Is it? If you have good evidence, would it violate NAP, and has anyone ever been in this argument with a statist?
Relevance: Just got into a debate with a democrat, and he used a Nazi Germany strawman on me.
Is that why the US invaded Nazi Germany? Didn’t think we really knew much about the death camps until after.
But if it did know?
Is it? If you have good evidence, would it violate NAP, and has anyone ever been in this argument with a statist?
No, but I’ve been in this argument on this forum multiple times. THREAD REPEAT.
No, defense of yourself or others does not violate NAP as far as I know.
I think you have to have the permissison of others to ethically defend them. That or have their permission after the fact.
I know this sounds weird, but you likely will get this permission from people after the fact. If you don’t then they are obviously creating an unpleasant society and no one will want to join/protect them in the future.
JJ, I didn’t find most of the article’s points to be too convincing besides:
-
Taxation is theft
-
Once a power begins military action or irreversibly dedicates to it, it becomes important for it to shore up public support for it and to demonstrate its necessity. It therefore has no real incentive to act in ways that would lessen the level of human-rights violations; it has, on the contrary, the incentive to provoke them.
-
The intervening power will not necessarily hesitate to commit criminal acts of its own if it judges they will make its aim of military victory more likely.
-
In order to minimize the fallout stemming from human-rights violations of its own, the intervening power has an incentive to attempt to co-opt the media with a view to control the flow of information and to dehumanize the people associated with the side intervention has been launched against, thus draining the public of the capacity for pity and sympathy for people injured by its military.
Did you disagree with any of them? It’s not like they all need to independently convince you. (It’s also not like I wrote it).
Nah. But many of them can be used against a (voluntarily-funded) defensive war.
The question is, should voluntarily-funded offensive (humanitarian) wars be legal?
P.s. Anyone else using Chrome and having it tell you that the spell-checker on here is malware? This is only as of today…
It’s useful to realize in this situation that the rise of Nazi Germany was made possible by a handful of politically connected corporations and banks. J Henry Schroder (cozy with Bank of England), JP Morgan (fed connection obviously), Harriman Bros., General Electric, Ford, Standard Oil, ITT.
That’s not to say that American Involvement was unjustified, but it’s useful when discussing foreign policy in a free(er) world because these banks would likely not have been able finance war efforts without central banks and fractional reserve. Well it’s marginally useful because most people will not accept this evidence, but it just goes to show the danger of central banking.
Antony Sutton:
Interesting idea. What evidence is there of Standard Oil supporting Hitler? I am interested because I am doing in-depth research of Standard Oil.
I would probably consider it acceptable, but no country has ever really gone to war for such a purpose.
Antony Sutton covers it in his book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler. I haven’t read it yet but it’s next on my to-read list. The methodology he used to create this book is sound. These account transfers are confirmed by government records, sometimes twice or thricefold through different governments and the nuremburg trials. Curiously enough the evidence in nuremberg financial records incriminating american capitalists was not presented during the trial.
Like what? (We’d also have to acknowledge a humanitarian war—what we are talking about—is more specific than just a “defensive war”.)
-
What do you mean “legal”?
-
Is there such a thing as an offensive humanitarian war?
-
If you’re just asking Can a Principled Libertarian Go to War?, McElroy analyzed that.
PM me and I can get you an online text of it
Any reason you can’t post it here?
I’m not really sure how google searches ring up hits but I’m reluctant to post it because it’s linked to an obscure depository of texts. Some of their copyrights are expired, some aren’t. Either way I’d rather not make it easily accessible because it’s a great depository and I don’t want to attract attention to it. Maybe I’m ignorant about it but I’m just trying to keep it safe. Again PM me and I’ll send it to you though.
The question presupposes that the Allies were aware that Nazi Germany was committing genocide. I was under the impression that the allies were unaware?
I was under the impression that the allies were unaware?
I’m going to open another controversial debate and essentially bring back past WWII/Holocaust threads from the dead by saying, “The Allies were unaware because there was nothing to be aware of. There were no concentration camps that committed mass genocide by the use of gas chambers and/or cremation chambers.”
Now, instead of genocide, was their mass oppression with people put into labor/prison camps? Yes. Was their possible (or any) abuse in those camps? Most likely so. Were the targeted groups put into prison camps given chance to leave prior to full occupation and invasion of surrounding countries? Yes. Were the numbers and facts skewed after the war? Yes.