What are the general thoughts on WWII here on Mises.org?
Were the Allies justified in fighting WWII?
What would have happened if the US wouldn't have gotten involved in the European theatre? Should they have?
I have always been interested in this time period, so I was curious what you guys thought on the issue. Any articles or books discussing the war from a Libertarian standpoint are very welcome.
nirgrahamUK: 1. if you dont like how you are abused here. go and be abused somewhere else. 2, equivocation on 'US'
1. if you dont like how you are abused here. go and be abused somewhere else.
2, equivocation on 'US'
1. I just want to see regulation in the market place done away with, taxation lowered to acceptable levels, a flat tax instituted, government spending significantly reduced, welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, affirmative action and the Federal Reserve abolished. But I still want there to be a government and a military.
2. You see yourself as something totally separate from the United States?
1) thanks for telling us what you want and ignoring what is right and what is wrong.
2) i live in england.... but it changes nothing in the argument. you were equivocating on your use of the word US. you started off describing individuals coming to north american continent and homesteading property. and leapt from that to a US state/fedeferal government that owns territory.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: 1) thanks for telling us what you want and ignoring what is right and what is wrong. 2) i live in england.... but it changes nothing in the argument. you were equivocating on your use of the word US. you started off describing individuals coming to north american continent and homesteading property. and leapt from that to a US state/fedeferal government that owns territory.
1. What's right to you might be wrong to me. Right and wrong need an enforcer, otherwise they are just opinions.
2. It does change the argument because you ARE in fact separate from the group known as the United States. We are all individuals but also a part of a group. Being an individual and being part of a group aren't mutually exclusive.
1) so you dont believe in justice. oh well.
2) you missed my point.
nirgrahamUK: 1) so you dont believe in justice. oh well. 2) you missed my point.
1. Justice requires an arbitrator. Justice doesn't exist in a vaccuum. Someone has to interpret it.
2. Did I? You're saying that the actions of the people of the United States are separate from the United States itself yes? Well, that doesn't make sense. Because while we are individuals, we are also a part of the group. So those individuals who landed on Plymouth Rock were individuals, but also a part of a group now known as the United States. Their actions and my current existence are intertwined.
Jacob Bloom:1. Justice requires an arbitrator. Justice doesn't exist in a vaccuum. Someone has to interpret it.
1) you believe in the justice of arbitrators. ok. i get it , you dont believe in justice. you believe in moral relativism etc.
2) sophistry. you fail to address the substantive points. im saying that only people can perform 'actions' . the United States does not perform 'actions'. to say the the united states acts is to confuse a colloquilism, or a manner of speaking, with the literal meaning.
Jacob Bloom:We had evidence against Bin Laden. He said he was responsible for the attacks.
You really think someone claiming they did something is the same as evidence? You think this was justification to invade a country and ruin lives and kill people? If this is your line of thinking, I see no reason to continue conversing with you. It appears you are just a sick neo-con uninterested in real discourse.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
nirgrahamUK: Jacob Bloom:1. Justice requires an arbitrator. Justice doesn't exist in a vaccuum. Someone has to interpret it. 1) you believe in the justice of arbitrators. ok. i get it , you dont believe in justice. you believe in moral relativism etc. 2) sophistry. you fail to address the substantive points. im saying that only people can perform 'actions' . the United States does not perform 'actions'. to say the the united states acts is to confuse a colloquilism, or a manner of speaking, with the literal meaning.
1. I just don't believe in some Platonic form of justice. Because someone has to interpret right and wrong. You see...you might think killing me is a good idea. Because you hate me or something. But I don't like that idea. Because I don't want to die. So now, we either fight and see who wins or we turn to a third party to determine if you should have grounds to kill me. So even something like murder is not so black or white. What I'm basically saying about Hitler is that I think the United States was correct in fighting him. And since I'm part of the whole of the United States, my opinion counts only for a little. But if enough people agree with me and are willing to stand by and enforce my opinion, then I am right. Unless more people think what you think, in which case, I am wrong. Assuming you can enforce your decision.
2. Individuals perform actions in the name of the United States. In that sense, the individual is like a hand of the state. But I am responsible for the actions of that individual and the state because I am a part of the same group he is.
Spideynw: Jacob Bloom:We had evidence against Bin Laden. He said he was responsible for the attacks. You really think someone claiming they did something is the same as evidence? If this is your line of thinking, I see no reason to continue conversing with you. It appears you are just a neo-con uninterested in real discourse.
You really think someone claiming they did something is the same as evidence? If this is your line of thinking, I see no reason to continue conversing with you. It appears you are just a neo-con uninterested in real discourse.
I think his claiming he did it combined with the information collected by the CIA is enough to convince me that he was responsible. And that's all I need to know. Now, you may not trust the information collected, or you may think that war is never acceptable, or whatever. And you are perfectly entitled to that opinion, and I respect you for having it. But it doesn't change the fact that I support the United States' actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in WW2. So to me, all those wars were just. To you, they are something else. Which is fine. I just don't agree with you.
I also would like to add that I do not fit in the Neo-Con box because I am pro choice and all for gay rights and I'm an athiest.
Jacob Bloom:I think his claiming he did it combined with the information collected by the CIA is enough to convince me that he was responsible.
That's just great. So, again, Afghanistan asked the U.S. government for evidence, and refused to give them any, including CIA evidence. So no, it was not a justified war. Not only that, but if he was guilty, the U.S. should have co-operated to get him, not ruin a whole country. Or do you think if the U.S. government is searching for a murderer, that it is OK to ruin a whole town, county or state to get him?
Try again.
Spideynw: Jacob Bloom:I think his claiming he did it combined with the information collected by the CIA is enough to convince me that he was responsible. That's just great. So, again, Afghanistan asked the U.S. government for evidence, and refused to give them any, including CIA evidence. So no, it was not a justified war. Not only that, but if he was guilty, the U.S. should have co-operated to get him, not ruin a whole country. Or do you think if the U.S. government is searching for a murderer, that it is OK to ruin a whole town, county or state to get him? Try again.
I'm realizing that you and I are never going to see eye to eye on this. Which is fine. I don't need to have you agree with me for me to be right. And you don't need me to agree with you for you to be right. Therefore, I think I've said as much as I can say.
Jacob Bloom:I'm realizing that you and I are never going to see eye to eye on this. Which is fine. I don't need to have you agree with me for me to be right. And you don't need me to agree with you for you to be right. Therefore, I think I've said as much as I can say.
You are obviously a person that has a very low threshold as to when it is OK to kill people and ruin lives.
People should not delude themselves into thinking America entered WWII out of some humanitarian impulse. Don't get me wrong, American's are a generous people generally, but FDR and Churchill, among others, did everything they could to draw the US into the war. The US export economy was heavily dependent on the Allies (France and Britain) and their colonial possessions, if they lost the war, who would buy American goods?
When it comes to war and the government, economics generally trumps humanitarianism. If you still believe the US entered the war primarily to save the victims of Nazi atrocities, then ask yourself why the US has avoided helping other victims of atrocities elsewhere, up to this day? The bedrock of any decision to go to war generally lies with the economic factors.
perhaps you can make those kinds of mercantilist arguments, but they are not economic arguments.