Where do people get the idea that it is honorable to fight in a war?

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Prelude To Ruin

@Daniel

@Prelude To Ruin

It’s certainly honorable (and consistent with the NAP) to fight in a defensive war. This need not be self defense, so I would see it as honorable for a group of people to voluntarily pool their own resources in order to take down a monster like Saddam Hussein. However, some of the tactics used by the US military, and most or all others, are certainly not honorable. In addition, extreme caution must be taken under these circumstances to avoid harming innocents and instigating further conflict. An occupying foreign army is rarely (never?) taken well, regardless of intent.

I suppose it depends on how you want to define “honor.” Fighting in a war to protect innocents after all other options have been exhausted is honorable in my opinion.

I don’t think the OP was referring to libertarian self-defense wars. I think he meant wars fought by the US Government.

You’re right. Just the same, the stated goals of US invasions usually are honorable. In the eyes of most people, anyone who opposes the government doing _____ must oppose _____. When you let your emotions control you, an argument like “you’re for the war or you’re for the terrorists!” holds a lot of weight.

Also, I would still consider fighting in a defensive war for the US military to be honorable. I realize that this too is not the central point of the OP, but it deserves clarification. I still oppose the taxation element, but I suppose it’s better to be taxed than to be dead.

So, if China attacks New York, do you believe it is legitimate for the US military to go to war against China? What if the US military attacks China, will you go defend China too? To you recognize the national borders? What if Paris attacks Versailles, with you go defend Versailles too?

[Prelude_To_Ruin]

@Daniel

@Prelude To Ruin

@Daniel

@Prelude To Ruin

It’s certainly honorable (and consistent with the NAP) to fight in a defensive war. This need not be self defense, so I would see it as honorable for a group of people to voluntarily pool their own resources in order to take down a monster like Saddam Hussein. However, some of the tactics used by the US military, and most or all others, are certainly not honorable. In addition, extreme caution must be taken under these circumstances to avoid harming innocents and instigating further conflict. An occupying foreign army is rarely (never?) taken well, regardless of intent.

I suppose it depends on how you want to define “honor.” Fighting in a war to protect innocents after all other options have been exhausted is honorable in my opinion.

I don’t think the OP was referring to libertarian self-defense wars. I think he meant wars fought by the US Government.

You’re right. Just the same, the stated goals of US invasions usually are honorable. In the eyes of most people, anyone who opposes the government doing _____ must oppose _____. When you let your emotions control you, an argument like “you’re for the war or you’re for the terrorists!” holds a lot of weight.

Also, I would still consider fighting in a defensive war for the US military to be honorable. I realize that this too is not the central point of the OP, but it deserves clarification. I still oppose the taxation element, but I suppose it’s better to be taxed than to be dead.

So, if China attacks New York, do you believe it is legitimate for the US military to go to war against China? What if the US military attacks China, will you go defend China too? To you recognize the national borders? What if Paris attacks Versailles, with you go defend Versailles too?

I believe the act of defending the people of New York and their property is legitimate. I would not approve of invading or otherwise attacking China directly. It would be legitimate to defend against any forces that are attacking New York, in addition to any forces en route to New York with the intent to attack the people of New York. If the US military initiated aggression against China, it would be legitimate to defend the Chinese, and the same for Versailles. I do not recognize national borders. The only claims that should be recognized are to land that has been homesteaded.

Just to make myself absolutely clear, the US government is illegitimate, taxation is theft, the US military’s actions are abhorring, and the free market could provide defense better than any government could. All I’m saying is, in a life or death situation it is not only permissible but honorable to defend yourself or others against an aggressor, even if it means working with the government.

[Cam_Nedland]

War is the epitome of collectivism gone wild. Lives, liberty, and property are all destroyed by the process. The only way I can see a war as justified if your side is on the defensive side (the ones who were invaded or are rebelling).

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Prelude To Ruin

@Daniel

@Prelude To Ruin

@Daniel

@Prelude To Ruin

It’s certainly honorable (and consistent with the NAP) to fight in a defensive war. This need not be self defense, so I would see it as honorable for a group of people to voluntarily pool their own resources in order to take down a monster like Saddam Hussein. However, some of the tactics used by the US military, and most or all others, are certainly not honorable. In addition, extreme caution must be taken under these circumstances to avoid harming innocents and instigating further conflict. An occupying foreign army is rarely (never?) taken well, regardless of intent.

I suppose it depends on how you want to define “honor.” Fighting in a war to protect innocents after all other options have been exhausted is honorable in my opinion.

I don’t think the OP was referring to libertarian self-defense wars. I think he meant wars fought by the US Government.

You’re right. Just the same, the stated goals of US invasions usually are honorable. In the eyes of most people, anyone who opposes the government doing _____ must oppose _____. When you let your emotions control you, an argument like “you’re for the war or you’re for the terrorists!” holds a lot of weight.

Also, I would still consider fighting in a defensive war for the US military to be honorable. I realize that this too is not the central point of the OP, but it deserves clarification. I still oppose the taxation element, but I suppose it’s better to be taxed than to be dead.

So, if China attacks New York, do you believe it is legitimate for the US military to go to war against China? What if the US military attacks China, will you go defend China too? To you recognize the national borders? What if Paris attacks Versailles, with you go defend Versailles too?

I believe the act of defending the people of New York and their property is legitimate. I would not approve of invading or otherwise attacking China directly. It would be legitimate to defend against any forces that are attacking New York, in addition to any forces en route to New York with the intent to attack the people of New York. If the US military initiated aggression against China, it would be legitimate to defend the Chinese, and the same for Versailles. I do not recognize national borders. The only claims that should be recognized are to land that has been homesteaded.

Just to make myself absolutely clear, the US government is illegitimate, taxation is theft, the US military’s actions are abhorring, and the free market could provide defense better than any government could. All I’m saying is, in a life or death situation it is not only permissible but honorable to defend yourself or others against an aggressor, even if it means working with the government.

Who has the legitimate right to defend New York? Are you saying that you have the right to trespass into a home in New York for the purpose of defending said property and its owners? Do you have the right smash a chair upon a robber in someone else’s house? I’m trying to get at your justification for having the right to commit acts that would otherwise be considered criminal.

[Byzantine]

@Cam Nedland

War is the epitome of collectivism gone wild…The only way I can see a war as justified if your side is on the defensive side (the ones who were invaded or are rebelling).

In that event you are still being ‘collectivist,’ because you are going to be fighting and dying for the benefit of people other than yourself.

[scineram]

They have never been in one.

[Byzantine]

@scineram

They have never been in one.

On the contrary, if you have been in a war the tendency is to try and validate the experience.

Also, Curtis LeMay and Wm. Sherman were both men who understood very well the nature of war and nevertheless made it their lifetime avocation.

[Juan]

Well, some people try to rationalize their crimes and other people shoot themselves. Too bad the last group is the smaller.

[Laughing_Man]

I have to agree with the sentiment of many in here. State propaganda is constant and devious.

[Byzantine]

@Juan

Well, some people try to rationalize their crimes and other people shoot themselves. Too bad the last group is the smaller.

For whatever reason, some men are born warriors. In a free society, those tendencies could be harnessed toward profitable ends.

[Juan]

Such as ?

[Laughing_Man]

To the OP:

I would recommend Thomas Wood’s book: We who dared to say no to war. It is a series of anti-war speeches given in American history.

[Byzantine]

@Juan

Such as ?

Defending free society.

[Juan]

lol - so predictable. Because the foreigners are evil eh ?

[Esuric]

@Byzantine

Defending free society.

THE BEST DEFENSE IS A SUPER AGGRESIVE AWSOME OFFENSE! Freedom isn’t free?

[Juan]

kill them all foreigners before they kill you.

[Byzantine]

@Esuric

Freedom isn’t free?

No it’s not, as even the most cursory reading of history reveals.

[Laughing_Man]

@Byzantine

No it’s not, as even the most cursory reading of history reveals.

To imply that there is payment necessary for freedom implies that it can be alienable.

[Byzantine]

@Juan

lol - so predictable. Because the foreigners are evil eh ?

No. Rather, because there exist large numbers of people who attempt to live parasitically off the productive efforts of others. As they have no conception of the merits of voluntary exchange, the only disincentive they understand is the threat of retaliatory violence.

[Juan]

those evil foreigners…