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

[Byzantine]

@Anarchist Cain

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

In anarcho-capitalist society, there will probably be people who sell their freedom to bidders in exchange for a stipulated set of reciprocal privileges. Trophy wives who sign pre-nup’s practice a currently socially-acceptable form of voluntary slavery.

[Prelude_To_Ruin]

@Daniel

@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.

Anybody has the right to defend themselves or another person who is under attack. What part of me killing a guy who was trying to kill you constitutes a criminal action? Do you feel that force is only legitimate in self defense, or what? The justification for committing this act is that your life is in danger. I understand that the NAP forbids aggression, and that property rights are included in this, but I hardly think following a would be murderer into your home in order to stop him qualifies as such. If you think it does constitute aggression, so be it. If the worst thing I ever do is trespass in order to save the owner’s life, I can live with that.

[Byzantine]

@Juan

those evil foreigners…

LOL. The day your little conquistadore-descended enclave breaks down and the police aren’t there to remind the indigenous who’s who and what’s what, you’ll be the first to move.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Prelude To Ruin

@Daniel

@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.

Anybody has the right to defend themselves or another person who is under attack. What part of me killing a guy who was trying to kill you constitutes a criminal action? Do you feel that force is only legitimate in self defense, or what? The justification for committing this act is that your life is in danger. I understand that the NAP forbids aggression, and that property rights are included in this, but I hardly think following a would be murderer into your home in order to stop him qualifies as such. If you think it does constitute aggression, so be it. If the worst thing I ever do is trespass in order to save the owner’s life, I can live with that.

So you admit that you would be violating the rights of the person who say you are defending. Anyway, I doubt the who’s life you save would prosecute you.

[Laughing_Man]

@Byzantine

In anarcho-capitalist society, there will probably be people who sell their freedom to bidders in exchange for a stipulated set of reciprocal privileges. Trophy wives who sign pre-nup’s practice a currently socially-acceptable form of voluntary slavery.

There is no such thing as voluntary slavery. Slavery is an involuntary state.

[Byzantine]

@Anarchist Cain

There is no such thing as voluntary slavery. Slavery is an involuntary state.

Okay. Voluntary indentures then. Like I said, if you dangle food, housing and medical care in front of some people, they’ll happily sign over whatever right they have.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Anarchist Cain

@Byzantine

In anarcho-capitalist society, there will probably be people who sell their freedom to bidders in exchange for a stipulated set of reciprocal privileges. Trophy wives who sign pre-nup’s practice a currently socially-acceptable form of voluntary slavery.

There is no such thing as voluntary slavery. Slavery is an involuntary state.

Main Entry:slav·ery
Pronunciation:\ˈslā-v(ə-)rē
Function:noun
Date:1551
1: drudgery, toil
2: submission to a dominating influence
3 a: the state of a person who is a chattel of another b: the practice of slaveholding

If a person owns himself, why can’t he sell himself?

[Laughing_Man]

@Byzantine

Like I said, if you dangle food, housing and medical care in front of some people, they’ll happily sign over whatever right they have.

That is a business transaction and they don’t sign over their rights because they are inalienable.

[Juan]

@Daniel

If a person owns himself, why can’t he sell himself?

Because, as the guy whose picture you use as avatar pointed out, the will is inalienable.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Byzantine

@Anarchist Cain

There is no such thing as voluntary slavery. Slavery is an involuntary state.

Okay. Voluntary indentures then. Like I said, if you dangle food, housing and medical care in front of some people, they’ll happily sign over whatever right they have.

Which isn’t wrong in and of itself. It’s only wrong when it’s the food, housing, and medical of someone from whom it has been stolen.

[Laughing_Man]

@Daniel

If a person owns himself, why can’t he sell himself?

Because you cannot sell that which is inalienable. If I am horrible at business, and tell a business man ‘hey I’m going to listen to everything you say about business, I will do anything you say when it comes to that’ then that business man is becoming your advisor, not your slave master. And are you implying that if one were to ‘sell themself’ they will have to perpetually stay in that agreement?

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Juan

@Daniel

If a person owns himself, why can’t he sell himself?

Because, as the guy whose picture you use as avatar pointed out, the will is inalienable.

Score: you 1, me 0

[Prelude_To_Ruin]

@Daniel

So you admit that you would be violating the rights of the person who say you are defending. Anyway, I doubt the who’s life you save would prosecute you.

Skipped the rest of the quotes, getting excessive [:)]

I maintain that I would not be violating the person’s rights because I’m not initiating aggression, I’m responding to aggression that has already taken place. There are plenty of situations where entering someone’s property without explicit permission is permissible. Do you seek the manager’s permission before entering a grocery store? If I enter your property to knock on your front door and invite you to a barbecue, is this an act of aggression? Of course not. I don’t see how saving someone’s life would be any different. Ideally you would get permission before entering a person’s house, but given this scenario I can’t exactly knock on the door and shout for permission to enter the house and kill the guy with a gun to your head. I’m not infallible, and should I turn out to be wrong on this, I’m not losing any sleep over being the trespasser who saved your life. Again, I insist that it actually isn’t trespassing, but if it is the offense is trivial at best. Hopefully we can at least agree on that. You haven’t raised any objection to my defending you in general, outside anyone’s property, which really was the original topic of this thread (most wars aren’t fought in people’s living rooms). Can we agree that this would be permissible?

[Byzantine]

@Anarchist Cain

That is a business transaction and they don’t sign over their rights because they are inalienable.

I suppose though I don’t really see the distinction. Soldiers, for example, are slaves. They have to follow orders or get thrown in the brig. If they try to leave they may even be executed for desertion. Yet most of them are happy with the arrangement so long as they’re getting paid

[liberty_student]

@SilentXtarian

I do not feel that wars of aggression need to be fought.

Blood alone moves the wheels of history!

[OntologicalQuandary]

I reckon that people who are brainwashed feel that by serving in wars they serve a higher purpose and achieve something great that would be otherwise unachievable. Its sad that our own president enforces this nonsense, seeing as I believe it was Reagan who said something like “many people live their whole lives without knowing if they have made a difference. The marines don’t have that problem.”

[SilentXtarian]

I should also clarify my OP- my OP does not only relate to US wars- but also wars in all history. I haven’t learned of many wars in history that I would consider to be honorable to fight in- except for perhaps the Punic wars… but other than that… like ones I’ve studied all seem to be pointless.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@SilentXtarian

I should also clarify my OP- my OP does not only relate to US wars- but also wars in all history. I haven’t learned of many wars in history that I would consider to be honorable to fight in- except for perhaps the Punic wars… but other than that… like ones I’ve studied all seem to be pointless.

I think that are many wars where there is a side that is legitimately defending itself. Such as the South when it was invaded by the North.

[Harry_Felker]

@SilentXtarian

I’d like to get some libertarian views on this.

I will give you my thoughts, though I am not sure you will like it…

People fight wars, that is supply the meat that gets shot for various reasons, money, glory, etc.

These are the people that get injured often, die alot and whatnot…

The honor attatched to fighting in a war is the power of the nationalist ideology, it is never for “patriotic” duty (though proclaimed as such) unless it is purely defensive.

Warriors feel no real honor in battle, they fight, they live or die, and they either go home or not, it is what a warrior does…

Needless to say, there are very few warriors in the world, this breed is almost as rare as those with common sense, if not more so…

[hayekianxyz]

@SilentXtarian

I can’t figure out where people get this idea that it is honorable to fight in a war.

It is honourable to put your life on the line for your wife or girlfriend, your children and your friends. Of course, it’s not like libertarians would know this of course, they lack all three of those and the balls required to go into war alongside them. Whether or not you feel that wars are justified, the soldiers involved certainly do, and often they’re more than willing to fight for what they see as good. So you can sit there at your computed desk and type about how tyrannical they are, but at the end of the day they’ve lost far more from the war of Iraq than you have. So perhaps, before you rant about them, you could show some sympathy.