RoR: Forum

"Michael Marotta: You said "You are going to have to go a ways to prove that this war, that war, or any war promoted anyone's freedom." Thank you. I was definitely not expecting this to be a debate about the War on Terror, but that is a statement I strongly agree with."

Er... I haven't read this thread (apart from a few of the later posts), so perhaps I missed something relevant, but, I'm thinking:

War of Independence -- circa 1776
Civil War -- circa 1865
WWII -- circa 1937-1945
Desert Storm - circa 1991
Afghanistan War, then Iraq War - circa 2001-?

I'm no history major and these are just off the top of my head.

No doubt the cynics will now trot out some revisionist history, but I thought I'd at least put this in the record.

Post 41

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 9:14pm

Heidi-

Jody: Believe it or not, I actually don't ignore SOLO on purpose. I'm a senior in college. I'm writing my thesis. I have a house. I have a two year old. I'm not exactly swimming in time, here...

Say no more. I do wish you would engage us more though. Just shove your time with Luke aside and participate on SOLO more. ;)

Speaking of method acting, ever see Shadow of the Vampire, with Willem Defoe?

Post 42

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 9:56pm

Robert Winefield said:

"This attitude from someone that - I'm betting - doesn't even know how to change the oil in her own car."

FYI - in the past year I have changed spark plugs, installed a new ceiling in my home (with crown molding), changed a flat tire, repaired the transmission on my Rabbit (with assistance), rewired my house, replaced the front bumper of a Jeep Cherokee, done a complete brake job on two cars, and am currently building an AK-47 with one of my friends (true, no AR, but fun nonetheless).

When I told Jody I don't respond because I'm busy, I meant it.

Oh yes, and I changed the oil on my car, Luke's car, and my friend's Bonneville.

I hope you weren't betting the farm...

Post 43

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 10:38pm

Heidi, might I suggest you read what Rand said about an article called 'Roofs or Ceilings' that Friedman & Stigler wrote in 1946 for FEE, which bears on WHY you can't argue an issue like the draft without any reference at all to the immorality of it. (You can read her comments in the 'Letters of Ayn Rand.') Analysing such an issue solely as if it you were simply analysing two equally valid alternatives is NOT the way to argue for freedom -- your manner of argument suggests that freedom in this case might be seen as equally moral option to slavery, or that slavery can be equated with sitting around at an airport terminal. That, to be blunt, is obscene, and if you thought that could be easily overlooked by those reading your article then, well, you were at the very least naive.

Equally, given this audience, when you're addressing the issue of the War in Iraq even peripherally, if you do so by either smearing those involved or those supporting it (and then almost as an aside), then protesting here in the Comments Section that "This was NOT meant to be an anti-war article. It was meant to be an anti-DRAFT article" is just so much humbug. If you DIDN'T know it would be an issue, then you were very foolish indeed. In any case, how else to take the following comments except as BOTH:

Don recently decided to join the army....We all acknowledge that Don has�for many years�had a pathetic life. He has no friends. He rarely has a decent job. He�s on the chubby side... He has an extremely low opportunity cost�he�s the perfect candidate for the army. Plus, he has this whole patriotism thing going on, which is good since it makes him happy to be in the army.

Can you SPELL 'patronising' by any chance?

...by a conservative estimate, 95 percent of the wars America has been involved in during the last, oh ... fifty years or so ... has been unjust, unnecessary, and basically evil.

You can't make a parenthetical comment like THAT in the middle of what is otherwise a dry argument about opportunity cost (which is a pretty low-level idea really) and expect not to get called on it.

Back to the library my girl.

PS: To the gentleman who asked, YES, Reisman's book is worth every penny... which is why I borrow it from my friends at every opportunity. :-)

(Edited by Peter Cresswell
on 11/06, 11:42am)

Post 44

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 10:41pm

Jody wrote:

LOL...Maybe my next article should be about the effect of fermented grapes on ones spelling!� Speaking of drinkers of things fermented, did you notice you missed the space between 'your' and 'articles'? ;)� Besides, that's what we have Andrew for.

1) "Ones" should have an apostrophe.

2) I didn't miss the space. It's smaller because of the slanting italics, probably indiscernible in your fermented state (I'm reporting you to Brandbourne, btw).

3) Don't tell anyone, but Andrew got his very first paddling from me for failing to notice a "principal" instead of a "principle." He soon found out where the Principal's office was. :-)

Heidi, I didn't like your article, but I'm impressed by your multi-tasking. Please tell me Luke doesn't just stand there like a dork while you change the flattie?

Linz

Post 45

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 11:29pm

Hell no! I changed my damn spark plugs, and my brakes, and my oil, thank you very much! At least once. Heidi just did it that one time. Oh, and she did everything else...
(Edited by Luke Morris on 11/05, 11:32pm)

Post 46

Sunday, November 6, 2005 - 1:32am

I stand by my decision to publish this. If anything, my editorial defense-mechanisms were probably sabotaged by the all the economics talk in it (I can hear Linz hammering rusty nails into his paddle as we speak).

Like Heidi said, I saw it as an interesting tangent. When you get down to it, it's a pretty weak argument against the draft from a moral and philosophical standpoint. But the central point of this article�that another benefit of the volunteer army is that it allows people to choose whether or not to join the military based on their own personal contexts�ought to be an uncontroversial one. As far as it goes, I thought she stated this point in an interesting and engaging way. And I don't think an argument for or against a certain measure has to always be the absolute strongest one available in order for it to be a good argument that's worth making. To those crying out for a more philosophical treatment of the draft, I can only offer my promise that I'll be quite happy to publish it as soon as I see it in the article queue.

Yes, I think Heidi's article shows a bit too much of the Austrian subjective-value-preferences epistemological approach that probably comes from being steeped in the Hillsdale economics department for too long. There's more at stake here than private-vs-public sector salary comparisons and attempts to put a money value on the "good patriotic feeling" one might get from joining the military. But I didn't think the article was fundamentally an anti-war or anti-military one.

My father was in the military and I have good friends in Iraq. I wanted to join the Air Force myself before my eyes went bad. (I would pay to fly an F-16 for a living). All that said, I have to admit that the military is also often a very good choice for people like Heidi's friend. The point isn't that the military is full of dumb, lumbering Neanderthals; rather, the military can take people whose intelligence and ability were going to waste in a relatively unfocused life and help them put those capacities to good use. As I see it, this is more a compliment to the discipline and high demands of the military than a knock at its members. But sure, I think Heidi went overboard calling her friend the "perfect" candidate for the army, and on that score, I hope the thrashing from SOLOists has helped her attitude become well-and-truly better adjusted.

For the record, I give authors a certain berth to make comments and asides in articles, even if I sometimes find them anti-Objectivist or just downright annoying. (There's one in Tibor's new article today, in fact.) It doesn't mean I, or anyone else on SOLO, agrees with those asides.

Post 47

Sunday, November 6, 2005 - 7:04am

In Post 10 I asked Heidi: What should America do in response to an attack like 9/11?

In post 34, Michael Marotta gives his answer, which is essentially summarized by the last statement in that post:

In other words, I mind my own business and I think that the world would be a better place if everyone else minded their own as well.

This statement may be true, but it is irrelevant. The problem is that the world is full of people that have no intention of minding their own business and every intention of minding ours. The Islamists want a global Islamic state wherein everyone either converts to Islam or is otherwise forcibly subjugated.

You propose to resist this movement by demanding they mind their own business? Or by promising that we will mind ours? Or perhaps you do not propose to resist it at all.

In post 35, Heidi gave her answer, first with this statement:

I have every intention of staying away from the war debate. I realize this may seem wierd, but I view my opposition to the war as a personal, subjective preference.

And then with this statement:

Michael Marotta: You said "You are going to have to go a ways to prove that this war, that war, or any war promoted anyone's freedom." Thank you. I was definitely not expecting this to be a debate about the War on Terror, but that is a statement I strongly agree with.

A few questions for you:

Were the people living in the colonies freer before the American Revolution or after it?

Were the blacks in America freer before the Civil War or after it?

Were the French freer under German occupation or after liberation by the allies?

Were the Jews freer while Hitler was in power or after he was defeated?

Were the people of Afghanistan freer under the Taliban or after we destroyed the Taliban?

Were the people of South Korea freer in 1950 after being overrun by North Korea, or after we kicked the NKs back to north of the 38th parallel?

Are the people of Israel freer as a result of defeating Egypt, Jordon and Syria in four different wars, or would they have been freer if the Arabs had won and overrun Israel?

One may (properly) criticize many things about these wars, such as the fact that the U.S. had little or no reason to participate in some of them. However, it is preposterous to assert that wars have never promoted anyone's freedom.

To condemn all wars is to condemn the use of retaliatory force per se. But we know that the use of retaliatory force is both proper and necessary -- unless we simply want to surrender. I, for one, do not.

Whether or not Iraq was the next best target (after Afghanistan) in the War on Terror is arguable. But there is absolutely no argument in favor of doing nothing. History has surely taught us that pacifism and appeasement encourage aggression and invite attack. We do not need to repeat that particular lesson.

Post 48

Sunday, November 6, 2005 - 11:02am

I've heard complaints on SOLO about ARI and its members' mean-spirited attitudes, but I did not expect to find analogues here. Some of you need to lighten up. Heidi may have expressed an opinion that you thought was poor in an Objective sense, but that doesn't justify all the verbal knife fights I've seen in response. I'm just glad that others of you have been making kind responses, and many of those have been good ones.

-Mark C.

Post 49

Sunday, November 6, 2005 - 11:24am

Michael E. Marotta to Teresa Summerlee Isanhart: What you are saying is, "I do it, so it must be right. Everyone whom I know feels the same way I do."

There is no way in the world she was saying that. That quotation is a product of your imagination.

Post 50

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 5:15am

Michael M:

"What you are saying is, "I do it, so it must be right. Everyone whom I know feels the same way I do."

Clearly, I said nothing of the sort. Don't be silly, Michael.

Post 51

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 7:24am

At first, I found this passage patronizing, no, fucked up:

"A family friend named Don recently decided to join the army. Everyone was shocked, but it actually makes sense. We all acknowledge that Don has�for many years�had a pathetic life. He has no friends. He rarely has a decent job. He�s on the chubby side. He�s a musician, but he�s a lousy musician. He has an extremely low opportunity cost�he�s the perfect candidate for the army. Plus, he has this whole patriotism thing going on, which is good since it makes him happy to be in the army."

How could someone with a cute photo possibly be wrong about something? Then, after some thought, I realized Heidi was right. He can be a perfect candidate for the military. I know of men who were pathetic when they were civilians whipped into shape after enlisting. In my own way, I was one of them. I am a far better person now than I could ever have been before I enlisted. Some of the men I know that we hail as heroes today were men whom, in another life, nobody suspected would amount to anything.

This is where I have a problem:

"If they offer, say, a $20,000 stipend, then that tells us what a soldier is worth to society. I personally think I�m worth more than that, so I don�t go into that market. Don apparently thinks he�s worth less than that (and to all appearances, he is), so he migrates there."

First, my recruiter never told me about a $20K stipend (darn!), but even if there was one, the majority of the men and women I serve with don't do it for the money. The ones who do don't stay for long. Personally, I do it for the pride and the satisfaction of knowing that I am doing something worthwhile with my life. That is worth more to me than any stipend.

Post 52

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 8:46am