Stopping dictators

Economics Political Theory
21

No, the conflict was a continuation of WWI in 1914, the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, the Napoleonic Wars in 1803, and the War of the First Coalition in 1792. Heard of Alsace-Lorraine?

After World War II Truman declared that any attempt to change any border from where they were set at the end of the Second World War would be met with total war. The problem with this that it makes no allowance for the very likely possibility that borders were where they were because of past wars of aggression.

This is what we saw in World War II. Poland and France both stole terroritory from Germany after the First World War. How then are either of them victims of aggression?

Hopefully you see why statements like, “The allies had no choice but to neutralize the threat” are complete nonsense.

22

Waiting helplessly to be pulverized by an overwhelmingly powerful force is nonsensical. How would you have stopped Hitler?

Truman and all governments make us say fubar a lot, but as I have said before, I don’t want governments getting involved in the first place if it can be avoided.

Unfortunately, once Hitler was in power, it was already too late. The fear of being snitched on pretty much destroyed any hope of getting rid of the nationalist socialist government, so there wasn’t really a way to educate the people about the dangers of allowing government to run their lives.

23

It was FDR, not Hitler, that insisted on unconditional surrender. How would I have stopped it? By doing something the Allies never tried, negotiate.

A question for the belligerents, do you ever read LewRockwell.com? Theres happens to be an excellent Buchanan article on today.

24

Of course it’s not a good war!!! There’s no such thing as a good war!!

That’s not my argument. But was it necessary? That’s something you seem to be avoiding. Tell me, what would have happened had the allies not resisted?

As for negotiating, negotiations did take place in Europe before the U.S. entered the war (if memory serves me correctly), but Hitler never honored his agreements. Making concessions to a sociopath hellbent on global domination is downright suicidal.

25

No.

Did it do more harm than good?

Yes.

Global domination? You believe everything the government tells you?

26

I sort of find myself mostly agreeing with JonBostwick here after reading through this thread. Nothing can ever justify dropping a nuclear weapon no matter how dire the situation. I don’t think people really understand the implications of what their saying when they defend things like that.

I think the main disagreements though are over a justification for intervention. There can be none. The thing is, we have to say that it must be up to people, individually, to decide. The state cannot decide for us, the problem is the state in the first place. Whether that’s Nazi Germany, pre-war America, Imperialist Britain etc.

I think we can all agree that without these state factions arising there would be no war in the first place. So, now there there is inevitable war caused by state factions (i.e Nazi Germany) on a defenceless population, the question becomes, what would we do as individuals, as organised voluntary societies? NOT what should a state do to intervene. NOT what they should force us collectively to do under threats, propaganda or force. The government will always make things worse. It is a selfish, corrupt, greedy all-powerful Mafia. They are bound to further aggravate any situation. They are bound to grab land, create unjust sanctions, profit, lie etc.

So, could any voluntary organisation assemble any kind of challenging force? Probably not. That is not their fault, or the fault of those advocating anarchy, or minarchy, or general non-intervention and so forth. It is the sad fact of foolishly opposing a government military. I’m sure there might be international voluntary organisations which assemble efficiently to try to provide aid and relief to those oppressed. The point is, it is the state that gets us into these situations, knowing of the consequences and that they are the only ones with the violent persuasion to stop something, by force or threat of force.

So now we ask, OK what should a corrupt evil all-powerful state over here do to stop another corrupt all-powerful evil state over *here? Well, there is relentless negotiation, aid, incentives, diplomacy, active rescue and basically anything and everything it takes to avoid war and save lives. Government will NOT do this. They didn’t do it in WW2. Even if they did actually try and it doesn’t help, we can only blame the state in the first place. We shouldn’t get hung up about arguments about what a free society should or should not do in the face of such corruption. We should stick to our morals, to our logic and reason. Don’t get sucked in.

It is never a free society that provokes or leads to war. It is always the insidious lies and propaganda machine of the state. War can only happen with a state, through coercion and taxation. We must fight this primary evil first, wherever and whenever we can using education or peaceful protest etc. If that means individually refusing a call to arms and eventual imprisonment then so be it. One must never actively violate the non-aggression principal. The problem becomes when you try to extend to fighting oversees for some noble cause to the NAP. War is not noble. I personally disagree with the term ‘war’, since really it almost romanticises the notion of what is simply mass murder. All you are doing, in war, is murder; no matter how ‘noble’ you think your personal ideology or justification. That is just a pure fact, not a position. It can be logically analysed and empirically proven.

So I suppose I would say to you all, don’t get hung up too much on the finer points of these arguments, keep in mind the great evil which is government and taxation itself. What happens when these warmongering idiots are at each others’ throats should be a personal matter for you to decide. If my nation, Britain, came under direct attack from another nation, I would not fight unless my immediate family were directly under threat. I do not care for my country at all, not one bit. My country doesn’t really exist, there are just people and guns and people with guns at the borders. It is not a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ position on my behalf, since the only ‘wrong’ is the initiation of force in the first place. But I should be free to decide my own fate, as should my family. As should we all. That is the core issue, I believe. Sorry to waffle on!

Fin.

27

Classiclib, you have swallowed the lies of the State wholesale. Has it ever occured to you that Hitler would find it difficult even overwhelming Russia on its own? One of the reasons Hitler acted when he did was that both Germany and Britain were reaching their peak in the armaments race, after which point both would no longer be able to sustain their heavy war spending. Unless Hitler directly threatened the USA, it had no reason to enter the war. France, Poland etc. simply received their just dessert. Had their citizens not supported war-like governments in the past, neither would be likely to be aggressed. So my sympathy for either is limited in the extreme.

28

So the people of France and Poland got what they deserved? You think it was okay that six million people died in Poland? What about the younger generations who never supported the war? All I’m trying to say, is that if you have an enemy who is intent on taking as much land as he can, and he has no plans to stop, then it’s beneficial for all threatened by him to stop him. Whether Germany was ever a threat to the US I can’t be certain, but for the European countries being invaded, I think they had a right to defend themselves, just as Germany had a right to defend itself in WWI. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; I don’t like state run militaries and I would have preferred a voluntary force.

I just don’t see what’s so wrong with self-defense. Of course, in WWII the allies took it way too far, completely destroying Germany’s infrastructure. I’m not trying to support that, I’m trying to support the act of self-defense. If we knew Hitler had the intention of invading the US (which we did), should we have not involved ourselves in an act of self-defense?

29

No, it didn’t. Germany, seeing the inevitable allied attack, preemptivelly invaded France. The Prussians had won the last war, so Germany was not shy about another.

England, for its part, fears the unifying of Continental Europe. That is why it always participates in Continental wars, not out any defensive purpose or any sense of loyalty to friends, but to prevent Continental Europe from forming into a competing Imperial Power. This is why it is happy to play the French and Germans against each other.

You are stuck in this idea that in war there must be a good side and a bad side. But its simply not true. Wars are not fought for any causes other than glorifying the State.

If someone threatens your home you have the morality clarity to know that it is proper to defend it. But in foreign wars that clarity does not exist.

A person’s property can only be stolen by the invaders if it is not stolen by the owner’s government first. Intervention will not defend the person’s property, it will only strength the State the permently expropriates it.

30

Yes, it’s always dangerous to personify any group… and it’s especially true with the state.

31

My point is that the war was the outcome of the prior actions of European powers. It was a continental affair and should’ve remained such. No nation has the “right” to defend itself - only individuals do. States are aggressors by their very nature. There is this desire in painting the one side of the war as absolutely evil and the other as good and holy - some sort of perspective viewed through Manichean glasses no doubt.

32

So, a guy with ‘classic lib’ as nickname and a peace symbol on his avatar is advocating total war. Fine. What’s next ?

33

Part of the meaning of my symbol is capitalism=peace. I believe the most peaceful society you’re going to get is a society that doesn’t tolerate initiatory physical coersion. Now before you guys start ganging up on me(as if you haven’t so far), you should realize that the view I had is a widely held view. A lot of so-called libertarians believe in having a strong national defense.

I don’t like the state!! I don’t want it to exist actually so piss off! But if individuals believe that their individual safety depends on self-defense, how’s that a bad thing? If those individuals happen to work together, an form something resembling a militia, is that such a bad thing.

What if a state has specifically threatened the region that you live in, but has not attacked yet. Let’s say you know with near %100 certainty that the state will invade. Do you wait? Or at the point is it not a basic survival decision of flight or fight?

I guess I just want to know, when is it appropriate to engage in self-defense?

Help me out here guys.

34

What if they actually are not libertarians ? Classical liberalism hopped to replace war with free trade. Cobden and Bright anyone ?

edit
What you seem to be saying is : given the premise that the world is not libertarian, what are libertarians to do ? Given the premise that total war exists, what’s the libertarian approach to total war ? I think the question makes no sense.

35

I thought it was self-evident that my view had changed. Oh well here goes. I don’t believe any state should ever involve itself in war, because the state is naturally coercive, and can never truly be justified. There, you happy? I said so-called because people who claim to be libertarians, but believe in a national defense are not libertarians.

Now I’d appreciate it if you’d answer my questions please. When is self-defense necessary? If you can’t answer in a post just recommend a good book on it.

36

Self-defense is never “necessary”. It is justifiable when a legitimate owner acts in prevention of or in respnse to an impending or prior act of aggression. When it comes to states, I would say self-defense could only be justified if the state were capbable of legitimately owning anything, if it were autonomously responsible for its actions; if it were capable of acting at all. But since it is not - since only individuals are any of those things - I can not justify state warfare.

So, my libertarian view of war is, if the conflict is within our ability to prevent, we should do so for the sake of the civilians who would otherwise be killed or impoverished. If we cannot prevent it, we should not take sides. We should let the states slug it out, and may they damn well kill each other in doing so.

37

classiclib, you may have been ganged up on, but at least your post wasn’t ignored (like mine… hehe.)

[:P]

38

Just read your post - I wholly agree with what you say.

39

Of course not. The better solution would have been to trade with the Germans.

Yes, to simply trade with everyone and to not have given aid to Germany’s enemies. Also, as another mentioned, we should have opened our borders for immigration. We should still open our borders for immigration.

40

Now wait a second; what if the German government outlawed trade?