 |
Comments |
|
 | Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 6:36:20 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: D. B. Kenner
E-mail: dbkenner(at)earthlink.net
Ms. Hsieh,
Sherman's birthday should be a national holiday (this might not go over well in Georgia). I would think that even unreconstructed southerners should be able to recognize that this is the way you fight a war, even of they have delusional ideas about the Old South.
I remember when, early in the Afgan war, a funeral was being held for a terrorist commander. All his buddies showed up, as the funeral time and location was supposed to be secret. Our army got word of when and where, but the Bush administration declined to bomb the funeral, feeling that such a "sacrilegious" act would only promote ill will among the local population. I knew then that the politicians didn't have the stones for this fight.
Where is a Sherman when you need him? |
|
| Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 9:07:39 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Jeff Montgomery
E-mail: jamontgom(at)hotmail.com
Amen!
And John Lewis' article "William Tecumseh Sherman and the Moral Impetus for Victory" on this topic is excellent: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-summer/index.asp |
|
| Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 16:04:41 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Manuel O'Kelly
Wow--honoring the first US president to truly attempt to override the principles of individual liberty and the murderous underlings who carried it out for him.
Honestly, you should do some research on Lincoln's view of slavery and when and what he REALLY did to end it.
I am opposed to slavery in any fashion and it is amazing how many people think that Lincoln actually fought the war to end it---while enslaving multitudes himself via conscription.
Do some homework folks. |
|
| Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 16:11:53 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Jonathon Plimpton
E-mail: nunya(at)myway.com
While we're at it, let us idolise and praise all the mass-murderers in history. One "noble" cause is as good as another, right? |
|
| Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 16:15:31 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Crow
E-mail: mst_crow5429(at)yahoo.com
I nominate Hitler and Stalin, who understood the need for total war for breathing room and the triumph of the Motherland respectively; Mao, who understood the need for total war in eradicating 77 million people, and the Khmer Rouge, who understood the need for total war in killing everyone that wears glasses. I'm sure someone else can think of war criminals to nominate in honor of Sherman. |
|
| Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 16:18:12 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
FYI: The recent commenters on this thread are coming from LewRockwell.com, particularly this post by Stephan Kinsella: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021271.html |
|
| Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 16:22:03 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Some Guy
E-mail: no(at)thanks.com
BTW, now that our current president has followed in Lincoln and FDR's footsteps by imprisoning US citizens in violation of our right to Habeus Corpus, it bears mentioning that suspending habeus corpus in a time of insurrection is a power of the legislature, not the executive.
Lincoln's war resulted in half a million deaths. Ending slavery was a side-effect, not the objective of the war. Slaves who escaped across Union lines during the war were not freed: they were captured and held as confiscated property by the Union Army.
While you're praising Lincoln, you should take a moment to realize what we lost by the establishment of federal supremacy by the force of arms. In my home state, we voted to allow sick people to use marijuana. The feds don't like that, so they arrest cancer patients. Our state has no power to resist them. |
|
| Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 16:24:33 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Crow
E-mail: mst_crow5429(at)yahoo.com
Well, yes, us neo-Objectivists and the like recoil in horror at the bloodthirstiness and love for collectivism that "Objectivists" are displaying here. Anyone crowing for "total war" is a monster who cares nothing for individual rights, life and liberty, and should probably be kept as far away from civilization as possible. And not allowed to work in government, either. |
|
| Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 16:56:03 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Tom Paine
E-mail: queleche(at)hotmail.com
Ms. Hsieh,
Any rebuttal to the replies to your post? The opposition seems to be speaking against the civil war and its perpetrators in the name of liberty and against collectivism. BTW, does they're arrival from lewrockwell.com have any intellectual relevance? |
|
| Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 17:07:43 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: RS
E-mail: egc(at)northnet.org
Total War=We had to Destroy the Village to Save It.
That's Democracy and Freedom at work!:( |
|
| Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 17:28:41 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Cheap shots -- particularly those without any concern for my actual views -- are not worthy of a response.
More generally, however, I am familiar with both the neo-confederate view of the Civil War and libertarian pacificism. I don't respect those view enough to regard them as worthy of the time and effort of a reply, given the other demands on my time at the moment.
So...
Anyone interested in my reasons for advocating total war should read "'Just War Theory' vs. American Self-Defense" by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein. It's available for free at: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/just-war-the ...
Anyone interested in why my judgment of the Civil War should read _Battle Cry of Freedom_ by James McPherson: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/019516895X/dianahsieh-20 |
|
| Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 18:02:07 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: RT
Oh for God's sakes! It's our old pal Stephan Kinsella! I had wondered what had happened to him -- oh for God's sakes. Oh for God's sakes -- good to know he's still reading Noodlefood. |
|
| Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 18:13:05 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Craig
E-mail: me(at)you.com
I think your veiws are pretty plain from your original post. Please show where your critics have no "concern" for your views. Correct me if im wrong, but you advocate total war. Total war being the killing of every man, woman, and child until your enemy capitulates. You are quite happy that Sherman burned, looted, murdered and raped his way across the South.
Total was is nothing more than total barbarism. |
|
| Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 18:13:33 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Real Freedom
E-mail: no(at)thanks.com
So your rebuttal is that if you think a war that killed 600,000 innocent people is wrong you are a neo-confederate!? And that libertarianism means you are a pacifist!?
Both are obviously wrong. Nothing says freedom like enslaving 600,000 people (through conscription) and sending them to their death!
The US could have ended slavery without war just like every other country had. Lincoln ran on a platform of not ending slavery. The only reason why he fought the war was to preserve BIG, CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT.
Diana, it must be easy calling for total war sitting behind your safe computer. I wonder if your opinion would change if you were the one who had to run head first into a hail of bullets and then die alone after days of intolerable suffering in the middle of some field. |
|
| Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 18:20:03 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Rick Fisk
E-mail: rick.fisk(at)gmail.com
URL: http://demidog.blogspot.com
General Sherman was a war criminal and a genocidal maniac. Just ask the Indians. Anyone who thinks he is worthy of praise is sorely ignorant regarding his real "accomplishments". |
|
| Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 18:30:14 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
As for General Sherman, I'll recommend "William Tecumseh Sherman and the Moral Impetus for Victory" by John Lewis. The full article is only available to subscribers of _The Objective Standard_, however:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-summer/william-tecu ... |
|
| Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 18:36:58 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Freddy Ben-Zeev
E-mail: benzeev(at)comcast(dot)net
I'm curious if any of those who foam at the mouth at Diana's support of 'total war', bothered to read the article she had linked to ("Just War Theory" vs. American Self-Defence). They mostly attack straw men. Total war to be viewed as a positive depends (like any other value) on the context, which means on what you fight for, and what you fight against. Total war against Hitler is definitely moral, while total war in support of Hitler will be a monstrous evil. |
|
| Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 19:16:00 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Toby Wilson
E-mail: idesofmarch1971(at)gmail.com
Since I'm going to take issue with the original post, I need to set out some things from the beginning so that there is no mistaking me for something I am not.
1) I am NOT a pacifist. If you break into my house at night and I am there you will almost certainly not leave alive. 2) I am NOT a proponent of chattel slavery, and believe that it was a monstrous evil. 3) I AM a conservative Christian, and take it quite seriously. 4) I'm a Texan, and take that far more seriously than being an American, though it lies far below my commitment to King Jesus.
Regardless of what one believes about slavery, the Civil War was not fought by the Union for the defense of its territory, nor was it a war fought to protect itself against a potentially hostile power (as the war in Iraq was asserted to be). It was a war fought to maintain control over the states which voted to secede from the Union. This may have been a noble effort to end slavery or a cynical attempt to collect taxes from Southerners, or for Lincoln's "legacy." It doesn't matter if the causes were noble, ignoble, outlandish or very wise. It was NOT a war of self-defense in any sense of the word.
In a war of self-defense one would be justified in totally destroying INVADERS. It could be argued that if the invaders were fanatical enough and powerful enough that total destruction would be the only effective strategy against them. This is sane, logical, and more-or-less Biblically defensible.
What is not Biblically defensible is the murder of non-combatants. This was only allowed in the case of Israel's conquest of Canaan, where it was specifically commanded by God. Otherwise, soldiers fought soldiers, and left the women and children (and elderly) alone. Sherman's program was aimed at non-combatants, with the full approval of Lincoln and Grant.
None of these men were Christians and therefore I would not expect them to even make the attempt to live up to Christ's commands. However, I am eternally shocked to see those who claim to hold Jesus as Lord yet exalt men who were skeptics and scoffers of Jesus Christ. Even if a Christian agreed with their policies why would one hold up these pagan Christ-haters as Godsends?
If you are not a Christian, feel free to disregard my arguments, as I will certainly disregard yours.
If you claim you ARE a Christian and you support these three men then you need to decide who your Lord and God really is.
-Toby Wilson |
|
| Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 20:12:43 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Toby: I am not a Christian, I'm an advocate of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. So I regard Christianity as completely and totally wrong -- particularly for its altruism. However, I agree with you on the connection between the demand for self-sacrificial restraint in war and Christianity.
Thanks for offering a clear and polite argument, as well as for so clearly stating your premises. |
|
| Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 21:00:43 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: PSteele
E-mail: SteelJaw22(at)yahoo.com
An interesting topic for a post would be what exactly about libertarianism leads it to advocate its pacifist views? Is it that most libertarians are anti-state so they must be anti-military? Is it their philosophical subjectivism? I used to be a libertarian and it was largely the anti-war, anti-America, anti-North views that forced me to distance myself from libertarianism and explore Ayn Rand's ideas. |
|
| Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 21:32:05 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: Rick Fisk
E-mail: rick.fisk(at)gmail.com
URL: http://demidog.blogspot.com
"Total war against Hitler is definitely moral"
Really now. Targeting civilians is today regarded as "terrorism."
But, if it is against civilians who live under a brutal dictator, it would appear as if the "Objectivists" believe that logical fallacy, namely, guilt by association, makes it perfectly alright then to kill unarmed men, women and children to achieve Sherman's "total victory."
General Sherman and most notably Col. Chivington, were racists of the sort that would have made Hitler himself blush. Chivington was so taken by the "slash and burn" tactics and Sherman's hatred of Indians, that he publicaly advocated killing Indian children especially (in campaign speeches no less) because "nits make lice."
It is actually high comedy that an Objectivist, who seems to take pride in her grasp of facts, is so utterly and totally discrediting herself by holding Sherman up as somebody who should be admired. If this is the end result of the morality produced by Objectivist thinking, then by all means, please, keep presenting us with these examples. This is growing trend it would seem. Leonard Peikoff has done more in the last decade to discredit Ayn Rand's belief that one can use pure intelligence to produce a moral code than Ayn Rand herself and that is saying something.
To be sure, Ayn Rand has contributed much to the cause of liberty but she undid all of that good work by creating yet another religion, one which can be summed up with the statement "greed is a virtue."
And that would perhaps explain why there are Objectivists who can, with a straight face no less, hold up butchers like Sherman as fine moral examples. Spend a week at Pine Ridge, Rosebud or any of the Apache reservations in Arizona. Read "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" for a great expose on Sherman's tactics. That book is so well documented that even 35 years after it was written, there are no credible criticisms of the facts it presents.
As a hyphenated "American" whose ancestors suffered under Sherman's brutal and barbaric "total war" I wish men like this had 9 lives so the generations of those who suffered under them could kill them again and again. That's just the "white" part of me talking though. My ancestors actually forgave Sherman. They were far better human beings than I. |
|
| Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 22:53:49 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: Jive Dadson
E-mail: jdadson(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://www.youtube.com/JiveDadson
Some of you may find some interest in a recent email from my mother, aged 89.
After one of my great-great grandfathers was killed in that war, the northern
solders helped themselves to what little his widow still possessed, and even
swept her smoke house for salt. Her husband was descended from a hero
of the battle of King's Mountain in the American Revolution.
***
Both of Mother's grandfathers were killed in
the Civil War. Her other grandfather [besides James McKissack]
was Wiley King, and he was killed
in a battle somewhere close to Lookout Mountain, if I remember
correctly, and at a date not far removed from James McKissack's. I
once had all of this stuff committed to memory, but it has been so long
since I even looked at it that it is all growing very dim. But I do
have the death records of both Wiley King and James McKissack and hence
know exactly where and when they died. So you see, both families were
impacted by that war in ways that we cannot now even imagine. Lou Emma
once told me that Grandma McKissack (James's
widow who never remarried) said that the "Yankees" even swept out their
smokehouse to get salt.
The Kings were in Alabama (later
Mississippi) and I doubt they fared any better than the McKissacks. I
have heard mother's mother (Grandma King, later Ward) tell of going
barefoot over ice when she was a kid for the simple reason that she had
no shoes. Untold suffering. |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 0:51:14 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: Peter S Rieth
E-mail: psrieth(at)gmail.com
quote: Total war against Hitler is definitely moral, while total war in support of Hitler will be a monstrous evil.
No.
Here's why:
1. Hitler is a tyrant.
2. A tyrant is someone who disregards the natural rights of Man using violence (eg war, which is violence)
3. A "total tyrant" is someone who therefore uses total violence (eg total war)against the Natural Rights of Man.
4. If we accept that the respect for the Natural Rights of Man is GOOD, then clearly Tyranny is EVIL.
5. Fighting tyranny is therefore Good.
6. If, in fighting a Tyrant, you disregard the natural rights of Man using violence (war) then you fall under the definition of being a Tyrant.
7. If, in fighting a Tyrant, you use total war, then you are falling under the definition of being a total tyrant.
8. EG - total war is Tyranny - and whether Hitler or somebody else does tyranical things does not change the definition of tyranny.
How then, to fight tyrants?
How about peaceful non-violence?
Your first inclination might be to laugh; but then consider the fact that peaceful non-violent protest suceeded in ending Jim Crow in the South, driving the British Empire out of India, toppling the Soviet Union, and is currently helping liberalize China.
I remember during the Presidential debate in Poland between Lech Walesa (the Solidarity leader and then President) against Aleksander Kwasniewski (his contender, a former communist). Walesa was going on and on about how Communism=Tyranny and therefore Kwasniewski, a former Communist, should not be respected.
Kwasniewski responded: "You brought us democracy; democracy means all men are treated equal and have the right to take part in politics; this includes me."
That is a very interesting proposition: isn't it better for Communists, Nazis and Maoists to be running 7/11s, Chinese restaurants, managing supermarkets or investment banks then for them to be dead in mass graves?
Isn't it more in line with the Natural Rights of Man if virtue and goodness and freedom prevail because they make all people happy and better off - even the people opposed to it?
Lastly: your understanding of Hitler is laughable. Hitler rose to power on the heels of justifiable German resentment against how the Allies treated Germany during Versaiiles. Note please that I say that the resentment was justified, NOT that electing Hitler was (yes - Hitler was democratically elected).
Germany was a young imperial power fighting older IMPERIAL powers during World War I - there was no moral distinction between the Kaizer and the King of England: both, from the point of view of Natural Rights, were tyrants because both believed they were born above the common herd and that contrary to Jefferson, some men were born to be horses, and other riders.
Had Germany been treated fairly and had general reconciliation been the dominant imperative following World War I, Hitler would not have had such a fertile base of popular resentment to exploit in his rise to power.
This isn't a complicated point.
Finally - correct me if I'm wrong: but when Toohey asks Roark "what do you think of me?" Roark does not say "I THINK I NEED TO WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST YOU AND YOUR KIND!"
Roark says: "I DON'T THINK OF YOU."
in other words: I'm busy trying to be happy, leave me alone - get a life dude.
But I guess if some people can find justification for violent crusades in the Bible; then they are capable of finding justifications for Total War in Ayn Rand.
Also Diana: Please loose the pseudo-romantic Randian Cop-Out of "I don't have time to bother with a response" as if your view was so plain and clear that we the herd of fools a miny-brains who do not recognize it are unworthy of a lengthier response.
And sending us off to read articles by other people is interesting; but it's not the same as answering very specific questions.
Peter |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 2:19:40 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: No Name Given
This is a case of when "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary to dissolve the political bonds" becomes "America, the land of freedom, being more important than freedom, by whose existence we justify these atrocities." Operating under supposedly objectivist principles, you state that total war was necessary to end chattel slavery. What happened to convincing men to join you, rather than forcing them at the point of a gun? I was under the impression that Rand favored arguments rather than force. Perhaps your reading has led you to a different conclusion. But by no means should you disgrace the name of objectivism by declaring that the end justifies the means when the end [of saving the Union] is unwarranted and the means [killing non-aggressors in an attempt to force complicity] are evil. |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 7:12:56 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: TotalWarisCool
Anyone who believes in total war is a barbarian plain and simple. War only empowers the state and destroys liberty. If you believe in total war then you better at least be in the military. Sherman was one of the biggest war criminals of his time and Lincoln was a tyrant. The Confederacy was a legitimate country and had already left the Union before Lincoln became President. America is not a free country, it is a empire who destroys lives.
Anyone who supports this article I am sure thinks of themselves very highly as being able to understand things better then others, but really get over yourselves. You people are ignorant and arrogant. |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 9:07:20 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: danb
E-mail: dan(at)codesushi.com
I read the linked article... why doesn't it mention our support and training of Bin Laden against the Russians? Our support of Hussein against Iran? Our overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian government? Our military base on "Holy Land"? The sale of arms to all sides of every conflict in the region? The fact that we prevent Israel from negotiating with their enemies... that's all BEFORE 9/11! This is all recent history... is there any question why we're such great targets? we're the only country actively intervening in every country in that region and we've been doing it for many decades.
Our nasty politicians did this to us... they poked the bee hive over and over again.. and tens of thousands of Americans have paid the price for the actions of a handful of individuals working in their own self interests and the interests of their corporate friends.
Now we have a religious war between the nut job Christians like Bush and Erik Prince and the nut job Muslims like Muhammad and Muhammad... meanwhile the private military contractors rake in money hand over fist and my liberty and the value of my dollar goes out the window.
The American government is not America.. it's destroying America.
I thought Objectivism was about personal responsibility and reason? Where is the reasoning about modern history and it's impact on current events? Where is the personal responsibility for all the deaths and occupation of middle eastern nations that has been going on for close to 100 years? The US government CREATED our current enemies! They trained them, armed them, funded them, then pissed them off... Where is the well reasoned Objectivist outrage at this? All I see from that camp is drum beating and collectivism... being born in America is not a suicide pact with whatever dirty politicians happen to be in power. |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 10:57:31 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: Optimizer
I guess this has stirred up a lot of interesting issues relating to the Civil War (and war in general).
Where I had left off in my understanding when I last visited the subject, the South seceded because Lincoln's Republican Party was founded on abolishionism - the South wanted to defend their slavery-dependent economy, plain and simple. Lincoln, however, pursued the war on the grounds that seceeding from the Union was unconstitutional (there still is no provision for a state dropping out of the Union, and whether there should be is a worthy subject for debate). The Supreme Court had blocked attempts to outlaw slavery, but Lincoln actually pulled a slick maneuver to effectively outlaw it anyway via the Emancipation Proclaimation, which was based on his authority as Commander-in-Chief. It was only at that point (with the help of popular support via the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin) that the War became a sort of moral crusade against slavery.
Personally, I celebrate the fact that my grandfather's great-uncle was in Sherman's army, and the fact that Genl Grant is a (very) distant relative of mine, so I enjoyed this post. But I am also irked annually when these men are largely ignored during "Black History Month", as the timeline of events is generally portrayed as though slavery just magically ended on it's own, without hundreds thousands of white Northerners and Republican President being involved in the most important event in Black History. I guess Obama's memo that we're all a bunch of racists hadn't been sent out yet...
As to the subject of "total war", maybe I need to study up on that. I would have thought that Sherman's march was supposed to be about widespread destruction of property for a specific purpose, not an attempt to kill (or rape) large numbers of civilians. Is that really "total war"? At any rate, that property was clearly part of the Southern war effort, and so it's owners - while not necessarily in the military, themselves - could hardly be described as purely "innocent". In a similar vein, I have no problem with my father having personally bombed industrial sites in Hitler's Germany. When I asked him once whether he had any concerns about it, the reply was, to paraphrase, "I just really hope I hit some of what I was after".
A belated "Happy Memorial Day" to you, Ms. Hsieh, and I remember your posting some time ago about having had a grandfather in WWII, so we honor him too on this occasion. |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 12:25:44 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: Jive Dadson
E-mail: jdadson(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://www.youtube.com/JiveDadson
Optimizer said, "Where I had left off in my understanding when I last visited the subject, the South seceded because Lincoln's Republican Party was founded on abolishionism - the South wanted to defend their slavery-dependent economy, plain and simple."
Optimizer, you left off way too soon! That's what the text books say. But now there's the web. You can find volumes of information from books and periodicals from the period that utterly refute the version of the Ministry of Truth. Even the story that the emancipation proclamation was intended to free the slaves is a untrue. Have you ever read it? Its purpose was to encourage slaves in areas still held by the rebels to join the Union Army. It only claimed to free slaves in areas of states that were still "in rebellion," where of course it had no effect whatsoever. That's in the very first sentence. Which states and parts of states were "in rebellion"?
"Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Palquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Morthhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued."
The final part is an appeal to people's judgment - and God's - although there is considerable evidence that Lincoln didn't believe in gods. The next-to-last part the real reason for the proclamation:
"And I further declare and make known that such persons [slaves] of suitable condition will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service."
Google for Thomas Dilorenzo. There are excellent videos on YouTube and C-Span. Check this out: http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_v ... |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 12:52:04 mst
Comment ID: #29
Name: Jive Dadson
URL: http://www.youtube.com/JiveDadson
TotalWarIsCool said, "You people are ignorant and arrogant."
We are all ignorant and arrogant. I can identify with the folks here. Forty years ago, I was an avid Objectivist. I subscribed to the newsletter. I was then, and have always been, steadfastly on the side of liberty.
I do not recall the exact moment, if there was one moment, when I realized that not only was I ignorant and arrogant, but that it was within my power only to reduce my ignorance and arrogance by degrees. A little progress requires much courage, intellectual honesty, and work. |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 14:51:41 mst
Comment ID: #30
Name: Francois Tremblay
E-mail: francoistremblay28(at)gmail.com
URL: http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/
This disgusting praise of genocide in the name of the American Empire really shows the total corruption of Objectivism and of this petty little woman.
"The principle, on which the [Civil War] was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.
No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom."
Lysander Spooner
I must also correct an error. There was no "Civil War." A civil war is fought for control of a geo-political entity. The Union and the Confederacy were SEPARATE ENTITIES. |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 17:47:26 mst
Comment ID: #31
Name: Apollo
E-mail: gateway8507024(at)hotmail.com
Any attempt to limit war to only battles between armies that do not involve civilians is an attempt to turn war into a platonic jousting match with no connection to anybody’s life, reality, or politics. It turns war into an end in itself, almost like a football game because it looks at war as something that should happen in another dimension that should not effect any of the important participants that make the war possible, the civilians. When you engage in warfare, you should look at your entire context and not exclude anything; you should pay attention to your entire strategic situation both through time and space. If you fail to do this then you just compartmentalize reality to your own disadvantage.
Limiting war takes us back to when warfare was ritualized, or when were was limited, like the wars of Fredrick the Great and the wars between the Greek city states on far off flat battlefields. Hardly any civilians ever died in those wars.
If wars should just be between armies, why send an army at all? Why not just send in your best chess player and let the enemy send in his best chess player, and the outcome of that chess game will determine the winner of the war. No bloodshed, no death, no destruction.
Totally clean, right? This ignores the fact this there are real things at stake in a war! Land, rights LIFE!
War is armed conflict between political entities, which are comprised of the people, the government, and the military. Morally speaking, the soldier on the battlefield is just as morally guilty as the senator, dictator, or the democracy that started the war. And the civilian that participates in the government is just as morally guilty as the soldier firing the gun at you. Because the military is a part of the government, and the government is a part of the society that it springs out of, all are legitimate targets. You cannot compartmentalize a political entity and say “we are just at war with their military, lets ignore the government and the civilians”. It is as absurd as saying that we should only target civilians and ignore their army at our border. |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 18:33:06 mst
Comment ID: #32
Name: PSteele
E-mail: SteelJaw22(at)yahoo.com
Apollo,
Thank you for adding some sanity and objectivity to this thread. The libertarian conception of war is totally disconnected from reality as is the rest of their understanding of politics. |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 19:46:17 mst
Comment ID: #33
Name: Rick Fisk
E-mail: rick.fisk(at)gmail.com
URL: http://demidog.blogspot.com
"If wars should just be between armies, why send an army at all? Why not just send in your best chess player and let the enemy send in his best chess player, and the outcome of that chess game will determine the winner of the war."
Indeed. To prefer bloodshed from a cozy armchair is quite un-Objective.
Libertarianism is not pacifist, it is non-aggressive. The Objectivist "thinkers" here should at least acknowledge that fact if they want to remain credible. |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 20:18:01 mst
Comment ID: #34
Name: Apollo
E-mail: gateway8507024(at)hotmail.com
"Indeed. To prefer bloodshed from a cozy armchair is quite un-Objective."
Then you do not understand what war is for, if somebody invades your territory or threatens your citizens, you actually have to push him off and destroy him, not play a chess game. |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 20:18:11 mst
Comment ID: #35
Name: Rick Fisk
E-mail: rick.fisk(at)gmail.com
URL: http://demidog.blogspot.com
Dianne,
I noticed you are in Boulder.
You right where Colonel Chivington, one of Sherman's "best" made his infamous speech advocating Shermans "total war" against the Indians. "Nits make lice". Meaning, we have to kill the Indian children too lest they keep propagating.
Ask around and see if anyone can point you in the direction of Sand Creek where Chivington gunned down women and children who were waving a white flag. After the "battle" was over some of his men then cut off the genitals of the women and decorated their saddles and hats with them.
Maybe we should erect some sort of monument to Chivington, though Sherman did him one better when his 7th Cavalry gunned down hundreds of unarmed men women and children at wounded knee. Some of his officers, who killed almost 150 of their own men during the "conflict" were awarded medals of honor.
I do not know why it is so fashionable amongst Objectivist intellectuals to advocate genocide and murder.
Maybe it was because Rand, who was grossly ignorant on many things, felt that her opinions trumped facts. And now her followers happily defend even the most absurdly wrong things she has said, such as the following:
"They didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using . . . . What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their ‘right’ to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent."- Address to West Point, 1974 |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 20:32:29 mst
Comment ID: #36
Name: David Johnson
E-mail: david(at)subjectivist.org
I have objection to the adjective "total". I'm not an objectivist, but I have read Rand and mostly agree with her views. Radical individualism MUST reject total war. There are times war is necessary, and some wars where the complete and utter defeat of the enemy *government* is necessary. But a policy of total war against civilians is barbaric, irrational and collectivist.
The US Civil War was not a necessary war, but even supposing it was, conducting it as a total war was immoral. Lincoln is no better than Bismark, collectivizing an entire population for the purpose of pummeling individualism out of the south. Where is the Objectivist rationale for opposing peaceful secession? Where is the Objectivist rationale for imprisoning northern journalists critical of Lincoln? Where is the Objectivist rationale for not freeing slaves in the south until late in the war? Where is the Objectivist rationale for not freeing slaves in the *north*?
By God, if Objectivism had been around in the 18th century, we would have seen Randroids in Great Britain agitating for TOTAL WAR against the seceding colonies! |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 20:43:35 mst
Comment ID: #37
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
To David Johnson:
Onkar Ghate at the ARI has a nice essay explaining why one should not adopt the fallacy of "innocent civilians" during war.
If a country is acting in genuine self-defense, then any civilian casualties on the opposite side conducted as part of a just war are the moral responsibility of the other aggressor government.
(Note, this essay was written prior to the Iraq War and is addressing the broader moral questions regarding civilian casualties in wartime in general. The ARI has also spoken out on multiple occasions against the Iraq war, so any statements pertaining to Iraq in this particular piece need to be regarded in that light.)
"Innocents in War?"
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6418 |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 23:41:43 mst
Comment ID: #38
Name: Matt
E-mail: ratplant(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://rashynullplanet.com/blog/
Here's a great analogy of Lincoln's actions:
http://saltypig.com/articles/2006/12/this-dead-america.htm
I'm surprised that defenders of individual rights such as those who run this site would celebrate such a man.
Apollo:
"Any attempt to limit war to only battles between armies that do not involve civilians is an attempt to turn war into a platonic jousting match with no connection to anybody’s life, reality, or politics. It turns war into an end in itself, almost like a football game because it looks at war as something that should happen in another dimension that should not effect any of the important participants that make the war possible, the civilians. When you engage in warfare, you should look at your entire context and not exclude anything; you should pay attention to your entire strategic situation both through time and space. If you fail to do this then you just compartmentalize reality to your own disadvantage."
Isn't this precisely what's going on right now regarding Iraq? US citizens are, for now, almost completely insulated from that mess. They bear no immediate burden for the cost, and see only blurry, jingo-charged images of the carnage on teevee. |
|
| Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 0:57:51 mst
Comment ID: #39
Name: Apollo
E-mail: gateway8507024(at)hotmail.com
"Isn't this precisely what's going on right now regarding Iraq? US citizens are, for now, almost completely insulated from that mess. They bear no immediate burden for the cost, and see only blurry, jingo-charged images of the carnage on teevee."
Uh, that's good. Your goal should be to cause as much damage tothe enemy while limiting it to yourself. Im surprised I have to tell you this. |
|
| Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 7:42:20 mst
Comment ID: #40
Name: steven
Apollo, the notion that any citizen who participates in the government is just as morally guilty as the soldier firing the gun at you is collectivist nonsense, unworthy of anyone who claims to support the rights of the individual. It's nothing more than a cop-out and a bad justification for mass murder. It's the same as saying that we are all individually responsible for the bad things our leaders (masters) do. Just because someone had the misfortune to be born in a country ruled by a tyrant, with no power to change the behavior of the tyrant, doesn't make them deserving of death for the actions of the tyrant. Your rationale is exactly the same as that of the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001.
And, by the way, the south didn't invade the north or threaten the citizens of the north. They wanted to govern themselves. The only justification for any hostilities against the south would have been, as Lysander Spooner propsed in his letter To the Non-Slaveholders of the South: A Plan for the Abolition of Slavery (1858), that which would have been necessary to free the slaves from their masters. |
|
| Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 9:36:19 mst
Comment ID: #41
Name: subzero
Before Lincoln the US was a voluntary Union. After Lincoln it was an Union kept by coercion. That's not saving the union, that's destroying it. |
|
| Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 11:36:23 mst
Comment ID: #42
Name: Apollo
E-mail: gateway8507024(at)hotmail.com
"Apollo, the notion that any citizen who participates in the government is just as morally guilty as the soldier firing the gun at you is collectivist nonsense, unworthy of anyone who claims to support the rights of the individual. “
If you are citizen of a nation you are a part of that organization, you are a member of that political entity. That citizen is like a cog or a bolt in a machine, whether he wants to or not, he helps that machine run. So he is just as much a legitimate target as any member of that organization, if it helps “destroy the machine” he should be targeted.
“It's the same as saying that we are all individually responsible for the bad things our leaders (masters) do. “
No “master” just magically appears in the seat of power, and is magically sustained there by some mystical force. Someone keeps him or him or her there. But even if that weren’t the case, that would not hamper your right to target an enemy, even if it meant killing civilians.
“Just because someone had the misfortune to be born in a country ruled by a tyrant, with no power to change the behavior of the tyrant, doesn't make them deserving of death for the actions of the tyrant.”
Even if he/she wasn’t born under a tyrant, you would have a right to use all the force necessary and proper to eliminate a threat. If a thug breaks into your house and you have a gun to defend yourself, you have a right to use it, even if it means that a stray bullet might fly off and kill an innocent person. Your life comes first, if anybody dies, it’s the criminals’ fault.
Same thing in a war, if any so called innocents die, it's the tyrants fault. |
|
| Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 13:41:54 mst
Comment ID: #43
Name: Rick Fisk
E-mail: rick.fisk(at)gmail.com
URL: http://demidog.blogspot.com
"Even if he/she wasn’t born under a tyrant, you would have a right to use all the force necessary and proper to eliminate a threat."
By what stretch of the imagination do you cast the civilians, who are subject to the tyrants you claim are evil, as "enemies?"
There's where you people are going wrong. Just war is a response to an aggression. |
|
| Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 13:53:45 mst
Comment ID: #44
Name: Apollo
E-mail: gateway8507024(at)hotmail.com
I already explained that
"If you are citizen of a nation you are a part of that organization, you are a member of that political entity. That citizen is like a cog or a bolt in a machine, whether he wants to or not, he helps that machine run. So he is just as much a legitimate target as any member of that organization, if it helps “destroy the machine” he should be targeted." |
|
| Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 14:30:51 mst
Comment ID: #45
Name: Burgess Laughlin
E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com
URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com
Rick Fisk (speaking to Apollo): "By what . . . do you cast the civilians, who are subject to the tyrants you claim are evil, as 'enemies'?"
Perhaps, Mr. Fisk, your argument would be clearer if you defined your terms. What do you mean by "civilians"?
For me the usual, non-essentialized distinction between "civilian" and "military" (differences in clothing or organizational membership) is irrelevant to the issue of how to obliterate a foreign threat at the lowest cost in the lives and treasure of the freer country's people.
My view is that anyone who, willingly or unwillingly, supports aggressors threatening a freer country is a proper target for destruction. That list of supporters is often long. Exactly which individuals should be targeted *first* with limited resources is largely a decision for the military of the freer country. Nevertheless, anyone who supports the particular gang of foreign aggressors, willingly or unwillingly, is a proper target.
The "civilian" farmer who willingly or unwillingly supplies food to the aggressors is a proper target, for example. Whether the freer country's military *should* target a particular farmer depends on the circumstances. For example, if the farmer is an unwilling supplier, working with him secretly might be a better tactic than killing him (and thus cutting off a food supply). Also, avoiding the targeting of some individuals or neighborhoods or groups might be useful for the post-war period because they might fill the vacuum caused by the destruction of the aggressors. Those decisions, however, are circumstantial. There is nothing in a rational ethics preventing their destruction as a way of destroying the aggressors (and all those who support them).
That is probably all that I can contribute to this discussion. |
|
| Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 15:12:05 mst
Comment ID: #46
Name: steven
I can agree with targeting civilians who are willingly supporting the aggressors. Targeting civilians that are unwillingly supporting the aggressors is another matter, and a very difficult one. I would allow that it depends on the circumstances, but the bar would have to be set very high, and even then only as a last resort. Targeting civilians solely because they are a member of the political entity, for the purpose of intimidating the enemy into surrendering (as was done by the United States in World War II), constitutes cruel and inhumane actions which should never be undertaken by any civilized society. |
|
| Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 16:47:11 mst
Comment ID: #47
Name: steven
I should have said cruel and inhuman, not cruel and inhumane. |
|
| Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 20:11:51 mst
Comment ID: #48
Name: Freddy Ben-Zeev
E-mail: benzeev(at)comcast(dot)net
Steven, NOT targeting civilians that help and support the aggressor, willingly or not, is an immoral sacrifice of your own soldiers. The moral obligation is to win the war with as little casualties to your side as possible (assuming your side is not the aggressor). The moral responsibility for casualties on either side, civilian or military, rests with the aggressor. |
|
| Monday, June 2, 2008 at 7:25:24 mst
Comment ID: #49
Name: Charles Hope
URL: http://charleshope.com
The main problem is Objectivist naïveté regarding the history of corruption and collusion in the American system. While Atlas Shrugged shows that Ayn Rand understood corruption theoretically, her military-industrial complex comment in the West Point address revealed a lacuna in her factual knowledge, which has been inherited as a blind spot by current Objectivists. |
|
| Monday, June 2, 2008 at 8:49:50 mst
Comment ID: #50
Name: Burgess Laughlin
E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com
URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com
Charles Hope: "While Atlas Shrugged shows that Ayn Rand understood corruption theoretically, her military-industrial complex comment in the West Point address revealed a lacuna in her factual knowledge, which has been inherited as a blind spot by current Objectivists."
Mr. Hope, here is what Ayn Rand said, printed now in the title essay of Rand, *Philosophy: Who Needs It*, p. 10 (hb): "Something called 'the military-industrial complex'--which is a myth or worse--is being blamed for all of this country's troubles."
In what way does this statement reveal "a lacuna in her factual knowledge"?
It would help the discussion if you would define "military-industrial complex" as Ayn Rand employed the term to name an idea (valid or not) commonly used in her time (1974).
Do you agree with her statement that those using the term in her time were citing it as the cause "for all this country's troubles" in dealing with other countries around the world?
Her description of that term/idea matches my memory of the usually vague, conspiratorial, and materialist meaning which the term's users then assigned to it. |
|
| Monday, June 2, 2008 at 10:34:18 mst
Comment ID: #51
Name: Justin O.
E-mail: codeanxiety(at)gmail.com
I don't mean to get caught up in all this but I had a few questions that maybe somebody can answer.
Isn't it the military and government's first and foremost purpose (if not it's only purpose) to protect it's citizens (including it's soldiers)?
Shouldn't we do whatever possible to end the war (by defeating the aggressor) as fast as possible with as minimum loss on our side?
Are we to not fight an enemy's army at all if any or all of that enemy's soldiers are there against their will (conscripts, draft, etc)?
Ignoring any anarchists arguments, I think the libertarians would agree that if there is a government then the answer to the first question is yes. Isn't it logically consistent then that the answer to the second question be yes as well?
Assuming genuinely innocent civilians, if the civilians are unwilling to support the aggressive government's war then isn't it morally that government's fault for putting them at risk?
Assuming genuinely innocent soldiers, if the soldiers are unwilling and are being forced against their will to fight then isn't it morally the aggressive government's fault for forcing them?
How do we know which people support their aggressive government and which don't?
Assuming perfect knowledge, aren't civilians unwillingly working in the aggressive government's factories still building the machines that power the war?
Assuming perfect knowledge, aren't soldiers unwillingly fighting in the aggressive government's war still firing bullets?
It seems to me that some people here seem to consider "total war" to mean "total destruction".
"Total war", as best as I can tell from what I've read from Objectivists, means defeating the enemy by any means necessary with minimal loss. I could be wrong in this interpretation, would someone like to correct me?
It's my understanding that when an Objectivist supports "total war" it assumes two things... 1) That the war itself is moral, i.e. necessary to protect the individual rights of it's citizens. 2) That the war will be fought rationally, logically and consistently, i.e. that we don't bomb things for the sake of bombing things (which is a waste of resources and lives) but that proper military tactics are used to effectively destroy the enemy. I don't know if these are stated explicitly anywhere, I assume they are. Even with my limited understanding of Objectivism it seems far fetched to think these would not be presupposed in an Objectivist definition of "total war". Am I wrong? |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
