Christ, did you read my post? Why do people struggle with the fact that if the bomb had not been dropped more lives would have been lost. By arguing against it you are saying that the hundreds of thousands who were dying in China, Vietnam, etc. and the hundreds of thousands that would have been lost in an American invasion is preferable! Come on, let's be objective here and look at the facts. As for your question I'd prefer it if you didnt impose a petty label on me based on one post thanks.
1. You presenting a cost-benefit analysis for the murder of children in their sleep is in no way original. There has been a justification offered for every political murder in history. You having an excuse in no way makes you special or differentiates you from neocons, Communists and other Satan's henchmen. 2. Your history is laughable, as is your logic. News Flash: there is no God's law to say that wars must end in unconditional surrender. It is perfectly permissible to end wars with a negotiated settlement, which is incidentally how most wars concluded before the US started throwing itself around. 3. I would prefer it if you did not try to justify murder, but since you do, it is up to me to show you this has consequences and not permit you to do it comfortably.
*: my "caveat" on this is that I might *personally* choose to torture someone in this circumstance if, say, my family were at risk. But if I did, I would fully expect to be prosecuted and convicted as a torturer; I might deem that a cost worth paying for what I percieve to be the lives of my family. In the end, "law" -whether it is decided and implemented by a monopoly (guhvment) or a free market - is still just a "cost" to the offender. There are times when someone might well choose to pay that cost. But that's a much different statement that saying that in some circumstances, *there shouldn't be a cost*.
Exactly. +10.
Albeit in this case if the tortured had in fact hidden a bomb the torture could have been subtracted from his future punishment and you would walk. But if to get to him you had tortured his father, then there can be no talk of that.
Marko: 1. You presenting a cost-benefit analysis for the murder of children in their sleep is in no way original. There has been a justification offered for every political murder in history. You having an excuse in no way makes you special or differentiates you from neocons, Communists and other Satan's henchmen. 2. Your history is laughable, as is your logic. News Flash: there is no God's law to say that wars must end in unconditional surrender. It is perfectly permissible to end wars with a negotiated settlement, which is incidentally how most wars concluded before the US started throwing itself around. 3. I would prefer it if you did not try to justify murder, but since you do, it is up to me to show you this has consequences and not permit you to do it comfortably.
You either dont understand the nature of the war, the nature of the Japanese government, or both.
Well, it is thought that about 200,000-300,000 were dying in Asia alone every single month in 1945.
Wow. What a powerful argument to sit down behind a table and have the Japanese out of China immediately as part of a negotiated settlement.
You are delusional. The US imposed embargo on Japan to get it out of China, but once the war begun it was fought for its own sake.
The trouble with sectarians, whether they be libertarians, Marxists, or world-governmentalists, is that they tend to rest content with the root cause of any problem and never bother themselves with the more detailed or proximate causes. The best, and almost ludicrous, example of blind, unintelligent sectarianism is the Socialist Labor Party, a venerable party with no impact whatsoever on American life. To any problem that the state of the world might pose – unemployment, automation, Vietnam, nuclear testing, or whatever – the SLP simply repeats, parrot-like: "Adopt socialism." Since capitalism is allegedly the root cause of all these and other problems, only socialism will whisk them away, period. In this way the sectarian, even if his spotting of the ultimate root cause should be correct, isolates himself from all problems of the real world and, in further irony, keeps himself from having any impact toward the ultimate goal he cherishes. On the question of war guilt, whatever the war, sectarianism raises its ugly, uninformed head far beyond the stagnant reaches of the Socialist Labor Party. Libertarians, Marxists, world-governmentalists, each from their different perspective, have a built-in tendency to avoid bothering about the detailed pros and cons of any given conflict. Each of them knows that the root cause of war is the nation-state system; given the existence of this system, wars will always occur, and all states will share in that guilt. The libertarian, in particular, knows that states, without exception, aggress against their citizens, and knows also that in all wars each state aggresses against innocent civilians "belonging" to the other state. Now this kind of insight into the root cause of war and aggression, and into the nature of the state itself, is all well and good, and vitally necessary for insight into the world condition. But the trouble is that the libertarian tends to stop there, and evading the responsibility of knowing what is going on in any specific war or international conflict, he tends to leap unjustifiably to the conclusion that, in any war, all states are equally guilty, and then to go about his business without giving the matter a second thought. In short, the libertarian (and the Marxist, and the world-government partisan) tends to dig himself into a comfortable "Third Camp" position, putting equal blame on all sides to any conflict, and letting it go at that. This is a comfortable position to take because it doesn’t really alienate the partisans of either side. Both sides in any war will write this man off as a hopelessly "idealistic" and out-of-it sectarian, a man who is even rather lovable because he simply parrots his "pure" position without informing himself or taking sides on whatever war is raging in the world. In short, both sides will tolerate the sectarian precisely because he is irrelevant, and because his irrelevancy guarantees that he makes no impact on the course of events or on public opinion about these events.
The trouble with sectarians, whether they be libertarians, Marxists, or world-governmentalists, is that they tend to rest content with the root cause of any problem and never bother themselves with the more detailed or proximate causes. The best, and almost ludicrous, example of blind, unintelligent sectarianism is the Socialist Labor Party, a venerable party with no impact whatsoever on American life. To any problem that the state of the world might pose – unemployment, automation, Vietnam, nuclear testing, or whatever – the SLP simply repeats, parrot-like: "Adopt socialism." Since capitalism is allegedly the root cause of all these and other problems, only socialism will whisk them away, period. In this way the sectarian, even if his spotting of the ultimate root cause should be correct, isolates himself from all problems of the real world and, in further irony, keeps himself from having any impact toward the ultimate goal he cherishes.
On the question of war guilt, whatever the war, sectarianism raises its ugly, uninformed head far beyond the stagnant reaches of the Socialist Labor Party. Libertarians, Marxists, world-governmentalists, each from their different perspective, have a built-in tendency to avoid bothering about the detailed pros and cons of any given conflict. Each of them knows that the root cause of war is the nation-state system; given the existence of this system, wars will always occur, and all states will share in that guilt. The libertarian, in particular, knows that states, without exception, aggress against their citizens, and knows also that in all wars each state aggresses against innocent civilians "belonging" to the other state.
Now this kind of insight into the root cause of war and aggression, and into the nature of the state itself, is all well and good, and vitally necessary for insight into the world condition. But the trouble is that the libertarian tends to stop there, and evading the responsibility of knowing what is going on in any specific war or international conflict, he tends to leap unjustifiably to the conclusion that, in any war, all states are equally guilty, and then to go about his business without giving the matter a second thought. In short, the libertarian (and the Marxist, and the world-government partisan) tends to dig himself into a comfortable "Third Camp" position, putting equal blame on all sides to any conflict, and letting it go at that. This is a comfortable position to take because it doesn’t really alienate the partisans of either side. Both sides in any war will write this man off as a hopelessly "idealistic" and out-of-it sectarian, a man who is even rather lovable because he simply parrots his "pure" position without informing himself or taking sides on whatever war is raging in the world. In short, both sides will tolerate the sectarian precisely because he is irrelevant, and because his irrelevancy guarantees that he makes no impact on the course of events or on public opinion about these events.
Who said anything about "equal" blame, whatever the hell that is.
Individuals who defend themselves against the initiation of aggression are justified in doing so. What's going on in the middle east is a bit more complicated.
Palestinians have been getting screwed over for years, and not just by Israel. Turning to the formation of a state may be viewed as a solution to garner some protection from the other state bullies in the area (Israel being the most obvious to them). But in the long term, the Palestinian people will find this solution to be far more problematic than they probably expect. You don't kill spiders by drinking poison.
Nonconventional warfare (a.k.a. terrorism) is one of the few options against a force with superior technology. While I disagree with this form of warfare, as I do with any of the other forms of fighting, it is a more effective strategy than direct, frontal assault with rocks and small arms. If this were simply the case of defense, then I'd have no problem other than some targets have been hit indiscriminantly (but that seems to be the cost of warfare).
But we all know this isn't just a case of defense in large part based on the factions at play (mostly state-sponsored). The Palestinian people are being used to fight a proxy war against Israel. Israel, failing to see this (or perhaps seeing it and ignoring it), continues with an insane policy of treating Palestinians as subhuman all in the name of security. Then there are factions within Israel who would see Palestinians wiped out any way, just as there are factions on the other side who would like to see the same happen to these Europeans (Israelis) who've forced their way into their neighborhood. And that's before we even get into the geo-political realm with nations like the U.S., Russia, China, etc. all seeking to gain some form of advantage by manipulating things.
I believe the solution to the problem begins with the Palestinian people. First in rejecting statism and leaders who seek aggressive means for a solution. War with Israel is a lose-lose proposition and has led to poverty. One of the biggest hurdles is convincing the Israelis that the Palestinian people are not a threat; difficult in terms of slowing and reversing Israel's aggressive actions and building a peaceful relationship where trade can flourish. If the Palestinian people can be free to trade, build, and live their lives then they would be well on their way. If they accomplish this without a state, then perhaps they may be able to set an example for the people in Israel to do the same and overthrow their own oppressive government. Once the peace is established, then you can begin prosecuting those who committed acts of atrocity. These bad actors tend to get pardoned or "forgiven" as part of the peace process, so you can't always have peace and justice.
The difficulty in obtaining the real solution is that statism and aggression are very attractive to those with little power or options. Vengeance is a powerful emotion. Trying to go from non-conventional warfare to non-aggression is much more difficult than conventional warfare to non-aggression in that neither side has the certainty that the conflict is over. And then you still need the enemy to be willing to back down. I never said it would be easy. It takes only one individual to start or re-ignite war, but many individuals to stop it.
That is nice. So which side is more guilty of the two?
Guilt or innocence go to the individual. So the argument over sides become more of a matter of perspective.
If your perspective is the state of Israel vs. the Palestinian people, then the individuals who are proliferating the conflict are most to blame. Individuals in the IDF and the political class have the most resources to do the worst amount of damage, and seem to do what they can whenever they can get away with it (perhaps unfair observation, but an observation nonetheless). There are individuals on the Palestinian side who are about as bad, though without all the tools at their disposal.
Then there are those who interfere. The U.S., neighboring nations, etc. I support the humanitarian aide. The arms, however, aren't in anyone's interest. While I think the argument that the conflict is too one-sided in favor of Israel is a valid point, arming Palestine isn't the best way to resolve this conflict. Arming for self defense is fine. Arming to strike deeper into the state of Israel would seem counter-productive to self defense. There are too many parties interested in keeping both Israel and the Palestinians in conflict with one another. This, in my opinion, is the worst sort of interference.
I don't buy into the argument that there are no innocents, neither do I buy the argument that being a citizen makes one a de facto aggressor. But I'm not naive. There are plenty of people who proudly support the killing of the other side for whatever reasons they might have - most typically hatred, fear or bigotry.
I believe it's pretty evident that the Palestinians have suffered the most, not that suffering automatically implies innocence of oneself or the guilt of an enemy.
I can guarantee, and you can check this by polls, that most Palestinians want all Jews dead, and most Jews want all Palestinians dead. According to you, most people are innocents, but there are these power hungry evil politicians who do the killing. That's just nonesense. The politicians are just doing what the people want. It is silly laying the blame on the politicians, when the people choose them to do their bidding.
Guilt or innocence go to the individual. So the argument over sides become more of a matter of perspective. If your perspective is the state of Israel vs. the Palestinian people, then the individuals who are proliferating the conflict are most to blame. Individuals in the IDF and the political class have the most resources to do the worst amount of damage, and seem to do what they can whenever they can get away with it (perhaps unfair observation, but an observation nonetheless). There are individuals on the Palestinian side who are about as bad, though without all the tools at their disposal.
I was asking because you said "the solution to the problem begins with the Palestinian people". Does that mean the Palestinians are the main source of the problem? Usually you tackle problems at their source.
Eugene: I can guarantee, and you can check this by polls, that most Palestinians want all Jews dead, and most Jews want all Palestinians dead. According to you, most people are innocents, but there are these power hungry evil politicians who do the killing. That's just nonesense. The politicians are just doing what the people want. It is silly laying the blame on the politicians, when the people choose them to do their bidding.
How nice of you to speak on their behalf. Nothing more noble then perpetuating a blood feud.
Change starts from within. Trying to change other people usually tends to fail. The source of the problem is aggression. Israelis, in general, could probably live with the status quo - have to ask them though. Palestinians less so - status quo for them pretty much sucks. So there's more of an incentive among the Palestinian people to actually want change, it's just currently being misdirected.
I don't profess to know the minds of "most" people nor do I place any guarantees on unidentified polls. There are innocents, there are killers, there are cheerleaders and there are protestors on both sides of the conflict. The politicians have the guns, so why not call them for what they are. If the politician represents a mob of killers and cheerleaders, then how excactly is he blameless especially when ordering the actual act of killing?
I fear that if it is true that the majority of both sides wants the other side dead then they all might just get want they want.
I've gotten you to be much more wordy, but sadly not to be the least bit relevant. How about that as a first step the IDF should end its occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza?
The solution to American occupation of Iraq is that America gets the hell out, the day before yesterday. Not some hippie, new age, kumbaya crap about "the change within" and how Iraqis should be peaceful and trade and hold hands, and then the Americans will like them, and then 150 years later finally leave their country. You are super egoistical. How convenient that you should not see any way for the betterment of the Palestinians' situation unless they do this one "little" thing and become exactly like you! People deserve not to be occupied and beaten into submission even if they are not Ghandian Rothbardian Anarchists you know.
Here let me take the morality of this argument and throw a hypothetical out there so maybe you can understand how this work's.
Hypothetically speaking: "I want you to spend money that you work for on a handgun, any handgun will do. Then, I want you to load that hand gun, and chamber a round. Finally I want you to point it at your head and pull the trigger."
Now, you see in that example, I can 'want' this "hypothetical" all I want, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea for you to follow my edict's. This is why your example of the people wanting other people to murder people in the name of imaginery lines on a map is foolish. It's the people with the control of the machination's of the military that are in the position of guilt here.
The kid that just want's to raise his sheep and make love with his school sweetheart should not be held accountable for the greivances that he has no direct involvment in. After all, he's only there because he was born there. It's ridiculous to hold a single individual by happenstance of birth in the position of responsibility for the edict's of another.
Morality is such an idiotic concept.
Furthermore, the people in those position's should be held accountable if the state want's to remain valid. Obviously, the state has outlived it's usefulness, and it's only a matter of time before the whole concept fades into the background as a failed experiment.
That depends. If you reasonably believe that your actions (telling me I should kill myself) will result in a crime being committed, then you are guilty of that crime.
I've gotten you to be much more wordy, but sadly not to be the least bit relevant.
You seem to be hung up on relevance. Not sure why you expect any sort of relevance via an anonymous internet forum.
How about that as a first step the IDF should end its occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza?
I agree that the IDF should remove itself. The IDF won't leave because they are convinced that these areas will be used for rocket attacks, and they are probably correct. But the fundamental problem is that this is a state, and a state cannot be expected to behave as an individual.
The solution to American occupation of Iraq is that America gets the hell out, the day before yesterday. Not some hippie, new age, kumbaya crap about "the change within" and how Iraqis should be peaceful and trade and hold hands, and then the Americans will like them, and then 150 years later finally leave their country.
Not sure why you're changing the subject, but I too agree that America needs to get out of Iraq (among many other places). Personally, I thought the people living in Iraq should have had the opportunity to form their own communities, not necessarily states, rather than a single nation state. The fact that the state of Iraq exists shows there's significant intervention at play by other states. Turkey and Iran were dead set against a Kurdish nation. So why America may be carrying the water, they've been the agents of some of the surrounding countries to force their will upon the people living in that country.
You are super egoistical. How convenient that you should not see any way for the betterment of the Palestinians' situation unless they do this one "little" thing and become exactly like you! People deserve not to be occupied and beaten into submission even if they are not Ghandian Rothbardian Anarchists you know.
I've suggested one possible way for the Palestinian people to better their situation. I don't believe violence has worked out for them, has it? And if you believe the anarcho-capitalist position is narrow, and limited, then I suggest you re-examine the variety of possible outcomes within a community that embraces the free market without a state. I believe it's extremely narrow to suggest the state is the best way to go.
"It is silly laying the blame on the politicians, when the people choose them to do their bidding."
Totally, the governments of the world have no interests of their own, only the people.
Clearly thinking that your hardnosed and realistic does not mean you are.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Hate to say this LaL, but if I am reading this right Eugene may actually have his first valid point. I mean part of the libertarian critique of the modern political system is that when people are given perverse incentives they will act on them. If people are given the option "money for nothing" . I would be more in favor of looking at the system in place rather than the politicians or the citizens.
This is where you are wrong. You commiting suicide at the whim of person that has no real contractual hold over your choices or action's is you commiting suicide. There is no crime commited on my part. There is only your lideless body that terminated it's own life processes through actions of it's own.
This is why arguing that the president of any nation is acting on behalf of the citizen's is nothing but irrational hubris.
Since nothing later on in this thread seems to have made any real impact on Eugene, I might as well start with his OP.
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.
As the rest of your OP shows, you don't completely support the NAP. You support it with an exception for "times of war". If you believe you do completely support the NAP, then you're using a different definition of NAP than most libertarians (and certainly myself). Ignore that at your peril.
Eugene: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.
That of course raises the question whether said "defensive wars" really are defensive - or what those calling them "defensive" even mean by that word. For example, the Nazis certainly saw the war that they started as a defensive one for the German people.
Eugene: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.
Of course, the question is whether those who voted for Hamas (one cannot accurately indict the entire "Palestinian people") were explicitly authorizing the actions which either Hamas committed directly or were committed in its name.
Eugene: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.
You seem to take as an assumption that Hamas (or the "Palestinian people" in general) started the ongoing conflict with the "Israeli people". This is an assumption you make at your own peril - i.e. it may not be consistent with historical facts. On the other hand, just because you take it as an assumption doesn't mean that the rest of us are obligated to do the same.
All that being said, why do you find it "completely natural" for Israel to retaliate in the same way?
Eugene: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.
How does Israel have no choice but to retaliate, exactly? Or is this just another assumption?
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, and such type of surrender would have only invited another attack.
As Liberty Student stated, this (if not a mere assumption) is an argument from ignorance and therefore completely invalid.
Eugene: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.
I'll reiterate the question asked by another user - how's that working out for the "Israeli people"? It doesn't seem to be working out very well. There's no end in sight for the conflict. Certainly Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Palestinian/Muslim organizations aren't deterred - if anything, their determination has increased in proportion to the Israeli government's efforts at deterrence.
Otherwise, your argument about "that's how most people see the world [identifying the individual with his/her state]" is simply an appeal to the majority and is therefore completely invalid.
Eugene: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.
They don't seem to be stopping their assaults. As far as Hezbollah is concerned, their main focus is Lebanon. When the Israeli military pulled out of Lebanon, Hezbollah apparently considered their primary mission to have been successful. Regarding the other organizations fighting the Israeli government, how have they been deterred at all?
Now, about "looking at reality" and "how it works in the real world" - do you have any idea what you're talking about there? I mean, really. People love to contrast "ideology" with "things in the real world", but you know what? Those people are just as entrenched in ideology as any other. They're simply entrenched in a different ideology. In fact, they're probably more entrenched in that ideology than libertarians are entrenched in theirs, because those people see the false dichotomies and false dilemmas that they've been indoctrinated in as part of "the way the world works". I've got news for you: in situations and circumstances as complicated as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there's never only two choices.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
The IDF won't leave because they are convinced that these areas will be used for rocket attacks, and they are probably correct.
Nonsense. That is not the real reason. You can't just go around making stuff up. The occupation of West Bank has been ongoing for 44 years. The rockets only made an apperance in 2001. Tell me, what was the reason for occupying the West Bank in the 1967-2001 period, before the rockets, and if this reason still applies today? IDF evacuated the Gaza strip in 2005. Tell me, if the West Bank can not be evacuated because of the rockets, how can Gaza?
It's not evacuating, because it's part of that whole idea that the state need's an enemy to justify it's existence
Eugene: 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. Eugene, I'd like to know what your opinion is of the points raised by the woman in this video. If I were living in a land that was being colonized and had streets cutting it up and compartmentalizing it that I wasn't allowed to use, I would grab a gun and fight the Israeli occupiers and vote for any politician that would promise to do the same. But if they stopped their invasion of my lands then I would go back to my normal life. Check out my video, Ron Paul vs Lincoln! And share my PowerPoint with your favorite neo-con | Post Points: 5
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.
Eugene: I cannot even begin to understand the libertarian opposition to defensive wars.
I cannot even begin to understand the libertarian opposition to defensive wars.
That is because you live in israel, Israel was recently created country that invaded other peoples land and through force pushed the original people back. This is why a defensive attitude to military spending would not be feasible. That would be like mexico expanding in to the USA and claiming USA land and then not understanding how a defensive military policy could be feasible. Israeli population is forced into the military and the media in the country is full with the same sort of propaganda that we have in the west. I do not see how israel is within the interest of the west and I do not see why the isrealis think the west owes them anything. Maybe you can explain why the west should care about isreal?
Comparing isreali palestinian conflict to the bombing of japan is weak. The situations are completely different and what are you suggesting is necessary then to solve the conflict? Sounds like you are the worst kind of enemy to freedom.
Palestinians won't go back to normal life since they want Israel to disappear. They feel that Israel is a regime that was forced upon them, which is partially true. Since Jews will not let Israel disappear, or will let 5 million refugees to immigrate to Israel, this conflict is insoluble.