Re: War
- From: Enginee" <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 20:41:47 +0000
Ian Davis wrote:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DP.CHART.V19.PDF and here:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DP83.HTM and here:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MIRACLE.HTM
I am not sure that there are any libertarian states. And though it might
be so, I doubt that libertarian states are the only ones which are
intelligent enough to equate starting wars of aggression with disasterous
foreign policy.
That's not what the web pages above claim. First, they define what
degree of libertarianism they refer to and give examples. Second,
they are clear on the point that such states do start wars of
aggression. Go back and read what is actually being claimed.
I read:
"Based on theory and previous results, three hypotheses are posed:
Libertarian states have no violence between themselves.
The more libertarian two states, the less their mutual violence.
The more libertarian a state, the less its foreign violence.
...
In Understanding Conflict and War (Rummel, 1975-1981) I concluded that
libertarianism is causally related to foreign violence: The more freedom
that individuals have in a state, the less the state engages in foreign
violence. This conclusion was based on social field theory and associated
evidence, and on the test of related propositions against the empirical
literature"
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DP83.HTM
[Caveat see also what I wrote later]
Go back and read what I said and then try arguing again that what I have
said is not what the web site you provided said.
Please tell me the exact spot where you think you see the claim that
those states are (in your words) "intelligent enough to equate starting
wars of aggression with disasterous foreign policy." I can't find it.
To repeat myself, I don't know of any libertarian states
You can't think of a single state that "emphasizes individual freedom
and civil liberties and the rights associated with a competitive and
open election of leaders -- what we also call liberal democracies"?
You can't think of a state "where those who hold power are elected
in competitive elections with a secret ballot and wide franchise
(loosely understood as including at least 2/3rds of adult males);
where there is freedom of speech, religion, and organization; and
a constitutional framework of law to which the government is
subordinate and that guarantees equal rights"? Those are the
definitions that were used nin the statistical analysis.
They are also listed: Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria,
Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana,
Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Costa Rica, Cyprus (Greek),
Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland,
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kiribati, Korea (South),
Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta,
Marshall Islands, , Mauritius, Micronesia, Monaco, Mongolia,
Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau,
Panama, Poland, Portugal, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia,
St. Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and
Principe, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, South
Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu,
United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, and Western
Samoa.
so it is not clear to me how I validate the claim that libertarian
states have no violence between themselves,
Even after reading a paper where a professor presents the statistics
and test those statistics against that and several other hypothoses?
What evidence would satisfy you?
and secondly I doubt that libertarian states are intrinsically
the only form of government capable of equating war with disasterous
foreign policy.
I am still looking for the place where you saw that claim.
Thus I am taking issue with the claim that the more libertarian
a state, the less its foreign violence.
It is an established statistical trend, and the odds that it
could be the result of random chance are vanishingly small.
Your solution to war seems to be to elect libertarian governments.
Because it works.
Mine is to make war a crime.
This also works, but only among a limited set of nations. That list
include the most owerful and dangerous one (USA), so it is well
worth doing. In the case of the US, enforcing the existing laws
concerning war would be a good place to start; if they can ignore
those they can ignore any new ones.
You and I can both agree that war is wrong,
Yes.
and that law is the process of formalising that which is wrong,
No, no, a thousand times no! It is a huge error to imagine that
what is wrong should be illegal. That thinking led to phohibition,
and would lead to banning Nazi web pages and other expressions of
free speech which are clearly wrong. Adultry is wrong; should it
be made illegal? Smoking is wrong; should we jail smokers? I like
the idea of making starting wars illegal, but making "that which is
wrong" illegal is a Very Bad Idea.
However
you and I would disagree as to whether libertarians were right or wrong. I'd
claim they were 100% right on social policy, and 100% wrong on fiscal policy.
I know its nuts within your frame of reference but I like government, I want
government capable of bettering the state, and I approve of taxes. I believe
the government better able to make wise decisions about how money is spent
than I. People left to there own devices tend to make all sorts of selfish
decisions about how they spend "their" money. The hope is that government
would somehow "see" the big picture, and make better decisions about how to
spend what was not their money.
Nothing wrong with that view, even though I disagree. I am sure that
Timothy pretty much agrees with the above, so you are far from being
alone, and it is not in any way a stupid or unreasonable position.
The early christian communities did not hold to the libertarian
position that what I own I keep..
They most certainly did!
Acts 5:1-11 (New International Version)
Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira,
also sold a piece of property. With his wife's full knowledge
he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the
rest and put it at the apostles' feet. Then Peter said,
"Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart
that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for
yourself some of the money you received for the land?
Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after
it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?
Note the last two sentences.
they tended to pool their resources and share their wealth.
Pool your resources and sharing your wealth is pure libertarian
-- as long as you do it of your own choice.
That on a macroscopic scale is what I see governments as aught to be doing.
No. You already stated what you believe governments ought to be
doing when you wrote "People left to there own devices tend to make
all sorts of selfish decisions about how they spend 'their' money."
You don't want them to be free to pool their money. You want to force
them to do so.
Nowhere in the Bible or the works of the church fathers or the writings
of early Friends is there the slightest hint that it is OK to do good
with other people's money that you extracted from them against their will.
That idea was invented by Karl Marx many years later.
I thought in what I read libertarian referred to a political platform.
The term was defined very well on the website where you read it.
The Greens are an alternative. They are the only other US party that
fully renounces war.
Sadly the only actual evidence I have regarding what Greens do when in
power, as regard to what they say they will do when in power comes from
the German Green parties response to NATO's decision to launch a war of
aggression against Serbia. While there were many within that party who
were horrified by the position taken by the leadership of that party,
the German Green party, threw its full weight behind that war. Thus
I no longer trust the Green Parties "claimed" platform regarding its
opposition to war. My brother-in-law was at one time the president of
the Green Party in Alberta; I have a great deal of sympathy for the
Green party. It is a bit of a curse but I am the type of person who
says "Fool me once, shame on you -- Fool me twice, shame on me".
It does raise the question as to whether the Libertarian Party would
also abandon its priniples upon gaining political power.
I've always believe that the US going to war in the middle east
was Al-Quaeda's intended game plan.
Of course it was. The goal of terrorism is to make the state more
repressive and thus more likely to be overthrown.
Precisely so. And that is also precisely why I hold to the notion
that if you want to thwart terrorism, you do it by saying that you
are not going to permit terrorists to alter the way you live. You
don't say to the people "keep on shopping" as George Bush did. You
say "keep on flying" as I continued doing.
Since the libertarian statement regarding the initiation of a war of
aggression against Serbia, is as relevant today albeit in a different
context, if not even more relevant today than it was then, I repost
that statement below.
"Americans deserve peace. And we're not going to achieve that goal
by recklessly intervening in every conflict around the globe, with
the goal of bombing our way to peace."
Ian
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
End attack against Yugoslavia, demands the Libertarian Party
March 25, 1999
End attack against Yugoslavia, demands the Libertarian Party
WASHINGTON, DC -- The U.S.-led military strike on Yugoslavia is an
unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation, a potential Vietnam-style
morass for American ground troops, and a dangerous expansion of the
U.S. government's "perpetual war for perpetual peace" foreign policy,
the Libertarian Party said today.
"This is not our war," said the party's national chairman, David
Bergland. "No matter how tragic the civil war in Yugoslavia is,
the security of the United States is not at stake. We should not
be involved in this conflict."
On Wednesday, American-led NATO forces attacked Yugoslavia with
B-2 Stealth bombers, Cruise missiles, warships, and submarines.
The stated goal: To "degrade" Yugoslavian President Slobodan
Milosevic's ability to wage a civil war against the breakaway
Kosovo province.
In justifying the attack, the Clinton Administration said that
President Milosevic was behaving like Adolf Hitler, and was
committing genocide and "ethnic cleansing" against ethnic Albanians
in Kosovo.
But the Libertarian Party said that ending a foreign civil
war -- however noble the rhetoric justifying it -- is no excuse
for getting the United States involved in another distant conflict.
"The job of our military is to protect the United States; not play
kingmaker or nation-builder to the world," said Bergland. "There is
no legitimate reason why we should be involved in military operations
in the Balkans -- a region notorious for bloody ethnic, religious,
and territorial squabbles for over 600 years.
"Yes, the war in the Balkans is a tragedy. But that does not justify
spilling one drop of American blood or spending one dollar of
American taxpayers' money."
In addition, the military strike is dangerous and alarming because
it opens the floodgates to unlimited foreign intervention by the U.S.
government, said Bergland.
"Aside from a few token claims that our security is at stake, the
Clinton Administration is primarily justifying this attack on moral
grounds -- arguing that we have a moral obligation to stop one
particular group of foreigners from killing another group of
foreigners. However, that argument writes a blank check on our
military, and on the American taxpayers who fund it."
For example, noted Bergland, Kosovo is just one of a dozen internal
conflicts raging around the world.
"More than 37,000 Kurds have been killed in Turkey over the past
decade in that civil war. Russia just finished a bloody military
action against rebels in Chechnya. Sri Lanka continues to battle
Tamil secessionists. More than 4,000 people have died in the last
month in the Sierra Leone civil war. A low-intensity civil conflict
has been raging in Northern Ireland for most of the past 30 years.
India is busy suppressing supporters of Kashmir independence,"
he said.
"Given the endless number of conflicts around the globe -- all
of which involve innocent people tragically being killed -- where
do we stop? Will the United States move into an eternal war footing,
fighting a perpetual war for an increasingly elusive peace?"
Even worse, the military strike against Yugoslavia represents an
unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation by NATO -- and marks the
"end of NATO's innocence" as a defensive force, said Bergland.
"Separate from the debate about whether NATO was genuinely needed
for the defense of the United States, you must grant that NATO has
an impressive 50-year track record as a purely defensive alliance,"
he said.
"That's all over now. With the attack on Yugoslavia, NATO has
launched its first unprovoked military aggression against a
sovereign nation. The transition of NATO from peace-keeper to
war-maker is complete."
The attack on Yugoslavia is also unconstitutional, since it is a
blatant act of war against a sovereign nation without formal
Congressional authorization, said Bergland.
"Even the Clinton Administration acknowledges that bombing a
sovereign nation qualifies as an act of war, which should,
according to the U.S Constitution, require a declaration of
war by Congress," he said. "However, the U.S. government justifies
its action because genocide is allegedly occurring, and because
no declaration of war was required for U.S. military intervention
in Bosnia, Somalia, or Iraq.
"So, past foreign intervention is used as a justification for
current foreign intervention -- with the definition of 'war'
becoming ever more murky, and the Constitution slipping into
irrelevance. That's a tragedy, because a government unfettered
by any Constitutional limitations poses a greater danger to
Americans than a civil war in an obscure Balkan province."
Finally, the attack on Yugoslavia has no "end game" -- no clearly
articulated plan for the United States to disengage from the conflict,
said Bergland.
"This conflict could very easily turn into a Balkan Vietnam,"
he said. "Whether or not we intervene, the Kosovo conflict could
spiral into a regional war. How long is the U.S. government willing
to stay involved in a Balkan war? How much money is it willing to
spend? How many American lives it is willing to waste?
"Just look at Bosnia: Our one-year peacekeeping mission has turned
into a three-year nation-building mission, with no end in sight.
The cost has ballooned to $20 billion, with no end in sight. Look
at Haiti: Four years later, American peace-keeping troops are
still in that nation, with no end in sight. Or look at Iraq: Eight
years later, we're still fighting that war, with no end in sight.
"Now, President Clinton is prepared to deploy another 4,000 American
troops to Kosovo, with no end in sight.
"We should stop this foolishness. We don't need another Bosnia.
We don't need another Haiti. We don't need another Iraq. And we
certainly don't need another Vietnam. That's why the Libertarian
Party urges: End the attack on Yugoslavia. Bring our troops home,"
he said.
"Americans deserve peace. And we're not going to achieve that goal
by recklessly intervening in every conflict around the globe, with
the goal of bombing our way to peace."
Wise words indeed.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: War
- From: Ian Davis
- Re: War
- References:
- Prev by Date: Al Lewis (Grandpa Munster)
- Next by Date: Re: Licia Kuenning
- Previous by thread: Re: War
- Next by thread: Re: War
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
