Are there innocents within war?

[AisA]

And if you think that the ONLY reason I pay my taxes (or anyone else pays their taxes) is because I will go to jail if I don't, then you're crazy.  I pay taxes because that's the system here, and I benefit from this system. 

Just for the record, the only reason I pay taxes (at the current level) is because I do not wish to go to jail. Take away the threat of jail (in all its forms, icluding lifting the requirement that businesses withhold employee taxes and collect sales taxes), I, and millions of other taxpayers, would choose to pay only a fraction of what is paid now.

And the same reasoning is used by everyone else here,

With all due respect, I ask that you speak only for yourself.

and all those who made Nazi Germany possible, and every other nation in the world. They all think that their nation is their best option for happiness.

This is obviously not true. There are, for instance, millions of people in Mexico that would greatly prefer to be here. The U.S. Border Patrol captures and returns something like 650,000 people every year trying to get from Mexico into the U.S. So the fact that someone is in Mexico is not proof that they consider Mexico "their best option for happiness."

Are they not responsible for choosing to participate in an immoral system because the system they chose is immoral?

Not if there are no moral choices.

[gags]

Just checking, we're talking about Nazi Germany, right?  No one building bombs had a gun to their head.  The only innocent people were in concentration camps, and they weren't building any weapons.

I believe that much of the workforce in Nazi munitions plants during the latter part of the war was made up of slave labor. Many workers were moved from occupied countries and forced to work or die. These people definitely had a gun to their heads. Nevertheless, we would have been (and were) morally justified in bombing them and the factories in which they were working.

[jimdevine]

As to slave labor and building munitions, see "Shindlers List"

[jimdevine]

I really enjoy these posts, they are very revealing of the level of world knowledge (and lack of it) held even by what one might assume to be well educated and intelligent people.

I'll give you some real world insight. My father fought in WWII and was present at the liberation of concentration camps. All concentration camps were used as forced labor for the war effort. It is naive to consider that weapons are the only tools needed in war. Besides being transported to civilian factories (which were profitable businesses and not government industries BTW) to work on weapons systems, concentration camp inmates also made many items used in the war effort like clothing for troops or building military installations, unloading trains, anything where bodies were needed. Russian POW's were also use as slave labor. To my knowledge no concentration camp was intentionally targeted. Legitimate industry targets were though and no doubt many of these inmates died in bombing raids. Their deaths were and are regrettable, though not preventable except by the Nazi party and those German citizens who followed along and did nothing.

I have served in 2 branches of the US Military and have 3 Honorable discharges, I have traveled the world as both a member of that military defending the Constitution and as a private citizen and businessman. I can tell you there is not one better alternative to this country including our closest allies and fellow democratic nations. I am not saying perfect, I am stating no better. Yes you could live comfortably in many places, but never have the same level of individual rights and freedom available here.

In all this discussion I have only seen the word victim used once. Those living in a region ruled without their consent and enslaved by force are as much victims as those who went to their deaths seat belted in passenger jets on Sept 11. or died in all concentration camps or killing fields ever created. I would like to think that most humans when given the opportunity to fight against an oppressive force would do so, I am however not that naive. We who live our entire lives with the ability to speak our minds have little comprehension of what thousands of years of duty to the state, be it a dictatorial individual or royal family or a cadre of mystics ruling in the name of unseen deities, does to free will. It is naive to believe everyone who lives in a totalitarian or even a free society understands the basic concepts of free will. In order to make informed choices there needs to be an understanding of choice. You can not place an arbitrary guilt on a populace to justify their deaths. In fact you need not bother. The actions of the ruling state are in fact responsible for any defensive retaliation, with them lies the only guilt. Those killed or injured are as much victims of that state as any action the state took against them directly. What's missing here is the understanding that all people do not have the volitional will to comprehend resistance. The points of guilt or innocence are moot since no choice is possible. Though this was the prevalent situation in the world for most of human history, the situation has changed dramatically in the past 200 years. Most countries no matter how closed do get news of the world outside. Concepts like democracy and individual rights are known so the level of personal culpability has risen, it is not however as deeply ingrained as in the relatively few and very recent (on a historical perspective) democracies in the world. So here we have a greater moral imperative to acknowledge when we are rationalizing actions as opposed to acting rationally.

This brings me to the level of discussion around "government". There seems to be a general use of the word to describe the current ruling parties and their policies. In fact our government, the government of the United States is that which is described by the Constitution of The United States. That document which defines a government of and by the People is the foundation of our freedom and our ability to rule ourselves. The opinions expressed here tend to be about disagreements with the policy of this and recent administrations yet the language does not differentiate between the form of government and its application.

If we are to assign or accept any guilt or moral responsibility lets make sure we also accept that we are not victims if we fail to use the power given us as individuals to hold orderly revolutions on a regular basis and vote for that which we believe to be the proper form. Only we who have the birth right to govern ourselves can fail in that obligation. Taxes, are not wrong, the mis-application of taxation is. We have never voted in legislatures who opposed excessive or inappropriate taxation and use of taxes so we as a community live under a legal tax system. Defense is not wrong, but if we vote in an aggressive administration we must deal with the consequences. I am not morally responsible for illegal acts committed by the current authority even if I voted for them. I am only responsible for failing to act on what my conscience says is actionable. States have no brain or will, states reflect the will of those who rule. If our state is not reflecting our will we must move to remove the leadership and try again. We may not agree with the actions of those we replace, but unless those actions are considered illegal we have no associated blame other than that of having put them in a position to commit the act in the first place. Still this is more a regret than real guilt. Anyone who advocates change to the U.S. form of government is at least seditious and at most a traitor. I would like to think that most Americans understand that there is a difference between the elected and appointed officials and our form of government. Many do not see any difference. The "government" that went to war in 1941 and the "government" who decided to go into Iraq (either time) are wholly different, the system that they worked under however is the same. The "government" that decided to illegally prevent the dissolution of the Union was noth the same as the one that initiated the seperation from England in 1776 (under a different system I might ad). When speaking of these things please keep in mind that your Constitutional state is your guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of your personal happiness and the "government" is whoever is enforcing or making current policy and law. Speaking against the current powers that be if fine if you have an issue, speaking against the American system is wrong and definitely immoral unless you have a much better way...

"Cutting off your nose to spite your face will just make you talk funny, it doesn't make anything actually smell better..."

[softwareNerd]

Here's an interesting news-story regarding so-called "innocents" during wars.

Four US Seals were dropped some place in Afghanistan to kill a Taliban leader. Why send marines rather than just bomb the area enough to know that the target would be killed? Not sure.

Anyway, these 4 US Seals encountered 3 villagers. I assume there was no good way to tell if these three were villagers chaffing under the Taliban who would like the help the US, or villagers who were happy with the Taliban, or somewhere in between. The US soldiers had to make a decision: what to do about these three? The article has moe details.

(HT: The Forum for Ayn Rand Fans)

[K-Mac]

Here's an interesting news-story regarding so-called "innocents" during wars.

Four US Seals were dropped some place in Afghanistan to kill a Taliban leader. Why send marines rather than just bomb the area enough to know that the target would be killed? Not sure.

Anyway, these 4 US Seals encountered 3 villagers. I assume there was no good way to tell if these three were villagers chaffing under the Taliban who would like the help the US, or villagers who were happy with the Taliban, or somewhere in between. The US soldiers had to make a decision: what to do about these three? The article has moe details.

(HT: The Forum for Ayn Rand Fans)

I went to the Danny Dietz Memorial (one of the dead Seals from the aforementioned story) on July 4th in Littleton. It was quite moving. I found it very emotional because I believe he would be alive today if it weren't for our country's fouled up rules of engagement. The thought of this wonderful young man and highly trained Navy Seal's life being wasted over political correctness literally made me cry.

[Robert J. Kolker]

This is the fallacy of question-begging. In a war amongst states, there is no such thing as an "innocent civilian". The state which exists is a creation of the civilians in every sense -- politics, economics, use of force. By working and producing value which is the fuel for that state's actions, every citizen of a state is morally responsible for the actions of the state in which he works. Where do government officials come from? They were once citizens of the same state -- who chose to become what they are. Where does the state get its operating funds? From the citizens of the state, who always have the option of laying down their lives or fleeing in opposition to funding their government. Where do the state's soldiers come from? They too are nothing more than citizens of that state, dressed in uniform and given state-supplied weapons and authority.

What about children in the enemy state? I am talking about young people who have not yet attained the level of reason that makes them responsible for their actions or inactions. Are these folk innocent? I would say yes. However the nature of war may mean killing such innocent folk as collateral damage to a guilty enemy.

Bob Kolker

Edited September 3, 2007 by Robert J. Kolker