Because this issue is tremendously sensitive for so many around the world (for a variety of reasons, I might add) I want to place a few fundamental points directly at the top. First of all, I have a rich tradition of veterans in my own family - my grandfather in the US was drafted and served in WWII. My father fought several years in the bloodiest era of the Ireland/UK conflict. My grandfather-in-law, whom I consider as my own flesh and blood, fought in three wars. My Grandfather in England was a conciousness objector during WWII - and probably bore many scars from this experience as well.
I have to note this at the start because, sadly, many readers struggle with separating abstract positions from specific persons (”how dare you say that about my grandfather who…” ). Secondly, they have difficulty separating tradition, ideology and propaganda from historical reality (”We were good and we were fighting evil…”).
The Premise
My only major assumption from which I am deriving my argument is that the State is not a morally neutral entity. Every single person, family or organisation that comes into contact with the state is either a victim or a collaborator with an entity that is wholly and entirely premised on theft, murder, lies and subjugation. If you have problems with this premise, then you might have problems with this piece. Please take the time to view these resources (1, 2, 3, 4) to give this argument a fair shake, as it will not be dealt with here.
Veterans are Primarily Victims
Veterans have similar ambiguity about their situation. Many are victims of the state - they were threatened with jail, fines even death unless they killed other men they otherwise would have no conflict with whatsoever. They were/are forced to commit crimes against others in order to prevent crimes being committed against them by the state. Many who sign up willingly are also victims - as these have been deceived by the state in order to engage in a cause that they might originally believe to be just, but only much later might realise was wrong.
Veterans, for the vast majority, are victims and should be remembered in the same way we remember those affected by murder, genocide and persecution. But we must also remember who did this to them - we must remember who is responsible for so many widows, fatherless children and a legacy of lost life - namely, the State.
It is one of the greatest ironies that it is the state which pushes for the celebration of veterans. The state wants us to remember “the sacrifice” of these men (as though most went to war willingly or without being deceived) and not the fact that many of these victims were in fact sacrificed.
There is No Moral Legitimacy in Aggressive War
I have reflected on this recently, as I have become good friends with a German my age here in England. We have remarked several times about how we would be on opposite sides of a conflict, quite possibly trying to kill each other if, by chance, we happened to be living in the 1940’s. I want only the best for my good friend - and how many men, who otherwise might be friends, whose wives would be friends, whose children would grow up together - wantonly killed one another under either the threat of aggression against them by their own nations or because their government led them to believe that their fight was one for the greater good.
There is no morality present in the philosophy of “the end justifies the means” - that by committing evil, we can bring about good. It is morally bankrupt. Morality is absolute and unchanging. It is not subject to men - it is above them. Any “morality” that can be bent, broken or adjusted based on the relative morals of society or by the designs and strategies of men is not morality whatsoever.
Soldiers Give Us Freedom?
Lastly, there is a tremendously erroneous idea propagated as part of this subject - that soldiers are somehow responsible for “our freedom.” In many instances, nothing is further from the truth.
The soldier, by his very nature, is contrary to freedom - his job exists to destroy property and life, as well as subjugate the freedom of individuals. Consider that if freedom comes from the military, then it is no better than mob-rule and might-makes-right. Is this a moral philosophy?
We do not gain our freedom from the military or as a gift of a benevolent state - as though our freedom were a welfare check or a gun. We obtain our freedom, as Thomas Jefferson eloquently wrote, from “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Freedom is a gift from God, and choice and responsibility are given to men from His hand. Nature speaks of the greatness of God to do this and also testifies, in how He ordered it, to the fact of freedom as the inherent state of all men.
Aggressive war is a crime - a blasphemy against God’s order and purpose for men. This is what should be remembered. Offensive war (or pre-emptive, to use the new term) is sin and cannot bring about good, which only comes from God (James 1:17). In fact, the same passage reaffirms the moral objectivity of God and the absoluteness of his order: “with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.” If we dare to view wars and veterans in the same light, than we have to re-evaluate our support for wars, the way we remember veterans and the legitimacy and morality of our current authorities.
Yes, veterans are all slaves or stupid dupes of the Man.
It is awfully convenient that you ignore Scripture which obliterates your argument.
It is awfully convenient that you don’t post said scriptures that obliterate his argument.
I have already in the past, and they’re always ignored.
But for the sake of those who haven’t read the Bible… Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 are good places to start.
“Offensive war (or pre-emptive, to use the new term) is sin and cannot bring about good, which only comes from God (James 1:17).”
This is an interesting way to read that text. Could a war of punishment on an evildoer be from God, perhaps? The Bible is pretty clear that it can be. I would suggest letting the Bible speak for itself rather than forcing it to jump through your own libertarian hoops.
Thanks Colin. I’m tired of people thanking the military for protecting our freedoms over in Iraq. They aren’t, not really. I’m all for supporting our friends and family who are serving in the military, but I’m not going to pretend that they’re securing my liberties. My liberties were never in jeopardy.
A pre-emptive war could be compared to a police officer who RIGHTLY shoots someone who is pointing a gun at the officer. Technically no violent act had occurred, but the officer was morally correct to not wait for one when it was obvious that such an act was likely to occur. Similarly, a country which sees a proverbial “gun” pointed at them (such as Israel is soon to see from Iran) is justified in a pre-emptive response.
“I’m tired of people thanking the military for protecting our freedoms over in Iraq. They aren’t, not really. I’m all for supporting our friends and family who are serving in the military, but I’m not going to pretend that they’re securing my liberties. My liberties were never in jeopardy.”
Yeah, that’s true. They’re securing the liberty of my brothers and sisters in Iraq, not so much here.
“and how many men, who otherwise might be friends, whose wives would be friends, whose children would grow up together - wantonly killed one another under either the threat of aggression against them by their own nations or because their government led them to believe that their fight was one for the greater good.”
So you’re saying that the Allies were wrong for fighting back against Hitler? Interesting.
And we should thank them for that, and then take a long look at whether that is an appropriate job for our military.
This article is a prime example of why libertarian foreign policy will always remain irrelevant. No one actually lives this way or believes this tripe. Moral equivalency of this type is fine and dandy in intellectual circles far removed from real life and the horrors of evil men, but history makes fools of those who believe it.
Who’s making moral equivalencies? You’re reading that into Colin’s article. It isn’t there.
Edit: By moral equivalencies I assumed you were speaking of equating Nazi Germany with the British government. If that’s not what you were referring to, then please accept my apology.
“wantonly killed one another under either the threat of aggression against them by their own nations or because their government led them to believe that their fight was one for the greater good.”
He’s referring to World War II here, and implies that each government was wrong to believe that their side was the greater good. It’s pretty clear, no reading into the article necessary. Besides, Colin has said that before. “Churchill=Hitler=Roosevelt=Stalin=evil” That’s almost a direct quote.
I don’t think that implies a moral equivalency. Surely we can state that both governments were founded upon violence and evil without claiming that both were equally bad. Clearly one was more evil than the other. That doesn’t make the other one good.
In the fight against Hitler, were both sides evil? Was it evil to fight back against Hitler, like Colin is saying? Or was it good and necessary and JUST to fight him?
Darius,
I refrained from listing expounding into the third category, because I didn’t feel it was appropriate this time: namely veterans who willingly fought wars despite knowing they were unjust because of selfishness (paycheck, loot, prejudices, etc…).
Which scripture obliterates my argument that we should remember that many veterans are victims of the state, not its heroes? Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 do not legitimize war, murder, theft or these actions by a state or Christians.
God clearly has directly commanded men to execute his justice. I hope I would not question an authoritative command from God to do anything.
I don’t think I am making James 1:17 “jump through hoops” as it clearly indicates that every good gift comes from God (namely that good comes no where but from God) and that God is objective and his truth absolute. I think any interpretation worth its salt would come to this conclusion.
A police officer is correct to shoot because there is a legitimate threat of aggression. The same police officer would be rightly hanged if he shot a nine-year-old for telling his brother “I’m going to kill you.”
No, I am saying exactly what I said - that millions of men who otherwise would have no gripe with one another killed each other because their governments either made them or deceived them. Many of these men would otherwise have never done this.
I fail to see this in what I wrote. I’m not even talking about “libertarian foreign policy” as such. And I do aspire to live this way and I can think of others who have as well - it simply requires to hold morality as objective and true, and that it must be applied consistently. I am not saying I or others are perfectly able to do this - but it is the correct goal.
I’ll try not to speak for Colin, but I believe it was right to fight back against Hitler. However, it was still wrong to use the threat of violence to forcibly draft men to fight against Hitler. Just because it was right to oppose Hitler doesn’t justify a draft. The ends were good but the means were not.
Darius I am not going to get bogged down in WWII goofiness - it is not essential to the argument and I suspect it is being used as a red herring. My point is that good is not brought about by evil - if you disagree with that fine - you should state this plainly so we can at least have it out directly.
“No, I am saying exactly what I said - that millions of men who otherwise would have no gripe with one another killed each other because their governments either made them or deceived them. ”
In what way did they deceive them? You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth, Colin. Did they deceive them into thinking their cause was good (in other words, to fight Hitler was morally right)? Jew, Colin was talking about the means, he was describing the cause as wrong. As usual, he’s now backing off of those statements.
“My point is that good is not brought about by evil.”
Another un-Biblical statement. God ROUTINELY used evil people and forces to do His GOOD will (unless you’re willing to say that God’s Will is not always good, which I doubt you would say). Furtheremore, what was evil about fighting Hitler? Sure, the means to do so (a draft) weren’t necessarily good (though they were necessary, since like you said, many people would have selfishly allowed Hitler to rule the planet). But the cause was right and just. It’s not a red herring to apply your logic to the most obvious example in relatively recent history.
Colin,
I have to say that this is perhaps the best thing you have every written…in your whole life. You have a way of saying things I have difficulty articulating, and then complementing the conclusions that I have already come to.
The only thing I am “backing off” is your strawman.
Do you not think the Nazi government deceived millions of men into joining their war and killing Jews? Maybe we should instead believe much of the American propaganda from the time, that many of these “krauts” were inherently evil jew-hating monsters?
The fact is, we cooperate with people as part of our natural instincts for self-preservation and rational self-interest. But the State has a vested interest in war and must either use aggression or deception to get people to fight who never would.
Ahh - but that is not what I said. Read more carefully. God clearly uses evil people - he uses me and you. But he does not command us to deliberately do evil to bring about good. In fact, the bible make quite the opposite case (Romans 6:1, 1 Samuel 15:22).
It may not be a red herring, but I suspect it is being used as such because you continue to cling to it in an attempt to avoid discussing the main point. It is not an example, but a diversion because you don’t want to discuss this in the abstract - which is where I think it has the most power. You want to use the example to justify the principle - but this avoids dealing with my exact point - that this is not how morality is derived. Rather it is above the “real world” so to speak.
I think there would be a lot of value in confronting the basic arguments presented here without referring to historic examples. They are completely irrelevant outside the historical narrative of the Old Testament, because only in that context are we able to see from God’s (Truth’s) point of view - and even here many miss the point entirely.
In this present time no one government has any more of a “divine right” than another to execute judgment on behalf of God for any other government. Therefore, only in cases where God specifically gave instructions to kill are such deaths justified - and this should not even be viewed as God’s will in the sense that he really wanted it that way. To find God’s perfect will for man, you either have to go back to the Garden or forward to the millennial reign of the Last Adam. The consequence of death was never God’s plan for mankind in the first place, nor shall it be any longer when God’s government is completely established. Yet in these rare cases in history when God clearly authorized and even commanded war, one might have been so bold as to announce war as the doing of God. We fail to realize, though, that God hasn’t given such an order in thousands of years. Only during a specific dispensation in the time leading up to Christ’s incarnation did God ever personally promote war to our knowledge.
Yes, the mandate for governments to be the ministers of God to punish evildoers still stands, but all are under sin. Therefore no government can reasonably claim to be doing God’s bidding by destroying other people. Perhaps they are, but who is to say? Certainly not them and certainly not any of us. Only in the providence of God can such a matter be judged. And if by chance they do happen to be executing judgment on behalf of God, their day too will come when some other nation will rise against them. Nothing could be more clearly spelled out in the Old Testament narrative.
God is a righteous judge and a “man of war” (Exodus 15:3). But his judgment is just, whereas the judgments of men are not. And the day of his wrath which is to come will destroy His adversaries, not the adversaries of the “free world” or the “civilized world” (Hebrews 10:27). We should therefore guard ourselves against the manipulative words that proceed from the mouths of men, whose feet are swift to shed blood - not so they can “spread democracy” or “remove and evil dictator” that he helped put into power or “defend our freedoms”. When you hear language like this, rest assured you are being lied to. And who is the father of lies? Maybe if we can answer this question, we might see clearly enough to determine who is of their father, the devil.
The reason the WWII example is such a sticking point is that there has been no clearer example of a world conquering genocidal power in recent memory. Had Hitler not been opposed, he would most likely have conquered the world and wiped out the vast majority of the Jews. This isn’t conjecture, he nearly succeeded even WITH the opposition he faced. A lesser opposition would have failed. This presents a huge practical problem for anarchists.
In theory, it may be preferable to not have conscripted armies funded by resources forcibly confiscated. In practice, one needs to be able to answer how such an anarchism would have responded to a threat like Hitler. In this blog, Colin has not only criticized the conscription of troops in WWII, but also those who voluntarily determined that they wanted to stop the aggressiveness of Nazi Germany and the oppression it was committing against its people.
Assuming such an army had been volunteer and funded by donations, would it have been wrong? The acts of Nazi Germany were CLEARLY in violation of the natural rights of the people they were genociding. Is it the argument of the author that we do not have the RIGHT to protect the natural rights of others? Anarchism is built on the assumption that self government is the most appropriate. How then can it condemn soldiers who are giving their lives to protect others? Sure, you can disagree with the funding, but how can you honestly criticize soldiers fighting a “just war”?
(A “just war” being used here to define a war whose primary aims are to ensure the natural rights of a particular people group against the oppression forced on them against their will by another power with minimal loss of life on all sides.)
I fully agree that fighting a deliberate war of aggression is wrong on the part of all parties. Whether you are a soldier fighting for your motherland or the leader of the country, killing in order to force your will over a non-threatening target is wrong.
Arguably, this is what we did when we went into Iraq. The fact is though that the world intelligence communities firmly believed that Iraq had WMDs, and that they were a threat. They were wrong, but this was more the equivalent of shooting someone in a ski mask who walks into a bank with what looks like a gun in a bag who refuses to take their hand out of the bag when asked by security. The end result may have been unnecessary, but the misunderstanding is reasonable. Our continued involvement in Iraq has been to try to keep the peoples there from killing civilians. While one might argue that it is an unnecessary expense for the US to take on, it is hardly an unjust mission.
To summarize, I find this article unfair and cruel to the men and women who fight in the US armed services. Our military actions have primarily had highly just ends, and those who serve do so because they believe (mostly accurately) that they are protecting the natural rights of others AND the interests of their home country. To characterize these people as duped or sociopaths is ridiculous.
What Atanamis said… amen, brother, I was wondering when you would show up again.
I have disagreed with plenty of articles on here, but this was perhaps the first one which I found quite so morally repugnant.
Darius wrote: “Atanamis, I used to expect more of you, but now I have very low regard for anything you have to say.”
Darius wrote (one week later): “What Atanamis said… amen, brother, I was wondering when you would show up again.”
Like I said, I was wondering when he would show up again. Thanks gurr8 for once again proving your character (or lack thereof). I am still waiting for you to actually add something to a conversation, but it seems my wait is in vain.
Maybe it will also take me one week to go from a man with no character to a genius.
One can be both… but you definitely don’t have any character. I have never seen someone on a blog more troll-like and repulsive than yourself. And that’s putting it nicely.
I would have to suggest that you read a blog other than zealfortruth.org at some point in your life. They ALL have worse trolls than gurr8 (even assuming he WAS a troll, which he is not).
I wanted to give the author time to demonstrate how far he would take it. Working from the premise of an aggressive war of conquest, the blog article is not actually that far wrong. The fact that you are taking orders from someone else does not exempt one from moral responsibility for their actions. The crusaders were fully responsible for the atrocities they committed, even if they were told to by the Pope. The same is true for Hitler’s armies. Either the soldiers were coerced, tricked, or were morally corrupt people to engage in such injustice.
The article is completely accurate when it comes to unjust war. Where it breaks down is when war is done to protect the natural rights of others. While one can still argue that conscripted troops and confiscated resources are wrong, criticizing volunteer troops for engaging people who are violating the natural rights of others is indefensible. I had hoped Colin would restrict the intended implications of his article after thinking them through further, but that has clearly not been the case.
gurr8, do you actually believe half the crap you say on here or are you just a contrarian trying to pick a fight? You have repeatedly slandered wonderful Christian people and groups (Dobson and FotF come to mind) and linked to some of the most despicable writers on the face of the earth, pretending they are astute and respected journalists (I have liberal friends who agree that Frank Rich is just plain stupid and deranged). What is bewildering is that looking at your blog posts from a few years ago, you sounded quite decent and reasonable. I don’t know what has happened to you since then, but it’s honestly sad.
“I would have to suggest that you read a blog other than zealfortruth.org at some point in your life. They ALL have worse trolls than gurr8 (even assuming he WAS a troll, which he is not).”
I do read a few other blogs which each have their fair share of liberal trolls, gurr8 takes the cake.
“I had hoped Colin would restrict the intended implications of his article after thinking them through further, but that has clearly not been the case.”
That’s what I’m getting at. I have no problem saying that German soldiers were duped into an evil war, but I have a big problem saying the same exact thing about Allied soldiers.
Darius, I’ve told you before; when you stop, I’ll stop.
No one does not. Hitler, WWII, American History, empire or even any concrete empirical is not “needed” to discuss theory that is a priori. It can be helpful, educational or enlightening but it is not essential. This is like saying we must have a scientific study to show that a red ball is red and not blue. Empiricism and positivism is not essential to “prove” everything - especially theory that is derived from logical imperatives or moral absolutes. The nature of those questions and postulations must be looked at logically - not empirically. To that extent, we can use examples illustrate (as I will do in a moment), but they are not the constraints on forming principles - I completely reject that consequences and pragmatics determine morality. Morality is not relative or subjective.
If we disagree on this point, it is unreasonable to proceed as there are numerous arguments which are completely unreachable on an empirical level including mine in this instance. I am not going to discuss the hypotheticals of WWII as they are a minefield of tradition, propaganda and ideology. I will discuss those logical questions brought up:
We cannot assume any more rights than we ourselves have. That may seem redundant, but it is a fundamental point that should not be forgotten as we go into these application questions. In an imminent, credible threat, it is legitimate to act in the defence of another with their permission. This act should be ONLY defensive, not punitive or to enforce “justice” on the spot. Men are free to dispose of their life in this fashion if they want. Any morally permissible act by men to voluntarily defend others from such a threat is noble and admirable.
Just a note on semantics - I think “cruel” as if I am inflicting these people harm, is a little sensational.
I am not debating that many men went to war with good motives and noble intentions. I am arguing that noble motives and ends never justify evil actions. I would rather have a thousand Hitlers kill a hundred million people, than take one innocent life to prevent it.
There are millions of people who think that wealth redistribution is just and noble. Many of these are “duped” - and it is not “cruel” to inform them so.
Even if soldiers perform some good among other evil actions - it is morally justifiable (and I would argue, morally commanded) that I inform them - even if this flies in the face of certain political groups, “Christians” or even if my reputation suffers among people I respect.
Moreover, many of these are not merely “duped” but, and this is the main thrust of my point, they are actually forced or threatened into service. Imagine if your “choice” is to sign up for a conflict (in which you aren’t voluntarily willing to fight) and hope that in doing so you can pick a less risky spot, or wait to get drafted and sent to the front lines.
I also want to address the fact that your argument is based on the presumption that I am criticising American soldiers. I think that if you take your conclusion of “duped or sociopaths” and apply it to say Islamic extremists or Nazis - you might reconsider your view. Maybe this exercise will demonstrate the broader point that I am making outside of this partisanism of WWII, America and so on.
Consider the German soldier in WWII - is he inherently evil? Is he the person Americans should kill? Why is he fighting Americans? Is he genetically pre-disposed to fight them? I think it is much more likely that he has either been “brainwashed” by Nazi propaganda, and thus convinced of the morality of his actions, or that he has been threatened with force against him if he doesn’t kill Americans. In both cases, he is a victim. Note: this is not considering whether someone who is arguing or debating is “duped” but this is someone who is trying to kill people. The question at the root of this is why is this man fighting? I believe, if left to his own devices, he would be more likely to cooperate with (or at least leave be) Americans. It is only his encounter with the state that has driven him to the point of killing.
If he is brainwashed, would it be “cruel” to inform this man of his situation? If he is under threat of aggression, is it “cruel” to inform his leaders (government) and funders (taxpayers) that they are sacrificing this man as a victim? Is it a crime against him to do this, or is it an act that seeks to save him that is done by both morally acceptable ends and means?
The image in my mind is one of a room full of men pointing guns at each other’s heads. Who is correct to shoot? Each man has a gun to his head, but is holding a gun on the man in front of him to protect the guy in front of him, and so on….
The fact is that the soldiers, commanders and maybe even the politicians and taxpayers all have guns pointed at their heads - and each one is trying to make his case as to why he deserves to shoot the guy he’s pointing at based on the fact that he would save the life of the man the second man is holding a gun to. This is a deadly cycle with no moral solution except to lower the gun. There is the risk that someone who is truly evil will actually shoot, but if he still shoots or threatens to shoot while the man in front of him lowers his gun, then HE is the threat and now it is morally acceptable to defend the other against him.
It is a variation on the biblical principle of “who should cast the first stone?” and appeals to Chris’s point about God’s objectivity and authority versus man’s responsibility to obey and carry out God’s commands. Things like justice, morality and ethics are not relative to examples, situations or cultures. It’s unfortunate that soldiers and the military have been so drowned in tradition, ideology and fetish that it is so difficult to apply universal morals to their dilemmas and hopefully deliver them and maybe others from the perils of unnecessary war.
Colin, thank you for making us think about war, beyond how it should be dealt with in politics and foreign policy. I think you are right to keep the topic in “theory” mode while discussing morality. I believe I agree with just about everything you have said. Certainly cannot disagree with someone who says we should not to kill, except perhaps in the last desperate measure of self-defense.
That said - and maybe this is part of what Atanamis and Darius are getting at - at some point, we need to look at how it should work out practically in our lives. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world where theory can be directly lived. In the ideal world, no one would sin. But we live in a world with sinners, not to mention that in this world we can never fully be sinless ourselves. That of course gives us no excuse to sin. However, one of the most wonderful things about God’s Word is that it tells us not just how everything should be in theory, not just how we should be more and more like Jesus, but also what to do when we fall short of that.
“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.” 1 John 1:9-10
So, how would we live this theory in an un-ideal world? If you do care to look at the pragmatics of this question (and maybe you want to address it in a different post), I guess this is one question that comes to my mind: If everything you say is true, then
*It is probably wrong for any Christian to join the military, because even if you are allowing for the occasional perfectly just war, there is very little chance of that being all a soldier would have to fight.
That was part 1, on the topic. Part 2: Without getting involved in these quaint little arguments and name-calling sessions, can I just suggest that if anyone is going to post a comment, you at least (try not to gasp) comment - on the topic - whatever else you decide to do? See, I’m not even asking people not to argue, because reading the arguments is just so terribly amusing. And home-like. Just like my little siblings having one of their really logical arguments.
Sharon,
While I am not intending this to be the ends of my theory, I do believe that this may be the most reasonable option at the present time. I do not think soldiering is unbiblical, nor do I think it is unbiblical for a Christian to join the military - HOWEVER, in the present way that the military is being used (namely for offensive, aggressive war), it would be wise for a Christian to consider whether he can fulfil his greater calling to God and still obey his commanders. Christians who are now in the military and have an option to get out without breaking additional commands (oaths, contracts) should probably consider this.
It is the same consideration a Christian should make when going into debt or contracting with an unbeliever. We must avoid getting ourselves into positions where our obligations to men conflict with obligations to God.
It is also the same consideration with abortion. If the Christian is unsure where life begins - err on the side of life - convenience and “real world pragmatics” are not worth it.
As a general aside: for anyone who questions my credentials on turning down one’s livelihood, a great job, bennies and retirement at 50 because of possible moral and ethical conflicts, know that I did just this for a government job last year. I am willing to practice what I preach. Maybe I’ll write about it someday.
Yes. It is wrong to aggressively take the freedom and resources of others, even if you believe it is the right thing to do. If someone comes to your house to assault you, you would likely attack that individual. This is true whether that person is doing so because he is mentally insane, because he was duped into believing you were a murderer, or because he was threatened with death if he did not. There are very few things I would not do for my wife. One is that I would not deliberately target a non-threatening innocent even if her life was at stake.
This is a naively impossible goal, since any adversary who wishes to be invincible to you merely need to ensure the close proximity of innocents. While I firmly agree that innocent life should never be the target of hostilities and that collateral damage should be avoided, there are times when an innocent will be caught as collateral damage in the crossfire. No security force either government or anarchist can function without accepting this fact. What you are advocating here is not anarchism, and is basically a utopian vision of a world where mankind has a different character. This vision is no more consistent with reality than the communist ideal. While I would not directly target an innocent to save my wife’s life, I would definitely take down an aggressor even if some collateral damage was unavoidable.
Logically consistent philosophies that are not consistent with reality are not accurate. One can build an entirely consistent worldview with no basis in observed reality, and while that model would be an interesting academic construct it would not be useful for making decisions about the real world. Again, communism is a great example of a beautiful model that ignores realistic human behavior. Under the dream of communism, each person will voluntarily work in the best way that they can to serve the whole, learning this information based on mutual conversation and discussion. That same person will take from the economy only what they need, and everyone is happy. What it chooses to ignore is that information doesn’t effectively travel without a simplified (compared to conversation) structure like a strain between supply and demand, and people don’t optimize their behavior without an external pressure to do so in order to achieve personal goals.
In your case, you are refusing to consider the need to oppose powerful aggressive forces. How would your anarchist collective have responded to Japan (possibly even another anarchist collective) bombing their property? Japan wasn’t interested in meeting with a neutral arbiter to discuss how they could compensate for the damage done.
After the bombing has taken place, does your worldview take the position that the offended party (private individuals whose resources and lives were taken or threatened) are allowed no recourse to prevent future attacks? In the case of Germany, was it wrong of the US to act at the express request of countries like France and England to assist them in defending themselves from an aggressive force? I will grant you that the monies should preferable have been voluntarily collected (and it would have been logical for those with resources to donate or borrow in order to do so given the threat), and that all the soldiers ought to have been allowed to choose to risk their lives in the protection of their own interests and of those whose interests they cared about.
Given this clear example of an aggressive attacker who made direct attacks on the US and whose victims voluntarily requested assistance though, why would it not have been right to physically force the aggressor to come before a neutral arbiter to determine damages owed? This is not me forcing a utilitarian response from you, this is me demanding that you demonstrate whether your worldview is one based on reality with reasonable responses to realistic dilemmas, or if like communism it is an interesting academic idea that has no willingness or ability to face challenges of the real world.
We will argue forever until this point is dealt with (I don’t want you to think I am dismissing everything you wrote, I read all of it and think it is consistent - but I think the assumption you arer making - the statement I have isolated here - is the root of the problem). This is the heart of our disagreement and the major problem I see with your case. My argument is axiomatic - it does not requires any of this “reality” discussion. It is irrelevant if these conclusions require “a naively impossible goal” as the goal is not a consequence - that is a result. The goal is the logical derivation of morality - if the consequences are impossible, it does not invalidate the logic. Hence, man is sinful and cannot keep the law - but God gives the law - why? Because man must understand logically, the axiomatic nature of his sin. That sin is inherently true.
Your statement above demands that logic must be “consistent with reality” to be true. But this is hardly the case. For example, almost the whole of economics is usually argued using (ironically) an illustrative means of “unrealistic scenarios.” An example of this being “Caruso economics.”
I am not saying that anything that I am arguing can actually be done or kept. I am saying that it is right.
Then I ask you what possible standard you can appeal to for “right” outside of observable reality or a direct supernatural revelation? There is absolutely no way to differentiate between your “right” theory and the “right” theory of communism. Communism takes as its premise that man SHOULDN’T act in a way that fails to maximize the benefit of themselves and others in society. All of Communism’s failings as a theory are in the inability of mankind to live up to the model presented.
Politically, the “right” theory is a totalitarian dictatorship with a perfect ruler. What rules that ruler would impose or enforce are hard to say, but they could absolutely ensure that whatever those rules WERE that those rules were “right”. The problem with what you are doing here Colin is that it is TRIVIAL to derive a utopian society if we allow ourselves to ignore the constraints of reality. Millions of authors, thinkers and philosophers have done this.
As a pet theory, of COURSE it is undesirable to ever hurt anyone. Preferably, I could talk to someone who is assaulting me, and convince them to negotiate a peaceable arrangement. The problem with this view though is that it assumes that man is NOT sinful! With sinless men, the economic and political model wouldn’t matter. I fully agree that had Adam and Eve not sinned, we would likely live in an anarchy today in human terms, since all men would report directly and only to God. Arguably, this was the model given to Israel when they first took the promised land. Practically though, even Israel expected all fighting men to gather to defend the nation, likely fighting opponents who likewise were not the primary decision makers in the conflict.
Since you seem to acknowledge that your idea is nothing more substantial than a fantasy, I’ll let the discussion drop. Criticizing others (as you did US troops) for living in reality rather than a fantasy though is extremely lame.
“Since you seem to acknowledge that your idea is nothing more substantial than a fantasy, I’ll let the discussion drop. Criticizing others (as you did US troops) for living in reality rather than a fantasy though is extremely lame.”
Everything is a fantasy until someone dares to think beyond the established norms. Sure, by most people’s definition of reality, lies, murder, war and the like are not only inevitable but necessary. Whether thinking to the contrary is “realistic” or not doesn’t keep it from being right - particularly when that perception of reality is predicated on the sinful history of humankind.
By that standard, Christianity is among the most unrealistic belief systems. Should we then abandon the teaching of Christ that we should love our enemies? In every case where faith conflicts with what is inherent in the nature of man, Truth supersedes “reality”. In fact, I believe every failure of modern-day Christianity can be linked to some compromise of faith in order to condescend to reality. That’s why most modern-day Christians do not in any way represent the first century church; their approach was quite unrealistic. Casting out devils? Raising the dead? Quite unrealistic indeed.
I see nothing demeaning about suggesting that soldiers are primarily victims. To those who wage war, they are expendable. They are a means to an end that rarely has anything to do with them personally. Is it insulting to suggest that they have been fed propaganda in order to persuade them to sacrifice their lives? I don’t think so at all. In fact, the human mind is quite susceptible to this kind of suggestion because men must justify their actions even if they are just taking orders. There must be a “legitimate” reason to hate the enemy if your aim is to make his wife a widow. So he becomes something less than human - only a “kraut” or a “gook”.
Chris, I’ve known intellectually honest pacifists, and you’re not one of them. An intellectually honest person doesn’t ignore reality. I had a professor in college, Dr Graff who was a pacifist. He was quite absolute that even in a case where his wife and family were in imminent peril, he would not respond with lethal force against an unbeliever for the reason that he didn’t want to deprive that person of the chance to repent while he knew his own family were saved. It is a position that seems illogical to most people (who start with the assumption that their life ot those of their loved ones are all important), but it is honest.
Biblical Christianity is brutally honest about the results of the path its followers are called to live. Those seeking to live as the Bible commands are subject to isolation, hatred, torment, and death. This is the known and prophesied result of living a life like Christ, who was isolated, hated, tormented and killed for how He lived. Christianity is brutally realistic and honest about the results for its adherents.
With my professor, the ultimate test of his belief was whether he would lose his family over it. He was honest to his premises and agreed he would (or at least should). The ultimate test of the idea that killing opposing soldiers is wrong can be found only in a context like WW2 where an opposing force who is a world threat is engaging in a genocide. Is it wrong to oppose that force with a lethal response? Would it be wrong to oppose officers slaughtering innocent civilians based on their race with lethal force? After all, they might only be following orders. Political freedom is entirely impossible without the use of force, often against people who may have been manipulated against you.
If you are not willing to admit that Hitler should have been allowed to win, then you are not engaging in intellectual honesty. Again, this idea is no more consistent with reality than communism, and is actually LESS consistent with Scripture than the tenets of communism. God has proven to me His right to make seemingly irrational claims on me, but you have not.
Atanamis, I just don’t think you are seeing my point. I am going to chalk it up to an error in my ability to communicate. Maybe some experts and communicators much better than myself can help you to understand praxeological thinking - Aristotle, Plato, Menger, Mises. I can sympathise if you understand it and reject it - but I don’t think you do - your communism example (and this statement: “Criticizing others [as you did US troops] for living in reality rather than a fantasy though is extremely lame.”), seems to indicate that I don’t think you realise what you are arguing against. You are really stuck in empiricism and are even using words like “theory” in an empirical sense, which isn’t really correct to the term itself.
Stop being stuck in reality, Atanamis.
As a side note, have any of you seen To End All Wars? It’s a fantastic movie which talks about loving one’s enemy in a WWII POW camp. I didn’t get the impression that it was promoting pacifism at the state level, but it CORRECTLY showed how to love those who hate you on the individual level and get beyond the honor codes and racism within your own culture. I recommend it.
Dr. Graff, huh? I didn’t realize you attended LU, Atanamis. What’s your name? Also, how about those ties?
“Chris, I’ve known intellectually honest pacifists, and you’re not one of them. An intellectually honest person doesn’t ignore reality.”
I’m not being dishonest and I’m not ignoring reality. And I’m not even talking about pacifism in the sense that it seems you think I am. I believe that it is possible for war to be justifiable; I just think that in most cases it is not and that lies usually precede military action. In fact, if someone breaks into my home there is a good chance that they will be wounded at the very least.
I was simply stating that reality is this sense is the status quo as defined in a material and historical setting, pertaining to the philosophy of the necessity and nobility of military conflict. Christianity is not realistic in this sense. Does there exist the reality of eternal reward and judgment? Certainly, but it is not real in the empirical sense. Even if we can validate the earthly existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure, that isn’t the same as accepting his teachings about morality or eternity.
Chris, we aren’t talking about hypothetical “just wars”, we’re talking specifically about WW2. Would a soldier who believed that their home and family was threatened by Hitler or that Hitler’s racist use of force was wrong have been incorrect (duped or evil minded) to sign up and fight against the Axis powers? Assuming a voluntary army funded by donated dollars (the anarchist requirement), would it have been wrong to fight against the threat imposed?
I understand that you believe most wars are preceded by lies. I fully agree that lying to get into a war is wrong, and that those deceived by those lies have been victimized. Do you believe that Jesus opposes shooting someone who invades your home? You mention that you likely would do so, but then suggest we shouldn’t assume the status quo since Jesus didn’t. Do you believe that self defense is wrong? If not, why would corporate self defense be wrong? If 5 guys are trying to break into your home, are you wrong to oppose them? What if they aren’t on your property, but shooting at you from across the street. Is it wrong to attack them then? What if they shot you from across the street, but are now re-loading the gun. Is it wrong to attack them because they aren’t CURRENTLY shooting?
Congratulations, if you agree with all these you have just validated voluntary participation of a privately funded US army attacking Japan and Germany, since Japan had attacked and would likely have done so again and Germany had declared war along with Japan. The US didn’t get involved in WW2 until we were physically attacked. It was an act of self defense.