That’s very interesting and will look more into the situation. Anyway, terrorism+guerilla just doesn’t feel like a good enough replacement for nukes to me. Perhaps it works in the UK or other countries where public opinion is easily bored, but I cannot imagine terrorism eliciting any other response but state terrorism if used against less scrupulous adversaries. I can easily imagigne, for an example close to me, the Serbian army preferring to dynamite every last village in Kosovo rather than bow to a few bombs or snipings in Belgrade.
Well you can look at it this way: the worst thing a conventional army could come up against is a guerilla army. The US had no problem destroying the Serbian air force or taking out the Iraqi army. But when up against guerillas like in Afghanistan or Iraq (after it fell) or Vietnam they had great dificulty. Look the the US gained independence through guerilla tactics.
I don’t know a whole lot about the war in the Caucuses but would ending government and democracy not go a long way in ending the conflict. For sure people there of different ethnicities would probably dislike eachother even after this but without national boundries or one group being dominated over by another through democracy it is my opinion that people would be alot less violent and angry.
- Blakans
*Balkans
I beg to differ. Some people do cheer for Goliath - those who expect to personally profit from it. But not cheering Goliath is hardly the same as retaliating (or trying to) against it.
Very interesting exposition of the IRA, Volodya. Thanks for providing it. I’d like to respond to your points though.
Please keep in mind that taxes are theft, either fully or partially. The latter would apply when a person is willing to give the government money for certain purposes but not others.
On the other hand, the police allowing people to be killed by IRA bombs can help galvanize public opposition to the IRA. In my opinion, this is a sick sort of calculation to be made, but I imagine there are people out there who nevertheless make it. I also think this sort of behavior emerges when there are conflicting goals (e.g. “protect lives” vs. “stay in power”), especially when one or more goals are nevertheless seen as being ancillary to one or more others (e.g. “how can we protect lives if we’re not in power”).
I fail to see how that’s irrational at all. Those people simply prefer greater liberty over greater material prosperity.
Please keep in mind that taxes are theft, either fully or partially. The latter would apply when a person is willing to give the government money for certain purposes but not others.
Sorry I probably didn’t phrase it as well as I should have. What I meant was: by killing civilians you are reducing the resources available to an army, and because of this civilians could be described, somewhat, as legitimate targets.
On the other hand, the police allowing people to be killed by IRA bombs can help galvanize public opposition to the IRA. In my opinion, this is a sick sort of calculation to be made, but I imagine there are people out there who nevertheless make it. I also think this sort of behavior emerges when there are conflicting goals (e.g. “protect lives” vs. “stay in power”), especially when one or more goals are nevertheless seen as being ancillary to one or more others (e.g. “how can we protect lives if we’re not in power”).
This is correct. It widely believed that the police and army purposely allowed people to be killed on Bloody Friday in order to launch operation motorman.
I fail to see how that’s irrational at all. Those people simply prefer greater liberty over greater material prosperity.
I agree with you here too. After all, value is subjective.
That wasn’t as bad as some of the things they did prior to that, or as some of the things the British were doing, but it was nonetheless not properly libertarian. It meant going after a civilian target and was therefore terrorism, albeit a sort of ‘velvet terrorism’ aiming to cause material damage alone, but to avoid injuring people.
No they couldn’t. People aren’t cows.
I believe the warnings were inadequate. (Albeit it is true loyalists on the other hand did not bother with warnings, adequate or inadequate.)
In any case Eugene is amog the people on this forum the least knowledgeble about libertarianism, so perhaps you should ake pause before accepting his notion of guerilla as synonymous with libertarian defense as your starting point. Actually as guerilla makes not even the attempt to defend territory it can not defend lives and property it falls far short of the ideal approach to defense for libertarians (or indeed anyone). It is the resort of the weak, not the be-all of libertarian defense. We would hope a free society would be cohesive enough and technologically advanced enough it could wage a conventional war and prevent an enemy from occupying our territory in the first place, rather than hope to regain control of it once that had been lost.
That wasn’t as bad as some of the things they did prior to that, or as some of the things the British were doing, but it was nonetheless not properly libertarian. It meant going after a civilian target and was therefore terrorism, albeit a sort of ‘velvet terrorism’ aiming to cause material damage alone, but to avoid injuring people.
No; it wasn’t libertarian whatsoever. The IRA was and is made up of socialists. I was not trying to claim that the IRA was or is libertarian, or even that guerilla warfare was the best form of defense in a free society, I was merely claiming that it is possible to defend yourself using guerilla tactics - and it is especially good if you lack resources.
And I would avoid calling any group or anyone a terrorist as it lacks a concrete definition, and it is just as easy to call the US, British, or Israeli army a terrorist organisation.
No they couldn’t. People aren’t cows.
We’re going to have to disagree on this. Although I wouldn’t agree with this tactic, and it would not be a great tactic to defeat a nation militarily, by targeting ‘‘civilians’’ you are reducing the amount of funds available for a government to redistribute to the army. Since they are supplying the military with funds, either willingly or not, they are ligitimate targets in my opinion.
I believe the warnings were inadequate. (Albeit it is true loyalists on the other hand did not bother with warnings, adequate or inadequate.)
Well that may be true, however, the police denied ever recieving warnings at all, and it wasn’t untill a newspaper discovered several organisation recieved warnings and passed them on to the police that they admitted that they did recieve warnings. And by inadequate do you unspecific or that enough time was not given to clear the areas? Also, it cannot be denied that the government used the incident to label them as mindless blood thirsty terrorists and launch operation motorman.
In any case Eugene is amog the people on this forum the least knowledgeble about libertarianism, so perhaps you should ake pause before accepting his notion of guerilla as synonymous with libertarian defense as your starting point. Actually as guerilla makes not even the attempt to defend territory it can not defend lives and property it falls far short of the ideal approach to defense for libertarians (or indeed anyone). It is the resort of the weak, not the be-all of libertarian defense. We would hope a free society would be cohesive enough and technologically advanced enough it could wage a conventional war and prevent an enemy from occupying our territory in the first place, rather than hope to regain control of it once that had been lost.
Well I remember reading something by Rothbard about ancient Irish law and anarchism, and it was his opinion, and mine, that the reason England/Britain had such a hard time in Ireland was because there was no government(s) whom they could force to quell the people. He contrasted this with India - a much larger area, both in terms of population and geographically - where the Brits found it relatively easy because they used maharajahs and the likes to quell their people. Although guerilla warfare can only take place after an invasion, I believe this is better than trying to fight against a superior military in the conventional manner, because this would lead to the complete annihilation of your army. This is something that the IRA realised during operation motorman when the Brits sent 25,000 troops in Belfast and Derry backed with air support, expecting a fierce battle, yet they encountered absolutely no resistance. If the IRA tried to fight them in this way they would have been wiped out. This is a fact that the Old IRA also realised in the war of independence after the 1916 Easter Rising.
I wasn’t aware of this aspect of the story.
There wasn’t enough time, I don’t know if they were inadequate in some other way as well.
Yes, but with the caveat that there is no reason to believe a free society is never able to fight off aggression in a conventional manner and do it within the confines of NAP.
Marko, how do you imagine a free society would fight in a conventional way without violating NAP? Can you elaborate?
Does anyone else see the irony in discussing how war can be compatible with the non-aggression principal?
no.
article: why has there been so little consideration of nonviolent
resistance among libertarians
Because nonviolence doesn’t actually work in all contexts. Saying things like this are completely ridiculous:
only mass slaughter will assure the violent opponent an ultimate
victory, but even then “the victor is defeated, cheated of his
prize, since nobody can rule over dead” people
How do you like that. Just nonviolently protest. And if the enemy decides to murder you, then laugh as they do it because they cannot rule over dead people. Really.
Let me tell you who in history nonviolent resistance has ever worked against: moral peoples. Peoples who believe they are good people, and usually people who have religious convictions.
Who does nonviolence NOT work against: the atheists and those who’ve abandoned the notion of ethics and morals. Nonviolence does not stop communists or nazis or any other of their stripe, whose outright goal is to murder you.
Warfare in a free society would need warriors drawn from the citizen classes. Much like the US is essentially uninvadeable because we have way too many guns, and millions of hunters and former military that are effectively snipers.
It is for you to elaborate. I have no idea what you see as a problem that makes this impossible.
It works “against” people who are capable of feeling shame.
Which means it wouldn’t have worked for Jews against the Nazis or for freedom minded people against tax collectors. Good luck trying to shame the democratic state and its supporters into not locking you up for being a tax resistor.
No. A person aggressing against you could be said to be waging war against you. If you defend yourself, then you could be said to be waging against war in him in return. From the point of view of the non-aggression principle, the two sides aren’t on an equal moral footing. Defending oneself and/or others from aggression is perfectly acceptable under the non-aggression principle.
Sorry, Anemone - apparently there’s a typo in my post that you quoted. What I meant to say was that I also agree that non-violent resistance would not be effective in all cases. That’s why I went on to talk about the notion of simply slaughtering others who have things that one wants. I will correct the typo in my original post. EDIT: Apparently the time period for editing that post has elapsed.
Strictly speaking, if one’s desire is to rule over people, he can’t satisfy that desire if they’re dead. If his desire is to simply take what other people have, whether those people are dead makes no difference to him at best. But there’s a good chance that them being dead could actually make it easier for him to take what they had.
Most nazis and communists believed they were good people. Most nazis, at least, also had religious convictions. I think your point would be better served by simply saying that non-violence may well not provide an effective defense against people who simply want to hurt you.
I fail to see how atheism necessarily means abandoning the notion of ethics and morals. I’m an atheist and I definitely subscribe to a moral code, based on self-ownership and the non-aggression principle.
By the same token, however, I don’t think a free-market society would need a standing army.
There wasn’t enough time, I don’t know if they were inadequate in some other way as well.
I agree. I thought you might have been trying to say that the warnings gave unspecific locations for the bombs. I have heard people who were involved in the bombings both agree and disagree with this position. Some claimed that there was no way that the security services never could have dealt with that many incidents incidents in such a short period of time. Other claim that the security services were capable of sealing off large areas of the city during rioting and other incidents in a matter of minutes, and they cannot believe that they were not capable of it that time.
Yes, but with the caveat that there is no reason to believe a free society is never able to fight off aggression in a conventional manner and do it within the confines of NAP.
I agree, but in the event that they couldn’t, guerilla warfare is an option.
It would not have worked against the Nazis. They had told the soldiers that jews were not people but animals, and rationalized it that way. Remember the Nazis used the theory of evolution, claiming Jews were “100% ape” and therefore genetic pollution. They thought they were doing the world a favor by weeding out these genes. It was truly evil, a twisted new moral system.
The average soldier actually carrying this stuff out said they felt bad but “had to be strong” to do it. Shame, I don’t think would have worked. It took a lot less than what the Jews went through to stop the British in India. The Nazis considered shame a weakness.