Is Capitalism Why We Fight?
Much of the left is against the Iraq war, and so far so good. But they theorize that the driving force behind the war is capitalism, with imperialism as the highest stage. The makers of "Why We Fight"--an antiwar documentary--make this mistake time and again. These imperial interventions are anything but the fault of unsubsidized elements of the American business community. Did the average American businessperson — often struggling to pay the huge costs of empire — actually want the United States to embark on this path of empire? The producers have no answer to that question. Although "Why We Fight" sometimes attacks capitalism, we rarely hear from American capitalists, who historically have opposed much of the inflation and disasters that have been the result of the imperial policies of at least the last half-century. Their opposition was well founded. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (41)
Angelo
Always good to see ignorant leftists get what's coming to them.
Published: April 6, 2006 8:25 AM
Brad Dexter
Sure there are capitalists who like the idea of war and empire, those who can insinuate themselves with the State. But they consequently become a part of the laviathan thereby, and cease being true capitalists. The State is always the driver of imperialism. It's the entity that has the bombs and the power to coerce.
Published: April 6, 2006 9:01 AM
Roger M
As one who initially supported the war with Iraq and now have reservations about it, I think both the left and libertarian arguments are simplistic to the point of becoming nothing more than conspiracy theories like those that claim the Council on Foreign Relations, the Jews, international bankers, or the Illuminati controls everything. Reality is so much more complex.
The current war is actually a continuation of the first Gulf war. In my opinion, we had no right or reason to rescue Kuwait from Iraq. But then news reports came out about how Hussein’s troops were raping, pillaging and murdering people by the thousands. We learned later that the truth was far worse than the reports. Kuwaitis couldn’t defend themselves and no country was willing to help them. With Russia and China defending Iraq, only the U.S. could act. The situation reminded many of us of the plight of Jews under Hitler. Many Americans asked themselves, “If people on the other side of the planet need help from a mass murderer, no one else can or will help, and we have the power to help, shouldn’t we?� By not removing Hussein after the first war, former President Bush guaranteed we’d have to go back to finish the job.
Yes, most Americans are terribly ignorant of history. But most of our ventures overseas have been motivated, to a large degree, by a desire to defend a weak people against a stronger aggressor. Arguing that the cause has been imperialism, or the military/industrial complex, or ignorance is nothing more than an attempt to discern the thoughts and intents of individuals, something only God can do. Most of us can never determine our own motivations for doing things because they’re complex. We rarely do anything for just one reason. And we get offended when others judge our motives. Yet we have no trouble judging the intentions of others.
Fiction writers have known for centuries that they can attribute plausible motives to any character’s actions; the writers are limited only in their imaginations. I think leftists and libertarians have severely limited imaginations when they attempt to discern the motives of all of the people in a nation.
But we should consider the implications of Mises’s thoughts on subjectivism. To summarize, Mises taught that we can’t know the subjective values of every individual; we can only study their actions. Don’t you think we can know less about motivations than we can about subjective values?
Published: April 6, 2006 9:36 AM
JD
We fight because we can.
We can because The Federal Reserve Act and the 16th ammendment made it possible. They were not accidents.
I have not seen the documentary on which "Is capitalism why we fight?" is based. It is "Rated PG-13 for disturbing war images".
My mental image of a member of the banking community with an office in the white house to direct the campaign for passage of "The Federal Act" disturbs me. That there are indications the 16th amendment was never lawfully ratified disturbs me.
The money so freely available for making war via debt would not be available if the interest paid on it were not available from the masses and their progeny thanks to income tax.
Published: April 6, 2006 10:28 AM
Quasimofo
Roger, Hussein thought the US government gave him the greenlight to invade Kuwait. Perhaps we did, and drew him into a trap.
Published: April 6, 2006 10:34 AM
Roger M
Qasimofo,
That's one of many explanations I've read for Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. But the one I like the best comes from one of his closest generals, who said that Hussein had a dream in which Allah told him to invade Kuwait. The general said he and others tried to disuade Hussein, but he was convinced that Allah had spoken to him. This story rings true because I know how much importance Arabs place on dreams.
Published: April 6, 2006 10:42 AM
Ryan Fuller
But at the same time, Roger, Hussein wasn't exactly a devout Muslim. He's actually far more secular than anyone we could hope to replace him with.
Hussein had a huge military following the Iran/Iraq war, Iraq was strapped for cash, Kuwait was close by with a lot of resources. Saying that "Allah told me to" sounds a lot like an attempt to placate the masses. It's easier being a tyrant when there are fewer dissenters to shoot.
Published: April 6, 2006 11:08 AM
Quasimofo
The explanation I've seen of the "trap" is linked here.
Published: April 6, 2006 11:18 AM
D. Saul Weiner
Roger,
Your comments perfectly illustrate why we fight. It is because we have become conditioned to believe that we fight for noble reasons and that our wars have been very beneficial. An honest look at history indicates that (generally speaking) foreign threats/aggressions have been exaggerated and our wars have not produced beneficial results. With that backdrop, the informed citizen should be highly skeptical about proposed interventions, by challenging the level of alleged threats and promised benefits. There may be rare instances when the administration can make a solid case, but 9 times out of 10 it won't stand up to serious scrutiny.
The other point about leftists not mentioned in this article is that they lack the awareness that their promotion of a large, strong paternal central government also contributes to its capacity for militarism.
Published: April 6, 2006 11:33 AM
Anthony
It seems as if Mr. Bresiger and the leftists he speaks of have two different definitions of capitalism. He is correct to say that purely free market capitalists do not advocate imperialism, but these people are largely not the target of the leftist critique. Rather it is those corporations that are state sponsored and state subsidized that enjoy the benefits of the states intervention around the globe. The problem is the number of purely free market capitalists are small and disorganized while the state corporatists are large in number, have access to large amounts of capital, and are politically involved.
Published: April 6, 2006 2:31 PM
Don B
Roger M., the preamble to the US Constitution states quite clearly that one of it's purposes is to "provide for the common defence of the United States." No where does it reference "provide for the common defence of Iraq." Regardless of how noble it may be to help people being butchered by a tyrant (and I think it is quite noble), it is both illegal and morally inappropriate for the US Government to seize the wealth of US citizens and use it to fight someone else's fight. It's equally immoral to send US troops to their death in such a cause. Just as it would be wrong for me to seize your wealth to intervene in a street assualt to protect someone, or to force you to do it--though it might be appropriate, desirable and noble for me to do so myself.
Published: April 6, 2006 3:06 PM
Bob
Roger, where in Bresiger's piece do you see any reference to "the Council on Foreign Relations, the Jews, international bankers, or [a claim that] the Illuminati controls everything?" You don't claim that Bresiger implies any such thing but I'm just curious why you would make such a statement in reference to this particular article.
If you really believe that "Reality is so much more complex," than surely you don't believe that U.S. military interventions are "motivated, to a large degree, by a desire to defend a weak people against a stronger aggressor." That's about as simplistic a view of the reality of state aggression as I've ever seen.
I agree with Don B. Roger, those people whose hearts bleed for weak people victimized by strong aggressors in distant lands can by all means grab a gun and some gear and go to Iraq on their own dime to fight their noble war, but they have no right to force the rest of us to be a little poorer by coercing us into financing their subjectively preferred crusade, in a world in which there are many instances of aggression by the strong against the weak, many of them occurring right here in this country, against peaceful citizens by that very same entity committed to noble crusades in foreign lands, the U.S. government.
Published: April 6, 2006 9:02 PM
tokyo-tom
It sounds from Bresinger's lengthy review that "Why We Fight" is a useful documentary that goes wrong by attributing our imperial wars to "capitalism", rather than to the steady expansion of the state and to the perversion of the state from serving public interests to serving the interests of large corporations and of individuals best able to direct the flow of taxpayer money into private pockets. Chalmers Johnson's "Blowback" and "Sorrows of Empire" are more effective in documenting this, I think (the critique from the left is not so far away from that of the libertarians).
The Administration cynically manipulated a national, defensive reaction to 911 into a never-ending "war on terror" for a number of reasons, which probably include electoral/policy-making advantage to the Republicans, thus securing a greater ability to direct the flow of taxpayer money - with profound implications to domestic liberties and our international interests. Besides inflaming culture wars, our imperial adventures are weakening our own financial system. The future does not look pretty.
I haven't seen the documentary, but I agree with its view of the average American voter. We would rather not think too hard, and prefer Manichean views, rendering us quite susceptible to manipulation for "patriotic" and "pro-democratic" causes, for which apparently there is no end in sight. Too bad there is no interest in resolving issues that affect long-term global stability, such as poor governance and rampant environmental abuse in third-world countries and of the global commons.
Published: April 6, 2006 10:17 PM
Allen Weingarten
Roger M writes "most of our ventures overseas have been motivated, to a large degree, by a desire to defend a weak people against a stronger aggressor." He goes on to criticize leftists and libertarians when they attempt to discern the motives of all of the people in a nation.
I accept Roger's description of some of our motivations, and his rejection of the mistaken view of leftists and libertarians, when they attribute motives. However, *I do not believe that analysing the primary or overall motivations are necessarily erroneous.* People frequently say why they want something, as in letters, articles, and polls. Thus, Muslims often claim that they wish to further Dar al Islam by undermining and subjegating Dar al Harb. One can of course dispute any given description of the totality of motives, but such descriptions are not an exercise in futility. Politicians quickly find in response to their speeches, which themes are lauded, and which are disregarded.
Were we unwilling to characterize the motives and intentions of a people, we would do a poor job of dealing with them. Mises did not hesitate to provide such characterizations. Nor did any insightful military analysts.
Published: April 7, 2006 7:02 AM
Keith
Quote from Bob: "I agree with Don B. Roger, those people whose hearts bleed for weak people victimized by strong aggressors in distant lands can by all means grab a gun and some gear and go to Iraq on their own dime to fight their noble war, but they have no right to force the rest of us to be a little poorer by coercing us into financing their subjectively preferred crusade, in a world in which there are many instances of aggression by the strong against the weak, many of them occurring right here in this country, against peaceful citizens by that very same entity committed to noble crusades in foreign lands, the U.S. government."
Does your position extend into the past as well? Is it your position that the Civil War, and WWII (in Europe at least) should not have been fought? What about Bosnia and Kosovo? What about the non-violent parts of the Cold War (i.e., minus Korea, Vietnam, etc.)? Is there never a situation where one group can legitimately stand up in defense of another group?
Published: April 7, 2006 7:25 AM
D. Saul Weiner
Individuals and groups ALWAYS do things for "good reasons". Hitler thought he was doing Germany and the world a great favor with his campaign to rid the world of "inferior" people. I have little doubt that GWB thinks that he is doing what is correct and proper in Iraq now. That is not the proper basis for evaluating acts of war, anymore than anyone on this forum would defend someone for promoting the welfare state because he had "good intentions" and motivations. We can only make assessments on a more objective basis: Were the war-promoters telling the truth or propagandizing regarding threats and acts committed? Did the wars produce all of the wonderful results that its promoters promised or did they produce mostly suffering and destruction? Was a war properly authorized or unconstitutional? Was every reasonable effort made to avert war when an irreconcilable conflict arose? There's no need for us to speculate on the motivations involved.
Published: April 7, 2006 9:28 AM
Roger M
It’s easy to argue that private citizens are free to go help a foreign country in its fight against oppression. The Lincoln Brigade did just that in the Spanish Civil war to fight against with the Communists. But the Communists lost and the Americans contributed very little to the effort. The point is, some enemies are too large for voluntary efforts to defeat. How would volunteers raise enough money to rent the aircraft carriers, airplanes, and tanks necessary to defeat Saddam Hussein? Some efforts require collective action or they won’t get done.
Maybe Americans have been deceived in the past and are too ignorant to make better decisions in the future, but that doesn’t make us imperialists. Libertarians and Socialists distort the meaning of “imperialism� just as the Left has ruined the term “liberal.� It not means the opposite of what it was intended to mean.
We can only know the motives of other people if they tell us, and even then, most people don’t know their own real motives. Judging the motives of others is intellectual laziness. It requires no effort to gather facts and analyze outcomes. Honest men always look at actions, not perceived intentions. The motives we attribute to others does nothing but declare our own position toward the accused, for if we like someone, we’ll attribute good motives to them; if we don’t, we’ll tag them with evil motives.
I’m not saying the Libertarians blame the Council of Foreign Relations, Jews, or international bankers for everything. I’m saying that the shallow view that all government is evil and imperialistic (using the old meaning of conquer and loot) makes them sound like conspiracy nuts.
Published: April 7, 2006 9:32 AM
tokyo-tom
Roger, you have a point; I concede there may be some good intentions behind our current wars, but I would modify your statement to say that "Honest men always look at actions and consequences, not STATED intentions." Who is the war serving? It quite clearly substantially benefits politically well-connected large millitary contractors, and it provided huge political advantages to the Administration and Republican party, which allowed them to further expand their hold on taxpayer money. Benefits to our long-term foreign interests and our allies abroad are much less clear, if there are any on a net basis.
If benefitting Iraqis had been a serious goal, we would have planned more seriously.
Regards,
Tom
Published: April 7, 2006 11:14 AM
Paul D
"If benefitting Iraqis had been a serious goal, we would have planned more seriously."
And not killed 20,000-30,000 of them. None of them, in fact.
Published: April 7, 2006 11:33 AM
Bob
"Does your position extend into the past as well? Is it your position that the Civil War, and WWII (in Europe at least) should not have been fought? What about Bosnia and Kosovo? What about the non-violent parts of the Cold War (i.e., minus Korea, Vietnam, etc.)? Is there never a situation where one group can legitimately stand up in defense of another group?"
Yes, Keith, my position on U.S. military intervention does extend to those particular instances as well. In answer to your question if there's ever a legitimate situation in which one group can stand up to defend another, it is not for me to decide for others, but for individuals to decide for themselves whether or not they want to risk their own lives or personal treasure in defense of another group. If they freely choose to do so, and if they're able to persuade others to voluntarily aid them in their cause, then they're risking their own blood and money, but no one has any right to force someone else to subsidize their subjectively chosen crusade.
We live in a world fraught with all sorts of conflicts between the powerful and the powerless in all sorts of places. The decision to invade Iraq in order to "liberate" Iraqis from Saddam's rule was the result of a purely subjective value judgment made by the particular individuals comprising the U.S. government at that time, and they've spent other people's wealth without their consent to achieve their own subjective values, which they had no right to do.
Roger M wrote, "Judging the motives of others is intellectual laziness." But Roger, didn’t you do exactly that in your original post when you wrote, "But most of our ventures overseas have been motivated, to a large degree, by a desire to defend a weak people against a stronger aggressor"? Take note of your own "intellectual laziness."
Published: April 7, 2006 1:13 PM
Ken Zahringer
I'm mostly in Roger M's camp: initial supporter, rather disappointed now. But I want to take issue with one point you made. I'm not at all convinced that a voluntarily manned and funded effort couldn't have been successful in Iraq. It probably couldn't have supported the initial "Shock & Awe" operation, but then I wonder who was supposed to be shocked and awed, Iraqi soldiers or American voters? A volunteer effort would certainly have had fewer resources, which would of course forced less waste and better planning (and possibly fewer dead bystanders). It still, I think, could have succeeded, especially if coordinated with an internal uprising, like the one Bush 41 turned his back on after the Gulf War. A volunteer operation certainly wouldn't have resulted in the US government trying to force a political/government formula that reminds me of some of the uniforms I was issued in the USAF: one size, doesn't fit anybody very well.
Published: April 7, 2006 1:27 PM
Keith
Bob, does your position extend to law enforcement (i.e., police)? This is just a domestic application of force. Why should anybody be forced to pay for that?
My issue is the problem of the rat (watch the movie "True Grit" to get the full analogy). The world is full of rats who only respond to force. Whether that rat is named Hitler or Saddam or is just some local thug, to consider these people, and the people that follow them, somehow different just because they perpetrate their thugery on one side or the other of a line drawn on a map, is hypocritical.
I don't think we have an obligation to be the world's police, but to turn a blind eye to such thugery inflicted on others, for whatever the reason, only invites the same rats to do the same to you.
Published: April 7, 2006 2:43 PM
Bob
"Bob, does your position extend to law enforcement (i.e., police)? This is just a domestic application of force. Why should anybody be forced to pay for that?"
1.) Yes, it does. 2.) Yes, it is. 3.) Nobody should be.
"I don't think we have an obligation to be the world's police, but to turn a blind eye to such thugery inflicted on others, for whatever the reason, only invites the same rats to do the same to you."
You're right, "we" don't have an obligation to police the whole world, especially since the only "we" paying the price for it are the taxed citizens and not the taxing government bureaucrats.
I never once advocated turning a blind eye to thuggery or aggression--that wasn't my point. In the specific instance of intervening to fight a battle in a distant land on behalf of an oppressed people in that land, my point is that if you want to go off and fight that battle, then go right on ahead, but YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO FORCE OTHERS TO SUBSIDIZE YOUR CHOSEN CRUSADE.
As far as your assertion that "the rats" would come after me, you seem to be implying that Saddam would have deployed Iraqi forces in the U.S., or attacked the U.S. in some manner, which is absolutely absurd. If you are implying such a thing would have happened if the U.S. would not have invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam, then I would have to ask you for proof to that effect.
Published: April 7, 2006 3:35 PM
Roger M
Bob,
When I wrote "But most of our ventures overseas have been motivated, to a large degree, by a desire to defend a weak people against a stronger aggressor" I wasn't judging motives because I wasn't trying to discern motives. I took people at their word, which is all we can do if we want to discuss motives. I know it seems like splitting hairs, but if people tell you their motives, you're not trying to discern them, which no one can do honestly.
Of course, as D. Saul Weiner wrote above, no one will attribute evil motives to themselves.
As for volunteers fighting Iraq, that would never have worked in the first Gulf war; Hussein was just too strong at the time. Remember that Iran tried for eight years to defeat him. On the other hand, I have read that the Kurds had 60,000 men ready to rise up against Hussein in 1998. We might have used Reagan's Afghan strategy in which we supported the Kurds with weapons and aircover and let them do the fighting. Reagan's strategy defeated the Soviets.
In these posts we're dealing with two separate issues: The first is whether any government is legit. The Anarchists would say no, so anything the government does will be theft and murder. For those of use who accept government as a legit institution and democracy as the most legit, governmental action can be good or bad.
The second issue is whether helping out a weaker country such as Kuwait is good or bad. The Anarchists would say yes if it's voluntary, not if it's conducted by the government, but only because all government action is evil in their scheme of things.
For us statists, the world is a lot more complex.
Published: April 7, 2006 4:23 PM
Roger M
P.S. Volunteer armies make no sense today and haven't for over 200 years. Military historians have proven that standing armies, well-trained, will always, ALWAYS, defeat militias. But in today's world, technology is the key. States have aircraft, missiles, tanks, artillery, etc., all of which is very expensive. Private militias would never be able to raise the funds to compete. So arguing that volunteers could do the job is nothing more than letting tyrants like Hussein have their way in the world.
Published: April 7, 2006 4:27 PM
Bob
"When I wrote 'But most of our ventures overseas have been motivated, to a large degree, by a desire to defend a weak people against a stronger aggressor' I wasn't judging motives because I wasn't trying to discern motives. I took people at their word, which is all we can do if we want to discuss motives. I know it seems like splitting hairs, but if people tell you their motives, you're not trying to discern them, which no one can do honestly."
Yes, I agree, discerning motives is extremely difficult. But Roger, if you "took people at their word" when they told you their motives, you are in effect discerning their motives, aren't you? If you take them at their word, you are believing their statements of their motives to be true, which is a discernment of their motives. However, if hearing a statement of someone's motives in the context of certain events does not convince me that they're telling me their true motives, that doesn't mean I would claim to know what their true motives are, just that I don't believe their motives are what they say they are.
I'm not arguing that volunteer armies would have "worked" in the first Gulf War, that is not my point. My point is this, which I've stated several different times in this thread: If you deem it valuable to go off and fight a war to defend someone from aggression from someone else, you are free to go do it, but you have no right to force others to subsidize the crusade for liberation that you value so much. I'm not arguing for what "works," I'm arguing for what's right. It is not right to force me or anyone else into the foreign crusades deemed valuable by the individuals comprising the U.S. government. My life is worth something, too, sir, and if I don't wish to sacrifice any aspect of my life or my property to someone else's crusade for "liberation" of some other group in some far-flung part of the world, that is my perogative as a human being who was born with the equal rights shared by all other human beings, which includes the right to make may own choices in my own efforts of self-determination. If others freely wish to risk their own life and property for such a crusade, fine, go to it, but don't force or coerce me into subsidizing it in any way, shape or form. Your subjective value judgments do not take precedent over any aspect of my life, or over any aspect of anyone else's.
I don't know if we're arguing two seperate issues, I'm arguing for a search for the truth. The truth is that yes, government does steal and kill, that is what taxation and warfare is--theft and murder, and anyone--ANYONE--who claims the right to perpetrate those acts are criminal.
I don't know about other anarchists, but I would not necessarily say that going to war to liberate Kuwaitis from Saddam would be "good" on the condition that it was entirely voluntary. It may be good for Kuwaitis, who would have someone else fighting their battles for them, but I would say that it's not so good for those doing the fighting, as many of them would certainly die. But if that's their choice, it's their own life to risk.
Published: April 7, 2006 5:52 PM
Roy W. Wright
Military historians have proven that standing armies, well-trained, will always, ALWAYS, defeat militias.
I suppose you'll disregard the many examples to the contrary as instances where the standing armies were not well-trained. Way to leave yourself an out.
Published: April 7, 2006 5:53 PM
Peter
Vietnam. Afghanistan. Etc. You're also making the utterly ridiculous assumption that free people would choose to fight by forming armies, "hiring aircraft carriers", etc., and all standing around in a big clump waiting to be bombed by opposing armies. One guy with a rifle could have taken out Saddam. Huge bombing campaigns are something only statists could come up with.
Published: April 7, 2006 8:12 PM
Renolds Cox
The big problem is how to restructure weak USA when it near Chapter 11.
I have the best solution for USA, I hope USA think tank will consider my suggestion.
1). Sell Alaska to India! Because Indian hold the most gold in the world, total 10 thousand ton, USA hold near 1000 ton and protect another 2000 ton of other countries. Ask Indian pay 5000 ton gold. It is for rebuild the world's confident about US dollar.
US hold Alaska more than 100 years now, it is high time to take big profit!!!!!!!!!
2). Sell MIT, California Institute of Technology, Yale and Stanford University to Japanese. Ask Japanese wavier all the debt USA owe them. It is for USA re-stand without too much debt!! Japanese fear to buy any US stocks, securities and real estate, they only accept famous US universities.
3). Find a reason to start a new war in the World Island, one part of USA army from UK, the other part from Japan, and they will have victory gathering at Iran. Because the strongest aspect of USA is US Army, use them to ask some donation from middle east, Japanese, and Korean.
4). Make the biggest M & A deal, merge USA with Canada, then the new USA have strongly backed by commodity economy.
5). Threaten Chinese the value of US bond, general speaking, they are not as desipline as Japanese, they will fear of the droping value. We can ask UK to help USA buy lower from them.
After the 5 steps, American will be real superpower again.
Published: April 8, 2006 9:40 AM
anarkhos
I saw the documentary and also got a bitter taste in my mouth when Charles Lewis blamed capitalism for war and praised democracy when, in my view, the opposite was true.
I think if one removed Charles Lewis, this article would have never been written. I would have loved some comments to counterbalance Lewis's remarks, but whatever. I can always take on the Lewis-ites directly without referring to this movie simply by referring to this site (among others). I think a direct challenge to Lewis, as opposed to the director of this movie, would have been far more productive.
Charles Lewis aside, I liked the movie.
Published: April 8, 2006 10:44 PM
Roger M
Bob, I'm arguing that forcing people to pay for a war they don't want can be moral. I do so because I believe government, especially republics, are legit institutions. You argue that it's immoral to force anyone to do something they don't want to do. That's because you're an anarchist. We'll just have to agree to disagree there.
Roy, I'd be interested in a few examples of militias defeating standing armies. I don't know of any. The fact that standing armies are paid professionals implies some training, else what would they be doing between wars? Militias, by definition, receive very little training. This issue goes back at least to Alexander, whose full-time soldiers easily defeated the militias of Persia, India and Egypt. I call the armies of the latter three militias because the soldiers were primarily farmers who fought in the months when chores were light.
Published: April 9, 2006 7:39 PM
Paul Edwards
Roger M,
You can argue theft is ok, that aggression can be fine, and murder moral; and you can do so because you believe states are legitimate, or just because you approve of such things if the cause is to your liking. Or just because. However, what you will never be able to do is justify these things.
An anarchist doesn't judge aggression and the state unjustified because he is an anarchist. He is an anarchist because aggression and the state are unjustified. Aggression is unjustified, and therefore the state is unjustified. Fortunately, this is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.
Published: April 9, 2006 11:28 PM
Bob
"Bob, I'm arguing that forcing people to pay for a war they don't want can be moral. I do so because I believe government, especially republics, are legit institutions. You argue that it's immoral to force anyone to do something they don't want to do. That's because you're an anarchist. We'll just have to agree to disagree there."
Gee, Roger, I thought you held that it is too difficult to discern someone's motives, and here you're declaring you know what motivates my position, which is that it's because I'm an anarchist? As Paul said, initiating aggression is wrong, whoever commits it--which is why I'm an anarchist. The state is a group of individuals who claim the exclusive privilege of initiating aggression, and therefore I'm opposed to the state. If you hold that the state is legitimate, then what you're arguing is that the group of individuals comprising the state get to have special privileges, i.e., to initiate force to coerce others to obey their subjective value judgments, which cannot be claimed by anyone else.
How can forcing people to pay for something opposed to their own value and moral judgments--something they wouldn't shell out money for of their own free will--possibly be moral? Care to explain that?
Published: April 9, 2006 11:49 PM
Roger M
Bob, it's not difficult to discern your motives; you've made them very clear: You agree with the anarchist view of government.
Theft and murder are immoral. But a legit government taxing its people to prosecute a war that its elected representatives authorized is not theft and war is not murder.
This issue revolves around the problem of how people decide what is moral and immoral. Anarchists believe that their logic is sound and unimpeachable, and based upon their presuppositions, it is. But the logic of democrats (I’ll use that term to describe those of us who believe that democratic governments are legitimate) is just as unimpeachable based on our presuppositions. So the crucial issue is what are our presuppositions and how can we discuss them? Presuppositions are the foundations of logic and usually are not provable; we assume them to be true. Based on the arguments of anarchists on this web site, I would say that the main anarchist presupposition is that individual rights to property are inviolable in any circumstances. As a result, anarchists believe governments are illegitimate; taxation is theft and war is murder.
Democrats have different reasons for accepting the legitimacy of governments: The social contract, for example, or the free rider problem, but we don’t accept individual property rights as an absolute, close to an absolute, but not quite. Those of who are religiously oriented accept government as a divinely sanctioned institution that brings order out of chaos. As a result, the government has the right to tax people so that it can perform its functions. One of those functions is defense of the nation from attacks by other nations. On occasion, this can involve preemptive strikes. So taxation and war are theft and murder only if you’re an anarchist, not for the rest of us.
How can we analyze the two different presuppositions about government? We can create models of how each would work by following the lines of reasoning to their logical conclusions. The anarchists who write for this web site have done that repeatedly and quite well especially Mr. Hoppe. The problem with the anarchist model is that it remains largely theoretical, so questions remain as to whether it would work as they propose. Democrats have history on their side. We can see how a democracy works and where it fails in the history of the US.
Anarchists can fill the entire internet with claims that taxation is theft and war is murder but that won’t make it true. Impugning the motives of those who disagree with you won’t help you, either, because it’s too easy to respond by impugning the motives of anarchists.
Published: April 10, 2006 9:02 AM
Paul Edwards
Roger,
“… So the crucial issue is what are our presuppositions and how can we discuss them? Presuppositions are the foundations of logic and usually are not provable; we assume them to be true. Based on the arguments of anarchists on this web site, I would say that the main anarchist presupposition is that individual rights to property are inviolable in any circumstances. As a result, anarchists believe governments are illegitimate; taxation is theft and war is murder.�
It is just as you put it, “Presuppositions are the foundations of logic and usually are not provable; we assume them to be true.� However, when we argue, it is not our fundamental presuppositions that are different, but merely the extent to which we choose to remain consistent with those presuppositions.
Ethics is the rules of behavior that we can all agree on that will allow us to avoid conflict. You can only justify an ethic through argumentation. Whatever solution and sets of rules or norms you end up with, they must not be in contradiction to the very presuppositions that are implied in argumentation itself.
Also, when we come up with norms it is necessary that people can in principle find them generally acceptable. This is also the point of argumentation. That is these norms must be universalizable. As Kinsella, puts it, a norm must invalidate the “I can hit you but you can’t hit me� kind of rule. But this is only a necessary criterion, not a sufficient one.
Next, what is implied in argumentation: That both people in the debate are self-owners; that they are justified in being alive to debate, justified in making an argument, studying an argument, agreeing or disagreeing with someone’s argument. It implies they are justified in not only self-ownership, but in ownership of scarce resources which allow them to survive, such as food shelter, land, clothing etc.
So merely in arguing with another, all of the above is implied. That is: to argue against any of the above things implied in argumentation, is to fall subject to a performative contradiction. Any argument that disputes any of these presuppositions is inconsistent and so is invalid. This is so because the argument implies them, and this is necessarily so and indisputable.
Now what is the only ethic that is consistent with the presuppositions of argumentation? It is the libertarian non-aggression ethic, in combination with the principles of self-ownership and homesteading, and the institution of private property and private contract. No other ethic succeeds. The only other ethics available are a master-slave relationship where A owns B, which fails because it is not universalizable, or the mutual ownership, where A and B are equal mutual owners in each other, which fails because it would result in the extinction of the human race.
What are the implications of the libertarian ethic on the state: it rules it out of court. The state says “I can hit you and you can’t hit me�. It claims the right to aggress against non-aggressors. It claims it can use force to take without a voluntary trade. It claims the right to conscript you into slavery and that your right to live is contingent on its own priorities and values. And it claims your property is only yours as long as it deems it is yours and not otherwise.
In short the state and all of its aggression cannot be justified. It is contrary to the concept of justice and is inconsistent with the act of argumentation.
The most ridiculous thing about the state is that people advocate it for the purpose of upholding justice and protecting property. They told me reality was stranger than fiction, but I think this is truer than they realized.
Published: April 10, 2006 10:59 AM
Roger M
Sorry Paul, but I disagree with you on just about everything you wrote above. Essentially, you’re trying to rescue the ownership from an assumption by making it an undeniable fact. But it won’t work.
In the first place, ethics is not “rules of behavior that we can all agree on that will allow us to avoid conflict.� Ethics (or morals) are those actions we ought to take even when we don’t want to and doing so would be to our disadvantage (CS Lewis), regardless of whether the act causes conflict with others or whether people find such acts generally acceptable. In the past, the majority of people have viewed some evil things as acceptable, such as slavery and attempts to wipe out Native Americans.
Next none of the following is implied in argumentation: “That both people in the debate are self-owners; that they are justified in being alive to debate, justified in making an argument, studying an argument, agreeing or disagreeing with someone’s argument. It implies they are justified in not only self-ownership, but in ownership of scarce resources which allow them to survive, such as food shelter, land, clothing etc.� Those conclusions are too much of a leap from the simple premise that two people are engaged in argumentation. We can assume them to be true, but they’re not required or implied.
Even the idea that people are entitled to self-ownership is an assumption. It’s a nice one and one that most people accept today, but it’s a new one in the history of humanity, coming to the fore only since the Enlightenment. Now I believe in the principle of self-ownership, but for a very different reason: God gave us the right to self-ownership by creating us in His image. But no one can say that self-ownership is a self-evident principle.
You anarchists are very good at writing the rules of the game to guarantee that you side wins every time. If I accepted your “presuppositions of argument� I would have to arrive at the same conclusions as you. You write that “The only other ethics available are a master-slave relationship where A owns B.� This is how anarchists typically limit conclusions. Of course there are many more alternatives to either a) anarchy or b) slavery. There is a continuum between those two extremes. Republican governments lie close to anarchy on that continuum, but the people have contracted together to form a government to enforce the law and provide for self-defense. That is not immoral.
Published: April 10, 2006 1:04 PM
Paul Edwards
Hi Roger,
“…In the first place, ethics is not “rules of behavior that we can all agree on that will allow us to avoid conflict.� Ethics (or morals) are those actions we ought to take even when we don’t want to and doing so would be to our disadvantage (CS Lewis), regardless of whether the act causes conflict with others or whether people find such acts generally acceptable.�
The term “conflict� is used in respect to contention over use and rights over scarce resources; conflict avoidance in this context is not an issue of not offending someone or hurting his feelings.
Your preference for the term “ought� is bound to lead to confusion and conflict because your “ought� will be different from mine, and the next person’s and the next. This is why it is crucial to back away from the “ought� and attempt to work only with the more scientific and objective concept of the “justified�.
“In the past, the majority of people have viewed some evil things as acceptable, such as slavery and attempts to wipe out Native Americans.�
If people found them acceptable, it is because they focused too much on what the prevalent perception of what ought to be ok. If only they had focused their attention on justice and on what is justifiable, they would have been forced to see that slavery and murder is unacceptable because it is unjustified. Incidentally, the genocide of the Native Americans is a result of state aggression and slavery was enforced by state legislation.
“Next none of the following is implied in argumentation: “That both people in the debate are self-owners; that they are justified in being alive to debate, justified in making an argument, studying an argument, agreeing or disagreeing with someone’s argument. It implies they are justified in not only self-ownership, but in ownership of scarce resources which allow them to survive, such as food shelter, land, clothing etc.� Those conclusions are too much of a leap from the simple premise that two people are engaged in argumentation.�
There is no leap at all. Tell me what is implied when two people argue. It is a conflict free interaction between two people who are making propositions for the other to either accept or not of their own free will without the threat of violence or death.
“We can assume them to be true, but they’re not required or implied.�
They are indeed presupposed, and this is even regardless of the real circumstances. That is, an argument only makes sense, and succeeds in not being a fundamental contradiction, only if the two participants presuppose each other are at liberty as I described. Any other presupposition means that one of the participants is not free to disagree. And that would make argumentation an absurdity.
“Even the idea that people are entitled to self-ownership is an assumption. It’s a nice one and one that most people accept today, but it’s a new one in the history of humanity, coming to the fore only since the Enlightenment.�
Nope. It doesn’t matter if no one even recognized that they accepted self-ownership. If such people engaged in, and while they engaged in argumentation, they would be presupposing self-ownership regardless of what they profess to recognize. And this is because it is what necessarily MUST be presupposed to engage in argumentation. To do otherwise, is inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of participating in an argument.
“Now I believe in the principle of self-ownership, but for a very different reason: God gave us the right to self-ownership by creating us in His image. But no one can say that self-ownership is a self-evident principle.�
God gave us the ability to reason, to argue, to see justice and to justify. He gave us thought and speech. Through this he gave us the ability to see that only libertarian principles can be justified.
“You anarchists are very good at writing the rules of the game to guarantee that you side wins every time.�
We didn’t write the rules. We merely discovered them. Since they are true, how can we do anything other than win every time?
“If I accepted your “presuppositions of argument� I would have to arrive at the same conclusions as you.�
You do implicitly make these presuppositions each time you engage in argumentation. All there is left for you to do is recognize this fact and then decide to argue consistently with your presuppositions.
“You write that “The only other ethics available are a master-slave relationship where A owns B.� This is how anarchists typically limit conclusions. Of course there are many more alternatives to either a) anarchy or b) slavery.�
I gave two other options besides anarchy. 1 is slavery, 2 is everybody has a shared ownership in every other. Both are unjustified and the latter results in the extinction of the human race.
“There is a continuum between those two extremes. Republican governments lie close to anarchy on that continuum, but the people have contracted together to form a government to enforce the law and provide for self-defense. That is not immoral.�
This continuum is merely a hybrid between the master-slave relationship and liberty. The former is unjustified, the latter is justified.
Furthermore, you are confused on what constitutes a contractual agreement. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has contracted with the government to legislate, tax and regulate us. This is just a lie and a person of God should not propagate such lies.
The state possesses a coercive territorially based monopoly on providing law and defense. It neither has my consent, nor does it care. It is run by immoral lying cheating, thieves and murderers. We are given the option to choose between criminal A and criminal B, but never the option to opt out of the whole lurid system and subscribe to a competing system.
Most people acquiesce to this system because they either fear the state or they think they may fare better from the criminal wealth redistribution mechanism than if all were free to trade with them without coercion. Either way, the state is indeed immoral.
Published: April 10, 2006 2:23 PM
Roger M
Justified is a scientific concept? I doubt it! It’s no more precise than ought. Our ancestors who enslaved people and slaughtered Native Americans weren’t following the accepted norm of “ought,� they were ignoring it.
Do you seriously want to ground the concept of property rights on the flimsy foundation of what you perceive to be the presuppositions in argument? That poor little donkey can’t carry the weight! Christians have a much more solid foundation for private property rights in the Biblical commands prohibiting theft.
Argumentation may imply so much to you, but that’s just your preference. You still haven’t proven to me that argumentation implies anything; you’ve simply stated that it’s so. I don’t agree. Explain to me how engaging in argumentation presupposes self-ownership.
Here’s an argument for forcing people to pay taxes to the government: Everyone benefits from governmental efforts to reduce crime and protect national security even those who don’t pay taxes. So the free riders are stealing from the taxpayers.
“Neither you nor I nor anyone else has contracted with the government to legislate, tax and regulate us. This is just a lie and a person of God should not propagate such lies.� It’s an implicit contract, Paul. If you don’t like the implicit contract involved in being a US citizen, you’re free to go live somewhere else, no one would dare dream of forcing you to stay here. If you insist on insulting me, I’ll quit responding to your posts.
Published: April 10, 2006 3:01 PM
Paul Edwards
Hi Roger,
“Justified is a scientific concept? I doubt it! It’s no more precise than ought. Our ancestors who enslaved people and slaughtered Native Americans weren’t following the accepted norm of “ought,� they were ignoring it.�
Yes it is scientific, actually. It is scientific in the very same way that praxeology is scientific. Humans argue. From the presuppositions inherent in that action and the application of cold logic that follows from it, libertarian ethics are shown justified.
Regarding the ought that never happened, those who enslaved and slaughtered were able to do so for the most part, because their state either forced them to or told them it is ok and “legal� to do so. What the state touches, it corrupts. Do you think it is private individuals acting outside of the authority of the state that commit acts of mass murder?
“Do you seriously want to ground the concept of property rights on the flimsy foundation of what you perceive to be the presuppositions in argument? That poor little donkey can’t carry the weight!�
LOL. Well, the thing of it is Roger, despite as much as you protest, it would appear you, no less than any of us, still appear to presume that it is in conflict free argumentation and in no other way, that anything can be justified. And when you put forth your argument that it isn’t so, pause for an instant to realize that you are using that modest “donkey� the argument, to justify your position. It appears the argument carries more weight than perhaps some of us had imagined on first thought.
“Argumentation may imply so much to you, but that’s just your preference. You still haven’t proven to me that argumentation implies anything; you’ve simply stated that it’s so. I don’t agree. Explain to me how engaging in argumentation presupposes self-ownership.�
Well, in fact you are correct! I have not proven it, nor is a proof possible. Nonetheless, it is true that when one engages in argumentation he does indeed presuppose the libertarian ethic between himself and his audience. It can’t be helped. It is inherent in the nature of the argument. Furthermore, to deny this via argumentation is to confirm it.
The statist solution to someone who disagrees with it, by the way, is to fine him, jail him or kill him. The argument presupposes no such aggressive powers available to win the argument. The argument, if it is to be won at all, must be won on the merit of its logic alone.
“Here’s an argument for forcing people to pay taxes to the government: Everyone benefits from governmental efforts to reduce crime and protect national security even those who don’t pay taxes. So the free riders are stealing from the taxpayers.�
Egads! Everyone benefits? Hardly. Did you not read today’s article, “Society in Jail�?
“…It’s an implicit contract, Paul. If you don’t like the implicit contract involved in being a US citizen, you’re free to go live somewhere else, no one would dare dream of forcing you to stay here.�
Implicit contract is an illusion. There is no such thing. I challenge the state’s rightful ownership of this nation and that it is me who should go rather than the state. Just as if your neighbor walked up to your doorstep and told you what to cook for dinner or how to dress or wash your floors, he is beyond his authority, even if he tells you there is an implicit contract. If you refuse to follow his decrees, it is because he does not own you nor your house, or your food. If he points a gun at you, you may acquiesce to his demands, but you will see through his “implicit contract� lie quite well. The state is in the same boat as this neighbor. Only difference is, people have bought the state’s line; but no one falls for it in the private realm.
“If you insist on insulting me, I’ll quit responding to your posts.�
That is quite libertarian of you, thank-you.
Published: April 10, 2006 4:50 PM
Gregg
Ok, first off there was a request for examples of militias defeating standing armies. The three most glaring examples would be Ireland, Afghanistan and China. Now, please note I am stating modern examples. The original IRA prosecuted a guerrilla campaign against the forces of England from about 1916 to the early 1920's resulting in partitin and limited freedom for the Republic of Ireland which became complete in 1949 if I recall correctly. The 1916 date is only iffy because the Easter Uprising was actually carried out by members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood who later formed the IRA, well the survivors of the uprising anyway. Afghanistan, the Muj were not a professional standing army yet they defeated the USSR's troops. China, the professional forces were under the Kuomintang, not Mao Tse Tung and we all know who ended up in control of mainland China. Oh, and then there is Vietnam, which is tough because of the mix of NVA with Viet Cong. The VC were militia, but the NVA were not, very messy and inconclusive. Those are wars by the way, not battles. A glaring example of a battle would be Custer's Last Stand where the 7th Cavalry was defeated by Native American tribesmen, militia defeating professional troops.
As far as my having to move because I disagree with Statists. Well my response is not proper on this site. I am willing to live under the original contract even though I would prefer anarchy. However, we have moved from a Republican form of government to mutated form of representative mob rule.
National defense rarely, if ever, requires pre-emptive strikes, and if history is any indication, people will acquire state of the art weapons systems if allowed. The ACW (American Civil War) proves that.
Published: April 11, 2006 1:56 AM
Don B
Perhaps the key to not needing standing armies is not creating the need in the first place (which makes the point of militias versus standing armies moot). If Wilson doesn't abuse the Constitution and sally forth to fight in what the U.S. turned into WWI, we don't set the stage for further destabilzing Czarist Russia, giving us our Cold War Soviet enemy requiring more military investment. It also doesn't give us Hitler which directly resulted from the Germans being crushed by US involvement in WWI. Without us, the 3 powers settle their dispute and the world goes about its business. A lack of WWI and WWII takes away the setting for the U.N. Vietnam goes away, Korea goes away. Both Gulf Wars have been unnecessary, triggered by U.S. military hegemony coming out of the Cold War, and increased the risk and danger to Americans. If you don't think GWI was a risk--you might recall 9/11 and the responses to it; for the catastrophic risks from GWII (which doesn't appear to me to have anything to do with 9/11 or securing America from terrorists)--stay tuned.
Published: April 11, 2006 10:54 AM