Time To Fight The Real War

[EC]

Are you saying this is Americans' right, or a right that applies to the people of *any* nation (to attack *any*one if they feel it's in their best interest and the attacked nation violates *any*body's rights?

It's any free nations right when threatened by a tyranical state.

Thank god for small favors.

Yep thank God. Or his Christmas helper.

To whatever extent that is true, what is the proper response to someone who makes a threat? Monitoring? Neutralizing thier capacity to threaten? Destroying them?

It depends on how serious the threat is. Threats involving destruction of our nation by them and nuclear weapons require complete immediate destruction of capacity to act on that threat. Sorry but I don't like when madman walk around with a loaded gun pointed at my head sceaming God sent them to kill me.

[mrocktor]

Objective evidence. By "no need," do you mean that they serve no benefit from nuclear tech, or that they can subsist without it? And you are distinguishing American calls for the destruction of Iran as non-aggression (necessary in order to exclude America from being the target of a similar policy?)

Iran's stated aim with their nuclear facilities is to produce energy. They can produce all the energy with oil for a fraction of the cost ergo their stated aim is false. Coupled with their outspoken purpose of destroying Israel and America, one can properly conclude their nuclear research is intended to produce a weapon. One can also properly conclude that they would use such a weapon to achieve their goals.

mrocktor

Edited April 26, 2006 by mrocktor

[softwareNerd]

Regardless of current Iranian intent, any technology that can easily be developed into military use within a span of a few years should be denied them. The current Iranian government is an illegitimate bunch of thugs. They cannot be allowed the potential to become a threat.

[hunterrose]

They can produce all the energy with oil for a fraction of the cost ergo their stated [energy] aim is false. Coupled with their outspoken purpose of destroying Israel and America, one can properly conclude their nuclear research is intended to produce a weapon. One can also properly conclude that they would use such a weapon to achieve their goals.

What principle are we endorsing? That is, we're saying that under circumstances X involving nation Y, it is right for us to attack Y. I would presume that if this is a principle, it equally applies to any other nation, and that it is wrong to attack America, because we don't commit circumstance X.

Yet I would assume you wouldn't agree that it would be just for the US to be attacked by Iran on the basis that we don't "need" nuclear power and Bush has threatened them?

If there is no principle (international anarchy?) then besides not being objective, it's a poor strategy that involves eternally watching an increasing number of enemies (no principles, no one's safe from us) and hoping to rehit them before they get the nerve to seek revenge for increasing unprincipled attacks.

Regardless of current Iranian intent, any technology that can easily be developed into military use within a span of a few years should be denied them. The current Iranian government is an illegitimate bunch of thugs. They cannot be allowed the potential to become a threat.

I largely agree. I just like to know that policies are principled, and not anarchic schemes to hit anybody, everybody who looks at us wrong.

[EC]

The principle here is that it is our governments only job to protect our rights and when threats are made against this nations citizens right to life by another nations dictator and his cronies, then it is the governments job to eliminate that threat. The principle here is Capitalism 101.

[hunterrose]

Well and fine, but then you agree with Iran acting on this principle and attacking us?

[softwareNerd]

Well and fine, but then you agree with Iran acting on this principle and attacking us?

Not the current government of Iran. They are illegitimate and any action by them -- aggressive or otherwise -- is wrong in principle. They have no right to take any action of any kind whatsoever. They have no right to exist as they do. It does not matter that the dictatorship might have been voted into power, even if we assume that the vote was free and unmanipulated. What matters is the extent of their immorality as a government.

[mrocktor]

Well and fine, but then you agree with Iran acting on this principle and attacking us?

If you drop context (i.e. a relatively rights respecting, democratically elected, mostly secular government versus a rights violating theocratic dictatorship), yes. You would also have to drop the fact that *they* are the ones making threats and who's religion demands the destruction of all free countries in the world (i.e. initiated force).

Evade, evade, evade the ugly reality.

mrocktor

Edited April 27, 2006 by mrocktor

[hunterrose]

Not the current government of Iran. They are illegitimate and any action by them -- aggressive or otherwise -- is wrong in principle. They have no right to take any action of any kind whatsoever.

Any action they take is wrong in principle?

Suppose Anna beats up somone. She is subdued on the principle that it is moral to defend oneself against initiated force, and life requires adherence to this principle. Anna makes bond and goes home. Her neighbor Joe Jack fears Anna will kill him that night, so Joe Jack breaks into Anna's house and attempts to kill Anna. Amusing insinuations and parallels aside, is Anna right in calling the police, and subduing Joe Jack if they don't arrive in time - acting on the principle?

If she's right, it would be immoral in fact to prevent her from acting on the principle.

If she is wrong in acting according to the principle, then can she ever become moral again?

If you drop context (i.e. a relatively rights respecting, democratically elected, mostly secular government versus a rights violating theocratic dictatorship), yes. You would also have to drop the fact that *they* are the ones making threats and who's religion demands the destruction of all free countries in the world (i.e. initiated force).

The context should be a part of the principle. Taking what EC said, the principle would seem to be:

It is moral to attack nation X that threatens us and violates a single person's rights.

Adding your "context," it would seem to be:

It is moral to attack nation X that threatens us and violates a relative (?) number of persons' rights.

If anything, I would think your context makes it less objective, not only with the inclusion of the nebulous "relative," but also in implying that American threats against Iran "aren't really threats."

[BurgessLau]

The context should be a part of the principle.

Would you explain this? Why do you think the context for a principle should be part of the principle? Even more puzzling is: How can the context for a principle be part of the principle?

Perhaps stating an example -- principle with context -- would make your point clear.

[hunterrose]

Explain? Sure. Rationality is the primary principle of human survival. Under what contexts is rationality not a virtue?

Perhaps my statement must be taken in the right context also; at any rate, I agree ahead of time that all context is not a part of the principle.

In terms of my response to mrocktor, it was said (not directly by him) that the principle behind an attack on Iran is that we're justified if they're threatening us and they violate rights - things which could easily apply against us. mrocktor said that this was ignoring the context of Iran's relatively higher violation of rights and their threats being more valid than American threats.

I agree that there are some contexts which are not part of the principle, but "relatively higher" and "valid" threat are either subjective contexts or objective (e.g. violates freedom of speech, specifically saying they've not took using nukes off the table) and thus should more properly IMO be a part of the principle.

[BurgessLau]

Rationality is the primary principle of human survival.

Perhaps my failure to understand your explanation is due to my not knowing what you mean by "principle." What is a "principle" as you are using the term? In particular, how do you see a principle differing from a concept -- such as "rationality"?

Then, with that established, perhaps you could show how context is part of a principle -- an assertion still not clear to me.

[softwareNerd]

Not the current government of Iran. They are illegitimate and any action by them -- aggressive or otherwise -- is wrong in principle. They have no right to take any action of any kind whatsoever.

What I meant is that they have no right to take any action any action of any kind whatsoever, qua government. They are not a legitimate government.

I'm not sure how your Anna example applies, but if North Korea were to invade Iran, neither would have any rights to attack or defend the other. Rights are a mechanism that allows people to live without the initiation of force. Two gangs engaged in a gang-war have no rights qua gang. They can easily gain rights: they just have to start accepting rights.

[EC]

They can easily gain rights: they just have to start accepting rights.

,

Sorry but I have to question this statements validity. If the Nazi's had suddenly started "accepting" rights after killing millions of people, would they have then somehow have then gained legitimacy?

[BurgessLau]

If the Nazi's had suddenly started "accepting" rights after killing millions of people, would they have then somehow have then gained legitimacy?

What would you propose as an alternative way of obtaining "legitimacy" for a formerly aggressive state?

[EC]

What would you propose as an alternative way of obtaining "legitimacy" for a formerly aggressive state?

Regime change?

[hunterrose]

Perhaps my failure to understand your explanation is due to my not knowing what you mean by "principle." What is a "principle" as you are using the term? In particular, how do you see a principle differing from a concept -- such as "rationality"?

Then, with that established, perhaps you could show how context is part of a principle -- an assertion still not clear to me.

I would define (moral) "principle" as "a standard of moral behavior," a criterion (reached by induction) by which it can be determined to what extent an action (or use of a particular faculty of acting) is beneficial or detrimental to the attainment of a particular value.

The former definition ("standard of moral behavior") perhaps capturing the essentials, the latter ("a criterion...") including as much of the relevant information as I am summoning at this point. As I see it, some concepts are faculties of acting and might be deemed to be principles themselves in the former sense, whether this is an expedient, sloppy terms, or whatever.

I took some time to consider what you asked (no expedients here!) and believe that context, in terms of principles, is used in two ways. There are "contexts" integral to the principle (or more specifically, inductive criterion) and "contexts" extraneous to the inductive criterion. E.g. if I said initiation of force is detrimental to the attainment of a particular value X, the context of what that X represents and in what particular situations is initiation detrimental IMO is a part of the criterion. It's often said that (commiting) initiation of force is detrimental to one's existence when they really mean initiation of force is detrimental to one's existence in long-term situations - e.g. excluding emergencies. A consideration of the validity the criterion of such an initiation of force principle should observe that the criterion is valid in terms of long-term situations, and not necessarily so outside of long-term situations. The context of long-term situations and/or emergencies is part of the criterion and not something tacked on at the end. I'll call it essential context.

Then there's "context" in the sense (regarding an initiation of force principle) of whether attaining of a large sum of money by force is detrimental to one's existence, or whether it is detrimental to initiate force against oneself (e.g. jump into a volcano) if one no longer wishes to exist. The extraneous context of money is not part of the criterion (whether or not a large sum of money is attained doesn't affect whether initiating force is detrimental to one's existence,) and the extraneous context of suicide is not part of the value.

I've seen contexts used in both (essential and extraneous) senses, and as no one else (seemingly) has deemed to distinguish the two before using the term "context," I thought it was acceptable usage.

At any rate, the sense that mrocktor used "context" seems to refer to the essential sense - if meant in the extraneous sense, "dropping" it would be similar to dismissing whether an initiation of force leads to the attainment of a large sum of money - the context wouldn't affect the principle (and you would be right about his context not being a part of the principle.) If meant in the essential sense of context, then "relatively" respecting rights should affect whether the principle is valid, and should be evidenced in order to validate the principle in terms of such contexts.

I'm not sure how your Anna example applies.

That's OK, North Korea initiating force against Iran probably would make my premise clearer anyway. Taking the makeshift principles of:

• one's long-term existence requires preventing the initiation of force (against oneself) with force
  
• one's long-term existence requires not initiating force against others
  

I would agree with you that, by the first principle, the Iranians' existence requires forcing their government (an initiater of force against Iranians) out. But with that said, North Korea tossing nukes at them would be a very short-term situation. Regardless of Iran's - qua government - faults, long-term existence (for Iranians) would require preventing a greater initiation of force by NK, even if it meant tolerating Iranian government for the short-term. Iranians, after all, have rights regardless of whether their government has any rights or accepts them.

If long-term existence required using force against initiators of force (acting on the principle,) then the US preventing force from being applied would not only remove a requirement of the Iranians' existence (preventing force against Iranians,) but a requirement of Americans' existence (not initiating force against others.)

Of course, IMO the other principles offered have not been based on initiation of force, or at least not in a fashion that it couldn't be similarly stated that the US is also an initiator of force.

[mrocktor]

Sorry but I have to question this statements validity. If the Nazi's had suddenly started "accepting" rights after killing millions of people, would they have then somehow have then gained legitimacy?

If they "suddenly" started protecting individual rights for real, I'd move there. Of course they would have identified their previous evil, taken responsibility, made reparations when possible... all the things rational people do when in error.

mrocktor

[EC]

If they "suddenly" started protecting individual rights for real, I'd move there. Of course they would have identified their previous evil, taken responsibility, made reparations when possible... all the things rational people do when in error.

mrocktor

Exactly... they would have undergone regime change. I didn't say it only has to come via force from the outside.

[Styles2112]

Not the current government of Iran. They are illegitimate and any action by them -- aggressive or otherwise -- is wrong in principle. They have no right to take any action of any kind whatsoever. They have no right to exist as they do. It does not matter that the dictatorship might have been voted into power, even if we assume that the vote was free and unmanipulated. What matters is the extent of their immorality as a government.

I don't really agree with this. It seems you're combining a philosophical idea and legal into one. Assuming that the vote was free and unmanipulated (and it wouldn't surprise me if it was), then the present government is legit. Immoral, sure. But legit. I don't know that you can combine the two ideas without becoming the same as them.

[Maarten]

It's not. A government derives its rights from the rights of its citizens. If they violate their citizen's rights, then they have no basis to claim any for themselves, and therefore other countries are free to attack them if they would choose to do so.

[Styles2112]

It's not. A government derives its rights from the rights of its citizens. If they violate their citizen's rights, then they have no basis to claim any for themselves, and therefore other countries are free to attack them if they would choose to do so.

If that's true, then our government is not legit either. Since our goverment regularly invades our privacy and takes rights away from it's citizens. Let's remember that we don't have the PERFECT Objectivist gov't currently. So, two illegitimate gov't trying to tell each other off. Hmmm....

NOt to mention that by FREELY voting for this regime, the people OPENLY give away their rights. It's not like, in that case, initiation of force is used. The people CHOSE this course and gov't. That, to me, makes it legitimate.

Edited May 11, 2006 by Styles2112

[Maarten]

Well, but the US is still much more free than Iran is, for example. That is why it can legitimately act in this case. And Iran does violate the rights of its citizens, in much worse ways than the US does with its respective citizens.

[Styles2112]

Well, but the US is still much more free than Iran is, for example. That is why it can legitimately act in this case. And Iran does violate the rights of its citizens, in much worse ways than the US does with its respective citizens.

That's like saying a rapist should have more rights or is "less evil" than a murderer because they didn't actually TAKE a life....I don't see that being a good argument. There's no grey area here. You can't say, "Yes, we're immoral, but we're less immoral than them so, therefore we can tell the what to do." If we're immoral (on the grounds we've discussed), then we have as many rights as they do (and vice versa). And then it boils down to killing/attacking them because we don't like their ideology.

Edited May 11, 2006 by Styles2112

[softwareNerd]

That's like saying a rapist should have more rights or is "less evil" than a murderer because they didn't actually TAKE a life.

It is like that: in that degrees of evil are involved. In terms of scale, perhaps it's like comparing a petty thief to a murderer.

The reason to classify by degree is to use that as a basis for action. One could argue about where to draw the lines, but the degree is something real. Wouldn't you grant that?