Bush's Justification

[Charlotte Corday]

Charlotte: No, I am in fact separating them. I'm stipulating (for the moment) that Bush's policy in Iraq is correct. Now the only question left is how to properly finance it. Let's look at it another way. There is, say, $10,000 in the U.S. Treasury that was forcibly taken from my income last year. Now, if we have a choice, does the money come back to me

or does it remain Bush's to spend as he pleases?

Oakes: Of course it should come back to you. But this thread is called "Bush's Justification"; we are talking about the war in Iraq. If you have really separated these two issues, why did you even bring up the first one?

Okay, if my funds should come back to me, perforce all other income-earners’ funds should come back to them. Now, if we agree (for the nonce) that W’s war in Iraq should continue full speed ahead, just what funds is it going to continue full speed ahead with? Voluntary contributions via the RNC?

Charlotte: No, if you'll look at my original statement, you'll see that it specifically responds to post #15 which argues that there is a "higher probablity than with most other similarly geographically situated countries" of coverting Iraq "to a Western-style democracy."

Oakes: All the same, you post was a sneer against the cause of using of force to democratize them. You criticisms are better placed on the execution of the war, not the cause itself.

Bombing people to make them believe in democracy is the moral equivalent of O’Brien torturing Winston Smith to make him believe in Big Brother. What the neo-cons don’t understand is that attacking civilian populations does not convert them to the bombers’ point of view but to the revolutionaries’ side. This is the lesson France reluctantly learned in Algeria.

Charlotte Corday: I guess the cause ain't so great anymore.

Oakes: Unbelievable! The cause of intervening in the middle east, punishing our enemies, and establishing free, accountable governments isn't so great anymore? Again, the cause and the way it was done are two different things.

"Dr. Brook retracts his previous, hesitant endorsement of the Iraq War. He now argues that the way we have fought in Iraq (and Afghanistan) is worse than doing nothing." http://objectivistsr.us/index.php?showtopi...hl=yaron++brook

In other words, doing nothing would have been a greater cause than the current War in Iraq.

By the way, what percent of our current defense budget should be devoted to making the governments of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Nigeria free and accountable? And what percent should come from coerced revenues?

[Oakes]

Okay, if my funds should come back to me, perforce all other income-earners’ funds should come back to them. Now, if we agree (for the nonce) that W’s war in Iraq should continue full speed ahead, just what funds is it going to continue full speed ahead with? Voluntary contributions via the RNC?

Your money cannot be sent back to you until the government has shrunk to its proper role. It has been made explicitly clear that the end of coercive taxation would be the last step in the transition to capitalism -- try capitalism.org.

Bombing people to make them believe in democracy is the moral equivalent of O’Brien torturing Winston Smith to make him believe in Big Brother. What the neo-cons don’t understand is that attacking civilian populations does not convert them to the bombers’ point of view but to the revolutionaries’ side. This is the lesson France reluctantly learned in Algeria.

I never suggested "bombing people to make them believe in democracy". I don't care what the people think. We should bomb them and force the establishment of a pro-freedom government. Refer to Yaron Brook's example of Japan, where we "shoved a constitution down their throats".

"Dr. Brook retracts his previous, hesitant endorsement of the Iraq War. He now argues that the way we have fought in Iraq (and Afghanistan) is worse than doing nothing." <http://objectivistsr.us/index.php?showtopi...hl=yaron++brook>

In other words, doing nothing would have been a greater cause than the current War in Iraq.

I'll try this again: The cause is us intervening in the middle east. An example of its execution is the war in Iraq, which you can argue was worse than doing nothing. My problem with you was that your criticism of the Iraq war led you to smirk at the entire cause.

By the way, what percent of our current defense budget should be devoted to making the governments of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Nigeria free and accountable?

A big percent -- not that I'm advocating war with globalized nations like Russia and China.

And what percent should come from coerced revenues?

See first quote.

[Charlotte Corday]

Your money cannot be sent back to you until the government has shrunk to its proper role. It has been made explicitly clear that the end of coercive taxation would be the last step in the transition to capitalism -- try capitalism.org.

Why do welfare recipients have a greater right to my money than I do? Why should the fact that the government has not shrunk give non-producers a better claim to the wealth of producers than the producers themselves have? Essentially, you making the non sequitur argument that as long as the government is engaged in the forced and immoral redistribution of wealth, no taxpayer may demand the return of any money coerced from him.

I never suggested "bombing people to make them believe in democracy". I don't care what the people think. We should bomb them and force the establishment of a pro-freedom government. Refer to Yaron Brook's example of Japan, where we "shoved a constitution down their throats".

In Post #36 you criticized my “sneer against the cause of using of force to democratize them.” Now, I’m not quite sure whether the government you have in mind for Iraq is to derive its powers from the Iraqis themselves or to rule autocratically regardless of what the Iraqis think. I would suggest that any government that runs contrary to popular Iraqi opinion will be continually besieged by the same sort of spectacularly violent resistance the current puppet regime is experiencing. Odd that Objectivists, who usually argue that a culture must be changed before its government is revolutionized, take the opposite view on Iraq. As for comparing Iraq to Japan, bear in mind that after Japan’s military defeat, Gen. MacArthur kept Emperor Hirohito on the throne and used his popularity to build respect for Japan’s post-war government. Nothing about the current U.S. administration of Iraq shows any concern for existing social structures or hierarchies. Like the 18th century Jacobins, the American occupiers are trying to build a “new society” out of nothing. The key difference between 1945 Japan and 2004 Iraq is that the occupiers of the former were smart enough to pay careful attention to “what the people think.”

I'll try this again: The cause is us intervening in the middle east. An example of its execution is the war in Iraq, which you can argue was worse than doing nothing. My problem with you was that your criticism of the Iraq war led you to smirk at the entire cause.

If that is your cause, then it is completely meaningless. It’s like having a “cause to intervene in Europe” or a “cause to intervene in Central Africa” or a “cause to intervene in the South Pacific.” If intervention itself is the glorious cause, then there is no way at all of rationally determining how much intervention is too little or too much.

[Oakes]

Why should the fact that the government has not shrunk give non-producers a better claim to the wealth of producers than the producers themselves have?

Nobody said it should! I said your money simply cannot be sent back to you until the government has shrunk to its proper role. That is, unless you really think we will all reach freedom in one fell swoop.

Screaming "I want it now!" and opposing every government action until then is incredibly short-sighted and futile.

Now, I’m not quite sure whether the government you have in mind for Iraq is to derive its powers from the Iraqis themselves or to rule autocratically regardless of what the Iraqis think.

The latter, if necessary.

I would suggest that any government that runs contrary to popular Iraqi opinion will be continually besieged by the same sort of spectacularly violent resistance the current puppet regime is experiencing.

And I would suggest such violent resistance would be crushed if we don't fight as cowardly as we have been.

As for comparing Iraq to Japan, bear in mind that after Japan’s military defeat, Gen. MacArthur kept Emperor Hirohito on the throne and used his popularity to build respect for Japan’s post-war government.

Let's not give our sanction to criminals. Propping up Hussein or any of his bad boys is out of the question.

If that is your cause, then it is completely meaningless. It’s like having a “cause to intervene in Europe” or a “cause to intervene in Central Africa” or a “cause to intervene in the South Pacific.”

Uh, except we actually do need to intervene in the middle east.

If intervention itself is the glorious cause, then there is no way at all of rationally determining how much intervention is too little or too much.

That, of course, all depends on what we decide is in the best interests of our security. This is the part that our government isn't doing too well with. They got the cause right -- we definitely need to intervene over there -- but the decisions they made weren't in the best interests of our security.

[Oakes]

Forgot one:

Odd that Objectivists, who usually argue that a culture must be changed before its government is revolutionized, take the opposite view on Iraq.

Because in the case of America, we must go through the normal political system to bring forth more freedom. In the case of a country devoid of any freedom to begin with, it must be imposed by force for the sake of self-defense.

[Charlotte Corday]

Nobody said it should! I said your money simply cannot be sent back to you until the government has shrunk to its proper role. That is, unless you really think we will all reach freedom in one fell swoop.

Again, this is a non sequitur. Why must the rolling back of the income tax be preceded by the rolling back of government expenditures? In fact, it could happen just as easily in reverse sequence. A return to minimalist government would occur in short order once government lost its power to collect taxes. If you do not like fell swoops, try this: the enforcement arm of the IRS could have its current budget reduced to zero per cent over the next five years. No enforcers, no taxes collected -- except by those who, of their own free will, cheerfully contributed.

Screaming "I want it now!" and opposing every government action until then is incredibly short-sighted and futile.

But why should those who scream "I want democracy in Iraq now!" be more entitled to U.S. Treasury funds than those who demand retribution from tax theft? Pronouncing the latter “short-sighted” and “futile” does nothing to address the ethical merits of their case. Those who favor using funds coerced from millions of productive individuals for foreign adventures that those tax producers may or may not approve of are themselves engaging in a monumental dropping of context.

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

Now, I’m not quite sure whether the government you have in mind for Iraq is to derive its powers from the Iraqis themselves or to rule autocratically regardless of what the Iraqis think.

Oakes: The latter, if necessary.

Splendid! Then you cannot very well dismiss my “sneer against the cause of using of force to democratize them,” if you by your own admission have no principled interest in democratizing Iraq.

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

I would suggest that any government that runs contrary to popular Iraqi opinion will be continually besieged by the same sort of spectacularly violent resistance the current puppet regime is experiencing.

Oakes: And I would suggest such violent resistance would be crushed if we don't fight as cowardly as we have been.

Actually, the most cowardly form of warfare (if we define “cowardly” by the ratio of risks taken to the number of people killed) is the mass air-bombing of civilians, the prime example being the atomic bombing of Japan which you and Yaron Brook in fine style embrace.

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

As for comparing Iraq to Japan, bear in mind that after Japan’s military defeat, Gen. MacArthur kept Emperor Hirohito on the throne and used his popularity to build respect for Japan’s post-war government.

Oakes: Let's not give our sanction to criminals. Propping up Hussein or any of his bad boys is out of the question.

You have already cited Japan as the appropriate model for Iraq. Yet it was in Japan that the U.S. made an alliance with the Emperor, who was, à la Saddam, the leader of Japan’s imperialistic drive in the 1930s.

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

If that is your cause, then it is completely meaningless. It’s like having a “cause to intervene in Europe” or a “cause to intervene in Central Africa” or a “cause to intervene in the South Pacific.”

Oakes: Uh, except we actually do need to intervene in the middle east.

Then your argument is pure tautology. If intervention itself is the cause (and not just a means to advance a higher cause), then it follows by closed-loop logic that we must intervene. What you have not shown is why intervention itself should be the great cause.

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

If intervention itself is the glorious cause, then there is no way at all of rationally determining how much intervention is too little or too much.

Oakes: That, of course, all depends on what we decide is in the best interests of our security. This is the part that our government isn't doing too well with. They got the cause right -- we definitely need to intervene over there -- but the decisions they made weren't in the best interests of our security.

“Our security” strikes me as an extremely collectivistic term. Why should the security of White Fish, Montana be defined in the same way as lower Manhattan, New York? But the key problem is that we keep coming back to your fundamental (and apparently unquestioned) article of faith: “we definitely need to intervene over there.” If intervention is axiomatically good, then we must say the more intervention, the better. The current U.S. force of 150,000 in Iraq would be better than a mere 100,000. But 250,000 would be better still. A half million better than that. And a million even better. Hell, why not two or three or four million? Since you have set intervention as your only cause, we must evaluate U.S. policy not on what results are obtained but merely on how much manpower and matériel are appropriated. In other words, we must judge our government not on actual accomplishments but on reported intentions.

[Charlotte Corday]

Forgot one:

Because in the case of America, we must go through the normal political system to bring forth more freedom. In the case of a country devoid of any freedom to begin with, it must be imposed by force for the sake of self-defense.

This does not follow. Why must a country be completely devoid of freedom before a victim of the government demands justice? If metaphysical-ethical change precedes political change, then a overhaul of the prevailing culture would have to precede any political change. Just exactly how does one “impose freedom by force”?

Forgot one:

Because in the case of America, we must go through the normal political system to bring forth more freedom.

And why is that? Does the U.S. Constitution demand it? Do the Objectivist Ethics demand it?

In the case of a country devoid of any freedom to begin with, it must be imposed by force for the sake of self-defense.

This does not follow. Why must a country be completely devoid of freedom before a victim of the government demands justice? If metaphysical-ethical change precedes political change, then a overhaul of the prevailing culture would have to precede any political change. Just exactly how does one “impose freedom by force”?

[Oakes]

Why must the rolling back of the income tax be preceded by the rolling back of government expenditures?

Because a law banning coercive taxation would never pass in today's political climate. We are in a welfare state, and most politicians are okay with that, or else they would have ended it. Read my last post here:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...opic=1648&st=20

But why should those who scream "I want democracy in Iraq now!" be more entitled to U.S. Treasury funds than those who demand retribution from tax theft?

Because the only other option is to protest everything the government does, including the few good things it does, until it ends coercive taxation. If this accurately describes you, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Splendid! Then you cannot very well dismiss my “sneer against the cause of using of force to democratize them,” if you by your own admission have no principled interest in democratizing Iraq.

I have an interest in making Iraq a free nation recognizing individual rights. I must have misinterpreted what you meant by "rule autocratically". I am willing to force their government to change, but I'm not willing to violate their rights with an oppressive government.

Actually, the most cowardly form of warfare (if we define “cowardly” by the ratio of risks taken to the number of people killed) is the mass air-bombing of civilians, the prime example being the atomic bombing of Japan which you and Yaron Brook in fine style embrace.

But you aren't specifying which people are being killed. If mass air-bombing accomplishes the mission while sparing the lives of American troops who might've died going in by ground, it is definitely NOT cowardly. One is a coward when he lacks the moral resolve to assert his right to self-defense, putting his own troops in danger to avoid angering the locals.

You have already cited Japan as the appropriate model for Iraq. Yet it was in Japan that the U.S. made an alliance with the Emperor, who was, à la Saddam, the leader of Japan’s imperialistic drive in the 1930s.

On second thought, I have no problem, in theory, using the former master of our enemy as a puppet to appeal to the masses, because there is no sacrifice involved. That said, Saddam didn't exactly have the same status as Hirohito did in Japan, so I'm not too sure it'll work quite the same.

Then your argument is pure tautology. If intervention itself is the cause (and not just a means to advance a higher cause), then it follows by closed-loop logic that we must intervene. What you have not shown is why intervention itself should be the great cause.

No, of course intervention is a means to a higher cause. I didn't mention it because I thought that was obvious.

[Oakes]

Why must a country be completely devoid of freedom before a victim of the government demands justice?

I was talking about outside governments, not the victims within the country.

If metaphysical-ethical change precedes political change, then a overhaul of the prevailing culture would have to precede any political change.

Metaphysical-ethical change precedes political change when it is the people who overthrow the government. In the case of an outside government overthrowing it, the rules are quite different.

And why is that? Does the U.S. Constitution demand it? Do the Objectivist Ethics demand it?

Are you implying that we should do it through armed rebellion?

Just exactly how does one “impose freedom by force”?

Destroy the old government, replace it with one that respects individual rights. In other words, we don't ask them to create a free government, we make them.

And yes, I did just realize that "impose freedom by force" is redundant.

[Charlotte Corday]

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

Why must the rolling back of the income tax be preceded by the rolling back of government expenditures?

Oakes: Because a law banning coercive taxation would never pass in today's political climate. We are in a welfare state, and most politicians are okay with that, or else they would have ended it. Read my last post here:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...opic=1648&st=20

I see. We live in a time when the public would never approve of rolling back taxation. So we must roll back government first, which, of course, the public will have no objection to.

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

But why should those who scream "I want democracy in Iraq now!" be more entitled to U.S. Treasury funds than those who demand retribution from tax theft?

Oakes:  Because the only other option is to protest everything the government does, including the few good things it does, until it ends coercive taxation. If this accurately describes you, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

What on earth does someone’s protesting or not protesting have to do with moral entitlement to property? If goods are stolen from A, his right to the return of those goods exists independently opinions spoken or unspoken.

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

Splendid! Then you cannot very well dismiss my “sneer against the cause of using of force to democratize them,” if you by your own admission have no principled interest in democratizing Iraq.

Oakes: I have an interest in making Iraq a free nation recognizing individual rights. I must have misinterpreted what you meant by "rule autocratically". I am willing to force their government to change, but I'm not willing to violate their rights with an oppressive government.

Then you should not support the current puppet regime in Iraq with its theocratic constitution (“Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered a source of legislation”), it’s coercive egalitarianism (“Discrimination against an Iraqi citizen on the basis of his gender, nationality, religion, or origin is prohibited”), and welfare statism (“The individual has the right to security, education, health care, and social security.”)

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

Actually, the most cowardly form of warfare (if we define “cowardly” by the ratio of risks taken to the number of people killed) is the mass air-bombing of civilians, the prime example being the atomic bombing of Japan which you and Yaron Brook in fine style embrace.

Oakes: But you aren't specifying which people are being killed. If mass air-bombing accomplishes the mission while sparing the lives of American troops who might've died going in by ground, it is definitely NOT cowardly. One is a coward when he lacks the moral resolve to assert his right to self-defense, putting his own troops in danger to avoid angering the locals.

There is no moral difference between bombing innocent people in Hiroshima and bombing innocent people in the World Trade Center. One’s “needs” do not constitute a valid claim to the life or property of another.

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

You have already cited Japan as the appropriate model for Iraq. Yet it was in Japan that the U.S. made an alliance with the Emperor, who was, à la Saddam, the leader of Japan’s imperialistic drive in the 1930s.

Oakes:  On second thought, I have no problem, in theory, using the former master of our enemy as a puppet to appeal to the masses, because there is no sacrifice involved. That said, Saddam didn't exactly have the same status as Hirohito did in Japan, so I'm not too sure it'll work quite the same.

Saddam or not, the U.S. occupiers have made no attempt to work within existing social/political structures. That is why the overwhelming majority of Iraqis view them as unwanted outsiders.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...oll-cover_x.htm

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

Then your argument is pure tautology. If intervention itself is the cause (and not just a means to advance a higher cause), then it follows by closed-loop logic that we must intervene. What you have not shown is why intervention itself should be the great cause.

Oakes: No, of course intervention is a means to a higher cause. I didn't mention it because I thought that was obvious.

It is not obvious at all. The U.S. war to topple Saddam (at the urging of suspected Iranian spy Ahmed Chalabi) has accomplished nothing less that getting rid of Iran’s chief enemy and making it easier to set up a pro-Iranian Shiite republic in Baghdad.

[Al Kufr]

There is no moral difference between bombing innocent people in Hiroshima and bombing innocent people in the World Trade Center. One’s “needs” do not constitute a valid claim to the life or property of another.

its a good thing that the japs werent innocent.

[MisterSwig]

There is no moral difference between bombing innocent people in Hiroshima and bombing innocent people in the World Trade Center.

Hiroshima was self-defense. 9/11 was the initiation of force.

In my view, it is not even worth arguing why those who dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima were heroes while those who bombed the World Trade Center were evil.

The topic of "innocents" in war has already been argued. I suggest that you do a search and read the threads on that subject, before continuing with your idea that Hiroshima and 9/11 were morally equivalent acts.

[Oakes]

I see. We live in a time when the public would never approve of rolling back taxation. So we must roll back government first, which, of course, the public will have no objection to.

It should've been clear I was talking about the politicians, but even ordinary citizens would most likely not approve of a complete ban on coercive taxation. You make the point that rolling back on taxation is what the public wants, which I agree with. But banning it completely is a whole different proposal, with much less chance of success if you haven't yet convinced them that their beloved social programs are beyond the purpose of government.

What on earth does someone’s protesting or not protesting have to do with moral entitlement to property? If goods are stolen from A, his right to the return of those goods exists independently opinions spoken or unspoken.

I have no clue how you could've extracted that from what I said. I read over the exchange several times and I'm still confused. There are two options: Fight the parts of the government that make coercive taxation necessary, or fight every single bit of the government including the good parts until coercive taxation ends. And like I said, if you accept the latter, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Then you should not support the current puppet regime in Iraq with its theocratic constitution

I've already criticized that. More recently I've thought that all of these things have piled up to the point that "It's a start" is no longer something I can say about the war.

There is no moral difference between bombing innocent people in Hiroshima and bombing innocent people in the World Trade Center. One’s “needs” do not constitute a valid claim to the life or property of another.

This argument has already been held in another thread and I don't want to continue it here. Rest assured, however, that the argument in favor of killing enemy civilians to win wars is not as simplistic as you protray it.

Saddam or not, the U.S. occupiers have made no attempt to work within existing social/political structures. That is why the overwhelming majority of Iraqis view them as unwanted outsiders.

If we again hypothetically assume this war is good, I would support any of your appeals to Iraqi social/political structures as long as it doesn't mean sacrificing American lives.

It is not obvious at all. The U.S. war to topple Saddam (at the urging of suspected Iranian spy Ahmed Chalabi) has accomplished nothing less that getting rid of Iran’s chief enemy and making it easier to set up a pro-Iranian Shiite republic in Baghdad.

I don't see how the Iraq mess-up makes it not obvious that I consider intervening in the mideast to be a means to a higher cause.

[Charlotte Corday]

Hiroshima was self-defense. 9/11 was the initiation of force.

In my view, it is not even worth arguing why those who dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima were heroes while those who bombed the World Trade Center were evil.

If, as Ayn Rand says, “Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use” (her emphasis), then it does not matter how lofty or noble your goals are, no man’s life or property is a means to your ends.

The topic of "innocents" in war has already been argued. I suggest that you do a search and read the threads on that subject, before continuing with your idea that Hiroshima and 9/11 were morally equivalent acts.

You are misreading me. Here is what I wrote: “There is no moral difference between bombing innocent people in Hiroshima and bombing innocent people in the World Trade Center.”

[Charlotte Corday]

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

I see. We live in a time when the public would never approve of rolling back taxation. So we must roll back government first, which, of course, the public will have no objection to.

Oates: It should've been clear I was talking about the politicians, but even ordinary citizens would most likely not approve of a complete ban on coercive taxation. You make the point that rolling back on taxation is what the public wants, which I agree with. But banning it completely is a whole different proposal, with much less chance of success if you haven't yet convinced them that their beloved social programs are beyond the purpose of government.

That is not in dispute. What we were discussing is the morality of using money taken from a rightful owner against his will. The issues of whether or not the government is at its proper size or how many people would support a roll-back in taxes may be interesting and important, but they are not relevant to the moral question.

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

What on earth does someone’s protesting or not protesting have to do with moral entitlement to property? If goods are stolen from A, his right to the return of those goods exists independently opinions spoken or unspoken.

Oakes:  I have no clue how you could've extracted that from what I said. I read over the exchange several times and I'm still confused. There are two options: Fight the parts of the government that make coercive taxation necessary, or fight every single bit of the government including the good parts until coercive taxation ends. And like I said, if you accept the latter, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Let’s go back to what I wrote in Post #28: “I think Bush should be allowed to spend whatever he wants to on what he calls ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ as long as he doesn't use funds coerced from wage earners.” That you may approve of what the president is doing with tax money and that you may believe that the expenditures fit neatly into what you think an ideal government should be, won’t make the money in the U.S. Treasury any less stolen. On the question of where ill-gotten gains should go, there is only one right answer: to the rightful owner.

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

There is no moral difference between bombing innocent people in Hiroshima and bombing innocent people in the World Trade Center. One’s “needs” do not constitute a valid claim to the life or property of another.

This argument has already been held in another thread and I don't want to continue it here. Rest assured, however, that the argument in favor of killing enemy civilians to win wars is not as simplistic as you protray it.

Call it simplistic if you wish, but there are clear right and wrong answers to the question of killing innocent people.

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

It is not obvious at all. The U.S. war to topple Saddam (at the urging of suspected Iranian spy Ahmed Chalabi) has accomplished nothing less that getting rid of Iran’s chief enemy and making it easier to set up a pro-Iranian Shiite republic in Baghdad.

I don't see how the Iraq mess-up makes it not obvious that I consider intervening in the mideast to be a means to a higher cause.

The invasion of Iraq is a perfect example of Hayek’s law of unintended consequences. The idea that you can impose an Arab Massachusetts in the Euphrates River through sheer military power was a foolish notion from the start and will have disastrous consequences no matter how many men and dollars we pour down the rathole.

[erik]

Charlotte,

So by your reasoning ( in another thread ) we should have just lifted all sanctions and bought all the oil Saddam was willing to sell? I think that was tried and all it did was make him hungry for more and he invaded all his neighbors and killed his own people. If you are trying to bring about the end of human life on this planet that is a sound approach. Is that your intention or is your reasoning just flawed?

[MisterSwig]

You are misreading me.  Here is what I wrote: “There is no moral difference between bombing innocent people in Hiroshima and bombing innocent people in the World Trade Center.”

I don't think I am misreading you. I strongly suggest that you explain what you meant by that comment. Before you post again, I also strongly suggest that you read what Ayn Rand said about killing innocents in war. Here is a link to her comments. If you disagree with Ayn Rand on this issue, then make that known. But don't use your rationalizations of her principles to defend your wrong view.

[Charlotte Corday]

I don't think I am misreading you. I strongly suggest that you explain what you meant by that comment. Before you post again, I also strongly suggest that you read what Ayn Rand said about killing innocents in war. Here is a link to her comments. If you disagree with Ayn Rand on this issue, then make that known. But don't use your rationalizations of her principles to defend your wrong view.

Ayn Rand made it perfectly clear in "The Objectivist Ethics" that no man was the means to another man's life.

Now if it is your position that some men's freedoms or properties may be sacrificed for another person's freedoms or properties, then the onus of the philosophical argument is on you.

[Oakes]

That is not in dispute. What we were discussing is the morality of using money taken from a rightful owner against his will. The issues of whether or not the government is at its proper size or how many people would support a roll-back in taxes may be interesting and important, but they are not relevant to the moral question.

No, it is in dispute because we both agree on the moral judgement of coercive taxation; we disagree on how to fight it.

Let’s go back to what I wrote in Post #28: “I think Bush should be allowed to spend whatever he wants to on what he calls ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ as long as he doesn't use funds coerced from wage earners.” That you may approve of what the president is doing with tax money and that you may believe that the expenditures fit neatly into what you think an ideal government should be, won’t make the money in the U.S. Treasury any less stolen. On the question of where ill-gotten gains should go, there is only one right answer: to the rightful owner.

This again shows where the dispute is: I agree with your assessment of coercive taxation, but as for how it should be fought, I wouldn't try to morally condemn every single thing the government does. It's wrong for them to get their funds coercively, but if you can't isolate the issue from their deeds that deserve praise, you'll blur your message into anarchism.

The invasion of Iraq is a perfect example of Hayek’s law of unintended consequences. The idea that you can impose an Arab Massachusetts in the Euphrates River through sheer military power was a foolish notion from the start and will have disastrous consequences no matter how many men and dollars we pour down the rathole.

Whether or not you find my belief in intervention to be foolish, it still should have been obvious that I held it to a higher cause.

[Oakes]

Charlotte, I haven't read many of your posts in other threads, but are you at all an anarchist, libertarian, and/or TOC Objectivist? Your views on the killing of enemy civilians seems consistent with these beliefs. You don't seem to want to give any more responsibility or status to governments than you would to private organizations like al-Qaeda. Until you accept the concept of government I don't expect you to understand the argument for killing enemy civilians.

I can understand a revulsion to the awful situation that this immoral government put you in, forcing you to kill in self-defense even those who protested their government. Part of this emotion is numbed down by the realization that many -- actually, most -- enemy civilians support their governments spiritually and/or financially (through taxes). But this stands only on the periphery of the main argument.

[MisterSwig]

Ayn Rand made it perfectly clear in "The Objectivist Ethics" that no man was the means to another man's life.

Now if it is your position that some men's freedoms or properties may be sacrificed for another person's freedoms or properties, then the onus of the philosophical argument is on you.

No, Charlotte, you need to read Ayn Rand's argument for killing innocents in war and deal with it. Don't pull your onus of proof mumbo-jumbo on me when you haven't even responded to Ayn Rand's own argument against your position. Do you need me to cut and paste her argument here for you? Or can you manage to navigate over there yourself?

[Capitalism Forever]

TOC Objectivist

That's an oxymoron.

[Charlotte Corday]

No, it is in dispute because we both agree on the moral judgement of coercive taxation; we disagree on how to fight it.

Anything less than the immediate return of stolen property to the victim is unjust.

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

Let’s go back to what I wrote in Post #28: “I think Bush should be allowed to spend whatever he wants to on what he calls ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ as long as he doesn't use funds coerced from wage earners.” That you may approve of what the president is doing with tax money and that you may believe that the expenditures fit neatly into what you think an ideal government should be, won’t make the money in the U.S. Treasury any less stolen. On the question of where ill-gotten gains should go, there is only one right answer: to the rightful owner.

Oakes: This again shows where the dispute is: I agree with your assessment of coercive taxation,

Good. If it is coercive, then it is immoral. If it is immoral, it should stop. Any other position is an endorsement of the ends justifying the means.

but as for how it should be fought, I wouldn't try to morally condemn every single thing the government does. It's wrong for them to get their funds coercively, but if you can't isolate the issue from their deeds that deserve praise, you'll blur your message into anarchism.

I don’t condemn every act, just the immoral acts. Since taxation is theft, I condemn it. Since stolen money rightfully belongs back in the pockets of the victims of theft, I call for the return of income taxes to the producers of those funds. If a man robs banks but also helps widows and orphans, we shouldn’t condemn him for his charity, but we must still demand that he give back what he has stolen.

[Charlotte Corday]

Charlotte, I haven't read many of your posts in other threads, but are you at all an anarchist, libertarian, and/or TOC Objectivist? Your views on the killing of enemy civilians seems consistent with these beliefs. You don't seem to want to give any more responsibility or status to governments than you would to private organizations like al-Qaeda. Until you accept the concept of government I don't expect you to understand the argument for killing enemy civilians.

If a private citizen steals or commits murder, he has initiated force and must be held responsible. If a member of government steals or commits murder, he too has initiated force and must be held responsible. Holding elective office does not exempt one from moral law.

[Charlotte Corday]

No, Charlotte, you need to read Ayn Rand's argument for killing innocents in war and deal with it. Don't pull your onus of proof mumbo-jumbo on me when you haven't even responded to Ayn Rand's own argument against your position. Do you need me to cut and paste her argument here for you? Or can you manage to navigate over there yourself?

I'll be happy to deal with it. If Rand or any other Objectivist thinks that the taking of innocent lives is justifiable, then “The Objectivist Ethics” would have to be revised. Otherwise, one is maintaining a contradiction. Ayn Rand wrote, “Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use” (her emphasis). Now if physical force is justifiable against those who did not initiate force, then the preceding statement is in error and must be rejected. The key point is that you cannot have it both ways.

I don't think I am misreading you.

In Post #62 you wrote, “I suggest that you do a search and read the threads on that subject, before continuing with your idea that Hiroshima and 9/11 were morally equivalent acts.”

In fact, I said no such thing.