Is it? If you have good evidence, would it violate NAP, and has anyone ever been in this argument with a statist?
Relevance: Just got into a debate with a democrat, and he used a Nazi Germany strawman on me.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Is that why the US invaded Nazi Germany? Didn't think we really knew much about the death camps until after.
But if it did know?
No, but I've been in this argument on this forum multiple times. THREAD REPEAT.
No, defense of yourself or others does not violate NAP as far as I know.
I think you have to have the permissison of others to ethically defend them. That or have their permission after the fact.
I know this sounds weird, but you likely will get this permission from people after the fact. If you don't then they are obviously creating an unpleasant society and no one will want to join/protect them in the future.
JJ, I didn't find most of the article's points to be too convincing besides:
1) Taxation is theft
2) Once a power begins military action or irreversibly dedicates to it, it becomes important for it to shore up public support for it and to demonstrate its necessity. It therefore has no real incentive to act in ways that would lessen the level of human-rights violations; it has, on the contrary, the incentive to provoke them.
3) The intervening power will not necessarily hesitate to commit criminal acts of its own if it judges they will make its aim of military victory more likely.
4) In order to minimize the fallout stemming from human-rights violations of its own, the intervening power has an incentive to attempt to co-opt the media with a view to control the flow of information and to dehumanize the people associated with the side intervention has been launched against, thus draining the public of the capacity for pity and sympathy for people injured by its military.
Did you disagree with any of them? It's not like they all need to independently convince you. (It's also not like I wrote it).
Nah. But many of them can be used against a (voluntarily-funded) defensive war.
The question is, should voluntarily-funded offensive (humanitarian) wars be legal?
P.s. Anyone else using Chrome and having it tell you that the spell-checker on here is malware? This is only as of today...
It's useful to realize in this situation that the rise of Nazi Germany was made possible by a handful of politically connected corporations and banks. J Henry Schroder (cozy with Bank of England), JP Morgan (fed connection obviously), Harriman Bros., General Electric, Ford, Standard Oil, ITT.
That's not to say that American Involvement was unjustified, but it's useful when discussing foreign policy in a free(er) world because these banks would likely not have been able finance war efforts without central banks and fractional reserve. Well it's marginally useful because most people will not accept this evidence, but it just goes to show the danger of central banking.
Antony Sutton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sCpsq55uic
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Interesting idea. What evidence is there of Standard Oil supporting Hitler? I am interested because I am doing in-depth research of Standard Oil.
I would probably consider it acceptable, but no country has ever really gone to war for such a purpose.
Wheylous: Interesting idea. What evidence is there of Standard Oil supporting Hitler? I am interested because I am doing in-depth research of Standard Oil.
Antony Sutton covers it in his book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler. I haven't read it yet but it's next on my to-read list. The methodology he used to create this book is sound. These account transfers are confirmed by government records, sometimes twice or thricefold through different governments and the nuremburg trials. Curiously enough the evidence in nuremberg financial records incriminating american capitalists was not presented during the trial.
Wheylous:Nah. But many of them can be used against a (voluntarily-funded) defensive war.
Like what? (We'd also have to acknowledge a humanitarian war—what we are talking about—is more specific than just a "defensive war".)
1) What do you mean "legal"?
2) Is there such a thing as an offensive humanitarian war?
3) If you're just asking Can a Principled Libertarian Go to War?, McElroy analyzed that.
PM me and I can get you an online text of it
Any reason you can't post it here?
John James: Any reason you can't post it here?
I'm not really sure how google searches ring up hits but I'm reluctant to post it because it's linked to an obscure depository of texts. Some of their copyrights are expired, some aren't. Either way I'd rather not make it easily accessible because it's a great depository and I don't want to attract attention to it. Maybe I'm ignorant about it but I'm just trying to keep it safe. Again PM me and I'll send it to you though.
The question presupposes that the Allies were aware that Nazi Germany was committing genocide. I was under the impression that the allies were unaware?
I was under the impression that the allies were unaware?
I'm going to open another controversial debate and essentially bring back past WWII/Holocaust threads from the dead by saying, "The Allies were unaware because there was nothing to be aware of. There were no concentration camps that committed mass genocide by the use of gas chambers and/or cremation chambers."
Now, instead of genocide, was their mass oppression with people put into labor/prison camps? Yes. Was their possible (or any) abuse in those camps? Most likely so. Were the targeted groups put into prison camps given chance to leave prior to full occupation and invasion of surrounding countries? Yes. Were the numbers and facts skewed after the war? Yes.
What evidence do you have of there being no cremation chambers etc?
What evidence do you have of there being cremation chambers etc.?
David Coles 46 Questions about the Gas Chambers. More on David Cole.
Bert:... I've been in this argument on this forum multiple times. THREAD REPEAT.
Ah yes, I recall those threads. They usually devolve around this time, when you start denying the Holocaust. Seriously, keep the antisemitic BS to yourself if you don't agree with the premise, and let the rest of us have a serious discussion.
FleetCenturion: Bert:... I've been in this argument on this forum multiple times. THREAD REPEAT. Ah yes, I recall those threads. They usually devolve around this time, when you start denying the Holocaust. Seriously, keep the antisemitic BS to yourself if you don't agree with the premise, and let the rest of us have a serious discussion.
There's nothing inherently anti-semitic about claiming the holocaust was exaggerated.
I say let the games begin. If we can't encourage debate over _any_ subject here without resorting to 'shutdowns', then where can we?
Not Canada, at least.
The fundamental question doesn't change if Bert is correct, so it's a moot point. Also, it is well documented that the US, at the very least, knew about the existence of the death camps and of the train networks used to supply them, which they could have but didn't bomb. There were previous cases of refugees from Nazi Germany telling of the persecutions (look up "Voyage of the Damned" or just watch Casablanca), but they were mostly dismissed as exaggerations due to the "Rape of Belgium" myth perpetrated in Allied propaganda during the previous World War. In any case, it's extremely doubtful that knowledge of Nazi crimes would have affected the course of the war nor it's occurence; Hitler made his plans for the "untermenschen" very clear in Mein Kampf, and the war started because of a combination of Churchill's own desire to relive old glories and the Anglo-French guarantee of independence to Poland.
Moreover, the invasion of Poland was due to grievances over the alleged status of ethnic Germans living in Polish national territory, particularily the Danzig Corridor, as well as being a convenient stepping stone for Lebensraum against the Soviet Union. The war was, like most, about land and resources, ideology serving as a convenient gloss to stir the masses. As such, the question is either hypothetical or retroactive, asking whether invading Nazi Germany was justified in hindsight due to that regime's brutality. Of course, assuming you take stopping a regime's brutality as justification, this leads to rather interesting dilemmas, such as whether Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union were justified in invading each other, or, in a classic reductio ad absurdum, whether France should invade New York City to eliminate rent control.
Ah, yes, because questioning whether the alleged chambers could be used for gas execution is somehow anti-Semitic in nature. Now, questioning history = anti-Semitism. Next, lets burn books.
Also, who's to say I'm not trying to have a serious discussion? I think pushing forth a falsehood of history is very serious, and I'm trying to find the truth.
I say let the games begin. If we can't encourage debate over _any_ subject here without resorting to 'shutdowns', then where can we? Not Canada, at least.
Nope (interesting thing about Zündel is that he's been interviewed by the Jewish Holocaust revisionist [or denier, whichever] David Cole).
I would not agree even if this was true. The goal of Libertarian revisionist history is to make the State as big an abomination and monstrosity as possible, even using hyperbole (to a certain, subtle extent) to convince people. The idea of a State committing such a large scale genocide is great, even if false. It is a nice example for me to use of the government being evil, and I want to make the govenrment out to be as (convincingly) evil as possible. So, yes, I am fine with exaggerating the truth to propagate Liberty. That is not, of course, to say your information is correct in the first place; I am merely being hypothetical.
The goal of Libertarian revisionist history is to make the State as big an abomination and monstrosity as possible, even using hyperbole (to a certain, subtle extent) to convince people. The idea of a State committing such a large scale genocide is great, even if false. It is a nice example for me to use of the government being evil, and I want to make the govenrment out to be as (convincingly) evil as possible. So, yes, I am fine with exaggerating the truth to propagate Liberty. That is not, of course, to say your information is correct in the first place; I am merely being hypothetical.
This is one of the most idiotic things I've heard about libertarianism coming from a libertarian. Awesome, you fail as a historian, and you continue to push falsehoods. You choose deceit and lies over truth to push your own agenda.
Out goes all Austrian intellectual honesty
>>>>I would not agree even if this was true. The goal of Libertarian revisionist history is to make the State as big an abomination and monstrosity as possible, even using hyperbole (to a certain, subtle extent) to convince people. The idea of a State committing such a large scale genocide is great, even if false. It is a nice example for me to use of the government being evil, and I want to make the govenrment out to be as (convincingly) evil as possible. So, yes, I am fine with exaggerating the truth to propagate Liberty. That is not, of course, to say your information is correct in the first place; I am merely being hypothetical.>>>>
Epic fail. Theories such as libertarianism and ancap are derived logically from data. Bad data leads to bad theories, which are less useful than good theories. False testimony is immoral and therefore not profitable over the long term. Production of incorrect data affects your position in the information market. When you produce incorrect data, you give people less value and they are going to spend less time on receiving your data.
It is unacceptable for austrian philosopher to willfully deceive people. Of course, a true austrian would not lie about philosophy, so this is irrelevant.
In fact, since false information can cause someone to hurt themselves, one should consider false information to be a type of weapon. This is why its use is acceptable against aggressors at times.
You choose deceit and lies over truth to push your own agenda.
What is so bad about that? As long as it is believable.
False testimony is immoral and therefore not profitable over the long term.
No, initiating aggression is immoral, which is what I would be trying to stop by using "false testimony." There is nothing inherently immoral about lying, particularly when endeavouring to stop Evil. Epic fail!
Also note that I said to use hyperbole, not tell outright lies, which is how some of you are misconstruing my words.
Are you fucking serious? Excuse my language mods, but you don't lie to push agendas if you see your agenda or belief as "absolute" or moral or ethical or whatever you think makes it good or superior. It's lying, it's false, it's deceit, it's wrong.
Yes, this is an epic fail. You believe there is something objectively right about lying to make something "good". I guess the ends justifies the means, right?
Now, I'll use the Holocaust as an example. Let's say 6 million did not die by zyklon-b gas, but you, with very sophisticated propaganda, say 6 million did die, and not just die, but directed their aims towards the genocide of a specific ethnic group, and in reality this did not happen as you say it did. You use this to prove some point, "The state is evil! Mass genocide! Must get rid of the state!" - All I can think about is, "You're a damn liar. What's it matter what you say or think?" It discredits your position.
Making up history to lean towards your beliefs is wrong. The goal of the historian is to research, track, record, and lay out the events in time objectively in the most truthful and honest way possible. If you lie and make up figures, events, or anything else it's wrong. Period. There is no loop hole, no discussion, no exceptions. You must lay out and tell history as it is, whether or not if you agree with the events, and you can not make false events as propaganda. Essentially, what you believe, is no different than the State making up lies or only telling half the story (the positive side) to push it's own agenda, and again, they believe they are right just like you believe you are right. It's still wrong.
Are you fucking serious?
Indubitably.
I guess the ends justifies the means, right?
Of course!
A strategy for liberty must not include any means which undercut or contradict the end itself — as gradualism-in-theory clearly does. Are we then saying that "the end justifies the means"? This is a common, but totally fallacious, charge often directed toward any group that advocates fundamental or radical social change. For what else but an end could possibly justify any means? The very concept of "means" implies that this action is merely an instrument toward arriving at an end. If someone is hungry, and eats a sandwich to alleviate his hunger, the act of eating a sandwich is merely a means to an end; its sole justification arises from its use as an end by the consumer. Why else eat the sandwich, or, further down the line, purchase it or its ingredients? Far from being a sinister doctrine, that the end justifies the means is a simple philosophic truth, implicit in the very relationship of "means" and "ends." ~ Murray N. Rothbard
I am, therefore, willing to use any mean that is not Aggression (which would contradict the end itself) to push The Agenda. That argument now being destroyed by me, you continue:
All I can think about is, "You're a damn liar. What's it matter what you say or think?" It discredits your position.
That is just you. The commoners would agree with my statement, and hence I can win over a larger majority, at the expense of being discredited to a small minority like you.
Bert, for someone that has 1,100 post I would expect you to be aware of this "difference" in ethical opinion by now. Not everyone is a Rothbardian/Kantian here. The sooner you learn to accept this the more successful you will be.
but you don't lie to push agendas if you see your agenda or belief as "absolute" or moral or ethical or whatever you think makes it good or superior. It's lying, it's false, it's deceit, it's wrong.
Well on the one hand, one can still understand something is wrong, and perform that act if one is willing to accept the consequences. e.g. lifeboat situation where you have to walk through someones room because your hanging from a balcony. If you accept that you can be caught and punished, then your not negating those ethical beliefs in my opinion. Furthermore, not everyone here has an absolute sense of absolute morals,ethics.
This is quite amusing, given how similar this argument between you two is to Kants man who refuses to lie to save his family. Kant held it was never right to lie, not even to achieve good. You agree with this. I don't, nor does the person your arguing with.
Yes, the ends can and do justify the means in this case (IMO). However, in other situations, the ends may not justify the means. It's not all one way or the other.
Making up history to lean towards your beliefs is wrong. The goal of the historian is to research, track, record, and lay out the events in time objectively in the most truthful and honest way possible. If you lie and make up figures, events, or anything else it's wrong. Period. There is no loop hole, no discussion, no exceptions.
This is not an argument. X is wrong, because I say x is wrong. That is circular reasoning, your argument is not logically sound. You have to prove lying is wrong, and good luck with that infinite debate.
Not everyone is a Rothbardian/Kantian here.
I'm not a Rothbardian mate? Not trying to argue with you: I am just curious about this statement.
Let's say there was a war, Country W loses and is on trial by Countries X, Y, and Z. Facts are skewed and it it's said they killed 10 million people by certain methods within their borders (outside of military warfare). Is this right? We're talking on a large scale, not just trespassing on someone's property to avoid a rabid pitbull or something. Now, there's a very large and complex lie that this country/State committed these atrocities that didn't happen, and now this becomes evidence against the State. What's good and bad about this?
>>>>No, initiating aggression is immoral, which is what I would be trying to stop by using "false testimony." There is nothing inherently immoral about lying, particularly when endeavouring to stop Evil. Epic fail!>>>>
So fraud is moral in your universe? What does rothbard have to say about that?
You do not understand what fraud is. Fraud is not equivalent to lying. It must be implicit theft of a good or service (Rothbard's definition).