It is not possible to justify a crime on the basis that somewhere in history someone sometime committed a similar or analogous crime. To justify an action you must justify the action itself, not merely quote its occurrence.

You use the term “we”, but you speak only for yourself. You are only responsible for those decisions and actions in which you partake. For example, I am not a part of your “we”. I come from Polynesia, not USA. My ancestors did not commit the acts of aggression you attempt to justify. Even had they done so that does not mean that I am responsible or that I could justify such acts retrospectively. Avoid this error of thought. Forget about “we” and think about “I”.

The original essay that started this blog related to the impossibility of justifying invasions (such as that of Iraq) on the basis that the acts of violence and destruction to be committed during an invasion and subsequent occupation would somehow be “better” (more moral) than the acts of violence and destruction that may occur otherwise (if Saddam had remained in power). Attempts by statists and collectivists to justify such acts of organised violence failed. If you consider what is written in the original essay, read a bit of what Higgs says as well and THEN read the discussions above, it becomes clear that the “justifications” for invasion are really trivial excuses, nothing more.

As far as the US Constitution is concerned, here is a question: by what right did the framers of the Constitution draft it, sign it and then state that all persons in the colonies would be bound by it? Spooner was right! It’s a nonsense!

Sione

PS. As far as the US Constitution is concerned, here is a question: by what right did the framers of the Constitution draft it, sign it and then state that all persons in the colonies would be coercively bound by it? Spooner was right! It’s a con; a nonsense!

Funny how stateless groups of ex-British subjects, colonials, indigenous and other people operating by voluntary arrangement made the rule of the British Crown over significant portions of Nth. America untenable.

Sione

This idea of self-defense and no aggression is fine within a nation for domestic affairs among citizens, but in this world those who are unwilling to aggress end up with first, an ocean at their backs, then they get to tread water while those who are willing to aggress laugh at them.

Where would I, or a person sharing my ancestry, be if my ancestors were not willing to commit aggression?

Such a person would have never existed, for his ancestors would have been slaughtered by the Mongol hordes in ca. 300 BC (or BCE), in central Asia.

We have this part of the American continent because our ancestors were willing to commit aggression against the indigenous population. Great numbers of innocent people were slaughtered, many more were destroyed by European diseases to which they had no immunity, and most of the rest were assimilated by interbreeding.
If I see my neighbor murdering his wife or kid, I may intervene, and I also have recourse to the criminal justice establishment, starting with the sheriff/cops.

But in international affairs there is no sheriff to call. It’s the posse system if one nation-state is unable to deal with a problem that won’t negotiate away, or feels it good for morale if its neighbor-states are invited to participate in some vigilante justice.

Bringing up the constitutionality of acts of the president is a smokescreen. “Honest Abe” Lincoln demonstrated that cannon and bayonets trump scribblings on parchment. The Constitution is trundled out when the regime feels it is good public relations to keep the revenue stream going. However, such scribblings will not be treated as a suicide pact by the regime. That is, the regime will not permit adherence to the Constitution to bring it down.

Every public official, federal and state, is required to swear to support and defend the Constitution. That they do. It is displayed on a pedestal within bulletproof glass and drops into a vault at night or if there is a threat, and there are hired security guards ready to shoot down anyone who threatens the musty old parchment.

Yes it is. Show me an example from history where they succeeded. There aren’t any of significance. Your idea that a stateless group of citizens will or can defend themselves is just fantasy. It’s nice to believe, but dangerous as well.

Roger M is wrong about many, many things. There are dangers inherent in collectivism (make no mistake, he is a collectivist). Same goes for nationalism, racism & statism.

Is government justified by an ability to employ a powerful military of overwhelming violence, mass murder and utter brutality? Of course it isn’t. Yet you are seeking to justify that institution on the basis of the wrongs for which it is the source (100% effective murdering strategies and the like). The danger lies in the existence of a govt , not in the absence of govt.

Regarding defence. There are situations where a defence is untenable. If a military is well enough resourced and the command are ruthless enough to employ overwhelming violence with complete destruction and the killing of everyone in its path, it is possible for it to defeat pretty much anyone (providing the necessary resources have been acquired and the motivation to wage total war is present). In that case there is no defence that will hold, Libertarian or otherwise. That does not justify the existence of a govt. The existence of govts makes such crimes more likely, as the last century has demonstrated (in such a case the best thing for the civilised individual to do is leave- get out of there).

You do need to check your history. Who organised the TET offensive? Who sent the men and material and how was the battle plan developed? Check it out. The TET offensive allowed the govt of North Vietnam to see to it that potential Vietnamese rivals for rule in the South were eliminated. It was a govt betrayal of their own. Another reason never to trust a govt, even should you be “allied” to one. Nevertheless it signalled to the US govt and, in particular, the US people that Vietnam was unwinnable. In the end Vietnam was a complete 100% defeat for the US military. BTW you should read General Powell’s comments regarding their loss of the war in Vietnam.

As far as the French military in Vietnam is concerned. They lost. The French govt lost their war on Vietnam for several reasons. They lost at home (thankfullymany French people thought that a war on Vietnam was wrong and acted accordingly). They lost because the US govt betrayed them. Interesting that senior French govt officials and politicians stated they would never trust a foreign govt (especially the US one) in future! Ironic that. But, in the end, the French army was defeated militarily in the field (a serious loss, unrecoverable). They lost because the locals were more effective at defending what was theirs then the invaders were at taking it and keeping it. The locals just did not want French rule. They worked to end it. They repeated the feat with the US.

You really should check out Syria. When next you visit you will find that the political power of fundamentalist Islam is growing apace and remains the major threat to the secular system of govt presently in place there. It seemed to me that in the not too distant future the fundamentalist Islamists would be running that country. This is very bad news. And take note of the rise and rise of fundamentalist religious political power in Egypt, Saudi, Iran (obviously), Iraq, Algeria, Afghanistan (still) etc. More bad news. So much for massacres. Didn’t work out in the long run.

Go visit some of the places you so glibly write about. Find out what the locals say about things. Learn their history from them. Understand their view (whether it’s correct or not is another matter but right now you are not even in a position to know what they are thinking let alone judge whether they be correct).

You are misguided if you think you are going to be able to characterise the Libertarian view of defence as something as vacuous as your arguments. Do better. Consider this: Given the huge productive, manufacturing and wealth making ability that individuals can generate by means of private and voluntary arrangement, is it inconceivable they could defend what is theirs by private and voluntary arrangement? No govt necessary.

Sione

How very selective of you. And of course there is your continued use of the imperial “we”.

The USA govt and military lost and were ingloriously ejected and that’s the fact of it. They lost. The defenders prevailed. There was an aspect that was fought on the “home front” as there always must be. For every person such as yourself who deified the state and the military there were several others who said “we spat on the baby killers when they came back”, who opposed the govt war activities, who sabotaged the ability of govt to wage war, who denounced the govt’s lack of moral authority. There was no consensus of “we” let “them” win. The fact was that many people were not supportive of the idea that the US govt should dispatch young men to commit acts of violence upon other people. There was no cohesive “we” in the USA that decided, “OK. We’ll let them win.” The notion is silly! Once again your view of the world as divided into goodies and baddies, us and them, blinds you to reality.

I note that for you the idea of “winning” involves killing more and yet more people. This is the total war ideology. The violence evolves as a series of escalations. Each round is marked by worse crime than the round preceding it. When frustrated by an opposition the thinking is to resort to yet more extreme acts of violence, ultimately, “Kill them all!” I note your explanation of what is necessary for this strategy to be undertaken; a government with the willpower and resources to be brutal enough. You should consider this in no way justifies the existence or need for government. It damns the very idea. The key point is understanding the role of government as the cause of wars in the first place. Thankfully more and more people in the US are realising it.

Turning now to Japan. Whose word should be accepted on the topic of an invasion by the Japanese military of the USA? I submit it is superior to accept what the Japanese military command of the time said about a WW2 invasion of the USA rather than your arbitrary mythology. As previously stated, they (not you) were the leading experts on the topic of Japanese military invasions. They understood that an invasion of the USA could not be undertaken. Whether they were afraid is not the issue. What you sincerely believe is simply irrelevant. The Japanese military command ruled out an invasion attempt as impossible. They identified the “rifle behind every blade of grass” as one problem too difficult for them to overcome. They would have been dealing with enemies more capable, better equipped, more resourceful, more productive and far more dangerous than the Vietnamese and Somalian examples.

I wrote: “Note that even impoverished peasants in third world countries like Vietnam and Somalia (let alone places like Afghanistan and Iraq) have demonstrated just how effective such tactics can be against standing armies. Even though these guys are poorly armed, badly trained and follow such silly ideologies as nationalism, communism, socialism and religion etc., they are still more than capable of putting up an effective defence of that which is theirs. More often than not, they win in the end.” There is no error in this. Even those backward outfits could and did successfully mount effective defence against invaders.

Note I also referred you to Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW). I would have thought you’d have checked up on it and come to the obvious conclusion. The point is that a Libertarian approach to defence is robust. It is also moral.

Is it really inconceivable to you that the very individuals who create and maintain the productive wealth and manufacturing capability of the economy by voluntary association and arrangement would be capable of organising for themselves effective resistance and defence against an invader? They do not require a govt to do it for them. All the presence of govt does is initiate invasions and start the wars in the first place. Better to avoid the trouble at source, eliminate the state. Kill off govt.

Sione

PS This comment is the product of a sick, small mind: “If you kill a million Arabs and leave one alive in a hospital with no legs or arms, he’ll still declare victory!” YOU really should visit Iraq and state that to the locals.

As for Japanese shelling our cities into ruins, well, as he has implicitly admitted, they were never going to do it, they didn’t have the logistics to do it (hint Roger, professional military is about logistics, armchair military is strategy – you broadcast your ignorance of logistics every time you post on this thread), and well, even their best artillery on their ships and their best planes launching off of aircraft carriers couldn’t have reached past California.

Furthermore, Roger, research WWII Pacific theater history more – this another subject you are broadcasting your ignorance on at full decibel everytime you post. Look how much it took for us to accomplish island hopping. Then ask yourself why we bothered (hint, it has to do with the other subject you broadcast your ignorance on), then look at what lies between Hawaii and the U.S. mainland.

Finally, I take it you have admitted that they NEVER intended, NEVER did, and NEVER even threatened, to hold U.S. territory. So, where in the Constitution is the power to wage war for the good of China, or British colonies? What was “defense” purpose after Midway? (of course, they weren’t interested in us at all until FDR helped embargo their oil, and supplied men and material to their opponents in China, but since we have to deal in your fantasy world, we’ll forget about that)

I remember once reading a book which claimed that war had changed completely, using the French experience as an example. They said that the more force and brutality the French used the stronger their opponents got. Nice propaganda, but the simple facts are that attacks on the French decreased with the use of brutality. It was the political reaction back home that got the French out. The effectiveness of a similar but less extreme approach for a smaller scale insurrection can still be seen nowadays. The use of brutality in the Hama massacre is what enabled Hafiz al-Assad to soundly defeat the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. In Algeria itself the military government’s use of brutality far in excess of what was seen under the French has allowed them to hold onto power unlike their predecessors despite losing election to the Islamists. If anything the horrors of war have only made the government more popular.

Since that stuff doesn’t fit in the idealist libertarian paradigm of the undefeatable spirit of liberty driving the noble guerrila to victory over the oppressive state, they just imagine that the state just HAS TO gosh darn it keel over dead one day, and the French resistance would surely have sent the Nazis packing all by their lonesomes if those pesky Americans hadn’t butted in beforehand.

You mistakenly identify the victories in Vietnam and Somalia against the US, and in Afghanistan against the USSR to the power of militias. In Vietnam and Somalia, as well as current Iraq, the US chose to fight a limited war while the enemy chose to fight an unlimited one. In other words, we let them win. Had we used the same strategies against the Vietnamese and Somalis as we had against the Japanese, we would have won there, too, but it would have meant killing ten times as many of them.

The Soviets had completely defeated the Afghan resistance until President Reagan sent them Stinger missiles to knock out the Soviet helicopter gun ships. But even that wouldn’t have persuaded the Soviets to leave had not Gorbachev come to power. Gorbachev decided Afghanistan wasn’t worth the effort.

Libertarians make the same mistake that Arabs have always made and continue to make in the latest Israeli/Hezbollah skirmish: because a larger more powerful enemy decides to show some restraint, they think they have won a major victory. If you kill a million Arabs and leave one alive in a hospital with no legs or arms, he’ll still declare victory!

I sincerely doubt the Japanese high command were afraid to invade the US. If they weren’t afraid of our military, why would they fear our civilians with hunting rifles? As they did in China, they would simply have destroyed entire cities and everyone in them with naval, artillery and aerial bombardment. The Japanese didn’t understand the concept of limited wars that we have fought since Korea.

As for the impossibility of defeating Afghans, you should look a little further back in history. Mongols defeated and ruled
Afghanistan with little problem for centuries, as did Iran. The secret is a willingness to be brutal enough to make them lose the will to fight. British and Americans lack that brutality, but we had it durring WWII and so could defeat the Japanese and Germans because we weren’t libertarian.

Quoting: “My arguement was not how powerful or capable the Japanese or Germans were, but how weak libertarianism is when dealing with militarism like that of the Japanese.”

Your argument does not hold up. It is based on a flawed understanding of history (especially with regards to the war in the Pacific) but I’ll let that slide for the moment.

Your attention is drawn to comments and recommendations made by the Japanese military command (surely the leading experts on the subject of Japanese military invasions at the time). When pressed about whether an invasion of the US West Coast was a possibility. They denied it was. Their learned and studied opinion was that there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. That’s about as accurate a description of a spirited Libertarian defence as one could find. Think about it.

Note that even impoverished peasants in third world countries like Vietnam and Somalia (let alone places like Afghanistan and Iraq) have demonstrated just how effective such tactics can be against standing armies. Even though these guys are poorly armed, badly trained and follow such silly ideologies as nationalism, communism, socialism and religion etc., they are still more than capable of putting up an effective defence of that which is theirs. More often than not, they win in the end.

BTW it is recommended you read a good history of Great Britain’s invasion of Afghanistan and how the greatest empire in history was frustrated and defeated. Your attention is also drawn to the concept of Fourth Generation Warfare.

Sione

PS so there were NO libertarians in the USA during WW2. Yeah right.

You’re changing the subject there, quasimoto. What started this discussion was my comment that had the US been libertarian, we would be speaking Japanese or German today. That’s a hypothetical proposition. You’re demanding evidence from history that the Japanese or Germans actually held or threatened to hold any US territory.

The answer to your question is no, they never held any US terriroty, but that doesn’t mean they had no potential to do so, which was my allegation. They attacked Midway Island with some purpose in mind. The Japanese thought it was important or they wouldn’t have dispatched their best aircraft carriers to attack it. The Japanese got unlucky at Pearl Harbor because our aircraft carriers were out to sea. Had they destroyed our aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor, we could not have defended Midway. Still, the Japanese almost beat us at Midway and sheer luck stopped them. Had they won Midway, nothing could have stopped them from invading California. We didn’t have the Navy or the Army to stop them and it would take another year for our production to ramp up.

Also, you’re arguing from history. Had the Japanese invaded, Americans at that time probably could have defeated them eventually. But I hypthosized what might have happened had those Americans been libertarians. No one in America at the time of WWII was libertarian, so they could and did defeat the Japanese. However, had most Americans been libertarians relying on hunting rifles and lacking the training of a professional army, they could never have defeated the Japanese.

The same could be said for the Germans.

My arguement was not how powerful or capable the Japanese or Germans were, but how weak libertarianism is when dealing with militarism like that of the Japanese.

OK. Fair enough. Good decision.

So now apply that answer to the War on Iraq, the War on Afghanistan and even the War of Terror.

Prior to undertaking those acts of organised violence it was not known with certainty what the political outcome would be. Sure, there was plenty of hope about what it MIGHT be but that is not knowledge (or even a reasonable best guess). Contrast this uncertainty with what WAS known with certainty. It was known that many people would (and will) suffer impoverishment, injury or death should the organised violence be initiated.

Higgs is correct to argue that the War on Iraq can’t be justified on the grounds of a possibility that Saddam might, just possibly, perhaps maybe do worse to people than the war. He is not rejecting the argument for invasion solely on the basis of an uncertain knowledge of the future. He also rejects it for the certain knowledge that was already held. That is, that people would be injured, impoverished and killed. It appears he does not accept the justification of an ACTUAL evil act by the mere claim of a POTENTIAL good.

I presume your decision and answer to the question I posed runs along similar lines. If so you are agreeing with Higgs. That’s fair enough. (Note that this a much different context from writing a book. Surely the act of writing is not of itself an act of violence? Mind you, if you knew for certain the process of writing the book would kill people…)

Anyway, I’m glad you are an isolationist. It’s a moral position to hold. It certainly isn’t consistent with invading other people’s property or initiating acts of violence upon them.

Sione

With this: “With this: “…does not make the Constitution less valid…” — you may care to research the date: 3/9/1933.”

I was referring to this:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=14485

A state of affairs that is still in place…

Now take this other analogy and tell me where you draw the line… then see if you can make a law out of it.

A class of little children crosses the street in front of you. You are standing nearby behind your very heavy friend, at the border of the road. Suddenly you see a biker coming fast from behind . That biker obviously doesn’t see either the light or the children crossing. Let’s imagine the only solution to spare the life of the children before they get hit was to quickly push your friend at once under the wheels of the motorbike…

You’d take that decision too, right? (conclusion: it’s dangerous to be friends with you…;-)

The reason why Germany ruled out such crazy decision is somehow understandable however:
The life of every innocent citizen is worth to be respected until his death. And guess what: democracy DOES NOT mean the absolute rule of majorities beyond EVERY individual right. So, nobody empowers a government to rule that two lives are worth more than one. The government has to PROTECT every single one of us w/o ANY calculation till the end. Human sacrifices are not allowed on the Government side says the German Supreme Court. A very libertarian decision I found.

You have done absolutely nothing to refute my points, and in fact, merely reinforced them. Spare me your argument from authority.

“Let’s see, during World War II they landed and took the Phillipines (a US Protectorate) until we invaded and took it back. Ditto for countless other islands in the S. Pacific that were US Protectorates. And oh, there was that little Pearl Harbor thing… and if you read your history, they were very close to trying to hit the Navy ammo magazine in LA”

Once again, read VERY carefully what I wrote, and you responded. Ask this question – did they ever threaten to hold actual U.S. territory? Not a protectorate or some island that was seized as a base to attack Japan, but U.S. territory? Then ask yourself, if striking an ammo dump is remotely related to holding territory. If you can actually answer those two questions, I might start to believe your claims to have been in the military.

“Umm, the Nazis regularly were less than 10 miles off the eastern seaboard of the US sinking shipping and putting saboteuors ashore. Perhaps something to think about (in anticipation of you pointing out that they weren’t able to invade Britain) is that the larger your coastline, the more opportunity to get troops ashore – as a Marine, I specialize in that type of thing..”

Once again, read, and think, VERY carefully what was said. Did the Nazis ever threaten to OCCUPY (I’m trying to make it easy for you here) any U.S. territory? Aw, heck. You shot your own argument in the foot by acknowledging they couldn’t even successfully cross the channel. If you are a marine, you must have been drummed out, ’cause I can’t believe they’d keep someone in that so fundamentally misunderstands the basic difference between holding territory and threatening sabotage.

“Ummm, nore Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, Austria, Russia”

oh. Okay, Maybe I need to revise my estimate downwards. Looks like you might not have made it past grade school, or else you’d know your geography well enough to recognize how ridiculously irrelevant that answer was.

Sorry, you pointed out flaws only in your own thinking, not mine.

You stated “If anyone recently displayed their complete ignorance of warfare, it is you. That second statement is such a bald-faced piece of untrue propaganda that it is laughable. Please, inform us of how Japan could ever have held any U.S. territory.”

Let’s see, during World War II they landed and took the Phillipines (a US Protectorate) until we invaded and took it back. Ditto for countless other islands in the S. Pacific that were US Protectorates. And oh, there was that little Pearl Harbor thing… and if you read your history, they were very close to trying to hit the Navy ammo magazine in LA

“Please, inform us of how the Nazis could have ever gotten troops across the Atlantic, much less held any territory here.”

Umm, the Nazis regularly were less than 10 miles off the eastern seaboard of the US sinking shipping and putting saboteuors ashore. Perhaps something to think about (in anticipation of you pointing out that they weren’t able to invade Britain) is that the larger your coastline, the more opportunity to get troops ashore – as a Marine, I specialize in that type of thing…

“Of course, all that is ignoring the fact that neither nation ever expressed any intention of invading the U.S.”

Ummm, nore Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, Austria, Russia

Let me close by saying (been there twice, bought the t-shirt) that I am no fan of the current war in Iraq, nor do I think the guy you were responding to was especially euridite, just trying to point out some flaws in your thinking.

yes, you’ve asserted that three times now. but i never asked you “where can i read about capitalism? ” i’ve made statements and asked questions which, if you had some of your own opinions about, you might have just responded straight up and who knows, you might have made a persuasive arguement.

In essence your sentence instructs me to blame alleged badness supposedly suffered because of “my system” on “my system.” I reject that as false. I blame you for a dishonest question and a dishonest mind.

your pedantic paragraph is in your face. if you were honest, you would accept that 1. Capitalism is in fact the economic system under which we live and 2. many serious socio-economic problems appear to be directly traceable to that system. whether and/or why Capitalism is not in fact the culprit would be the honest response. my question was challenging, but not dishonest…honest!

You did at least address the notion of problems existing, though you simply deny that any problems exist (and humorously, you say that ‘if they do exist’, they are attributable to some other cause, probably ‘socialists’ or pick-your-bogey)

no matter, i am not on any anti-capitalist crusade, far from it, i don’t have a better idea for an economic system, i mentioned it only in the context of the Iraq adventure and how it has contributed to compel the nation to this deadly course.

If we are talking about a hijacked plane that I believe will be crashed into a populated area, I would choose to shoot it down over an unpopulated area.

OK. Fair enough. You can add an emergancy situation to the question as well. So now it would read: “You have to decide whether or not to carry out an organised act of violence which is going to result in the deaths of thousands of innocent people and leave many others injured and impoverished. Given that you do not know what the outcome will be other than the deaths, injuries and impoverishment mentioned above, do you go ahead with your violent plans?”

I had something particular in mind but you are probably correct with your approach.

Sione

PS. You ask a good question. I’d like to submit an answer for consideration but prefer to wait until after TGGP (or anyone else who is interested) has had the opportunity to respond to what I asked. Please bear with me.