Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Geographical borders and war

Rate this topic


synrose
 Share

Recommended Posts

Please forgive me while I simplify this argument. I don't want to delve into each term here, but rather reach an endpoint of understanding.

Freedom may be governed because a government's official role is to protect free people.

Free people live within a geographical boundary of which the government protects militarily.

It is the protection of these free people that is the justification of war.

Free people are more important than non free people because their awareness and potential for greatness are not hindered.

Am I on the right track here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom may be governed because a government's official role is to protect free people.

No, freedom may not be governed. Force must be governed.

It is the protection of these free people that is the justification of war.

It is self-defense and only self-defense that is the justification for any use of force.

Free people are more important than non free people because their awareness and potential for greatness are not hindered.

No, it isn't a matter of who is "more important," it's only a matter of protecting yourself. The government exercises retaliatory force only in self-defense of an individual under its jurisdiction, including protecting them from foreign nationals who come to its borders to inflict physical harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Government actions are only legitimate if they defend individual rights. Therefore wars are only legitimate if they are aimed at protecting individual rights.

Prosecuting a war to protect the rights of some individuals, puts soldiers at risk. Therefore, ideally, a government should have some guidelines (in law, not just in the decision of its politicians) that lay down whose individual rights will be protected and under what circumstances.

In its narrowest limitation, one would expect that such wars will be limited to protection the geographical area of the country. Unless there are alternative mechanisms, one might also include certain situations where the government provides protection of the rights of its citizens outside the country's geographical area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, freedom may not be governed. Force must be governed.

More please. What do you mean?

It is self-defense and only self-defense that is the justification for any use of force.

So a non free people are equally justified in use of force as free people are in the name of self defense? Moral equivalency?

I guess I was also trying to establish that yes, a government is necessary in order to maintain a military for the purpose of self defense, therefore taxes are necessary to fund such a military. This is not to say that a government owns a monopoly on military force, only that if one desires to reside in such a defended geographical location, taxes, or dues, should be payed to maintain such a military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a non free people are equally justified in use of force as free people are in the name of self defense?
If you talk about "a people", you are probably going to miss important distinctions. The use of force in self defense is justified, period. Any individual has the right to defend their life. In a free society, individuals have delegated that right to the government, which performs those acts for individual that are necessary to protect individual rights. In a non-free society or in the wilds, there is no issue of delegating that function to the government, because there is no government protecting the rights of individuals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More please. What do you mean?

I mean "freedom"is not something that needs to be controlled, limited, ruled, restricted or directed in any way. SNerd and DOdden pretty much spelled it out, the actions of a government are only justified if they are protecting individual rights, which means they are protecting freedom by restricting all things that take away freedom, physical force and fraud. There is no clash between freedom or security; freedom is never to be limited in the name of protecting freedom. The only authority that a government of a free nation has is to protect rights. So when you said freedom may be governed in order to protect people, I am saying that does not in any way justify restricting freedom in the name of protecting people.

So a non free people are equally justified in use of force as free people are in the name of self defense? Moral equivalency?

An individual's right to self defense isn't negated because he is in some "non-free" category. His rights are valid even if his government is not.

I guess I was also trying to establish that yes, a government is necessary in order to maintain a military for the purpose of self defense, therefore taxes are necessary to fund such a military.

So legalized theft is required to prevent rights violations (like, say, theft for example?)

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So legalized theft is required to prevent rights violations (like, say, theft for example?)

There's the paradox. The only solution I can find is to eliminate government controlled military and allow for private mercenary companies! But then - what jurisdiction would the private mercenaries work within, and who is to stop them from violating the law of the land without a government military? UGH I just can't make it work! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In its narrowest limitation, one would expect that such wars will be limited to protection the geographical area of the country. Unless there are alternative mechanisms, one might also include certain situations where the government provides protection of the rights of its citizens outside the country's geographical area.

Maybe the geographical area needs to include tax-free zones to maximize individual choice? These zones of course are not maintained in any way other than through the money of those who wish to spend it (toll roads? private police? community fire brigades?)

Yikes I'm just trying to make sense of it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, funded by the voluntary contributions of individuals who understand what it means not to have a rights-respecting and rights-PROTECTING government.

Wouldn't it be a better investment for the individual who seeks self-defense to provide for his or her own defense?

What is to stop the opportunistic lobbying bazillionaire from qualifying his donation to the government with the guarantee that his favorite tyrannical government involved in espionage is left alone? (For the sake of argument)

I'm not trying to be irritating here, I really just can't get my mind around it. Seems like there actually is no solution at all to this problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is to stop the opportunistic lobbying bazillionaire from qualifying his donation to the government with the guarantee that his favorite tyrannical government involved in espionage is left alone? (For the sake of argument)
A legitimate government would not accept such a donation. The facts of the example aren't quite clear, but it sounds like the bazillionaire might be a spy. So, a legitimate government might take his money and throw him in jail to boot. :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A legitimate government would not accept such a donation. The facts of the example aren't quite clear, but it sounds like the bazillionaire might be a spy. So, a legitimate government might take his money and throw him in jail to boot. :D

hehehe :) A lot rests on that legitimate government. Not that we don't need one right now desperately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hehehe :D A lot rests on that legitimate government.
True, nevertheless the crucial question is: what is the legitimate role of government? One cannot stop there; one also has to figure out how to implement such a government in a way that makes it least corruptible and ensures that the best of its essence is enduring.

Right now, given how many areas the government tries to control, the crucial debate is about the role of government. Many people look at corruption and want to solve that first. For instance, many people want to see campaign finance limits, thinking it will reduce corruption; but, the real issue is that the government ought not to have the power which others are trying to "buy" with campaign donations. Unless one can win the intellectual battle on the role of government, there will be no fundamental change. In that sense, how one will finance the government and how one will ensure it does not again collapse into violating rights, are not such urgent questions.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free people are more important than non free people because their awareness and potential for greatness are not hindered.

Not necessarily. Who is important is relative: it depends on "To whom?". (value is relative, and "how important" means "of how much value")

To an American (and to the Americans' government), American soldiers are (or ought to be) more important than Afghani civilians, because the person is an American, and the soldiers protect him, while the Afghani civilians don't. That doesn't make it an absolute truth that Americans are more important than Afghanis, or that soldiers are more important than civvilians, or free people are more important than slaves. Value is not absolute.

So a non free people are equally justified in use of force as free people are in the name of self defense? Moral equivalency?

Everyone is justified to use self-defense. Period. It is not moral equivalency, the purpose of morality is to preserve one's life. Sacrificing it in the name of morality (i.e. not defending it, because it is evil) cannot be moral.

Moral equivalency would be for a third, free person to defend a tyrant, or a moocher, the same way he would defend a fellow free man. Such a free person would act against his own interests, for the sake of equivalency (refusal to discriminate between a moral and an immoral person).

The reason people have for fighting for freedom is their own freedom, not freedom in general. But the right way to achieve this goal, to be free, is to join other free men in the fight, rather than isolate yourself and never fight for anyone else's freedom, except yourself. In a free society, rational men would recognize this, and pay, or fight, for protecting everyone's freedom within that society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is important is relative: it depends on "To whom?". (value is relative, and "how important" means "of how much value")

How about this - those free people who voluntarily serve to defend their free country are more valuable that those unfree people who are forced to defend their tyrannical government. Their value is measured in their morality. A free individual fighting to defend himself within a tyrannical government is equally valuable as the free soldier in terms of morality. Sorry if some of this is just rewording.

Moral equivalency would be for a third, free person to defend a tyrant, or a moocher, the same way he would defend a fellow free man. Such a free person would act against his own interests, for the sake of equivalency (refusal to discriminate between a moral and an immoral person).

Interesting. A warrior genius who is looking for a challenge, a way to display his self worth in order to achieve happiness through glory may decide to fight for the side of tyranny. Then this individual is acting within his self interests! lol this is mental masturbation now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any individual has the right to defend their life. In a free society, individuals have delegated that right to the government, which performs those acts for individual that are necessary to protect individual rights.

Only retaliatory and pre-emptive force are delegated to the government, not defensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only retaliatory and pre-emptive force are delegated to the government, not defensive.
All use of force is in fact properly delegated to the government, but that delegation is not absolute. In an emergency, when the government cannot perform its proper function (a guy has a gun aimed at you right now), your moral obligation to survive trumps your obligation to always survive qua man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the state of emergency is inherent in the concept of defense (else the force used would be retaliatory or pre-emptive), so I'd say we're arguing the same point.
There is a difference. When someone starts an attack against you and a policeman is present and can stop the attack, you should let the officer perform his duties and let the use of force be under the objective control of law -- you should not preempt the law by shooting the would-be attacker. If that is not possible, then you should use whatever force is necessary to prevent the attack. This difference is important in the case of threats as opposed to actual attacks where the force is imminent. I would agree that in cases where force is imminent, you're dealing with an emergency; this is not the case with an angry mob or unruly party guest. Of course you have to judge whether the actions of the angry mob indicate that they will storm your store in a minute or five.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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