Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The use of war

Rate this topic


Mr. Wynand

Recommended Posts

Is there any controversy between objectivists on foreign policy. I know that many of libertarian thought oppose any intervention unless purely in self defense. Didn't Ayn Rand support American intervention in Israel and Taiwan to "secure our interests"? What is the principle for the use of force when dealing with other nations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should find a few related topics in the "Terrorism/Islam" sub-forum.

On the general theory (not a specific war), the debates around here have been along two questions:

  1. What is "self-defense"? Does it means you must be physically attacked before responding? That does not make sense at a person-to-person level: e.g. one can shoot the guy coming at one with a knife before he reaches your body, one can arrest someone planning a terrorist attack if there is enough evidence to show they were seriously doing so. If the same principles apply to nations, then it would be self-defense to attack a nation that was a real danger. Of course, even if that is agreed upon on principle, the next question is: what set of circumstances meets the test of being a credible and sufficient danger.
  2. "Innocents": Morally, does an attacker have to take into account the "innocents" inside the enemy country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand herself was clear on the matter, aside from the question of whether a nation should attack another i.e. is it in our best interest?

From the Playboy interview...

PLAYBOY: . . . And that any free nation today has the moral right -- though not the duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other "slave pen." Correct?

RAND: Correct. A dictatorship -- a country that violates the rights of its own citizens -- is an outlaw and can claim no rights.

As they say, the devil is in the details. :)

*edited for clarity

Edited by Zip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand herself was clear on the matter, aside from the question of whether a nation should attack another i.e. is it in our best interest?

From the Playboy interview...

As they say, the devil is in the details. :devil:

*edited for clarity

But what is/ are the principle(s) that determine "self-interetst" for a nation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what is/ are the principle(s) that determine "self-interetst" for a nation?

What are the principals that determine an individuals "self-interest"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what is/ are the principle(s) that determine "self-interetst" for a nation?
The interest of a nation is that its citizens exist according to man's nature: by reason, not force. Anything that contradicts that goal is thus against a nation's interest, and preventing the contradiction of that goal is in the nation's interest.

I don't believe there is any evidence that Objectivists hold that we should engage in war that does not defend our interests. This would explain, for example, why Objectivists repudiate the self-sacrificial war in Iraq. A nation whose regime threatens our interest -- freedom -- does to some extent deserve to be eliminated. However, it is a complex political question whether a specific nation sufficiently deserves to experience American military intervention. From what I can see, Zimbabwe isn't a significant enough threat to warrant the cost of an invasion, even from a business perspective (that is, the Mugabe dictatorship does not seem to be interfering with substantial US economic interests). Suppose, counter to fact, that Zimbabwe were a major rubber exporting nation, but the government prohibited rubber growers from trading with American buyers. This could easily justify military intervention, to free the rubber growers (and everyone else, incidentally) so that they could engage in free trade with Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interest of a nation is that its citizens exist according to man's nature: by reason, not force. Anything that contradicts that goal is thus against a nation's interest, and preventing the contradiction of that goal is in the nation's interest.

I don't believe there is any evidence that Objectivists hold that we should engage in war that does not defend our interests. This would explain, for example, why Objectivists repudiate the self-sacrificial war in Iraq. A nation whose regime threatens our interest -- freedom -- does to some extent deserve to be eliminated. However, it is a complex political question whether a specific nation sufficiently deserves to experience American military intervention. From what I can see, Zimbabwe isn't a significant enough threat to warrant the cost of an invasion, even from a business perspective (that is, the Mugabe dictatorship does not seem to be interfering with substantial US economic interests). Suppose, counter to fact, that Zimbabwe were a major rubber exporting nation, but the government prohibited rubber growers from trading with American buyers. This could easily justify military intervention, to free the rubber growers (and everyone else, incidentally) so that they could engage in free trade with Americans.

I will propose three scenarios, and ask which of these is just cause for the use of force.

1. A nation, with the economic and military power necessary to attack mine, is intent on our destruction. This nation is planning an attack in the foreseeable future and we are aware of it. Should we intervene?

2. A nation, with the economic and military power necessary to attack mine, is dominated by an irrational regime, and violates the rights of it's citizens. This nation has made public it's desire to see our destruction, but we have no evidence that they intend to use their military assets to attack us in the foreseeable future. Should we intervene?

3. A nation, with negligible military capabilities, openly intends our destruction. This nation lacks the military capability to make good on its threat in the foreseeable future. Should we intervene?

Instinctively, I think only scenario 1 is justified, but I am open to any persuasive arguments.

-RR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will propose three scenarios, and ask which of these is just cause for the use of force.

1. A nation, with the economic and military power necessary to attack mine, is intent on our destruction. This nation is planning an attack in the foreseeable future and we are aware of it. Should we intervene?

2. A nation, with the economic and military power necessary to attack mine, is dominated by an irrational regime, and violates the rights of it's citizens. This nation has made public it's desire to see our destruction, but we have no evidence that they intend to use their military assets to attack us in the foreseeable future. Should we intervene?

3. A nation, with negligible military capabilities, openly intends our destruction. This nation lacks the military capability to make good on its threat in the foreseeable future. Should we intervene?

Instinctively, I think only scenario 1 is justified, but I am open to any persuasive arguments.

-RR

Here's my impression.

1

Bombs away!

2

High alert!

3

Humbug!

Edited by FrolicsomeQuipster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will propose three scenarios, and ask which of these is just cause for the use of force.
I'm leaving out the question of whether that government violates the rights of US citizens, for example by confiscating property of US citizens. For case 1, clearly yes. For case 3, clearly no. Case 2 is an unclear contradiction. A declaration of intent is an action and is evidence, so we have to look at how exactly they expressed the threat, and whether we have good enough reason to dismiss it as empty rhetoric. In deciding the "should", you must compare the probable consequences of "do" and "don't", that is, does the risk of damage to the US arising from an attack outweigh the benefit of neutralizing a possible aggressor. The middle case smells like the Soviet Union.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interest of a nation is that its citizens exist according to man's nature: by reason, not force. Anything that contradicts that goal is thus against a nation's interest, and preventing the contradiction of that goal is in the nation's interest.

I don't believe there is any evidence that Objectivists hold that we should engage in war that does not defend our interests. This would explain, for example, why Objectivists repudiate the self-sacrificial war in Iraq. A nation whose regime threatens our interest -- freedom -- does to some extent deserve to be eliminated. However, it is a complex political question whether a specific nation sufficiently deserves to experience American military intervention. From what I can see, Zimbabwe isn't a significant enough threat to warrant the cost of an invasion, even from a business perspective (that is, the Mugabe dictatorship does not seem to be interfering with substantial US economic interests). Suppose, counter to fact, that Zimbabwe were a major rubber exporting nation, but the government prohibited rubber growers from trading with American buyers. This could easily justify military intervention, to free the rubber growers (and everyone else, incidentally) so that they could engage in free trade with Americans.

And what happens if we kill all the rubber growers or scorch their ability to make rubber?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what happens if we kill all the rubber growers or scorch their ability to make rubber?
That would be a silly thing to do. However, leveling the capital city (thus eliminating the central dictatorship) would leave the rubber growers and their fields unharmed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...