So in fact there is little difference in using firebombing technique or fission bombing, the only difference is the amount of aircraft you need to use. Several thousand compared to 1. The effect is psychological since the massive fire bombings that took place in Japan before the atom bombing didn’t make any dent on the Japanese high command even though it was just as devastating in effect. It was purely psychological, firebombing and atom bombing differ very slight when it comes to devastation and loss of human life.–illuminatus?
illuminatus?,
how are you going to convince someone of their flawed reasoning when they believe that a slow death of a thousand wounds is more “humane” than a single fatal blow?
for example, if an anarchist society envisioned by these zealots ever materialized it would handcuff itself with ridiculous half-measures designed to prolong war and suffering.
In reality, I dont believe these faith-based anarchists are really anarchists. They think they are, but if a truly anarchist society was created, it would fight war with a terrible ferocity unmatched in human history.
Note that the most secure and prosperous of societies, the societies most similar to a hypothetical anarchist society— fight war with precision, effectiveness, and overwhelming force. They would not hold anything back, they would engage in conflict the same way they engage in commerce – an innovative, risk taking steamroller that wouldnt hesitate to use any weapon in its arsenal to attain victory.
It was politically, socially, and militarily impossible to accept anything less than unconditional surrender .
politically and socially, because the American people, and perhaps the US military would have revolted.
militarily, because the Japanese would have seen the offer of conditional surrender as a sign of weakness and continued to fight. That accepting conditional surrender from the japanese would have established a precedent that would have made future wars far more costly. For example, America would have to fight far longer and with more casualities because our enemies would point to our weakness with japan as proof that they could force a negotiated settlement of even prolong war to victory.
moreover, it would have signaled to stalin, mao, et al that the US was a paper tiger subject to intimidation and predation. Accepting conditional surrender would be like venturing out into the Kalahari desert unarmed and with fresh venison stuffed in your pockets. We would invite aggression against US national interests.
In summary, the anarchist view of geopolitic and lack of understanding on how to deal with base evil and aggression is at best dangerously naive. If you dont have the emotional, intellectual, and ideological wherewithal to deliver brute force against enemy centers of power, then you cant hope to effectively defend yourself from the same delivered by brutal, expansionist, murdering autocratic regimes
‘politically and socially, because the American people, and perhaps the US military would have revolted.’
Wow, that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I’m being blatantly honest here.
‘militarily, because the Japanese would have seen the offer of conditional surrender as a sign of weakness and continued to fight’
Yes especially when they were the ones trying to get conditional surrender. It was all a subtle ruse!
‘moreover, it would have signaled to stalin, mao, et al that the US was a paper tiger subject to intimidation and predation. Accepting conditional surrender would be like venturing out into the Kalahari desert unarmed and with fresh venison stuffed in your pockets. We would invite aggression against US national interests.’
Yes because beating the most modern superpower in Asia at the time into a surrender is really a sign of weakness. My gosh if we didn’t totally destroy them then the world would of called us a bunch of pansies. I mean let’s not forget that Japan beat China in two wars and was also the first non-western nation to defeat a western nation in the Russo-Japanese war. But there I go again…apparently not understanding geopolitical politics.
You think that to be well defended against brutal and murderous ‘autocratic and expansionist’ regimes it is legitimate to be a brutal and murderous ‘populist and self-righteous’ regime?
and since when is militarily defeating someone and accepting their conditional surrender a sign of weakness? surely its only a weakness to be the ‘losing side’ of the settlement, i.e. the side that does the surrendering…?
Wow, that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I’m being blatantly honest here. – cain
emotional purely ad hominen jab devoid of fact or logic.
For example, the AMerican people overwhelmingly demanded unconditional surrender due to the brutality that japanese military committed against American servicemen and innocent civilians during the course of the war. Indeed, 37% of Americans wanted hirohito executed and 93% wanted unconditional surrender. To deny 93% of the American people would have been suicide and dangerously divisive considering the sacrifice of US troops incurred fighting in the Pacific. See source below.
Moreover, it is grand naivete to think that America would offer japan conditional surrender after forcing unconditional surrender on germany just a few months before.
Yes especially when they were the ones trying to get conditional surrender. It was all a subtle ruse!-- cain
you are ignorant of the fact that there were numerous power blocs operating within the japanese leadership. indeed, even after the emperor accepted unconditional surrender and submitted himself to the mercy of America, one of these disparate groups attempted a coup with the intention of continuing the fight. Moreover, hundreds of isolated japanese combatants continued to fight for years after the war was ended. The example of the suicide bombers is already known by all.
Lastly, your naive assertion that the US was feared by our adversaries in Asia is absurd and even assuming that accepting the fantasy option of conditional surrender was possible without these forces would not being emboldened to attack US national interests is equally naive.
For example, even after we demonstrated the will and means to use nuclear weapons, North Korea at the behest and support of the USSR and China still brutally attacked south korea without provocation.
In summary, we live in a dangerous world beset on all sides by dynamic forces of aggression, expansionism, and despotism – to show weakness is to invite predation and conflict. yet, the oft cited truism of “peace through strength” rings hollow when spoken by an anarchist since it has no deterrent effect if strength is not matched with will, but naive self-aggrandizing humanitarianism in the face of base evil. And if the actions of the japanese in WWII is not base evil, kindly explain what is.
It is clear that the established precedent of unconditional surrender was being strongly advocated with solid reasoning and without compromise to Presdient Truman from the State Department.
This had the widespread support of the American public. According to “The Last Act” Smithsonian Institute script: “To most Americans, Hirohito was a hated symbol of Japanese military aggression. Many wanted him executed or at least imprisoned or exiled.” In this environment, making any concessions to the Japanese that were not offered to the Germans would have been publicly intolerable. John Toland quantifies this American hatred: “In a recent Gallup poll one third had favored executing Hirohito, and 37 percent wanted him put on trial, imprisoned for life or executed. Only 7 percent believed he should be left alone or used as a puppet.” ( page 946)
This is just the logical conclusion of the state and solving problems with violence.
Naturally they where wrong since they where commited by government.
The more interesting question is: To what lenght could a truly free society go to defend itself against a fanastic statist enemy like the Empire of Japan?
If there is no other way to make them leave you alone then to nuke there cities I am fine with that to be honest. Sure innocents will die but you aren’t supposed to just let someone take your life because there are innocents in the firing line. If you can’t bail you return fire anyway and the innocent blood is on the hands of the aggressor.
This is the same in small scale as in total war. If someone fires at you from inside a crowd you can fire back if that is the only way to save youself. If the crowd is a hole nation makes no difference you are still allowed to combat the threat. Preferably with the minimum amount of force but against a relentless enemy things will escelate and there may be no choice but to carpet bomb there infrastructure and demoralise there population.
I am not saying it would have been necessary if it had been a hytoptethical free america that would have been at war with Japan in this particular instance. It is unlikley it was since having governments on booth sides lowers the motivation to find a compromise and increase the eagerness to escalate violence. But if it really would be the only way to preserve there life and freedom then a free society could deploy strategic weapons against an external threat…
'For example, the AMerican people overwhelmingly demanded unconditional surrender due to the brutality that japanese military committed against American servicemen and innocent civilians during the course of the war. Indeed, 37% of Americans wanted hirohito executed and 93% wanted unconditional surrender. To deny 93% of the American people would have been suicide and dangerously divisive considering the sacrifice of US troops incurred fighting in the Pacific. See source below.
Moreover, it is grand naivete to think that America would offer japan conditional surrender after forcing unconditional surrender on germany just a few months before.’
And this is why I ad hominem you. You are quoting figures which you probably don’t have the polling size, have no idea where it was taken, the conditions it was taken under, who was asked, what age group was asked, what ethinicity was asked. You know nothing other then numbers which makes your argument nothing more then ‘look at these numbers! Have you ever seen anything so great!?’ Your argument also implies a shade of nationalist sentiment or ‘patriotism’ concering the WWII age American. Fighting those dirty Japanese for the big W and world peace. Yet you actually presume that if we didn’t get unconditional surrender from Japan, people would riot in the streets. I must presume one of those things that directly follow from this thought. Either Americans were so bloodthirsty over the premise of killing Japanese citizens that they would actually overthrow their government to ensure future domination over said citizen in which case your poll means absolutely nothing because why validate the insane ramblings of homicidal manics or your assumption that people will riot in the streets is completely ludicrous. I mean you are not honestly one of those people that think that when a voting poll says 51% of ‘Americans’ believe that healthcare is wrong…it is actually 51% of Americans right? They only ask like 2,000 people. So it is not an accurate representation of anyone beyond those 2000 people.
‘you are ignorant of the fact that there were numerous power blocs operating within the japanese leadership. indeed, even after the emperor accepted unconditional surrender and submitted himself to the mercy of America, one of these disparate groups attempted a coup with the intention of continuing the fight. Moreover, hundreds of isolated japanese combatants continued to fight for years after the war was ended. The example of the suicide bombers is already known by all.’
Believe it or not but before studying political history, my main focus was modern Japanese history specifically from the 1920’s to the 1950’s. I know all about the political parties and ‘societies’, the Young Officers, the Cherry Blossom groups, the nationalists, expanionists, and militarists. Coups were being carried out even before the war, in fact they go all the way back to the Meiji restortation and they are always carried out in the name of the emperor. The emperor cannot control this. He is no more a figurehead, a puppet for the powers behind him. Something they use to validate their concentration of power. It was only AFTER the war that the emperor actually got in the business of working within politics. Concerning Japanese combatants after the surrender, your statement says it all. They were isolated due to island hopping. What does a soldier do if cut off from contact? It’s common sense, complete their mission. What was their mission? Defend their island from the US.
‘Lastly, your naive assertion that the US was feared by our adversaries in Asia is absurd and even assuming that accepting the fantasy option of conditional surrender was possible without these forces would not being emboldened to attack US national interests is equally naive.’’
The only nation that could legitimately work against the US in an overt fashion was the Japanese. India was held by the British, China was in the middle of the civil war and Chiang Kei Shek was in the US pocket, southeast Asia was held by France, Korea was conquered by Japan. Everyone was either conquered by a western nation or working with a western nation except for Japan.
‘For example, even after we demonstrated the will and means to use nuclear weapons, North Korea at the behest and support of the USSR and China still brutally attacked south korea without provocation.’
What are you talking about? North Korea didn’t come into existence until after the war and probably would of never came into existence if the Japanese were able to retain it through conditional surrender. Now would I of liked to seen a free Korea? Sure. I want all nations to be free. However, is a North Korea better then a Japanese protectorate Korea? In my personal opinion, no.
‘In summary, we live in a dangerous world beset on all sides by dynamic forces of aggression, expansionism, and despotism – to show weakness is to invite predation and conflict. yet, the oft cited truism of “peace through strength” rings hollow when spoken by an anarchist since it has no deterrent effect if strength is not matched with will, but naive self-aggrandizing humanitarianism in the face of base evil. And if the actions of the japanese in WWII is not base evil, kindly explain what is.’
And who dictated that the world is meant to be safe through American oversight? When did it become the US’ problem? For someone claiming to be against naive humanitarianism then why do you stand ready, if what you are doing can even be called that, to wipe away the tears of the world and gallaband around trying to destroy despotism? It is implicit hypocrisy.
Rettoper’s worldview is like this: There’s a bunch of goody two shoes democratic nations who want to make the world a better place and are best friends. They happen to virtually all be white, own most of the world’s international banks, and control most of what goes on in the United Nations.
Then there are these other places where the color of people’s skin is not so white. They live under democracies and dictators of varying lameness. Because they are not classified by the white-bankers as ‘higher order democracies’, it is okay to kill any of them if you feel like it because maybe they might attack us peaceful nations. If anyone asks, we’re trying to liberate them, despite our unsuccessful track record in nation building.
For example, the AMerican people overwhelmingly demanded unconditional surrender due to the brutality that japanese military committed against American servicemen and innocent civilians during the course of the war.
This kind of collective nouning - ‘American people’ - and the presumption that this is relevant is funny. I despise all these pretentious military bureaucrats and the ignorant, shuffling retards that make up their forces. I hope they all die, painfully, and good riddance.
This is a perfect example of the delusional nature of the faith-based anarchist view of the world.
citing an insigificant, irrelevent, tiny wind swept enclave thousands of miles from civilization over 750 years ago as proof that anarchist societies are not subject to predation from statist nations is neither valid or reliable proof of anything other than the fact that if you can find a barren hole somewhere far removed from civilization then that society might function without interference for a time.
It’s just one example of private law and security. There are plenty more. Galileo’s Pisa was a “tiny wind swept enclave” hundreds of years ago, but the sun still doesn’t revolve around the Earth. Appeals to public opinion are logical fallacies. Your position is fallacy-based.
Note that the world is far smaller and technologically advanced today. You anarchists cant run and you cant hide in today’s world. The moment you pitch your tent the “wolf” will smell your scent and come hither. Moreover, the more successful your nascent society becomes the more likely you will be plundered.
Where do you get the idea that libertarians are pacifists? The more valuable a thing is, the more likely that money will be spent to protect it. You’re seriously underestimating how fast private armies (special ops, not mass invasion) would topple states once power accrues. Saying that the world is a different place today is not a valid argument. Anarchic law is carried out in today’s world anyhow.
In summary, one of the points I was trying to make on this thread was that the USA has been the most productive force for limited government in the history of mankind. Moreover, within the framework of the Constitution and the Federal system is the best vehicle yet known to man for realizing the goal of eliminating most/if not all government.
You’ve got to be kidding. The US is not a limited government. It’s a global military empire and welfare state approaching European taxation levels and on the verge of insolvency. It’s evidence that democracy (your god) does not keep the state in check and has failed.
However, this goal cannot be realized as long as there is a strong statist global element still in power.
The US is the strongest “statist global element”.
I cited the solemn words of the emperor on his first speech to the japanese people – and you cite the lemay and mcarthur. Note that while lemay would understandably claim his “baby” conventional air power would conquer japan, the overwhelming majority of the military leadership, including the commander-in-chief believed that the bombs were necessary. Moreover, macarthur’s claim might be contextually flawed and most likely invalid since he later STRONGLY advocated dropping a series of atom bombs onthe yalu river in korea to check the red army. However, you are more than welcome to stand on this flimsy ground olovetto.
The only thing that seems to be flimsy is your understanding of how the study of history works. You can’t prove historical interpretations, especially about hypothetical alternate courses of events. There’s plenty of historians on my side on this and plenty of spineless state apologists like you. MacArthur still said that the nuke wasn’t necessary in Japan, although he was a maniac:
In interviews published posthumously, MacArthur said he had a plan that would have won the war in 10 days: “I would have dropped 30 or so atomic bombs . . . strung across the neck of Manchuria.” Then he would have introduced half a million Chinese Nationalist troops at the Yalu and then “spread behind us – from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea – a belt of radioactive cobalt . . . it has an active life of between 60 and 120 years. For at least 60 years there could have been no land invasion of Korea from the North.” He was certain that the Russians would have done nothing about this extreme strategy: “My plan was a cinch.”
…
I have debunked this pacifist nonsense in previous posts.
No, you really have not. There is tons of evidence from messages between Japan and Russia that were intercepted saying that the demand for unconditional surrender, versus letting the emperor off the hook was what was holding them back. Now you are just lying.
For example, with 85% of the American people supporting the dropping of the bombs and perhaps 95% supporting unconditional surrender and opposed to any alternatives
And this is just pulling numbers out of your ass. What do you think this is supposed to prove?
your assertion is only valid in fantasyland where the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of American heroes is to be denigrated and your example of well-intentioned humanitarianism will turn expansionist despots who murder their own people by the millions into peace loving neighbors. Moreover, this kind of geopolitical naivete is an example of how easy it would be to plunder an anarchist society that doesnt understand the nature of deterrence and application of brute force.
Heroes… lol. I guess the same sort of delusion where statists believe that letter carrying or health care are somehow “special services” which must be performed by government is affecting you. There’s absolutely no reason to believe that private militaries couldn’t or wouldn’t exist given a hypothetical time where a free society coexisted with states.
This kind of collective nouning - ‘American people’ - and the presumption that this is relevant is funny. I despise all these pretentious military bureaucrats and the ignorant, shuffling retards that make up their forces. I hope they all die, painfully, and good riddance.
I agree with the first part, but not every military person is an ignorant moron or ill-intentioned. Again, justice and security can be profitable. Even if a class of brave men are slouches, they would be much better paid slouches in a free society.
He makes it up so he can win the argument in his head.
I showed him the wikipedia article on United States sponsorship of State Terrorism and he didn’t listen
If they ever did exist, he would probably ignore them. Either way, to Rettoper, letting the market take care of private defense is like letting the easy AI take over for you in Command and Conquer RA2.
That is cool. Can you weight in on the question of what were the main circumstances that forced the Japanese government to surrender? How would you order by importance the atom bombs, the Soviet declaration of war and the blockade?
I dare to venture an answer, even though the question was addressed to another.
The main circumstances that forced the Japanese to surrender were the obliteration of the Japanese Navy, the burgeoning anti-Japanese sentiment in Asia and the overt advances made by the Soviet Union. In short, the Japanese knew they were beaten, and so according to Bushido virtue (that is traditional Bushido, not the nationalistic version demanded by the Imperialists and only tentatively upheld within the government), they were prepared to accept honorable surrender. Bushido requires no battle to the death, if peace can be achieved through noble surrender. If peace cannot be settled except by brutal conquest, then and only then would the samurai code demand such dedication – leading to seppuku.
With this in mind, having been defeated, prevalent sentiment was to sue for peace, and accept the lordship of the victor. Remember, Bushido adheres to regimen, and what can be more legitimate than honorable victory in battle? The military (ostensibly) was sworn to protect and uphold the law of the Emperor, and if he submits to another then they are honor-bound to accept. However, another factor weighing in is: they are also honor-bound to protect the Emperor’s person, who was to them divine. To fail to protect the Emperor’s divine life, even by carrying out his wishes, would be to fail according to the code of honor.
Thus, the Japanese government sued for peace and offered terms of surrender to MacArthur, to be relayed to Roosevelt. These terms were comprehensive – this was total surrender to the Allies. The only proviso that the Japanese felt they could not compromise upon was the security of the Emperor’s person, and so while they even detailed accepting the governance of the homeland by a foreign entity, the Emperor’s life (and station) must be held sacrosanct.
MacArthur understood this very well, and relayed the terms to roosevelt in Feb 2, 1945. Roosevelt dismissed them out of hand, and proceeded to the Yalta Conference, wherein was discussed the press for unconditional surrender of Germany (who had not sued for peace in the slightest). Faced with such dismissal of the terms detailing what they saw as honorable and just surrender, the Japanese geared themselves for a fight to the death, as already mentioned in the Bushido description above.
Incidentally, when the Potsdam demands were later issued to the Japanese, they were identical to the terms of surrender already offered by Hirohito’s government. Identical, except for the fact that they made no promises about the personage of the Emperor. When the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and with the Soviets set to push an offensive of their own, the government (controversially, because after all the military factions derived their legitimacy from the Emperor himself) concluded that even the Emperor’s life was not worth saving if such horror would continue. Hirohito gave his famous speech, in which the majority of the populace heard his voice for the FIRST TIME EVER, stating that to fight on would serve no purpose, and that he could allow no more civilians (let’s not forget that part) to suffer.
Imagine the culture shock of this; hearing your divine leader for the first time, only for him to tell you that your defeat is absolute. The final nail in the coffin was hammered through. Even so, there were attempts at a military coup, though they were quelled in short order.
So, this may well serve to bolster the pride of those who suggest that the atomic bombs were necessary to end the war, and prevent bloodshed, justifying as they try to do the murder of 200,000+ civilians to save in potentia the lives of even more soldiers, but if these are the grounds upon which they wish to argue, then they must confront and answer a very simple question:
Given that Japan was already offering, months in advance, what the Allies eventually demanded anyway, save this matter of Hirohito’s person, was the power over the fate of one man adequate justification for the extermination of 200,000+ more?
MacArthur didn’t think so. Leahy didn’t think so. None of the military advisors, those trained most in the obscentities and necessities of warfare, thought so. I submit that no person in their right, practical, morally-sensitive mind would think so.
Why, then, the perpeptuation of the war and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Vengeance, and bravado. And for that, the second greatest crime of the 20th Century was committed.
When I argue I argue in my own words and if necessary link to more info. I do not argue by only linking, it is intellectually shallow in my opinion and very annoying when discussing on a live forum. You don’t make your point by linking, period. However I will read your linked article. I suspected it only is a theoretical approach on how to approach aggression, war, not a particular discussion on the WWII in general and how to have it resolved in particular 1939-1945, not what if but then and there.
It’s very clear that most of the posters are in their late teens or early 20’s, they have never felt any live conflict other than a food fight in the cafeteria, have never had the aggressor right outside your door, had had relatives deported and killed. It is easy to make a moral judgment sitting in an armchair contemplating the perfect society and the limits of the use of force. However when faced with naked aggression as in 1939 and the extreme fatigue and exhaustion of 1945 you must make harsh choices in the day of light and face the consequences. I get really upset with people bitching about when others/nations take action when they have done nothing themselves. Action has consequences positive and negative, talk has none. Being an armchair general is easy, especially after the fact..
I’ve yet to see any one on this forum in their own words enplaning how WWI could have been avoided and how the atom bombing could have been avoided. Let me for the last and ultimate time say: CONDITIONAL SURRENDER WAS NOT AN OPTION AFTER THE POTSDAM DECLARATION (ULTIMATUM)
You make my point perfectly! Agorism (anarchism) can be achieved on an individual level or in smaller groups, my guesstimate is 200. I base that on the human minds capability of keeping track of individuals. It’s limited to approx. 200, basically 3 generations, the normal pre-agrarian population group, tribe, in such groups’ norms are used and obeyed by all, shame and ostracism is the only force necessary. Change of agreement can be done by consensus and the ones disagreeing can leave. Mutual security is assured since everybody in the group protects from aggression both externally and internally. In larger societal groups, plus 200 post-agrarian, anarchism does not work, it however works in certain systems such as the “free market” and other system with “spontaneous order” however not in government/the State of 2010.
It can also work as I outlined in enclaves of up to 200 people. The example of Pisa 700 years ago as a functioning anarchist society is so ludicrous if it was not so sad that you have to show a 700 year old example. It also strengthen my argument since post agrarian US 2010 will never go back, progress is inevitable and the State whether we like it or not. What we can achieve is only a slimming of the State, we can starve it in cert it and making the state stay out of the free market system. We will never secure property rights because income redistribution will only continue to grow.
For those of you that dream of anarcho-capitalist utopia. Start your own country, seastaeding. I challenge you to find 200 that are willing to do so. You could probably only find yourself! QED!
The example of Pisa 700 years ago as a functioning anarchist society is so ludicrous if it was not so sad that you have to show a 700 year old example.
So you want me to posit a hypothetical scenario, without being theoretical… I don’t know how I could do it.
Lets say we never got into WWII. You would have to be like: “well, in theory, if the state had been more democratic (or something), it could have gone to war.”
Even if I listed out which companies headed by which people woulda done the job, i’m still just theorizing. I have no way to predict the way human beings would act beyond theory… sorry
Anyway, you throw theory out the window, but theory explains everything. You can’t interpret history or plan for the future without theory. Did we recover from the great depression because of the new deal, or in spite of it? What is likely to happen if a set of policies continue? etc etc. It’s all really useful stuff.
I would claim that I am extraordinarily empathetic, and really do legitimately want to reduce the amount of violence in the world as low as possible. I’m not interested in bantering about a bunch of trash ideas that make me look and feel like a big man. The game theory of Hoppe and others really is cogent and validated empirically. It would be easy for me just to be a state communist and say “government should solve everything! racism, war, disease” etc. But the theory would be bad. I believe ancap theory is sound.
So you don’t think that an apartment complex with 50,000 people in it could function without a state? It is analogous to a government in every way except it is the result of free association. All collective action problems solved. Actually you don’t really reference any arguments against ‘anarchy’. You just restate that it won’t work.
Let me try a framework shift here:
The state of nature doesn’t work because when there is a conflict between two people, there is no third party arbiter to resolve the dispute. So the problem might be resolved by whoever is stronger or whatever. This is bad because it means that man’s life becomes arbitrary. One’s labor might be stolen the next day. You could die just b/c someone else feels like it. Help me Hobbes!
So most political philosophers say that in order to get out of this, you need to establish a third party arbiter. The State. So that now between every one of the state’s subjects there is a final arbiter of conflict, and citizens no longer have to fear eachother since they know the State is strong enough to overcome those who would otherwise be naturally stronger.
But this line of reasoning is typical among statists. They treat the State as if it were some exogenous force, fundamentally changing the state of nature. It doesn’t. Just how the state of nature is lame because there is no third party to arbitrate disputes between men, there is also no third party to resolve disputes between citizens and government (the king, or the majority, or what have you).
In this way, States suffer the same fundamental problems as anarchy. Whats more is that the State is judge in its own case. The State is also, by the station’s requirements, stronger than its citizens, so the State knows in advance that it can win in conflicts against them. So these are two giant moral hazards of statehood, which explains why the State so regularly exploits its position.
The only time you can ever count on the state to do ‘the right thing’ is when the interests of the State dovetail with the interests of everyone. Examples are supernuclear holocaust, or an asteroid hitting earth. The state will avert it, but the fact that it saves everyone else is only incidental.
So, now you seem to be under the impression that we prefer the state of nature to government. This is debatable. Won’t bother arguing it. What we want is for there to be a third party to resolve disputes between people, who is in turn accountable to some other third parties. So say there are 3 people on an island, A , B, and C. A is judge in cases between B and C, while B is judge in cases with A and C etc etc. Conflicts of interest become apparent in such a small commune, but its the best way to organize the island, and our model is supposed to apply to sufficiently large populations anyway.
This is where Private Security, Private Courts, Private Defense comes in. If you’re confused about how these might actually work, there’s a lot of economics written on it. From our prudential standpoint however, the idea is to have multiple protection agencies and courts people can subscribe to, so disassociation serves as a check on what would otherwise be a predatory relationship.
I suspect you’ll have a lot of objections to this. I can’t predict what they are in advance but Long has a response to 10 common objections against polycentrism. Reading it should at least allow you to articulate your position better, since I don’t see you making use of the collective action, incentive, or public goods problems.
From this line of reasoning, it is clear that we are not anarchists. Government has more in common with the state of nature than does polycentric ‘anarchism’. So, if you want to get really technical, you are the anarchist.
And this is why I ad hominem you. You are quoting figures which you probably don’t have the polling size, have no idea where it was taken, the conditions it was taken under, who was asked, what age group was asked, what ethinicity was asked. You know nothing other then numbers which makes your argument nothing more then ‘look at these numbers! Have you ever seen anything so great!?’ Your argument also implies a shade of nationalist sentiment or ‘patriotism’ concering the WWII age American. Fighting those dirty Japanese for the big W and world peace. Yet you actually presume that if we didn’t get unconditional surrender from Japan, people would riot in the streets. I must presume one of those things that directly follow from this thought. Either Americans were so bloodthirsty over the premise of killing Japanese citizens that they would actually overthrow their government to ensure future domination over said citizen in which case your poll means absolutely nothing because why validate the insane ramblings of homicidal manics or your assumption that people will riot in the streets is completely ludicrous. I mean you are not honestly one of those people that think that when a voting poll says 51% of ‘Americans’ believe that healthcare is wrong…it is actually 51% of Americans right? They only ask like 2,000 people. So it is not an accurate representation of anyone beyond those 2000 people.–cain
Hypocritically, paradoxically, and amusingly,
you just spent considerable bandwidth attacking the legitimate relatively sophisicated science of public opinion polling from Gallup no less. Note that private enterprises in your utopian anarchist fantasyland would spend billions of dollars (backed by commodity) utilizing this same service to identify trends in consumer sentiment.
The only nation that could legitimately work against the US in an overt fashion was the Japanese. India was held by the British, China was in the middle of the civil war and Chiang Kei Shek was in the US pocket, southeast Asia was held by France, Korea was conquered by Japan. Everyone was either conquered by a western nation or working with a western nation except for Japan. --cain
What are you talking about? North Korea didn’t come into existence until after the war and probably would of never came into existence if the Japanese were able to retain it through conditional surrender. Now would I of liked to seen a free Korea? Sure. I want all nations to be free. However, is a North Korea better then a Japanese protectorate Korea? In my personal opinion, no. --cain
Interestingly and amusingly, you did not mention the 900lbs gorilla in the room — the USSR!
Moreover, you seem to think that geopolitical rumblings must occur within a fortnight to establish causation. for example, if the USA had not demonstrated resolve during the cold war, we would still be fighting a Soviet military machine in possession of the whole of continental europe and china in possession of much of the Far east and the asian pacific rim. Indeed, the communist bloc orchestrated the takeover of korea, china, and eastern europe all while WWII was being fought. Yet you naively state they were not a threat?!
It is grand naivete and geopolitical ignorance to think that America can sit back in a state of isolationist bliss while the rest of the world crumbles under the boot of despotism. Note that the utopian anarchist has contributed absolutely nothing of substance to either freedom or security. Morevoer they have undermined the very private enterprises and anti-statist government entities and dictates that have done the most to promote freedom and security, namely AMerican capitalism, the Bill of RIghts, and the US Constitution.
Of course, the American version of “capitalism” and our Constitution are not perfect – yet since 1776 the globe has seen a tremendous increase in freedoms, respect for private property, expanding markets, and decentralization of authority. No doubt the recent election of Obama and the expansion of government since the 1930’s have been temporary disappointing setbacks, however the overall trend in the promotion of freedom has been positive, thanks largely to the contribution of the United States acting within a Constitutional Federal republic framework thats balances and limits the powers of government.
When faced with naked aggression theories doesn’t work per se. You have to address it in the here and now, and then you can apply theories that work as not to get back into the same situation.
This discussion was about the the atom bombings and ending WWII. How to avoid using atom bombs and have to get Japan to unconditionally surrender. Not what if!
You and most of the others seem to have a very large difficulty in understanding the basic concept of de lege lata, what is, and de lege ferenda, what ought to be. Nearly everybody when discussing this are arguing for what ought to be when we are in fact arguing about what was/is. You cannot in this argument use what ought to be arguments, you must argue what is/were. We can of course change the thread to “How To Avoid World Conflict from an Anarcho-Capitalist Theoretical Viewpoint” if you want but please argue the facts as is!
I agree that the idea of the State has the same problems as has anarchy. I myself am a hard core believer that “the state of nature” is much more preferable than any form of State. My point is that the State is here, a fact. I don’t argue that you need the state as an arbiter. I’ve aways been extremely suspicious about people in general that claim that they are working for the “Common Good” and abhor politicians in particular. Every human being is self serving, that is the state of nature. Hayek was completely right when he said that in a statist society only the worst of individual would become politicians since hey are able to live a double life, have double standards i.e. demand a certain behavior of their subjects whilst themselves excluding themselves from the same that they demand of others. You have to be close to a sociopath, John Edwards is the perfect example a billionaire populist posing as a moral family man and a working mans hero whilst having extramarital affairs and $ 400 haircuts with a huge entourage of sycophants.
Once again you make assumptions from my discussion of what is to assuming I’m arguing for the State as as what ought to be.
The State is a fact, what is, “state of nature” is what ought to be. The difficulty is how to get there with the State in the way. It hs continuously expanded for over 10,000 years.
Well, my previous post was 100% prudential. No claims that society ‘ought’ to be one way or another. I’m not using fiat and pretending like anarchy works just because I say its moral.
Sorry, you’re confused. There are really three things here: How the world is now, Whether the world is moral, and How the world could actually be. When you ask for an ancap way to prevent WWII, you are asking for a way the world could have been if USA had been an anarchy, ceteris parabis the world now. I don’t know how I can stay in the ‘real world’ and then discuss how an ancap nation would have handled WWII beyond taking every other country at their initial conditions.
Then let us discuss what is and were. How should the Allies have stopped WWII when it was a fact? How could the Allies have avoided using the atom bomb to get Japan to unconditionally surrender?
No there are only two things. What is and what ought to be. I dismiss the moral argument since it is a matter of taste. I dismiss the concept of absolute good, absolute morals as I dismiss any metaphysical belief system that claim that things that cannot be proven exists, not only that should be the foundation of societal morals i.e. religious or political dogma. For example the Catholic church claiming abortion to be immoral and therefore should be illegal and Ayn Rands Objectivism or Communisms view on capitalism as the utmost good/evil.
You quote does not address how to get from the State to the state of nature.
It reminds me of my Marxist-Leninist/Maoist friends debating on how to enlighten the masses, to get rid or their “false consciousness.” The conclusion was as the masses were passive and didn’t know their “true” will, inner conscious and therefore would never revolt. They according to my friends needed a revolutionary vanguard creating chaos and anarchy from which the Socialist State would emerge spontaneously to later evolve into Communism, the Utopia.
