Political Theory

Re: Libertarian pacifism

Eugene — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 21:54:21 GMT

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.

Re: Libertarian pacifism

Jack Roberts — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 21:44:51 GMT

Eugene:

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.

Re: Libertarian pacifism

Anarcho-libertarian — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 21:29:46 GMT

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.

Re: Libertarian pacifism

NidStyles — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 13:51:39 GMT

It's not evacuating, because it's part of that whole idea that the state need's an enemy to justify it's existence

Re: Libertarian pacifism

Marko — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:06:45 GMT

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?

Re: Libertarian pacifism

Autolykos — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:08:05 GMT

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.

Re: Libertarian pacifism

NidStyles — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 08:56:01 GMT

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.

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.

Re: Libertarian pacifism

William — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 06:15:17 GMT

Totally, the governments of the world have no interests of their own, only the people.

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.

Re: Libertarian pacifism

Libertyandlife — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 05:46:44 GMT

"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.

Re: Libertarian pacifism

K.C. Farmer — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:06:23 GMT

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.

Re: Libertarian pacifism

Eugene — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:53:43 GMT

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.

Re: Libertarian pacifism

NidStyles — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 05:53:45 GMT

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.

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.

Re: Libertarian pacifism

Marko — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 05:05:40 GMT

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.

Re: Libertarian pacifism

K.C. Farmer — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:18:23 GMT

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.

Re: Libertarian pacifism

filc — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 18:26:23 GMT

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.