A republic has a duty to preserve itself when it means the protection of the God-given rights of its citizens. That is why the Constitution provides for the funding of an army and navy. My concern is for the rights of those who act in their own defense and national interest, not with that of the aggressors. Let each side defend their own rights. If they were so concerned for their opponents, they shouldn’t have gone to war in the first place. Like I said, it is a necessary evil.
You seem to be leading up to the argument that war is always immoral, since someone’s individual rights are always violated in the process. With this (I’m sure to your surprise), I would agree completely. It’s just that the real collectivists out there do not see it that way. And so, yes, it is often necessary to kill them. Refer once again to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n1NOY_iQtU
You bring up an interesting point-- and one I’m sure I’ll catch even more FLAK for. The “just following orders” defense was first thought up by Otto Skorzeny, elected by the other German POW’s to represent them. He was the only one to be acquitted in absentia, having escaped after beating two previous war crimes charges. Before this, he was actually let out on a furlough and had returned, but eventually got fed up with being accused of groundless charges. Of course, he did help plenty of others escape who were most certainly guilty. However, he publically refused to help those escape who were not under military oath-- and, if legend holds true, tracked down and killed several of them. He firmly believed-- and makes an excellent case for it in his memoirs-- that those in the military had little choice in their actions. Even those soldiers assigned the most unsavory and fiendish tasks did so under the direct orders and watchful eye of Nazi party members, and would have never have made such irrational choices on their own.
As an interesting side note, he also writes that, “It is every soldier’s duty to know when to disobey orders,” demonstrating a flexibility that most other soldiers did not possess. He uses this primarily when referring to how to accomplish a military objective in spite of the ridiculous orders of his own leaders.
it is interesting that FleetCenturion seems to be a collectivist through and through, yet he denies it. perhaps it hasn’t occurred to him that if it were that easy to identify collectivist thinking in oneself, we wouldn’t have so many collectivists in the world.
Seriously, do you think those who believe in liberty can’t have more than one opinion about how to preserve it? Is “collectivist” the new arbitrarily applied smear label? In order to combat the state eating away at our liberties, I have read very few peaceful solutions here that might actually be effective, and none that would be permanent. War is the most costly way of preserving freedom, so if you can see a better way, I’m all ears. Everyone’s solution seems to be to drop out of the system, rather than try and change it for the better. Let me know how that works out when a bunch of soldiers in blue helmets show up at your door.
This isn’t entirely correct. “Everyone” does not have the same solution.
Yes, many people advise dropping the pretense there is a system, that it can protect liberty, that it can be reformed, or that it serves any other purpose than to lie, steal and hurt us. Most people cannot deal with the fact that most of what they thought they know, and what nearly everyone around them still believes they know, is a lie. History, the flag, tradition, culture, religion etc. A lot of it is based on lies.
It takes enormous courage to stand up to the state by recognizing it for what it is, and no longer wanting to participate in its theatre.
Strictly speaking, a republic can neither have duties nor preserve itself, because a republic is not a natural person. Or did you use “a republic” as shorthand for “the citizens of a republic”? If so, then where does this self-preservation duty come from?
How is “national interest” to be defined?
Again, there’s the issue of proportionality of response to take into account. If you steal my car and I kill you in response (so you can never steal my car again), would you say I was being proportional? Would you say I was being just?
What’s the difference between someone stealing my car and an armed mob invading “my country”? Both are cases of aggression, aren’t they?
I would argue that the probability of at least one non-combatant’s individual rights being violated in any war is high. Just because someone happens to be “on the other side” doesn’t mean they are actively trying to rob, assault, or murder you. It doesn’t even mean they’re actively aiding and abetting those who are trying to do those things. To consider all citizens of “the other side” to be part of the war effort is to no longer distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. This is known as the total-war doctrine.
They did make the choices on their own. Just because they were given orders doesn’t mean they were (objectively speaking) obligated to carry them out. Obligations do not exist in an objective sense. They only exist within human minds. Hence all soldiers choose to carry out orders of their own free will. Pointing this out to them may not be wise (as they tend to react violently to it), but it’s nevertheless true.
“When to disobey orders” is, of course, subjective. Disobeying orders isn’t always good, either. For example, a soldier can disobey orders to capture those who surrender and simply kill them instead. A lot (if not most) of war crimes committed by soldiers have probably been against their standing orders, but they happened anyway.
Sorry, I did miss the last post. I thought the thread was just about dead.
Don’t know how you came to that conclusion, but Machiavelli would disagree. I would only say it is “not a natural person” in the sense that governments that respect individual freedom are the exception in history, not the rule.
No, “total war” is a very recent concept. That is pretty much how nearly all wars have been throughout history.
So many things here… Yes, obligations are a human concept. In fact, I would argue it’s part of what makes us human. I would also argue, however, that more damage has been done by the oath breakers in history than oath-takers. When your “own free will” means you and your family would die horribly as enemies of the state in the place of your victims, the choice is kind of obvious. I also don’t know how many soldiers have reacted violently to you, but I’m willing to bet it’s not many-- unless you made it a point to really piss them off.
That’s why you have to know when to disobey them. Soldiers, contrary to the opinions of some on this forum, are individuals as well. There is no hard and fast rule, but Skorzeny gives many successful examples in his memoirs. A soldier that can’t make decisions when conditions change usually dies quickly. I would say (and I think Skorzeny would agree) that the lower ranks need dynamic thinkers more than the brass, especially when bullets start flying.
With all due respect, why should I care about what Machiavelli would think?
By “natural person” I mean a living, breathing human being. Only natural persons can think and act. A collection of natural persons doesn’t have a single mind or will, except metaphorically. Obviously a republic is collection of natural persons. Does this help?
I think you mean “oath-keepers” instead of “oath-takers”. Obviously oath-breakers also took oaths – otherwise, how could they break them?
Whether the choice is obvious, kind of or not, has no bearing on the fact that it still exists and is still freely taken. However, there is never certainty that “[a soldier] and [his] family would die horribly as enemies of the state in place of [his] victims” if he does not carry out any and every order given to him.
You seem to have missed my point. If “when to disobey orders” is subjective, there can be no knowing when to disobey them. That is, the point at which to disobey orders cannot be factually determined. It’s a question of morality/ethics, not empirical knowledge.
Although your other comments about soldiers are simply irrelevant IMHO, I’d like to note for the record that I do regard soldiers as being individuals. How can they not be? They’re human beings.
Machiavelli, completely contrary to his his historical reputation, was a huge proponent of representative government (and, oddly enough, free markets as well). He knew, however, that power does not seek those who are virtuous, so The Prince gives the rest of us a fighting chance. I regard The Discourses as his masterpiece, which argues for a free republic along the lines of early Rome, taking his inspiration and research from the first 10 books of Livy’s histories. The first half of The Art of War is almost an expansion of our Second Amendment, discussing the third and ultimate check on political power.
Once again… why should I care about what Machiavelli would think?
The question is rhetorical. I have no reason at all to care about what he would think. Why you think invoking him would be persuasive, let alone germane to this thread, is beyond me.
Since you put it so nicely, I’d just love to. Sorry, but I work all day long, plus forums are not my chief source of entertainment during my off time.
A republic’s duties and responsibilities are enumerated in it’s founding documents. This is always done by its founders in order that the freedom they establish might continue. Our Constitution in particular makes this very clear. You can disagree with how this has been carried out in recent history (and I often do as well), but when there is a war, someone has to make the hard decision and do the dirty job.
I often think the current war has lasted so long because most of the foreign citizenry know we won’t do anything (at least so long as there is news coverage). Wars are over faster when the country you’re fighting is actually afraid of what you might do. Is crucifying all resistors and lining the road with crosses all the way to Baghdad really so unreasonable? (Rhetorical question. I know you disagree.)
To quote Machiavelli: “Never do an enemy a small injury.” In other words if you’re going to war, be prepared to go Roman on their ass.
In the case of Nazis, which was the situation discussed previously, I’d say this was most certainly the case. Even Rommel and the Haushoffers met such a fate for their (in the case of Karl Haushoffer, alleged) participation in the plot to kill Hitler-- though Rommel’s family was spared when he agreed to just commit suicide. For the more common soldier, the SS had a special department called the SD that took care of this. A “conscientious objector” among war criminals would certainly say something to the wrong person about what was going on.
Of course it is subjective. Everyone in combat has to make that decision based on their own experience and judgement. When faced with accomplishing the mission or following a set of rules, the mission mst come first every time, even if it means paying the consequences later. Good commands stand behind their men to minimize backlash when a battlefield decision must be made that conflicts with regulations or ROE.
At the risk of getting too personal, I can’t help but read a certain smug superiority in this. Do you think the rest of us on this forum are unemployed, live in our mothers’ basements, and prefer to post here above all else?
So you concede that collections of people are not individuals and thus cannot think or act as one. Thank you.
None of the above has any relevance to my question. It’s a response, but I still don’t know what definition you’re using for the term “total war”. Can you provide one or not?
By “certainty”, I meant epistemological certainty. The future is inherently uncertain from an epistemological point of view. Even if one feels that something is certain in the future, he cannot prove that it is. For one to know whether something is certain at a given future time, he must arrive at that point in time – at which point it’s no longer the future.
Once again, you introduce statements about things which have no relevance to the general principles I’m outlining. If you’re doing so intentionally, then I’ll consider this thread to be over.
So you concede that there’s no way to know when to disobey orders, hence invalidating your earlier statements about the idea of knowing such. Thank you.
I’m all for diversity and a alliances on issue by issue between different anarchists ,minarchists and sometimes even statists on certain issues but to have someone so pro-war on this site is weird beyond belief.What’s going on? this guy seems to think Genghis Khan is some kind of libertarian? Are neo-cons on drugs these days?
Perhaps you should check the tone of your last post. I like to focus on a main topic instead of picking apart every statement and engaging in ten debates at once. The message I received was, “I demand answers!”
I don’t recall ever making the argument that they were. That a group of individuals would think as one is preposterous. You may have read too much into my original statement.
I agree with the definition you use. I was only saying that most wars throughout history have been “total wars”. It has been the rule rather than the exception.
The statements I made were taken from the original topic and were put there to show an example. I didn’t know we were debating the definition of “certainty”.
Let me illustrate the original point with a scenario: You join the military to fight a war (humor me on this). You expect to be assigned as an elite member of a special forces unit. Instead, you find your job consists of forcing civilians to dig their own graves, machine-gunning them into those graves, then burying them as part of a coverup (whether they’re completely dead or not). You then decide to go to your commanding officer and tell him that what you’re doing is wrong. How certain is it that you will end up in the next mass grave, or be declared a traitor and executed elsewhere.
Sigh - No, nowhere in any manual does it tell you that disobeying orders is OK. In all cases, it is a judgement call, made by those doing the mission. I thought I made that pretty clear. This is why trial lawyers are not sent into combat.
So all the rest is all right, as long as it fits into your paradigm? I believe in free markets, sound money, and limited government, which I used to think was sufficient to be on this forum. Instead I have found myself in endless debates with anarchists, socialists, truthers, trekies, and holocaust deniers. I was under the impression that the whole theme of this site was Austrian economics. Myself and others find it hard to fully commit to libertarianism because it has gone so far off topic. If the “party” platform is free markets, sound money, and limited government, then consider me on board, but in this forum, those with different opinions about other subjects seem to be outcast.
Incidently, I would have been proud to serve under Genghis Kahn. The Mongols charged a flat tax, believed in a gold standard, and were the most hands-off rulers in history. I say, Kahn in 2012!
Incidently, I would have been proud to serve under Genghis Kahn. The Mongols charged a flat tax, believed in a gold standard, and were the most hands-off rulers in history.
This is a joke right? You are bringing up probably one of the 5 worst “acts of man” in history; right up there with with other semi barbarians like the Macedonians or Arab tribes before them that caused a considerable amount of irreperable destruction and grief.
I wouldn’t be so harsh. I don’t remember anyone being specifically treated as an outcast as long as I’ve been around. Of course, argumentation standards are far higher than in many other forums, and one is expected to back up what he believes in. but otherwise, this is the coolest place I know if to disagree in.
I didn’t say that how Genghis Khan and the Mongol hordes came to power was moral; I said that they governed well. “Well,” of course, meaning almost not at all.
But that would not be much different than most of the governments of the time. There was nothing notably better about Khan styled government (at least in Rus and the Near East). In fact I would take my chances with the Caliphites, Persian, CHinese, Russian, and Byzantine contemporary governments rather than have a traumatic shock to the world system like a Mongol invasion. It isn’t a question about morality, it is a question about civilization.
Yes, the Mongols were outright barbarians. They slaughtered and looted a country, then they left the nation they had just conquered pretty much govern itself, only interfering when a conflict arose between two of them that would interfere with the Mongols’ tribute.
I look at it from the more positive standpoint of what they did not do. They didn’t tell their subjects that paying them their tribute was patriotic, or that they were building a better future. They didn’t promise anything and didn’t deliver anything. They had no bureaucrats, trial lawyers, or ministries. They had no “good intentions”. They didn’t set up puppet governments using other peoples’ money; they made their would-be puppets bribe them to be set up.
Most importantly, they did not try and micromanage peoples’ lives. That they did not take a more direct role in the governing of their territory is a shame in this sense, because the other countries you mentioned certainly did.