I’m not sure anyone is talking about a draft here. More like a voluntary army. But, could you address the evilness of seeking allies to come to your aid in defending against an otherwise overpowering force? Are alliances within the same borders okie dokie, but across borders, evi? And why would borders be the deciding factor for anarchists?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Would’ve it been justifiable if it was our next door neighbor? I suspect the Rockwells and the Rothbards of the world would say there was a moral case for bringing violence against those aggressors, in the aid of our neighbor. But, aren’t they anti-statists? So why ignore oppresion, brutality, and mass murder because there’s another state involved? Because the victims aren’t immediate neighbors? Sort of weird reason for being non-interventionist.
[/quote]
I am not a anarcho capitalist so I do not know, but since they think that states are per se organized violence why would it make the world a better place if you bomb them instead of their own regimes?
Freeing someone to kill him simply does not work.
I would also argue that a people that does not rise up against its government is not ready for a republic.
Introducing one by force will do no good.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Now LIFTIC, you need to step out of the ring. You are a boy trying to play a man’s game with men. You are inevitably gonna get hurt.[/quote]
If you approach the idea of war as the initiation of aggression by one group against another then all wars are immoral. Defending against them is the only just action there is. There is never any need for another country or group to cross another country’s borders or person’s property with an intent to kill, harm, or coerce them into a certain behavior.
Every war that the US has fought (with exception to the original revolution) was wrong. I also do not consider defense of property to be immoral either.
WW2 was definitely unjust!! Killing thousands of people that had nothing to do with the attack on Perl Harbor…? Also, WWII may never have happened had we not interfered in WWI. In a certain respect the US in to blame for Hitler coming to power.
WWI was unjust for sure because we were not directly attacked and it is immoral to tax people and then force them to murder other people.
War is a game between States. It never has anything to do with the common man yet it always involves the common man’s sacrifice. War is an unacceptable position to me. I prefer peace.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cortes wrote:
Good post Journeyman, but I believe the OP is referring to ALL wars being unconscionable if one is to consider himself a Christian (this is the implication I gathered, and I apologize if I am mistaken). The Iraq war is indeed, imo, debatable. All wars, though? That would have to fall into the category of hopeless idealism. To use the simplest example: I cannot, as a Catholic, believe that Christ would have ever condoned Americans NOT doing anything to stop Nazi Germany, even if we were not directly provoked.
If you think about how wars are started then yes, all wars are indeed immoral! Aggression is wrong. Defense is not. Preemptive wars are wrong. Defense against them are not.
In this regard the Iraqis who continue to fight against the American military, etc. are moral and the invading countries are not.
There have been no “just” American wars. Indeed, in the history of war there is no such ideal.[/quote]
Rothbard makes a distinction between a right and how you choose to exercise that right.
So, while Iraqis may have the right to defend themselves, suicide bombings against civilians at least are still immoral.
[quote]orion wrote:
I would also argue that a people that does not rise up against its government is not ready for a republic.
Introducing one by force will do no good.
[/quote]
And that’s probably a better arguement. But it does doom the willing minority to share the fate of a broken, subjagated, and unwilling majority.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Friend, you just don’t understand history well enough to competitively engage in a worthy manner here. I’m serious, it’s not just a matter of philosophy; you have to have some reasonable historical knowledge about the topic or your credibility suffers immensely.
[/quote]
Yes, and I would say it is you that lacks that understanding of history.
As far as I know and understand, common people are always forced to fight for ideas that are not their own. That is a historical fact. You need to understand that first and foremost before you can understand any of my arguments.
[quote]orion wrote:
So, while Iraqis may have the right to defend themselves, suicide bombings against civilians at least are still immoral.
[/quote]
I agree.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Now LIFTIC, you need to step out of the ring. You are a boy trying to play a man’s game with men. You are inevitably gonna get hurt.
If you approach the idea of war as the initiation of aggression by one group against another then all wars are immoral. Defending against them is the only just action there is. There is never any need for another country or group to cross another country’s borders or person’s property with an intent to kill, harm, or coerce them into a certain behavior.
Every war that the US has fought (with exception to the original revolution) was wrong. I also do not consider defense of property to be immoral either.
WW2 was definitely unjust!! Killing thousands of people that had nothing to do with the attack on Perl Harbor…? Also, WWII may never have happened had we not interfered in WWI. In a certain respect the US in to blame for Hitler coming to power.
WWI was unjust for sure because we were not directly attacked and it is immoral to tax people and then force them to murder other people.
War is a game between States. It never has anything to do with the common man yet it always involves the common man’s sacrifice. War is an unacceptable position to me. I prefer peace.[/quote]
But this sounds like you expect the attacked to stay within their border trying to end the war with anti-aircraft guns, while their ability to produce arms and trained fighting men are bombed and attacked over, and over again. No crossing borders to bomb and attack the enemy’s war industry, supply lines, bases, where concentrations of troops and equipment are massed? How long would that have lasted? You might as well surrender and save your own population the burden of being the only and concentrated battleground.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m not sure anyone is talking about a draft here. More like a voluntary army. But, could you address the evilness of seeking allies to come to your aid in defending against an otherwise overpowering force? Are alliances within the same borders okie dokie, but across borders, evi? And why would borders be the deciding factor for anarchists?[/quote]
You have no right to take my money to pursue something that I find morally repugnant. I would not think to take your money to fund abortion nor any other nanny-state project, for that matter.
Voluntary action is good. This means that you can take up a collection at church or whatever to fund volunteers or even suit up on your own and go to war. In fact, morally, if you believe in forcing, by means of government, people to fund and fight wars then this is your only recourse for action.
As far as borders go, I could easily replace that word with property lines. As an anarchist, that is the ideal I prefer anyway.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m not sure anyone is talking about a draft here. More like a voluntary army. But, could you address the evilness of seeking allies to come to your aid in defending against an otherwise overpowering force? Are alliances within the same borders okie dokie, but across borders, evi? And why would borders be the deciding factor for anarchists?[/quote]
Because national border are inevitably drawn by national governments and therein lies the rub for anarchists?
I´d also say that from this line of reasoning they have every right to seek for allies, whether the US government has the right to use the money that was entrusted to it to defend US citizens rights to take away the lives and rights of others, would be highly debatable.
So to use your example:
Yes you can help your neighbor, but you cannot force your neighbor´s neighbor to pay for it or even help you.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
But this sounds like you expect the attacked to stay within their border trying to end the war with anti-aircraft guns, while their ability to produce arms and trained fighting men are bombed and attacked over, and over again. No crossing borders to bomb and attack the enemy’s war industry, supply lines, bases, where concentrations of troops and equipment are massed? How long would that have lasted? You might as well surrender and save your own population the burden of being the only and concentrated battleground.[/quote]
Well, no, initiating the war is wrong. If I had to cross my neighbor’s property lines to fully stop him from hurting my family I would do it in a heartbeat. But, this assumes I have already been attacked – and not just threatened with it. To be just, I would only take out the threat itself and not his entire family tree, for example.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
…I would also argue that a people that does not rise up against its government is not ready for a republic.
Introducing one by force will do no good.
I will give you some credit for this idea. It does have merit.
There is a flip side however. Are you objective enough to state it?
[/quote]
No, because I also meant the overthrowing and building a stable government afterwards part of “rising up against the government”.
In the case of Iraq that may be impossible, maybe this nation has to split into three parts to have two relatively stable nations.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
I would also argue that a people that does not rise up against its government is not ready for a republic.
Introducing one by force will do no good.
And that’s probably a better arguement. But it does doom the willing minority to share the fate of a broken, subjagated, and unwilling majority. [/quote]
And that is any different in the US?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’m not sure anyone is talking about a draft here. More like a voluntary army. But, could you address the evilness of seeking allies to come to your aid in defending against an otherwise overpowering force? Are alliances within the same borders okie dokie, but across borders, evi? And why would borders be the deciding factor for anarchists?
You have no right to take my money to pursue something that I find morally repugnant. I would not think to take your money to fund abortion nor any other nanny-state project, for that matter.
Voluntary action is good. This means that you can take up a collection at church or whatever to fund volunteers or even suit up on your own and go to war. In fact, morally, if you believe in forcing, by means of government, people to fund and fight wars then this is your only recourse for action.
As far as borders go, I could easily replace that word with property lines. As an anarchist, that is the ideal I prefer anyway.[/quote]
Well, it’s my belief that funding a military is a necessary evil, if you will. Let’s say a nation decides that it’s no longer a nation, but a collection of anarchists and their property. With borders only existing in recognition of their neighboring nations (so as to avoid immediate conflict). I bet your property lines shrink.
Will you, anarchist citizen of no nation, call upon your non existent army, navy, and airforce to fight off the full military might of actual nations? Or, is there some romanticized last stand on your porch, you alone (maybe with a few hired private guards) against a modern military?
My point is that without a military (or at least, without relying on someone elses military) your property and free market would end up in some nation’s hands anyways. A common defense allows the majority of us to specialize and turn our energies towards productive means.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
I would also argue that a people that does not rise up against its government is not ready for a republic.
Introducing one by force will do no good.
And that’s probably a better arguement. But it does doom the willing minority to share the fate of a broken, subjagated, and unwilling majority.
And that is any different in the US?
[/quote]
Well, we’re not being run through shredders. Or, seeing wives dragged off to rape rooms for improper political speech.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
As far as I know and understand, common people are always forced to fight for ideas that are not their own. That is a historical fact. You need to understand that first and foremost before you can understand any of my arguments.
Therefore your arguments come from an elitist’s perspective. The common man is an idiot and not capable of comprehension of his actions?[/quote]
When it comes to Austria and German in the 20th century my answer is a loud and resounding yes.
“Fuer Fuehrer, Volk und Vaterland”, yeah, right.
The trias though is only completed with:
“Ich habe nur meine Pflicht getan” and “Ich habe nur Befehle ausgeführt”.