Although I support virtually all tenets of the libertarian ideology, including the radical ones (NAP, Anarcho-capitalism, crime theory, Austrian economics, non-interventionism, etc...) I am completely opposed to one tenet, and that is what I call libertarian pacifism. The vast majority of libertarians for instance oppose the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They also oppose Israeli wars. I think that's just crazy. Although I strongly support non-interventionism, for example I think the United States should withdraw all its troops from abroad and remove all its bases from other countries, I cannot even begin to understand the libertarian opposition to defensive wars. I am an Israeli citizen, and I see weekly how Hamas rockets hit southern Israeli towns. Hamas was a democratically elected government. The vast majority of Palestinians have voted for this organization. These people are therefore responsible for Hamas actions. Hamas uses indiscriminate weapons against Israel. It specifically targets civilian centers. I think it is completely natural for Israel to retaliate against these weapons in the same way, that is also to use indiscriminate attacks. It is true that some Palestinians who did not vote for Hamas will be hurt, but it is Hamas that should be liable for the death of these innocents. Why? Because by choosing to fire at Israel they leave Israel no choice but to retaliate, and any retaliation in war has collateral damage. There is no other known way to fight wars. You cannot let Hamas get away with destroying civilian Israeli life because Israel cannot break NAP. This is crazy! And please don't give a Guerrilla war as an example, it is completely impractical. The same is true with the nuclear attacks on Japan in 1945. If any other method was used, the Japanese would have not surrendered unconditionally, and such type of surrender would have only invited another attack. Libertarians are usually critical of identifying the individual with its state. But that's how most people see the world, especially the enemies, whether the Japanese 60 years ago or modern Palestinians. They see their country as a person, and if that person was merely hurt, but not surrendered unconditionally, they will see this as a victory and will act accordingly. If you want to stop the aggression of your enemies, you need to destroy them, kill 5 citizens for every citizen they kill. Otherwise they will not be deterred. Now you can conjure libertarian theories and logic here, but you have to look at reality. This is how it works in the real world. Hezbollah doesn't stop its assaults if you only kill some of its members, they stop their assaults when you hurt the civilian base that supports them. They stop their assaults when the damage both to them and the civilian population is so great that it destroys their motivation. After they see hundreds of destroyed villages, and grieving mothers, only then they consider stopping their aggression.
I thought this thread was about pacifism. Choose a better title next time please.
So you don't oppose the death of over 300.000 innocent civilians? I don't remember the source but the quote "If Truman wasn't a war criminal no one ever was" pretty much says it all.
How can you, as a libertarian, justify something like that? Those civilians aren't responsible for the war, so what gave the American army the right to treat those people as a means rather than as a end?
And what does this have to do with pacisfism? So you're a pacifist if you oppose the bombing of civilian targets? There's a difference between pacisfism and nap. A pacifist is always pro nap, but being pro nap doesn't mean you're a pacisfist. I'm not a pacifist. I do believe you can use force against people who violate the nap. But, the hiroshima and nagasaki bombings where an act of aggression. I would like to hear your defending of it from a libertarian position.
Please explain to me how it is "libertarian" for a state to unilaterially impose a total trade embargo against a given geographical location?
"But that's how most people see the world, especially the enemies, whether the Japanese 60 years ago or modern Palestinians. They see their country as a person, and if that person was merely hurt, but not surrendered unconditionally, they will see this as a victory and will act accordingly."
What does the opinion of most people have to do with anything? What the majority thinks doens't make it true, or else the world developed from a flat to a round one in the course of history.
Hard Rain:Please explain to me how it is "libertarian" for a state to unilaterially impose a total trade embargo against a given geographical location?
If you are referring to the US block on Japanese trade, perhaps you'd be interested to know about atrocities committed by Japan during WWII such as the rape of Nanking, human experimentation of PoWs in Unit 731 and so forth. If those instances don't count as aggression, I don't know what does. In such cases a trade blockage is light to say the least.
I personally believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki went further than necessary (clearly the US government had an atom bomb it was overly keen to 'try out'). But something needed to be done (obviously the American attack was in response to Pearl Harbor, not the Asian Holocaust which was much worse - I know that). The Japanese were worse than Nazis during WWII.
Without trying to sound overly antagonistic, I'd love to hear some paleolibertarians non-agression principle their way out this one :)
Now I don't support all wars for 'democracy'. I don't support this war we are waging in Libya, now, for instance; it will be full-scale war, cause our (UK, US, everywhere) budget deficit to soar and kill a lot more citizens than non-intervention would. But I just do not see how someone can logically argue against waging war to prevent tyrannical dictators creating large scale murderous rampage. Innocent citizens will most certainly die but as the OP pointed out, there is no other way to fight a war. I am genuinely interested in what the paleo-libertarian solution to this problem would be.
I have mixed feelings on the Israel vs. Palestine conflict, and know very little so won't comment on that one.
Eugene:Although I support virtually all tenets of the libertarian ideology, including the radical ones (NAP, Anarcho-capitalism, crime theory, Austrian economics, non-interventionism, etc...) I am completely opposed to one tenet, and that is what I call libertarian pacifism.
It is paleo-libertarianism you are referring to; pacifism is even more insane ;)
Pacifism and the Israeli "defense"
Ridiculous! The non aggression principle is just pacifism + your allowed to defend yourself. Don't even get me started on Israel.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Eugene:The same is true with the nuclear attacks on Japan in 1945. If any other method was used, the Japanese would have not surrendered unconditionally
You cannot know this or prove this. It is an argument from ignorance.
Nukes are weapons of mass destruction. There is never a reason to use them.
"Nukes are weapons of mass destruction. There is never a reason to use them." If the Americans did not have nukes, they would have proceeded with conventional fire-bombing. This technique killed over 100,000 people in Tokyo and caused enormous property damage. It is likely that the Americans would have bombed more cities than just Hiroshima and Nagasaki and therefore killed more Japanese civilians than did the atom bombs, even without a ground invasion. But that isn't even the point I'm making - the condemnation should fall upon the aggression of the US and Japanese governments, rather than on the fact that the bombs used were of a nuclear nature. If I kill you with a grenade launcher is it worse than if I slit your throat?
EDIT: As for there being no reason to ever use nukes - what if 100,000 known murderers who had been sentenced to death escaped from custody and were hiding on a previously uninhabited island, each fully armed with machine guns. The PDA who was responsible for restitution for the victims of these murders believes the cheapest and most efficient way to execute these murderers is to use a nuke. Would this be sufficient reason? If so, it seems that what you are objecting to above is not the use of nukes, but the murder of innocents. Ridiculous as my scenario is, I hope it shows that the two are not logically connected.
Don't nukes ruin the enviromment after?not to mention the genetic problems .
I'm pretty sure people still live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I think states do a bad job at saving lives, after all, more than 45 milllion civilians died during World War II.
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."
Wow, you're way beyond criticizing pacifism: you seem to be advocating all out genocide. These views are going to trouble many more people than the few pacifists in this world.
If any other method was used, the Japanese would have not surrendered unconditionally
Yeah, they would have surrendered conditionally.
Daniel Muffinburg:I think states do a bad job at saving lives, after all, more than 45 milllion civilians died during World War II.
Honest question: what would be your alternative to wiping Hitler and the Axis (military) off of the face of the planet?
I think it's interesting that most libertarians reject utilitarian ethics except during war. Saying that the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima killed less people than fire-bombing would have (which no one can possibly know in the first place) is just a reiteration of the utilitarian value equation.
Just an observation I felt like pointing out.
I will explain why my position on war is not only utilitarian but ethical as well.
When a terrorist organization fires from a crowded place, they leave the defending side no choice but to fire back. In the process innocent civilians might get killed. But it is the responsibility of the terrorist organization, not the state that fights against it. They are liable for the damage caused.
In addition, if the majority of people vote for a party that then goes and commits aggression, then those who voted for that party share the liability. Just as if I payed a PDA to kill innocent person A, not only the PDA will be liable for his death but also myself. Whether you vote using moey or in democratic elections doesn't matter.
However even if the aggressor is not democracy but a dictator, the population still shares some responsibility since the dictator fights a war using the resources of the population. Its as if I left my gun on the street and then a criminal picked it up and shot someone. I will liable for not protecting my weapon.
Most importantly when an aggressor uses weapons of mass destruction or just massive weapons, I think it is completely ethical to shoot back at least with the same power, even if you hit people who were not part of the fight. Those people are still not innocent because they let the aggressor shoot from their territory and therefore knowingly put their life at risk.
The same rules for defense should apply to the state, if there is going to be one, as individuals. If you attack me it is illegal, and morally wrong, for me to bulldoze your neighborhood or drop bombs on it. Same standard should apply for the states
" Honest question: what would be your alternative to wiping Hitler and the Axis (military) off of the face of the planet?" - EvilSocialistFellow.
Assuming the existence of a state it would have made sense for the US to let the Brits and the Russians know that we were not going to intervene. The British government and the Soviets knew earlier on that the FDR Administration was keen on getting into the fight. We also shouldn't have done Lend Lease for the Brits nor the Soviets. The Brits likely would have come to an understanding with Hitler, who would have then likely focused his attention on the Soviets. The Nazis and the Soviets wearing each other out seems like the best possible outcome. And we should have had a more generous refugee policy, instead of turning away ships of refugees back to their deaths.
You should check out Pat Buchanan's book on this issue.
CrazyCoot:Assuming the existence of a state it would have made sense for the US to let the Brits and the Russians know that we were not going to intervene. The British government and the Soviets knew earlier on that the FDR Administration was keen on getting into the fight. We also shouldn't have done Lend Lease for the Brits nor the Soviets. The Brits likely would have come to an understanding with Hitler, who would have then likely focused his attention on the Soviets. The Nazis and the Soviets wearing each other out seems like the best possible outcome. And we should have had a more generous refugee policy, instead of turning away ships of refugees back to their deaths.
But then you run the risk of Hitler invading Russia/Stalin invading Nazi Germany and one or the other increasing their military base which they can then use to conquer world.
Ok, my question wasn't really about WWII specifically but just wars in general. I can't understand this whole 'wars aren't necessary to wade off fascist dictatorships' stance. What about Sadam Hussein and Kuwait? Was it wrong for countries in the Coalition of the Willing to help defend Kuwait, which is comparitively a smaller country?
Will do ;)
EvilSocialistFellow:What about Sadam Hussein and Kuwait? Was it wrong for countries in the Coalition of the Willing to help defend Kuwait, which is comparitively a smaller country?
Was Kuwait slant drilling?
Aristippus:As for there being no reason to ever use nukes - what if 100,000 known murderers who had been sentenced to death escaped from custody and were hiding on a previously uninhabited island, each fully armed with machine gun
In this case it would be more cost-effective to leave them.
liberty student:Was Kuwait slant drilling?
Possibly. But it was no excuse.
Also, consider Saddam Hussein's genocidal campaign against Kurds. Its hard for me to not succumb to foreign state intervention in certain instances.
EvilSocialistFellow: liberty student:Was Kuwait slant drilling? Possibly. But it was no excuse.
Why not?
EvilSocialistFellow:Also, consider Saddam Hussein's genocidal campaign against Kurds. Its hard for me to not succumb to foreign state intervention in certain instances.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
liberty student:Why not?
He was in $80 bn debt, its possible he made the whole thing up. In any case oil is no excuse to launch war against a nation.
Not sure what you mean.
ESF, you might consider offering scenarios in which prior American intervention is not largely to blame.
Michael J Green:ESF, you might consider offering scenarios in which prior American intervention is not largely to blame.
I tell you now, if it wasn't America, it'd be China
It's somewhat disturbing to see so many libertarian's try to justify the actions of states based on other states. As if somehow we as individuals needed to do so in the first place.
The sins of the individual, are not the sins of the many. I didn't endorse anyone to bomb anyone, yet I am somehow expected as an American to defend it's previous actions. Well I consider both states to be violent and stupid. Anytime you marginalize the sins of the one onto the many people will begin to defend the most asinine of actions.
EvilSocialistFellow:In any case oil is no excuse to launch war against a nation.
But that is precisely why the US invaded Iraq.
EvilSocialistFellow:Live by the sword, die by the sword. Not sure what you mean.
I know.
liberty student:But that is precisely why the US invaded Iraq.
I never justified the US invasion of Iraq. However, the intervention in support of Kuwait could have been humanitarian. Of course, no, it was about oil. But it would have been justified had it been humanitarian.
Perhaps I am missing something?
Anyway, some examples might include the Japanese war crimes in WW2.
The Nazis and the Soviets wearing each other out seems like the best possible outcome.
Obviousology 101. The least that people arguing for the utilitarianism of World War 2 could do is get the analysis right, that FDR was a communist agent trying to destroy the regional buffers against the USSR and Communist China, nothing more, nothing less. If you are going to intervene in interstate affairs, you go by the rule of at any given point aiding the side that appears to be losing. Had that been done imagine how much better the map of Eurasia would have looked, not just a big Red blob.
I failed to see how the OP showed us that libertarianism doesn't have anything to do with the real world.
Libertarianism has everything to do with reality, but those libertarians who think that wars can be conducted without significant collateral damage are out of touch. Not only that, but wars need to deter the enemy, and if deterrence is achieved by massive killings, even of civilians, then it has to be done. Otherwise the civilians on your side (that is you, your family and your friends) will suffer worse consequences.
What you're saying simply doesn't follow. Only because Hamas was democratically elected doesn't mean that all Palestinians should be held responsible for Hamas's actions.
As for Japan:
1. It's well known that US diplomats knew that Japan was seeking unconditional surrender BEFORE the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
2. Even the only "condition" the Japanese wanted when it wanted to surrender beforehand was for the Emperor to stay in power. Well guess what happened after unconditional surrender? The US decided to keep the Emperor in power. So for all practical purposes, the war could've ended sooner.
3. Mass bombings violate the rights of innocent individuals.
Political Atheists Blog
Only we are not talking about rights, we are talking about not being stupid. If the only way to deter Japan or the Soviet Union is to kill 1 million of their citizens, then that's what should be done. Otherwise 1 million of people who you care about will be killed by them. I would rather kill Russians than Israelis. Besides, I do think the population shares some of the responsibility for what their government does. Maybe according to libertarian principles they don't, but according to the intuition of every man on the street they do. So I don't have moral qualms about killing Palestinian civilians. Sure, some of them may not even support Hamas, but I know that most do, and collateral damage is inevitable anyway. I also know that in Israel we learned that in order to deter terrorists you need to project a lot of power and never to surrender to their demands. Terrorists and most other kind of aggressors understand only force, and the more brutal is the force the better they understand it.
Such an attitude is what causes people of the Arab world to hate Israel. Until Isreaelis understand this, there really is no hope for peace in the Middle East.
Collateral damage isn't something that should be taken lightly - collateral damage is an initation of violence, it is no different from a thief or a murderer or a vandalist robbing you, killing you, or destroying your property.
On the one hand, you say that you have no problem initiating aggression by killing innocent civilians. Then you say that "terrorists and most other kind of aggressors understand only force, and the more brutal is the force the better they understand it." So it follows that you should be tortured and publicly executed.
Palestinians hate Israel because the believe Jews have taken their lands. For the purpose of this debate it doesn't matter whether this is true or not. The fact is that Israel will not accept 6 million hostile Palestinians into its borders.That would be just like inviting a murderer into your home.
Palestinians continue their campaign of terror in order to get what they think is their lands back. If Israel wants to win this war, Israel must fight back ferociously until Palestinians will see that there is no hope in getting what they want. Until they lose hope, they will continue to vote and support terrorist organizations. However once the population will suffer enormously from their decision to support these organizations, they might rethink their attitude.
Now you can conjure libertarian theories and logic here, but you have to look at reality. This is how it works in the real world. Hezbollah doesn't stop its assaults if you only kill some of its members, they stop their assaults when you hurt the civilian base that supports them.
Do they? How's that working out for you?
They're operating on the same principle, yet you want to claim they're doing something wrong and Israel isnt? Can't have it both ways. Are you saying Hamas should pay attention to: "If you want to stop the aggression of your enemies, you need to destroy them, kill 5 citizens for every citizen they kill. Otherwise they will not be deterred"?
The difference between Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah is that Israel doesn't want anything except defending its lands, while Hamas and Hezbollah want to take these lands. How the warfare is conducted is entirely different issue. However it is clear which side is the aggressor and which side is on the defensive.