Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Where do people get the idea that it is honorable to fight in a war?

Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 298 Replies | 17 Followers

Top 200 Contributor
457 Posts
Points 14,505
SilentXtarian posted on Mon, Jul 20 2009 1:11 PM

As I've mentioned before in another thread I've been studying history for a while now.  I can't figure out where people get this idea that it is honorable to fight in a war.  In fact I've pretty my view on war is almost completely a pacifist one.  I do not feel that wars of aggression need to be fought.  Nations need not be invaded by one another.  Wars of imperialist conquest are just simply wrong and there are better methods of uniting a region rather than just war.  I feel that the only wars that are really justified in history are revolutionary wars, or, rebellions.  I don't think even those need to happen.  I feel that revolutionary wars happen only because an imperial power is somewhere they aren't supposed to be, so, they pay the consequences.  Other than that- wars are just wrong- unless you love fighting for the state or being some political pawn out there.  I'd like to get some libertarian views on this.  I don't know why people feel that it is honorable to fightin a war.  Unless you really liked empire building I don't see what you would find honorable in fighting a war.

  • | Post Points: 305

All Replies

Top 10 Contributor
Male
5,118 Posts
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Anarchist Cain:

Byzantine:
In anarcho-capitalist society, there will probably be people who sell their freedom to bidders in exchange for a stipulated set of reciprocal privileges.  Trophy wives who sign pre-nup's practice a currently socially-acceptable form of voluntary slavery.

There is no such thing as voluntary slavery. Slavery is an involuntary state.

Main Entry:slav·ery
Pronunciation:\ˈslā-v(ə-)rē\
Function:noun
Date:1551
1: drudgery, toil
2: submission to a dominating influence
3 a: the state of a person who is a chattel of another b: the practice of slaveholding

If a person owns himself, why can't he sell himself?

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."

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,850 Posts
Points 85,810

Byzantine:
Like I said, if you dangle food, housing and medical care in front of some people, they'll happily sign over whatever right they have.

That is a business transaction and they don't sign over their rights because they are inalienable.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
5,538 Posts
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Mon, Jul 20 2009 10:14 PM
Daniel:
If a person owns himself, why can't he sell himself?
Because, as the guy whose picture you use as avatar pointed out, the will is inalienable.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
5,118 Posts
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Byzantine:

Anarchist Cain:
There is no such thing as voluntary slavery. Slavery is an involuntary state.

Okay.  Voluntary indentures then.  Like I said, if you dangle food, housing and medical care in front of some people, they'll happily sign over whatever right they have.

Which isn't wrong in and of itself. It's only wrong when it's the food, housing, and medical of someone from whom it has been stolen.

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."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,850 Posts
Points 85,810

Daniel:
If a person owns himself, why can't he sell himself?

Because you cannot sell that which is inalienable. If I am horrible at business, and tell a business man 'hey I'm going to listen to everything you say about business, I will do anything you say when it comes to that' then that business man is becoming your advisor, not your slave master. And are you implying that if one were to 'sell themself' they will have to perpetually stay in that agreement?

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
5,118 Posts
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Juan:
Daniel:
If a person owns himself, why can't he sell himself?
Because, as the guy whose picture you use as avatar pointed out, the will is inalienable.

Score: you 1, me 0

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."

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
36 Posts
Points 520

Daniel:
So you admit that you would be violating the rights of the person who say you are defending. Anyway, I doubt the who's life you save would prosecute you.

Skipped the rest of the quotes, getting excessive Smile

I maintain that I would not be violating the person's rights because I'm not initiating aggression, I'm responding to aggression that has already taken place.  There are plenty of situations where entering someone's property without explicit permission is permissible.  Do you seek the manager's permission before entering a grocery store?  If I enter your property to knock on your front door and invite you to a barbecue, is this an act of aggression?  Of course not.  I don't see how saving someone's life would be any different.  Ideally you would get permission before entering a person's house, but given this scenario I can't exactly knock on the door and shout for permission to enter the house and kill the guy with a gun to your head.  I'm not infallible, and should I turn out to be wrong on this, I'm not losing any sleep over being the trespasser who saved your life.  Again, I insist that it actually isn't trespassing, but if it is the offense is trivial at best.  Hopefully we can at least agree on that.  You haven't raised any objection to my defending you in general, outside anyone's property, which really was the original topic of this thread (most wars aren't fought in people's living rooms).  Can we agree that this would be permissible?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
11,343 Posts
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

SilentXtarian:
I do not feel that wars of aggression need to be fought. 

Blood alone moves the wheels of history!

 

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
46 Posts
Points 1,310

I reckon that people who are brainwashed feel that by serving in wars they serve a higher purpose and achieve something great that would be otherwise unachievable.  Its sad that our own president enforces this nonsense, seeing as I believe it was Reagan who said something like "many people live their whole lives without knowing if they have made a difference.  The marines don't have that problem."  

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
457 Posts
Points 14,505

I should also clarify my OP- my OP does not only relate to US wars- but also wars in all history.  I haven't learned of many wars in history that I would consider to be honorable to fight in- except for perhaps the Punic wars... but other than that... like ones I've studied all seem to be pointless.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
5,118 Posts
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

SilentXtarian:

I should also clarify my OP- my OP does not only relate to US wars- but also wars in all history.  I haven't learned of many wars in history that I would consider to be honorable to fight in- except for perhaps the Punic wars... but other than that... like ones I've studied all seem to be pointless.

I think that are many wars where there is a side that is legitimately defending itself. Such as the South when it was invaded by the North.

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."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
754 Posts
Points 11,800

SilentXtarian:
I'd like to get some libertarian views on this.

I will give you my thoughts, though I am not sure you will like it....

People fight wars, that is supply the meat that gets shot for various reasons, money, glory, etc.

These are the people that get injured often, die alot and whatnot...

The honor attatched to fighting in a war is the power of the nationalist ideology, it is never for "patriotic" duty (though proclaimed as such) unless it is purely defensive.

Warriors feel no real honor in battle, they fight, they live or die, and they either go home or not, it is what a warrior does...

Needless to say, there are very few warriors in the world, this breed is almost as rare as those with common sense, if not more so...

It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,985 Posts
Points 90,430

SilentXtarian:
I can't figure out where people get this idea that it is honorable to fight in a war. 

It is honourable to put your life on the line for your wife or girlfriend, your children and your friends. Of course, it's not like libertarians would know this of course, they lack all three of those and the balls required to go into war alongside them. Whether or not you feel that wars are justified, the soldiers involved certainly do, and often they're more than willing to fight for what they see as good. So you can sit there at your computed desk and type about how tyrannical they are, but at the end of the day they've lost far more from the war of Iraq than you have. So perhaps, before you rant about them, you could show some sympathy.

 

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

  • | Post Points: 50
Page 4 of 20 (299 items) « First ... < Previous 2 3 4 5 6 Next > ... Last » | RSS