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.
Lord Shore-Twilly: You should ponder what you are actually saying. In this case, where the quality of the armed forces is entirely qualified by 'might', 'might' manifestly is what determines 'right'. What other way do you determine the effectiveness of an armed force than attempting to analyse its 'might'? I guess you didn't think this through.
You should ponder what you are actually saying. In this case, where the quality of the armed forces is entirely qualified by 'might', 'might' manifestly is what determines 'right'. What other way do you determine the effectiveness of an armed force than attempting to analyse its 'might'?
I guess you didn't think this through.
He thought it through. It appears you just did not read what he said.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spidey: you know we can summarise the contribution your post brings to this topic with the following; "Nu-uh"?
Want to try again?
JonBostwick: Seriously? Where did you get that conclusion from? Obviously not from the facts of the situation. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/margolis12.html
Seriously? Where did you get that conclusion from? Obviously not from the facts of the situation.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/margolis12.html
Israel says it was an accident, I believe them. You can choose to believe Lew Rockwell if it makes you happy.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:My friend, it's a simple question of effectiveness.I'm not your friend, and what you're proposing is might makes right. You think that stealing is ok for the government because it's got more weapons and can have a big army. How disgusting.
Jacob Bloom:My friend, it's a simple question of effectiveness.
I'm only saying that might makes possible. And I don't see why we can't be friends here. Anyways, shouldn't we find out whether our private army is going to be able to defend us from a publicly funded one before we put all our chips in that basket? Is it unreasonable to try to ascertain the efficacy of our plan before we act on it?
Lord Shore-Twilly: Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:My friend, it's a simple question of effectiveness.I'm not your friend, and what you're proposing is might makes right. You think that stealing is ok for the government because it's got more weapons and can have a big army. How disgusting. You should ponder what you are actually saying. In this case, where the quality of the armed forces is entirely qualified by 'might', 'might' manifestly is what determines 'right'. What other way do you determine the effectiveness of an armed force than attempting to analyse its 'might'? I guess you didn't think this through.
RIGHT IS IRRELEVANT!! Someone will come and take everything from us without ever asking if it's the right thing to do. They'll just do it because they can. How are we going to defend ourselves guys??
Jacob, I believe that you misunderstand the context of the word 'right'. In this case it is being used to imply 'best'. To be more specific 'might' being the best measure of effectiveness. If a public army, funded and supported by the State, can draw upon a greater degree of 'might' than a private army then it is indeed better (or 'right').
Lord Shore-Twilly: Jacob, I believe that you misunderstand the context of the word 'right'. In this case it is being used to imply 'best'. To be more specific 'might' being the best measure of effectiveness. If a public army, funded and supported by the State, can draw upon a greater degree of 'might' than a private army then it is indeed better (or 'right').
No no no, right is not going to be equated with the word "best", that's a clear semantics ploy and completely convolutes and obfuscates our discussion.
"Best", incidentally also is subjective because it begs the question: to whom? OR for whom?
Jacob Bloom: Lord Shore-Twilly: Jacob, I believe that you misunderstand the context of the word 'right'. In this case it is being used to imply 'best'. To be more specific 'might' being the best measure of effectiveness. If a public army, funded and supported by the State, can draw upon a greater degree of 'might' than a private army then it is indeed better (or 'right'). No no no, right is not going to be equated with the word "best", that's a clear semantics ploy and completely convolutes and obfuscates our discussion. "Best", incidentally also is subjective because it begs the question: to whom? OR for whom?
And all of this ignores the more pressing question of why it is in the interests of myself and tens of millions of other Americans who oppose the government's military escapades to have their money stolen to fight to protect our 'allies', or to fight preemptive wars with fabricated proof of weapons of mass destruction, or to have 700+ bases in 130 countries around the world.
A standing army to protect our borders, with "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none" (Jefferson) is a lot different than a world wide empire that makes preemptive strikes based on shoddy intelligence information.
Again, if you want to get involved in the affairs of other nations, pick up a gun and go fight yourself. Or organize with others to hire and train a mercenary army with your own money.
Don't drag the rest of us in to your warmongering with the force of the government, and the argument that the majority (might) makes right. Do what you think is right, don't force others to do the same.
Jacob Bloom:I'm only saying that might makes possible.
Jacob Bloom:Anyways, shouldn't we find out whether our private army is going to be able to defend us from a publicly funded one before we put all our chips in that basket?
Jacob Bloom: Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:My friend, it's a simple question of effectiveness.I'm not your friend, and what you're proposing is might makes right. You think that stealing is ok for the government because it's got more weapons and can have a big army. How disgusting. I'm only saying that might makes possible. And I don't see why we can't be friends here. Anyways, shouldn't we find out whether our private army is going to be able to defend us from a publicly funded one before we put all our chips in that basket? Is it unreasonable to try to ascertain the efficacy of our plan before we act on it?
Jacob, I'm going to keep repeating this until you address it. You are assuming a very old style of military use and war that does not currently exist anymore. Large armies that simply invade other countries do not exist outside of the US, and to little success as demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Contemporary imperialism is much more political than military, Jacob. You are not living in a modern world if you think otherwise.
existence is elsewhere
Whats hilarious is that Jacob and Twilly are on the same side here, yet are still bickering about imagined differences.
Heads up Jacob, Twilly isn't one of us. (ie hes a non-libertarian). And he just said that might makes right, in a very convoluted way.
Peace
Jacob Bloom: JonBostwick: Seriously? Where did you get that conclusion from? Obviously not from the facts of the situation. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/margolis12.html Israel says it was an accident, I believe them. You can choose to believe Lew Rockwell if it makes you happy.
So your conclusion is completely immune from the facts of the event. As I thought.
It seems that the contrarians on this forum are of a very low caliber.
I like to think it is because anyone capable of forming a valid argument is also able to indentify one when they see it; meaning that anyone with the capacity for logic is eventually converted leaving only those people who are unable to engage in logical debate in the opposition.
The name is 'Lord Shore-Twilly', not 'Twilly', and no myself and Jacob are not on the same 'side'. I don't support militarism. However I do support the notion that if we are going to have military it should be good.
Lord Shore-Twilly:You should ponder what you are actually saying.