The Fascist Effect of ARI

Did anyone see 60 Minutes last night and Scott Pelley's interview with democratically elected Afghan president Hamid Karzai? Karzai wants the U.S. to stop the bombing, because too many civilians are being killed. The number has doubled recently, and he thinks it's turning otherwise sympathetic Afghans against the U.S.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml

One segment involved Pelley's interviewing a military commander at a classified control center from which bombing operations were being directed. The commander said that the decision to take out "high valued targets" (like Saddam Hussein, for example) had to be assessed according to a criterion of "proportionality" in which the price to be paid in terms of civilian deaths was 29 or less. Once the estimate reached 30, special permission had to be obtained from the president or the secretary of defense. One military official Pelley interviewed described it as a "macabre calculus," but one that was necessary because the Taliban were violating international law by shielding themselves in civilian neighborhoods.

However, 200 civilians had been killed without a single high valued target's being hit. The air strikes were not accomplishing their goal, even though many civilians were being sacrificed in the process. One seven year old boy, whose family had been killed, said that he hated the Americans. So there is a price to be paid in terms of moral support by otherwise sympathetic civilians.

Karsai said that he thinks the U.S. should put more troops on the ground, so these disastrous air strikes can be avoided. Of course, doing so exposes U.S. soldiers to more danger and would undoubtedly increase the number of U.S. military casualties, which may be why Yaron Brook and the Ayn Rand Institute recommend air strikes instead of ground operations. Evidently, the reasoning is that it is better to kill hundreds of civilians than risk the life of one U.S. soldier. I wonder what ARI would think of the 29 civilian deaths per each "high valued target"? It's a pretty arbitrary number in any case. Why not 19? Why not 49? Why not 499? Why should we even care how many civilians are killed?

- Bill

Post 21

Monday, October 29, 2007 - 10:26am

Kurt

I think the problem is that sometimes ARI calls for the intentional bombing of civilians, not just collateral damage

Kurt unless I'm misinterpreting ARI's stand on this, they call for the intentional bombing of civilians if when all the facts are in, that is what is needed to win the war and save American lives. Take WW2 for instance, towards the end of the war in the Pacific it was decided that a ground invasion of Japan in order to make them capitulate would've resulted in an astronimically high casualty rate for both American soldiers, Japanese soldiers and Japanese civilians. On the other hand dropping the A bomb, even two of them, would result in far lower casualties for both sides and far fewer civilian deaths for the Japanese as well. It was moral to intentionally kill the civilians of Nagasaki and Hiroshima otherwise the alternative would be intentionally allowing far more people, Japanese and American lives, to die.

So in some instances of war, not intentionally killing some people can mean far more people, your own soldiers and civilians, are essentially intentionally killed by your lack of action to target the enemy's civilian populations. That is if the facts come in and tell us those are the altertanatives. If I am wrong on this, I would like to hear a rational argument why a defender nation's citizens are given a lower priority of safety by their government to the aggressor nation's citizens. Why should Americans be sacrificial lambs to an aggressor nation?

(Edited by John Armaos on 10/29, 10:57am)

Post 22

Monday, October 29, 2007 - 1:14pm

It needs to be evaluated in terms of its effect - for instance, the bombing of cities was largely ineffective in stopping the war and to an extent hardened resolve against the allies - and this was even argued during the war. Attacks in infrastructure were far more effective. The atomic bomb was a special case because it just added the nails needed to seal the Japanese coffin and jolt them out of their desire to commit national suicide. So ultimately judgements have to be made just like they do with any attack in war. I dont agree with the ARI stance that we should escalate to the ultimate level at the drop of a hat, nor do I agree we can handcuff ourselves into "no civilian deaths" either. It is, unfortunately, a choice between bad alternatives, and there is no magic answer. Conflict and war is always that way.

Post 23

Monday, October 29, 2007 - 3:14pm

Kurt

I dont agree with the ARI stance that we should escalate to the ultimate level at the drop of a hat

Has ARI said that though? Unless I'm mistaken I believe they did give the caveat all facts must be evaluated first.

Post 24

Monday, October 29, 2007 - 8:22pm

And all the above revolves around the undefined purpose of the state that is doing the bombing...

Yes, I realize that there is an ostensive purpose to the state - a "good" state, that is (ROFL). To wit: to secure and protect the rights of its citizens against aggression, foreign and domestic, and to provide a final referee in legal disputes.

Fine, except that that doesn't resolve ANY of the above issues. The real problem lies in the inability for the state to price its services, the same inability that Von Mises talks about regarding the prices of goods and services and the allocation of resources in socialist economies. Even a perfect objectivist state (ROFL) is socialist with respect to justice and defense.

Thus, it literally CANNOT make a rational decision as to the limits of force used to protect American citizens, for example, against Al Qaeda and its minions and fellow travellers. If we go by the rationalistic argument, then if ONE person in a foreign country has a weapon trained on the U.S. that MIGHT kill one American citizen, or is even seriously considering the idea, then, BY GALT, we should nuke them and the surrounding territory!

In a situation in which the governence of the "U.S.", was conducted by competing agencies interested in maximizing their own profits, such agencies, if they were large enough and rich enough to begin with to conduct the equivalent of the Iraq war, would make calculated assessments of relative risk and benefit before ever stepping into such a quagmire. Their goal would be to maximize long-term premiums from their subscribers, while minimizing their losses due to taking actions that could get them sued or provoke retaliation from the collateral damage.

Post 25

Monday, October 29, 2007 - 10:31pm

It's interesting that anarchists who argue that all functions of the government should be carried out by private businesses describe behavior that isn't even displayed by businesses.

Have you ever observed an actual business that "make[s] calculated assessments of relative risk and benefit before ever stepping into such a quagmire. Their goal would be to maximize long-term premiums from their subscribers, while minimizing their losses due to taking actions that could get them sued or provoke retaliation from the collateral damage."?

In 30 years working for or with as many companies (and reading about many more in magazines and business books), I never have.

If a theory describes nothing but an ideal that has never been realized, on what basis does one assert that it will have the effects envisioned?

Post 26

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 7:40am

Jeff: "If a theory describes nothing but an ideal that has never been realized, on what basis does one assert that it will have the effects envisioned?"

I'm not an anarchist, Jeff, but the same exact statement could be made about free-market capitalism. Has a full capitalist political-economic system ever been realized? No. In any society in history, there has always been at least some state interventionism. So on what basis do Objectivists assert that free-market capitalism is an "unknown ideal"? On an objective grasp of man's nature, on holding man's survival and progress as a moral standard, and on the knowledge that capitalism is the only political-economic system consistent with that standard. A theory doesn't have to have been realized to know what the results would be (of course, the particular forms those results would take, such as exactly how roads would be cheaper and better maintained if privately owned, is another matter). As Objectivists, we know that the moral is the practical.

Post 27

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 1:47pm

Jeff Perren, that is not even how the issue should be framed. As I don't want to hash out another massively long hijacked thread (the original post by this thread only amounts to garbage anyways so there are much better threads to discuss it) a free market cannot produce the best objective results for justice and national defense, it simply can't because free markets do not produce objectively good products or services because for example there really is no such thing as an objectively good widget or automobile. Free markets meet the needs and desires of the consumer on each individual level, but each individual has his or her own subjective criteria for what is a good product or service for them. The whole idea that justice is a traded commodity is saying justice is defined by the subjective whims and desires of each individual. Which means rights are to be bargained with, not defended in absolute terms.

Post 28

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 4:50pm

Jon asserted,

Has a full capitalist political-economic system ever been realized? No. In any society in history, there has always been at least some state interventionism.

Other than the complete legalization of slavery, and legal subjugation of women and ethnic minorities (who could own property during most of US history, they just couldn't vote), the US enjoyed unfettered Capitalism. For over 100 years, there was no FDA, DEA, EPA, ATF, OSHA, IRS, or Wage and Hour Commission. There were no building codes or environmental codes. There were no hiring codes or firing codes. There were no "unfair trade" codes or fair housing codes.
There was just trade. Free and open trade. No regulations. No restrictions. Just trade.

Post 29

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 8:09pm

Teresa, you didn't contradict what I wrote. FULL capitalism hasn't existed in any society in history. Yes, all the unconstitutional federal agencies you mentioned (and many others) didn't exist until the twentieth century. But state governments passed laws that infringed on individual rights. There was taxation. There was public property. The USA was the closest system to pure capitalism that had ever existed, and that situation would undoubtedly be wonderful compared to what we have now (sans legal racial and gender discrimination, obviously). But it still wouldn't be what the Objectivist politics holds as the ideal, which is a social system based on the principle of individual rights in which all property is privately owned.

Post 30

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 8:22pm

Jon I don't understand what legal/political system you speak of that has no public property. What would we consider for example the Capitol building for which Congressmen enact legislation? What about the Supreme Court building? I don't understand why the criteria for laissez-faire Capitalism is the abolition of any kind of public property.
(Edited by John Armaos on 10/30, 8:23pm)

Post 31

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 8:25pm

Teresa, I do not claim to be an expert on the claim you just made, but I do know that Blue Laws have a long, if not glorious history. There were restrictions on the trade in sex for money, restrictions on the hours that bars could be open, etc. I suspect that if you looked hard enough at local history, you would find all kinds of local, if not national, laws respecting various kinds of trade, generally passed to satisfy some constituency with sufficient political or economic pull.

And note that the "civil war," more properly termed the War of Secession, was not fought over slavery. Lincoln brought that issue in out of desperation to try to sell the war on moral grounds, as he was losing all public support for it. The Southern states seceded because they were being systematically looted by the Northern mercantilists who controlled Congress and had confiscatory tariffs imposed on the export of the major Southern produce, especially cotton.

(Ironically, the average workday for a plantation slave has been estimated at about four hours, although it could be 24/7 during harvest season. After the South lost, the textile mills owned by the very Northern manufacturers who had caused the war to begin with moved into the South massively, and the average work day jumped to over 10 hours, six days per week.)

I.e., the purchase of state power by special interests in order to steal or persecute - the Empire of Pull - was in full swing in the 19th Century.

Note also that unions were largely illegal as well.

Post 32

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 9:14pm

On the other hand dropping the A bomb, even two of them, would result in far lower casualties for both sides and far fewer civilian deaths for the Japanese as well. It was moral to intentionally kill the civilians of Nagasaki and Hiroshima otherwise the alternative would be intentionally allowing far more people, Japanese and American lives, to die.

So in some instances of war, not intentionally killing some people can mean far more people, your own soldiers and civilians, are essentially intentionally killed by your lack of action to target the enemy's civilian populations.

John, I really like your line of reasoning here. It can be used to inform what should be done, now, in the Middle East. In the Middle East, we are steadily losing American lives. It might be more morally fruitful to target more ethically-immoral persons -- such as A-jad, the president of Iran -- than it is to continue a harmful, military occupation of Iraq.

Ed

Post 33

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 9:18pm

And note that the "civil war," more properly termed the War of Secession, was not fought over slavery. Lincoln brought that issue in out of desperation to try to sell the war on moral grounds, as he was losing all public support for it. The Southern states seceded because they were being systematically looted by the Northern mercantilists who controlled Congress and had confiscatory tariffs imposed on the export of the major Southern produce, especially cotton.

The South may have had legitimate grievances against the North, but those grievances were trumped by the fact the South had slave labor camps.

That fact alone means the South had no legitimate reason to secede. No nation has a right to exist if it sanctions a crime against humanity, and this fact alone meant the North and Lincoln were morally justified to prevent the South from seceding. I don't really care what Lincoln's intentions really were, the fact is he did wage a war against a government that had slaves to which he then abolished the practice. I think that's good enough for me.

Post 34

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 9:59pm

John, might the implications of your argument be that in the early 1800's, a nation such as France would have had the moral right to depose the American government?

Post 35

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 10:25pm

I haven't given that much thought Pete as it would depend what kind of government France had and what institutions it would erect after a hypothetical war with America. But even that would presume there would be no alliance with the North against the South if France had saw fit to invade? No doubt if France did invade it wouldn't have needed to invade the North as the North would probably have helped them in invading the South.
(Edited by John Armaos on 10/30, 10:25pm)

Post 36

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 7:15am

John, the definition of capitalism as "a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned" isn't mine; it's Ayn Rand's. You can look it up on aynrandlexicon.com. Given her penchant for precision, when AR says "all property," I assume she means ALL property. Maybe you disagree with this notion, but I didn't just say it arbitrarily.

In any event, my original point was that we don't know that pure free-market capitalism is the ideal political-economic system based on historical record, given that pure capitalism has never existed. We know it because it's the only system consonant with a proper moral standard and with the facts of man and reality.

Post 37

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 1:11pm

John Armaos wrote,

Jon I don't understand what legal/political system you speak of that has no public property. What would we consider for example the Capitol building for which Congressmen enact legislation? What about the Supreme Court building? I don't understand why the criteria for laissez-faire Capitalism is the abolition of any kind of public property.

Jon Trager replied,

John, the definition of capitalism as "a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned" isn't mine; it's Ayn Rand's. You can look it up on aynrandlexicon.com. Given her penchant for precision, when AR says "all property," I assume she means ALL property. Maybe you disagree with this notion, but I didn't just say it arbitrarily.

Exactly! When Rand says that all property should be privately owned she is saying nothing more than that a product should belong to its producer or to whomever the producer passes title voluntarily. As she puts it, "The man who produces while others dispose of his product is a slave."

Besides, "public property" is not what its name implies. It is not property that is owned by the public (i.e., by society as a whole). Collective ownership is a contradiction in terms. Property, by its very nature, implies the exclusive right of use and disposal -- the right of some people rather than others to determine its use and disposition. What is today considered "public property" is really property that has been expropriated from private owners and is now controlled by the government. The government sets the terms and conditions for its use.

Under laissez-faire capitalism, government buildings (like courthouses and state capitol buildings) are property that private citizens have financed through voluntary contributions. Even though the buildings are used for government functions and are in that sense nominal "public" property, they are still private in the sense that they've been delegated to the government by private citizens for a specific purpose. Under capitalism, government officials do not "own" public buildings in the same sense that private citizens own their own homes and factories. They cannot sell the buildings to the highest bidder or do whatever they want with them, but must use them in a way that is consistent with the designated functions of government.

- Bill

Post 38

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 2:29pm

Under laissez-faire capitalism, government buildings (like courthouses and state capitol buildings) are property that private citizens have financed through voluntary contributions. Even though the buildings are used for government functions and are in that sense nominal "public" property, they are still private in the sense that they've been delegated to the government by private citizens for a specific purpose. Under capitalism, government officials do not "own" public buildings in the same sense that private citizens own their own homes and factories. They cannot sell the buildings to the highest bidder or do whatever they want with them, but must use them in a way that is consistent with the designated functions of government.

Bill that's fair enough but it sounds like splitting hairs over what is called "public property". On the one hand legislators and judges preside in buildings funded voluntarily are no longer considered presiding in "public" buildings but they are being used for "public" use, in the other sense forcible taxation is used to fund buildings for legislators and judges to preside in for "public" use. While there is an important distinction of how the property was funded to be for public use they are still both for public use. So I don't think it's necessarily a big misnomer to say laissez-fair Capitalism does not exclude "public property" as it is the funding of it that matters.

You say it's "nominally" public property if it serves a government function, so why not say it is public property?

Post 39

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 6:03pm