1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/16253/neither-the-wars-nor-the-leaders-were-great/

Neither the Wars Nor the Leaders Were Great

March 29, 2011 by

From the 18th century to our own time, the liberal tradition has stood firmly against war, based both on principle and on the reality of how and why wars begin, and also the wicked damage they do to society. The excuses for wars mask the underlying reason for them. FULL ARTICLE by Ralph Raico


Freedom Fighter March 29, 2011 at 9:07 am

Nature, using sex drive, overproduces people up to the point where there is more than enough human beings to spare. Nature then tests this overproduction through wars and only the winning armies survive and make babies.

It’s nature which is at war against our souls. It’s about time humanity wakes up to who is the real enemy against which we should all fight back: GOD, NATURE, GAÏA, whatever you want to call it.

Beefcake the Mighty March 29, 2011 at 10:10 am

Haven’t you been shipped off to Mesopotamia yet?

newson March 29, 2011 at 5:43 pm

this sort of booster always end up fighting evil-doers from a comfortable position on the ssb board. it’s you who should be packing for mesopotamia.

Rick March 29, 2011 at 3:51 pm

Freedom Fighter,

Show God who’s boss! Go to your local Ace Hardware and pick up a stool and a sturdy rope.

That’ll show him!

Freedom Fighter March 29, 2011 at 7:42 pm

In your dreams asshole. I will LIVE to fight God. He will not get me that easily and neither will you.

Adam Smith March 29, 2011 at 8:06 pm

If I could buy you a beer, I totally would.

economics9698 March 29, 2011 at 6:57 pm

I don’t know. I just think it’s human nature to want to kill. When I was young I just wanted to join the military and kill.

When I got in it was so affirmative action I wished for war to get away from the pansy asses and Negroes.

Even before I was a part of a gang for the purpose of confrontation and crime. It was in my blood.

David March 29, 2011 at 9:29 am

One could add the very interesting comment on the War of the “Greatest Generation” by Professor Paul Fussell. ‘Wartime” is an amusing exposition on the rubbish we were fed at home about the war, its prosecution, and it results.

Bryan Björnson March 29, 2011 at 12:05 pm

There are unintended consequences to wars, some of them are good and some are bad. The unintended consequence of the war Frederick II started was that it caused Great Britain to demand increased taxes from and put overbearing laws on its American colonies. If Great Britain had not imposed those taxes and laws on its American colonies they might not have rebelled against the British government. The good, in the long run, unintended consequence of that war and the reaction to the cost if it by Great Britain was the American Revolution. Does anybody here think the American Revolution was wrong?

BioTube March 29, 2011 at 1:31 pm

The American Secession wasn’t good in and of itself.

richard harris March 29, 2011 at 11:04 pm

The American Revolution was not wrong, it was simply not the optimum outcome. The optimum would have been to achieve the freedoms which American born Englishmen had a right to expect were theirs by virtue of their being natural born British subjects, without having to dissolve the bonds which united the two portions of the kingdom. If Lord North’s government had not been so unenlightened it could have easily been accomplished. In this scenario the United States today would be composed of 60 states. The ten Canadian provinces would be American states. On the other hand one could argue that Nancy Pelosi’s gang would have shut down all oil drilling in Canada and thus today we wouldn’t be getting a drop of oil from our largest supplier. So maybe it was the optimum outcome after all.

However in the case of the American Civil War, the constitution guarantees the right of states to secede from the union. It declares that the states shall retain all rights not ceded to the federal government by the constitution. Since the constitution does not declare that the states shall forfeit the right to secede, they therefore retain the right to secede. Thus Lincoln’s prosecution of the war against the southern states clearly violated the constitution. Lincoln was thus by definition a tyrant.

With the southern states a separate nation, slavery would have been subverted by northern operatives and most slaves would have escaped to the north. The northern states would have passed legislation to abdicate the Dredd-Scott ruling and abolish all slavery in northern states. Thus the south would have been left devoid of slaves in less time than it took to fight the civil war to a conclusion. The net good would be that the federal government would be much weaker than it is today and thus its incursion into our daily lives would be substantially less.

Joe March 29, 2011 at 4:15 pm

As our international power and interests surge, it would seem reasonable that our commitment to republican principles would surge. These commitments appear inconvenient. They are meant to be. War is a serious matter, and presidents and particularly Congresses should be inconvenienced on the road to war. Members of Congress should not be able to hide behind ambiguous resolutions only to turn on the president during difficult times, claiming that they did not mean what they voted for. A vote on a declaration of war ends that. It also prevents a president from acting as king by default. Above all, it prevents the public from pretending to be victims when their leaders take them to war. The possibility of war will concentrate the mind of a distracted public like nothing else. It turns voting into a life-or-death matter, a tonic for our adolescent body politic.

Hard Rain March 29, 2011 at 6:40 pm

Who is this “our” in “our international power”? Are you part of the ruling elite? You think they care about your crummy dead-letter constitution or secular sacrament of voting?

richard harris March 29, 2011 at 5:54 pm

Lassen uns unser national anthem singen.

“Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles,
Uber alles in dem Weld”

Joseph Paquet March 29, 2011 at 6:54 pm

Doesn’t anyone recognize that no. 1, all these different theories, the arguing back and forth, with seemingly little permanent resolutions is a result of our inability to admit that nothing major will change until we come to terms with our physchological weaknesses, here are a few, our need to be right in our own minds, our love of scapegoating, the negative aspects of our strongest characteristic imitation, our refusal to take advice etc. all aspects of our ego, narcissism and psychology.

Freedom Fighter March 29, 2011 at 7:45 pm

History shows us that the consequences of war is increase in taxes and growth of government.

But there is a guy named John J. Xenakis, who runs the website http://www.generationaldynamics.com who says that war, from a biological viewpoint, is a necessity because it improves the gene pool.

Just like I said. In actuality it’s nature which is at war against us all.

Sione March 29, 2011 at 8:00 pm

Freedom Fighter

If you are correct in your assertion that war is a biological necessity then the question arises, does an individual have a choice? That is, can an individual decide what to do? Does he decide whether to partake in war or is the decision unavailable to him?


Adam Smith March 29, 2011 at 8:07 pm

Ever read Catch-22?

Freedom Fighter March 29, 2011 at 8:48 pm

Well, if an army is advancing towards you. You have the choice of fighting or being their slave and they will probably kill you eventually.

Ever heard of live free or die ? If somebody makes the choice to fight war against you, do you really have the choice of not fighting war against them ? By making the choice of not investing for war, you give your enemies the signal that you are weak and you are inviting them to fight war against you. By getting ready for war, you give them the signal that you have hostile intents and they get ready as well and things become delicate and dangerous. So yes, I second Adam Smith’s motion, catch-22 !

Mankind must realize that (God, Mother Nature, Gaïa, the Universe) is a megalomaniac who is massacrating his/her’s/it’s own creation just to “embetter” it biologically.

Mankind must realize that nature is at war against it’s own creation.

The best way we could fight war against nature is to abolish bioethics and enable those with money to embetter their own genes and their own self.

Plus, it’s time for super olympics where all types of doping will be allowed. The only thing that matters is performance and to win. Now those would be very exciting olympics.

Gene doping and proteomics would fast supplant normal dumb chemical drugs. Biopharmaceutical companies would support and sponsor athletes and this would propel health care research.

The best way to avoid war is economic freedom, because it repels the scarcity of resources and so more people can have their needs met without going to war and compete for those resources.

Bioethics must be abolished or it will be a major case of war in the near future.

Adam Smith March 29, 2011 at 10:46 pm

I prefer “embiggen” to “embetter” (it’s a perfectly cromulent word) :P

But on the serious, why is nature megalomaniacal? Doesn’t it make more sense that there certain personalities that make war inevitable? Don’t some people get off dominating others/making them subordinate to their will(s)?
Rather than nature being at war with mankind, hasn’t mankind always been at war with itself?

Perhaps Gravity’s Rainbow is the more appropriate text for this discussion…

Freedom Fighter March 29, 2011 at 8:52 pm

He can decide individually to not partake in warfare, but others will decide to participate so his decision alone will not prevent a war.

Sione March 31, 2011 at 4:03 am

Freedom Fighter

Yes. He can decide not to participate. He might depart the scene and move to another location for instance. Then again, he might take part in the war instead. Either way the individual decides.

All the mush about war as a biological necessity etc is deterministic nonsense.


Nuke Gray March 29, 2011 at 11:18 pm

If struggle is in our blood, we can struggle against ‘nature’ by fertilising deserts and reclaiming lands, etc.
Whilst starting wars is illiberal, defending yourself is good (funny how even aggressors only have ‘defence’ forces!).
“War and the rise of the state.” is a great book. Unfortunately, the only way for democracies to triumph is to become more centralised than their opponents, and to utilise more resources, when fighting despotic regimes. Britain became more democratic, and more centralised, during, and because of, WW2.
The way out of the ‘conscripting for freedom’ paradox is to train volunteer citizens in local militia, and only form armies of allied militia. ‘Allied’, not united, and only for defence of local counties.

Freedom Fighter March 30, 2011 at 9:39 am

“funny how even aggressors only have ‘defence’ forces!”

The best defense (or defence if you’re from UK or CA or Australia) is a decisive offense.

So, following this logic of the best defense is a good offense, by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, we are defending ourselves.

Adam Smith March 29, 2011 at 11:43 pm

I’m posting this comment here because it was deleted from its appropriate thread, then comments were disallowed. (http://blog.mises.org/16256/clarifying-the-ftcs-censorship-demands/)

I thought that an article advocating First Amendment rights would welcome civil comments or criticisms; I was wrong.

I suspect my comments will be deleted again, but perhaps people will get to read them beforehand:

S.M. Olivia writes:
“I don’t see how anyone — and certainly not the FTC — can objectively determine which religious messages are false, given that all religions rely on things that cannot be empirically proven.”

That’s not what the case is about. The FTC does not have the authority to regulate religion or religious statements, nor were they attempting such a tyrannical power-grab.

Here’s what the court documents say (linked on the author’s preceding post):
“Following a trial, an Administrative Law Judge concluded that Defendants violated the FTC Act by making unsubstantiated claims that BioShark, 7 Herb Formula, GDU, and BioMixx prevented, treated, or cured tumors or cancer.”
The defendants broke a law that’s in place for a reason. That reason has nothing to do with religion.

Gil March 30, 2011 at 1:49 am

Actually one difference between modern warfare and Medieval warfare is that most people would never see war. Since most people were working as peasants just to make the economy work meant few would ever have to worry about getting conscripted. Nowadays since most people can taken from their jobs and sent to a faraway land while having the economy operational means modern people will see some sort of action if conscription is invoked.

Freedom Fighter March 30, 2011 at 9:42 am

And I’m enlisting in the military, I wanna see some action NOW !
If there is one thing I like about the state, it’s the army and the military and yes, WAR !
I’m getting in shape now and in a few weeks, I will begin basic training.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: