the oil was indeed used to fuel Japan's imperial ambitions it was not the only purpose that the oil was used for. Should the average Japanese citizen have been made to suffer at the pump for the actions of his country? Your analogy of directly selling weapons to armed thugs does not take this collateral economic damage into account. Unless you believe that collective punishment is appropriate in some cases. It should also be pointed out that embargoes tend to stop the shipment of guns to people trying to defend themselves as well as the aggressors, they tend to foster a black market which from a state's viewpoint requires increased police powers, and they often trigger a war.
At the end of the day if people want to intervene they should either put their money where their mouths are and donate money as opposed to advocate taxation or pick up a gun and get on a plane.
"I am saying that conscription was bad, but even without it the US would have easily had enough volunteers, so it isn't a breaking point of any kind."
You really believe that? I find it almost amusing to see such political theology used to rationalize delusional policy on fighting a militarized industrial powerful state.