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.
Kiba: Jacob: Mercenaries are like individual players in the defense market. They think selfishly and as individuals. The US military trains its men to be soldiers. They do not ask questions, they do as they're told. That's a superior armed force. I rather have mercenaries.
Jacob: Mercenaries are like individual players in the defense market. They think selfishly and as individuals. The US military trains its men to be soldiers. They do not ask questions, they do as they're told. That's a superior armed force.
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."
Jacob Bloom:Well...you're not really a threat because you don't possess the means to destroy Israel, nor do I think you will ever have the means to destroy Israel.
Jacob Bloom:Basically, you're just an antagonist of Israel. And I think you're getting a friendly fire accident confused with an actual intent to harm the US. Obviously, the attack was a mistake.
Silly Israel apologist--go do some research. Here--I'll even help you. http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis12.2.html
Knight_of_BAAWA: Irrelevant. I want to see the dissolution of Israel, which was your evidence that he is a threat. Bullshit. The attack was not a friendly fire accident, not in the least. Silly Israel apologist--go do some research. Here--I'll even help you. http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis12.2.html
Irrelevant. I want to see the dissolution of Israel, which was your evidence that he is a threat.
Bullshit. The attack was not a friendly fire accident, not in the least.
It's relevant because Ahmadinejad actually has the means to carry out the threat. I mean if a little kid comes up to you on the street talking trash, you're gonna tell him to run on home, you're not going to fight him. But if a big dude with twenty friends tells you he's going to kill you, you're going to take that more seriously.
I have no reason to believe the Israelis would lie about something like that nor can I think of any reason why they would intentionally attack a US ship. So...it ends there for me. No amount of propaganda or doublethink is going to lead me to a different conclusion. You, however, can obviously believe whatever you want to to believe. They say "never attribute to conspiracy that which is easily explained by incompetence."
Juan: No, Jacob does have an indisputable point here. War is something only states can engage in. War is everything the market is not. The market is geared towards the satisfaction of individual needs. War and state are collectivistic enterprises based on turning human beings into machines "They do not ask questions, they do as they're told". States can steal vast amounts of resources and conscript and murder their own subjects. A private enterprise can't. In a world based on private property war is a losing game, but in the kind of communist world that Jacob supports, public war makes sense (to statists of course).
No, Jacob does have an indisputable point here. War is something only states can engage in. War is everything the market is not. The market is geared towards the satisfaction of individual needs. War and state are collectivistic enterprises based on turning human beings into machines "They do not ask questions, they do as they're told". States can steal vast amounts of resources and conscript and murder their own subjects. A private enterprise can't. In a world based on private property war is a losing game, but in the kind of communist world that Jacob supports, public war makes sense (to statists of course).
See, again, war will not go away if you dissolve the United States. Someone else will just come over here with their tanks and their planes (all publicly financed) and kill every last used-to-be American and take the land which we were able to hold when we had a sufficient military. And also there are so many loaded statements in here like "conscript and murder their own subjects." I mean...lots of people volunteer.
And see, in a world based on private property war is not always a losing game. Let's imagine a scenario where you have the Region of Juan (formerly known as Connecticut) and I'm still part of maybe what's left of the US. Now, you've got a good bit of land and some resources or whatever. We want to take them from you. So, we tax the people still living in the Former Republic of the US, build an army and go over and take your land. You put up a good fight, but you just weren't able to afford enough mercenaries to keep us at bay. Now you've lost everything. This is a sad day for the former Region of Juan.
Juan:Btw Jacob, before you complain about my calling you (again) a commie, please do realize that you support public ownership of the means of defense, and that you don't recognize the property rights of taxpayers.
I just think that you can have a free market and still have taxes that pay for the military. It's not that I don't recognize the property rights of taxpayers...it's just that your property won't be your property anymore if you can't defend it. I don't feel like going around hiring mercenaries. I'd rather just have a national military. I'm willing to pay for that. I'm sorry you're not.
Jacob Bloom:I just think that you can have a free market and still have taxes that pay for the military.
you presumably also believe in square-circles.
i have some friends i'd like you to meet that would like to talk to you about fiduciary media.....
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: you presumably also believe in square-circles. i have some friends i'd like you to meet that would like to talk to you about fiduciary media.....
In what shapes do you think all powerful moderator?
Jacob Bloom: nirgrahamUK: you presumably also believe in square-circles. i have some friends i'd like you to meet that would like to talk to you about fiduciary media..... In what shapes do you think all powerful moderator?
you cannot see the contradiction in saying you can have a free market while supporting a monopoly position for a firm?
clueless.
tacoface: you cannot see the contradiction in saying you can have a free market while supporting a monopoly position for a firm? clueless.
The market and the military are two totally different things that are not governed by the same forces at all. So no, I don't see it as a contradiction. Everyone in here has participated in a market, so they know what that's like, but I dunno how many people in here have ever fought or gone to war. So they think markets and wars are the same. They're not. Markets are variable sum games. Wars are zero sum.
Jacob Bloom: The market and the military are two totally different things that are not governed by the same forces at all.
The market and the military are two totally different things that are not governed by the same forces at all.
justify this assertion
tacoface: justify this assertion
Markets are places where individuals shop for the things they need and the individual rules. In wars, individuals are irrelevant. It's about the mass known as the army. Human beings no longer exist as individuals but instead as gears that make up one big machine. War is not the business of individuals fighting individuals but collectives fighting other collectives. Also, markets are...at least in some sense logical and ruled by self optimizing behavior that cannot be tampered with. Wars are ruled by collective optimizing behavior whereby an entire group coordinates in order to defeat another group. Markets are also variable sum games, so many people can all do well without anyone losing. Wars are inherently zero sum, either you live or you die.
Jacob Bloom: In wars, individuals are irrelevant. It's about the mass known as the army.
if individuals were irrelevant, armies would not need individuals, armies would not have soldiers.
Jacob Bloom:Human beings no longer exist as individuals but instead as gears that make up one big machine.
...if one is a complete fantasist
you obviously confuse 'wars' with 'military' as taco asked you one question and you answered another. but whatever...
nirgrahamUK: if individuals were irrelevant, armies would not need individuals, armies would not have soldiers. ...if one is a complete fantasist you obviously confuse 'wars' with 'military' as taco asked you one question and you answered another. but whatever...
Basic training is all about teaching the individual that he is no longer an individual but instead just a part of the collective. Men go in as individuals, they come out as vessels for militarism.
The business of the military is war.
more square-circle nonsense.
the military dont have a 'business' they are not subject to profit and loss. hazlitt would agree.