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.
Juan: Jacob Bloom: Juan: 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). 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 completely failed to understand what I said and just made my point for me, again. What I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense for private owners, i.e. normal people, to fight each other. Of course, a bunch of militaristic commies like you, who believe in 'their country', will steal and murder when they feel like. The question is of course whether human beings will act like rational beings, or will act like nationalist beasts.
Jacob Bloom: Juan: 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). 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.
Juan: 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).
Juan, I like you. But you don't understand people. They're not all as nice as you. If you don't give some people a reason not to act like "nationalist beasts", then they will act like "nationalist beasts".
please suggest ways of doing this of which we are currently ignorant which do not involve us acting like nationalist beasts.
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: please suggest ways of doing this of which we are currently ignorant which do not involve us acting like nationalist beasts.
Do national militaries count as nationalist beasts? If so, then I've got nothing. That's what I'm trying to tell you guys: You gotta have someone to protect you. And the people who protect you need to have a bigger stick than the people protecting the other regions.
I mean, you guys are cool, when you start your anarchist region, I'll try to protect you. As long as you pay me. But I'm just one guy, we're gonna need more people. And who is going to pay for them all?
Juan, I like you. But you don't understand people. They're not all as nice as you.
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:I mean, you guys are cool, when you start your anarchist region, I'll try to protect you. As long as you pay me. But I'm just one guy, we're gonna need more people. And who is going to pay for them all?
in anarchy, moral fibre, and moral character will be particularly important for those in violent occupations. you may not be as good a candidate as you assume you are.
Jacob Bloom:So what happens if someone breaks those laws?
Stop thinking in terms of legislative prescriptions and proscriptions. Economic laws are DEscriptions.
Jacob:You gotta have someone to protect you. And the people who protect you need to have a bigger stick than the people protecting the other regions.
Jacob Bloom:Do national militaries count as nationalist beasts? If so, then I've got nothing. That's what I'm trying to tell you guys: You gotta have someone to protect you.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:So what happens if someone breaks those laws?You get the Great Depression and communism if the laws are completely ignored. Stop thinking in terms of legislative prescriptions and proscriptions. Economic laws are DEscriptions.
Ok, so why haven't people chosen your way yet? Why do they like Great Depressions and Communism better than anarchy? Is everyone just totally immoral?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:Do national militaries count as nationalist beasts? If so, then I've got nothing. That's what I'm trying to tell you guys: You gotta have someone to protect you.To suggest that the only way of doing that is via tax-funded belligerant military is a flagrantly begged question.
I'm sure there are other ways, but I'll bet you money they won't work as well as a massive tax funded military. I'll bet you 100 bucks on it. Let's start the anarchist region and find out. I've been wrong before. And hey, you could win 100 bucks.
They haven't chosen the Austrolibertarian way because governments have tended to cow the populace with various means, such as bread and circuses or the midnight knock at the door.
Jacob Bloom:I'm sure there are other ways, but I'll bet you money they won't work as well as a massive tax funded military.
*facepalm*
Juan: Jacob:You gotta have someone to protect you. And the people who protect you need to have a bigger stick than the people protecting the other regions. Protect us from whom ? If country A has an army to protect them from country B. And country B has an army to protect them from country A, it kinda obviously follows that the armies are not the SOLUTION, they are the PROBLEM.
This is a lot like the Prisoner's Dilemma.
Option A- both prisoners don't tell on each other and they each get two years
Option B- prisoner A tells on prisoner b and prisoner b doesn't tell on prisoner a and b goes to jail and a doesn't
Option C- b tells on a but a says nothing and a goes to jail and b doesn't
Option D- they both tell on each other and they both get ten years.
You're betting on either B or C. I'm betting on A. But to get option A, both parties need to have armies so as to discourage either party from telling (attacking) the other one. By the way, size counts when it comes to armies.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:I'm sure there are other ways, but I'll bet you money they won't work as well as a massive tax funded military.Yeah, because government is soooooooo efficient at whatever it does other than generally being inefficient. *facepalm*
Try it, start your own private army. And then go fight the US army. We shall see who wins.