RoR: Forum

What a frightful thing it is to come home from a long day's work and find a Twister-mat of distortions and oodles of hysteria. Where does one begin? Well, let's try here:

Appeaseniks and pacifists,

Does it matter what the rest of the world thinks about our death penalty? No. It is just.

Does it matter what the rest of the world thinks about our "conspicuous consumption"? No. It is good.

Does it matter what the rest of the world thinks of us if we annihilate (yes, there's that dastardly macho bravado word again) despots, their regimes and terrorist cells? No. It is altogether fitting and proper for a moral nation.

...

I won't address Robert B's predilection for name-calling despite his very publicly avowed tolerationist slant, in which one can allegedly only truly judge another's actions -- not ideas -- and especially not another's psychological motivations.

Let me take another sip of my Cabernet. ... There now, oh yes, let's see if I can make this as clear as possible. Countries that are led by despots and not by a rule of law do not have the right to exist -- any more than the Confederacy had a right to form a nation while enslaving a race of people. If we do not have the moral nerve to nuke the rulers and their military regimes, then we should at least give our very own National Rifle Association (millions strong) carte blanche on attacking any of the despotic nations it wishes and then setting up a constitutional government and using the proceeds from the selling of government land to purchase more infomercials against John Kerry and Hillary Clinton and the rest of the fascist sourpusses.

While I'm at it, I'll clear up an incredible presumption by some of you. Only a monster could be gleeful about and extoll excitedly the extermination of civilians or entire countries. I've been specific about saying that bad people have to be targeted (and there aren't THAT many bad people in a country) and that sometimes that will mean having to get them in population centers. If it is feasible, I would like to see the civilians get a chance to leave. The only time I wasn't specific is when I talked of razing countries. It didn't occur to me that some of you would think I was talking of the ENTIRE county in each case. I am talking about bombing (nuking if necessary) the industrial machine and centers (population, if necessary) where the current regime rules from - not random or "indiscriminate" cities.

One last point for now: Bin Laden, Zarqawi, the Iranians, the Syrians, some Saudis, some Pakistanis, etc., are out there right now (as we debate) planning the deaths of as many Americans as possible. Our government knows the general location of all of the above. The fact that it does not put an end to the threat RIGHT FUCKING NOW with thermonuclear weapons is unconscionable. Bidinotto and some others can jack off all fricking day if they want about the alleged nonthreat of these monsters, but the threat is real and it takes only one of these bastards slipping through the net to exterminate tens of thousands or millions of Americans.

And the threat will not go away until the financial pursestrings (Iran, Pakistan, Syria -- the usual suspects) are put permanently out of business NOW. It is not the time for pussyfooting and "international cooperation." It is the time to show persuasively and finally the moral and physical might of the greatest country the Earth has ever known! THAT spurs the fast-track to republicanism and capitalism in countries freed from their murderers.

P.S. Kudos to Jason P for his nonrevisionist WWII history and to Sponge Bob Squarepants for his notice of Bidonotto's straw man. Sip. Sip.

Post 81

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 8:20pm

Robert Bidinotto

"Those who can't believe that ARI officially condones the deliberate targeting of civilians for destruction should click here. There is simply no other way to interpret Yaron Brook's remarks to Bill O'Reilly: "brutal" was his own word for what he advocates."

Thanks for proving that you've taken his views out-of-context.

Of course, Robert Bidinotto has an axe to grind. He may not be with TOC anymore, but, it doesn't mean he isn't jealous of the success ARI has had.

If we jettison the hysterical  nonsense and instead focus on the *fundamentals* of  what is being said we'd recognize that Bob Bidinotto agrees with Yaron Brook.
He's logically trapped by his own statements. Take this as an example:

"We most certainly have the right to use massive force, including nukes if necessary, to eradicate governments that threaten us on a national level -- including state sponsors of terrorists. Civilians will die, and probably in large numbers, as a regrettable consequence. It's also justified to bomb cities in a nation largely supportive of a regime that threatens us: cities are part of the economic support system of such regimes. The bombings of Germany and Japan in WW II were certainly justified on those grounds."

Let's turn it around. Bob, give it your best shot and defend on moral grounds the above statement. Then, attempt to differentiate - without reference to non-essentials - your position from that of Yaron Brook.

Post 82

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 8:48pm

Warmongers and sociopaths,

"We" do not "annihilate. . .despots, their regimes and terrorist cells."

"We" do not "nuke. . .rulers and their military regimes."

The U.S. government does these things. The U.S. government is not identical with "America" or "we" or "us."

"Countries" do not have rights at all. Only individuals have rights.

If the "Confederacy had [no] right to form a nation while enslaving a race of people," then how did the United States of the same period have any "right" to exist, since it was enslaving the selfsame "race of people"?

"Countries" are not "led by despots." I've never seen a despot "lead" a mountain range or a desert or a swamp, have you? If despots "lead" anything, they lead governments, States -- which, again, are not identical with "countries."

The almost unbelievable ignorance of Mr. Elmore's post is surpassed only by his inability to find the right word for anything he has to say. It is difficult to imagine such a clod writing for a living.

Ayn Rand says somewhere that when you deal with words you deal with the mind. What sort of mind we're dealing with here I leave to the reader to determine for him- or herself.

JR

Post 83

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 9:29pm

One more thing. Perhaps in his next learned post Mr. Elmore can explain exactly how the U.S. government can "put an end. . .RIGHT FUCKING NOW" to the "threat" posed to Americans by
"Bin Laden, Zarqawi, the Iranians, the Syrians, some Saudis, some Pakistanis, etc." Mr. Elmore says that this is to be done "with thermonuclear weapons," but it is profoundly unclear to me (and perhaps to others on this thread) exactly how this is to be accomplished, given that, as Mr. Elmore assures us,
the U.S. government only "knows the general location of all of the above" enemies.

Tell me, how do you use a thermonuclear weapon on a "general location," without incinerating or poisoning millions of innocent people?

JR

Post 84

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 9:38pm

Elmore. You are an intellectual weakling. I dislike hurling such insults but it is clear that you are unable to deal with this topic in terms of philosophical abstractions and from the standpoint of Objectivist Ethics. Your posts are wishy washy and emotionally laden with macho bullshit that might serve to overwhelm your opponents in a normal day to day political debate but it will not work for a second when debating with people (like 3 or 4 of those posting messages in this thread) who have very fine tuned intellectual skills. Your posts amounts to nothing more then : "See, I am tougher on the terrorists then you are! You are being a pacifist weakling! See!! I am more principled then you are because I am tougher and more extreme towards the "bad guys" then you are!"

Now, since you brought up the subject of dictatorships, Ayn Rand discussed this issue herself and I agree with her.

This is from the Virtue of Selfishness, in the essay �Collectivized Rights� on page 122.

�Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free country had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen�.. It is not a free nation�s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self sacrifice, but the free nation has the right to do it when and if it chooses.

This right, however is conditional. Just as the suppression of crimes does not give a policeman the right to engage in criminal activities, so the invasion and destruction of a dictatorship does not give the invader the right to establish another variant of a slave society in a conquered country."

The second part is the element you are missing. The destruction of a dictatorship DOES NOT give the invader the right to engage in criminal activities. What is meant by criminal activities here is that the invading country does not have the right to unjustly initiate force. For an explanation of what the proper parameters are for avoiding such unjust acts see my earlier post (#27) in this thread, which you seemed to have skipped over. The key point I made there is that force initiators must be targeted as accurately as possible given the context. Read the post for further clarity.

While you are at it, please explain to all of us why China (one of the members of your earlier hit list) should suddenly be razed. Why is that justified and why is it in our best interest to do such a destructive thing????

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 4/28, 9:54pm)

Post 85

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 10:44pm

Wayne,

When was the last time David Kelley - or a rep from TOC - in the national press? Yet, I see articles from ARI representatives in "The National Post", Canada's national newspaper, and Yaron Brook on Bill O'Reilly's Show.

I have nothing to do with David Kelley, TOC or the split.

But ARI spouting collectivist crap* in the name of Ayn Rand and "rationally" expounding the despicable contemptible conclusion of wholesale slaughter in these public vehicles is precisely what offends me - and frankly, scares me a little.

* Please see my first post in this thread - and since you are a supporter, I would be interested in knowing if this quote is accurate. Thanks.

Michael

Post 86

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 6:20am

"If we do not have the moral nerve to nuke the rulers and their military regimes, then we should at least give our very own National Rifle Association (millions strong) carte blanche on attacking any of the despotic nations it wishes"

I was surprised to see an agreeable point jump out at me from your post. Firearms can be aimed at thugs who deserve it, while nukes cannot. I like this idea.

Post 87

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 6:56am

I just want to express my full support of and agreement with Yaron Brook's ideas *as expressed in the article on Tuffts Daily.* It was good to see that the newspaper did not try to distort or soften his views. Incidentally, he is not alone. Two years ago I attended a talk by a Rabbi who dissected the Just War Theory and demonstrated how it was thoroughly Christian. Sure, destroying your enemy is not the Christian thing to do. It is the Objectivist thing to do.

-- Michelle Fram Cohen

Post 88

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 7:11am

Wayne Simmons writes in post 79

When was the last time David Kelley-or a rep from TOC-in the national press?

Well let's see. Two weeks ago Ed Hudgins had his op-ed on taxes published in the Philadelphia Inquirer, and in the Washington Times. He appeared on various radio shows around tax day. He appeared on CNBC last week about Amtrak. Ed is on the radio and in print in major outlets on a regular basis.

I'll check with him about whether we are distributing his op-eds to the National Post.

Post 89

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 7:59am

I wonder if J. Quintana could use his very fine tuned intellectual skills and tell us where D. Elmore said he wanted to conquer a country and set up a slave society.

Otherwise Quintana is an intellectual weakling. I dislike hurling such insults but is is clear that you are unable to deal with this topic in terms of philosophical abstractions and from the standpoint of Objectivist Ethics. Your argument is a NON SEQUITUR-diversion.

Post 90

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 8:04am

B. Perry, you forgot, David Kelley was on John Stossel's Greed program.

Post 91

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 8:52am

Lance (post 54), the example is silly since Osama wouldn't (a) announce a specific target in advance, or (b) pick NYC as a way to get our attention for an attack on...ahem...Cleveland. Okay, okay -- it has the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame, but...

Bob, it would be stupid for Osama to announce Cleveland as a target but what if, after the announcement, he proceeded to attack San Fran?

Seriously, no foreign offensive measures we could take at that point could preclude a further attack: presumably the terrorists already would be in place here. We could bomb all of the Arab states into the stone age, but not stop the existing cells in the U. S. from acting here. Defensive measures -- martial law in Cleveland, a ban on all ground, air and water traffic into and out of the place -- might be the best bet to foil a given attack. But nuking the whole Middle East wouldn't stop the threat: it would merely move it to cells in Europe, Indonesia, the Phillipines, etc.

The advantage in the nuclear option is that it ends a culture that supports the destruction of America. These cells might well exist in America already but they are supported by somebody somewhere. If we eliminate the support it will go a long way in eliminating the threat.

I don't advocate dropping nukes. Not today. But I am prepared to advocate it if necessary. I don't want to wait until a suitcase nuke goes off in a U.S. city before we figure out what to do.

That said, I don't have a good read on what the terrorists are capable of. I sure hope American intelligence agencies know and I mean know what the terrorists are capable of. I'm sceptical.

(Edited by Lance Moore on 4/29, 5:48pm)

Post 92

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 9:23am

Jon, this may be true: "In sum, virtually all historians agree that World War II was already over before Japan was nuked."

However, the Japanese high command didn't agree! THAT is why the nukes were needed. After 1, they didn't surrender, after 2, they finally bowed to pressure from the Emperor. Hard liners still wanted to fight, and a plot to kidnap the Emperor failed (otherwise, they would not have surrendered). Their peace "feelers" prior to this were too little, too late.

To characterize their rather disingenuous willingness to "negotiate" when they had abjectly lost and should have been begging to surrender is more proof that they were not willing to face reality yet, and were prepared to drag as many people as they could to their deaths to prove it.

Post 93

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 11:32am

Hi Michelle,

... destroying your enemy is not the Christian thing to do. It is the Objectivist thing to do.

I would even say that with lethal enemies on the attack, it is the ONLY thing to do.

I just have a definition issue with calling civilian bystanders a part of the enemy war machine and nuking them. I see the ugly head of collectivism rising there.

(I see that you might be Jewish. I hope you have not been offended by my arguments against ARI's subtext. They are not meant as anti-Jewish at all, and hopefully I don't think I conveyed that. They are meant to be emphatically against the misuse of a rational moral legacy - and I would be just as against it if the subtext were Irish or Taiwanese nationalists, Christians or Islamists - or anything else for that matter. We will probably disagree strongly, but I hope it will not be about race.)

Michael

Post 94

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 12:11pm

Michael, you wrote:

I just have a definition issue with calling civilian bystanders a part of the enemy war machine and nuking them. I see the ugly head of collectivism rising there.

The issue here is when killing enemy civilians can save the lives of American soldiers, or conversely, when saving enemy civilians put the lives of American soldiers in jeopardy. Let's take the case of Jenin, where the Israeli Defense Force refrained from bombing the city in order to spare civilian bystanders. Going door-to-door in search for individual terrorists cost a significant number of Israeli soldiers' lives. I think it was wrong to let Israeli soldiers be killed in order to save the lives of enemy civilians, and Israel should have bombed Jenin from the air. Note that Israel's altruistic considerations were not acknowledged at all by the residents of Jenin, whose lives were spared. On the contrary, they accused the Israeli soldiers for accidentally killing several civilians during the ground combat. So much for making a friend of your enemy by letting your soldiers die to save enemy civilians. On the other hand, today's Germans and Japanese are pro-American, and don't accuse the Allied Forces for bombing Dresden to the ground or for nuking Niroshima and Nagassaki.

I don't think you're anti-Jewish (there are many Jews who think like you) so don't worry about that.

Michelle

Post 95

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 4:01pm

Let me just point out what this thread is about:

1) Is Just War Theory valid from an Objectivist point of view?
2) Are the arguments presented by Dr. Brook in the cited article valid or not? Feel free to include (or not) Aaron's first-hand account of the man's views here [post 3].
3) Are Dr. Brook's views helping or undermining Objectivism's appeal to rational people?

I'll address these in the latter part of the post, now to get rid of the non-essential issues.

_________________________

What is this thread not about?

1) ARI vs. TOC

Beat this dead horse in another thread. There is nothing about TOC here.

2) Should the US have dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

While this issue may provide context on what the proper uses of nuclear weapons are, please remember that WWII was a war between states. Terrorist organizations are not states. In the case that the state sponsors terrorism, the separation between the civilian functions of the state and the part that sponsors terrorism is clear enough to invalidate this topic as a legitimate analogy. Again, we are not in the 'total war' scenario of WWII. This is best left for another thread.

3) The psychological motives of the forum posters.

This is not a mind-reading site. Agree or disagree on the arguments here, but on their objective merits (this is an objectivism site, isn't it?).

4) The "Jewish" tilt of ARI, Israel, and the like...

Sorry MSK, but this topic has too much potential for thread hijacking. If just one person does not exhibit restraint here, it will sully the discussion to a "You're racist!"-"I'm not-"You too!" playground taunting session.

5) Patriotism (American or otherwise)

The issue of Just War Theory is in the realm of ethics, not geography, and not 'culture'. The arguments presented could just as easily apply to other nations aside from your own. It is best to leave the debate confined to universally applicable principles of ethics, objectivist ethics, to be more precise.

_______________________________

Now for the thread...

1) Is Just War Theory valid from an Objectivist point of view?

I argue yes. Any departure from an 'appropriate and proportional' use of force can easily be appropriated by an individual or state as a justification for initiating force. Preemptive strikes can be indicated against an enemy that already has a history of conducting an aggressive campaign beyond its borders. But even in that case the force of the strikes should be commensurate with the threat. Nuking cities, when terrorists have access to hardened shelters and bunkers, will guarantee lost of lives, but not terrorist lives.

2) Are the arguments presented by Dr. Brook in the cited article valid or not?

I have already stated my disagreements in previous posts. I agree with MSK that...

"Civilians of enemy nations are part of the [enemy] war machine"

...is a horrible package-deal.

More..

Brook also criticized the Bush administration's goal of spreading democracy. "Our only concern should be to eliminate threat," he said.

Spreading democracy eliminates threat, with a finality that targetting civilians would never accomplish. When the US occupied Japan after WWII, it established a secular constitution that removed the Emperor from political affairs. Japan has never been a military threat since.

The tenor of this speech, Aaron's post 3, and confirmed by the video clip interview, conveys the "We should make the statement... to impress upon them..." mode of reasoning on this war on terrorism.

This much should be clear. When a man has reached the nadir of inhumanity, that he would kill himself in order to kill innocent civilians in the name of a fanatical cause - this man is already beyond being reasoned with, persuaded, and impressed. The triumphs listed by Robert B. post [52] relate to goverment officials wanting to save their own skin, not the terrorists themselves. Applying pressure on these people for a common cause (of survival) would accomplish more than any sadistic flourishes "to make a statement" that will never be heard in the first place.

So what to do with the insurgents? Hunt them and kill them, as Bush is already doing. Just because the task is not yet fully completed (Iraq as a democratic state with negligible insurgency or expansionist ambitions) does not imply that the means are failing. War takes time... suicide is shorter, but doesn't do anything to solve problems.

3) Are Dr. Brook's views helping or undermining Objectivism's appeal to rational people?

Absolutely not. Did you see the look on the interviewer's face in the clip? Rand placed these words in just about all her books.

As an advocate of reason, egoism, and capitalism, I seek to reach the men of intellect-wherever such may still be found."

The arguments of Dr. Brook appeal more to a person's sense of paranoia than with reason. This much should give pause to those who seek a wider audience for the philosophy.

Kudos to Michael M. and Nature L. for posting their comments on the Tufts Daily site. At the very least it will mitigate the distortions of the reader's view of objectivism.

Whew... finally finished typing.

Post 96

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 4:25pm

Michelle Cohen wrote:

Let's take the case of Jenin, where the Israeli Defense Force refrained from bombing the city in order to spare civilian bystanders. Going door-to-door in search for individual terrorists cost a significant number of Israeli soldiers' lives. I think it was wrong to let Israeli soldiers be killed in order to save the lives of enemy civilians, and Israel should have bombed Jenin from the air. Note that Israel's altruistic considerations were not acknowledged at all by the residents of Jenin, whose lives were spared. On the contrary, they accused the Israeli soldiers for accidentally killing several civilians during the ground combat. So much for making a friend of your enemy by letting your soldiers die to save enemy civilians.

Few Westerners remember the Jenin nightmare, and I really do thank Michelle for reminding us. The Jenin exercise was a heart-breaking but classic example of the impotence and self-destructiveness of Western Civilization. Many would call this military campaign merely Jewish self-hatred or else the bizarreness of the Jews. But in fact these high-principled and noble acts by the Israelis vividly illustrate and exemplify how Western liberalism is utterly unable to defend itself, and continually acts against its own self-interest. Jenin was nothing less than tragic. Current liberal theory here is flawed indeed.

This is where the world badly needs something like the foreign policy ideas of Peikoff, Brook, Lewis, etc. The great problem, however, is that these clowns aren't very intelligent or perceptive in how they apply them. They have the nub of the truth and are in the general vicinity of it -- but that's about it.

And, yes, you can change enemies to friends without altruism or self-destruction. But you have to actually use your mind and independent rationality in facing these new situations. This doesn't happen much over at ARI. None of the intellectual cowards, poseurs, and dolts over at ARI dare to post here at SOLO or any other open forum where issues are debated semi-openly and semi-honestly. They wisely run and hide because their ideas are so crude, ham-handed, and ill-thought-out.

Post 97

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 8:29pm

David Elmore,

Does it matter what the rest of the world thinks about our death penalty? No. It is just.
...
Does it matter what the rest of the world thinks of us if we annihilate (yes, there's that dastardly macho bravado word again) despots, their regimes and terrorist cells? No. It is altogether fitting and proper for a moral nation.

It would matter to me if the rest of the world thought their best chance for survival included killing me or limiting my freedom to prevent me from killing them.

Post 98

Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 7:06am

Dean,

We would eliminate all the bad countries and most of the bad people, so there wouldn't be many such people left to attack us. The "good" countries may believe that we acted with far too much firepower, but they would not attempt to do something to us for it. Hell, countries like France and their ilk are so appeasement oriented as it is, they wouldn't dare suggest any action against America. They might bully-pulpit their U.N. sycophants on economic sanctions, but they would know that any drum-beating would be far too dangerous.

But to be more direct to your question, if our government discerned that our use of nuclear weapons would put our citizens in greater danger in the long term than the non-use of the weapons, then the government would have to be moral about it and not use the weapons. I can't imagine such a scenario in our current world climate, but hypothetically, that could be the case.

Before or immediately after we used such weapons, it would be rational to explain to England and a few other "candid" nations our reasons for using the firepower -- though they would already know.

One more good thing about eliminating the dictatorships around the world is the message it sends to anyone else considering the takeover of a country. If bad guys know that the U.S. will wipe them out immediately, then I think this will necessarily cause constitutional governments to arise soon after. There would be little choice. The good people would know that a moral America would not stand for anything else and that we would back our morality up instantaneously with firepower against the bad guys. The good people would also know that they would need to stay the hell away from any bad guys trying to take over because the bad guys would be on our hit list. Right now, our country is a laughingstock to the despots and terrorists. They know we're not doing everything we could be doing. They know that something (altruism) has crippled us. It's too bad WE don't know it.

BTW, Japan and (West) Germany are two great examples of countries who were riddled with the wrong ideas and led by despots and yet came around to republicanism after our moral firepower destroyed them and allowed them to rebuild properly. It can be done again on an even bigger scale.

Post 99

Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 8:42am