May countries that do not respect rights be wiped out?

[Lathanar]

Ayn rand had mentioned in an essay(i forget which) that a moral country has the right but not the responsibility to invade and immoral one if they deem it to be in their best interests. I assumed that carpet bombing could be instituted on the same grounds. I am wondering where the cutoff line is in both directions. How bad does a country have to be before they can properly be invaded or bond and how good does a country have to be to have the right to invade?

This is kind of my reason for asking what the purpose of wiping one out would be. Ideally, I'd see a reason to take over a nation that is a dictatorship would be for natural resources or some other benifit to our country, not simply because it's a dictatorship. There has to be some gain to cover the cost and expense of attacking another country. If it's self defense, the gain is the protection of your country, if it's for some other reason, what possible gain could you get from simply carpet bombing a country because they don't respect the rights of the people inside the country? What purpose would it serve? If your planning on trying to set up some government structure that will recognize rights, there has to be something left to govern over. I think it's pretty stupid and pointless going into a country to set up a new government like in Iraq. We should have just taken it over and incorporated it as a territory of the US. Then it's government structure and laws would have been set. Instead we're wasting billions of dollars and soldiers lives to hand it back over to people that don't know what to do with it and who in a generation or two have a high probability to turn into our enemy again.

[DavidOdden]

I assumed that carpet bombing could be instituted on the same grounds. I am wondering where the cutoff line is in both directions. How bad does a country have to be before they can properly be invaded or bond and how good does a country have to be to have the right to invade?

The key here is what is in our rational best interest. The altruistic approach is to hold that we have an unearned obligation to our fellow man and thus must selflessly engage in wars of liberation to spread democracy (i.e. current policy). The rational approach is to relate the facts to America's survival: eliminating the Afghan Taliban regime was in our self interest, and the same can be said of Iran and North Korea. Zimbabwe is a terrible dictatorship, but it is a self-contained hell that does not threaten the US, even indirectly. That, I would say, is the distinction that needs to be made: we have to see rationally what is in our self-interest.

In principle, it might have been justified to carpet-bomb Japan during WWII, if for example two or twenty nukes had not been sufficient argument for ceasing hostilities.

[DavidOdden]

But this doesn't apply to a situation when a thug demands your wallet at gunpoint or forces me to do normally improper things. Why would increasing the number of thugs into a government-altering entity suddenly make a victim responsible?

If a person goes into a high-crime area late at night, they have in part caused the theft, in making themselves a target of a mugging. If they were not there, they would not get mugged. The important fact is that they are not to blame for the mugging, so there is no sense in which they deserve moral condemnation for their action, nor is there any basis for punishing the criminal less because the victim had to do something (be here) for the crime to happen. Blame requires a person to knowingly chose to do wrong.

Evil governments don't just exist in a vaccum, they exist because some people have created them and others have allowed them to continue existing. By voluntarily staying in an evil dictatorship, you are giving your sanction to the dictatorship, saying that the government is "okay" at some level, so the citizens of Latveria tolerate the evil of their government because they do not wish to give up the clean mountain air of their homeland. Faced with the choice of leaving the evil country, or staying and contributing to its viability as a country, staying is a sanction of evil.

[hunterrose]

The important fact is that they are not to blame for the mugging, so there is no sense in which they deserve moral condemnation for their action, nor is there any basis for punishing the criminal less because the victim had to do something (be here) for the crime to happen.

We're in agreement on that part.

By voluntarily staying in an evil dictatorship, you are giving your sanction to the dictatorship, saying that the government is "okay" at some level...

Faced with the choice of leaving the evil country, or staying and contributing to its viability as a country, staying is a sanction of evil.

I'd agree that staying amounts to an okay at some level, but I don't know if it is at the level of a sanction of evil.

Even if a choice to leave exists, it's often at extreme risk. But if the only alternative to leaving in such conditions is to sanction evil, then the only moral choice would be to risk one's life in leaving?

And are Americans similarly sanctioners of evil for contributing to SS, income tax, etc?

The citizens of Latveria tolerate the evil of their government because they do not wish to give up the clean mountain air of their homeland.

Touche

[Lathanar]

And are Americans similarly sanctioners of evil for contributing to SS, income tax, etc?

I believe Rand qualified what a dictatorship is in one of her essays. I think it was 4 major points, including political censorship, nationalization, absence of trials and one political party. We don't quite fall into that yet. But so far as the taxes, SS etc are concerned, we're not sactioners of evil for paying them anymore than sanctioning the evil of theft when we're robbed. We're sanctioners of evil when we vote this junk in place.

Edited July 9, 2006 by Lathanar

[~Sophia~]

By voluntarily staying in an evil dictatorship, you are giving your sanction to the dictatorship, saying that the government is "okay" at some level

'Voluntarily staying' would be applicable if people were allowed to leave freely, which under dictatorships is not the case. To leave is often close to impossible. Even if there is a small possibility - there is a high chance that an attempt to escape will result in death (not only from the hands of police ect but also from the hands of the thugs that are arranging such expeditions for profit (btw they do not care about the outcome - they take the money up front). You are also not only risking your own life but there is a great chance that if you made such an attempt your family will also be punished (regardless if you were successful or not).

A person did not choose to live in such country - essentially they were born into a prison.

Evil governments don't just exist in a vaccum, they exist because some people have created them and others have allowed them to continue existing.

Right, except you don't control what others do. If you are a rational person living in an immoral country surrounded by irrational people who do not even comprehend the idea of freedom or personal rights (they have never experienced them and they have never met anyone who did) the chance that you will influence the system is very small to none.

[DavidOdden]

Even if a choice to leave exists, it's often at extreme risk. But if the only alternative to leaving in such conditions is to sanction evil, then the only moral choice would be to risk one's life in leaving?

I don't know what you're referring to. Escaping North Korea carries with it the risk of being killed, because they will try to kill you. I don't believe that Mugabe's goons will kill you for trying to leave, though I could be mistaken. I thought I was clear on that: when you are faced with actual death, torture or imprisonment for leaving a dictatorship, and you do not chose to run the risk of being killed, jailed or tortured, then not withdraw your sanction of the evil regime is not blameworthy.

And are Americans similarly sanctioners of evil for contributing to SS, income tax, etc?

Where do I have a choice of not paying income tax (I am so happy to say that I do not pay SS "contributions" at all!)? Taxes suck, bite and blow, but the fact of taxes doesn't make the US an evil dictatorship. We have elected governments who more or less follow the rule of objectively specified law (albeit not, generally, objectively justified law), our rights are largely respected and we can protest the government's actions, and even change the government by political process. Now how about Algeria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Burma, Cambodia, Chad, Cuba, Equitorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Red China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Zaire, Zimbabwe?

[hunterrose]

But so far as the taxes, SS etc are concerned, we're not sactioners of evil for paying them anymore than sanctioning the evil of theft when we're robbed. We're sanctioners of evil when we vote this junk in place.

Agreed.

I don't know what you're referring to.

You are saying that Americans aren't sanctioners of evil for living in an income taxing country (with which I'd agree), but Iranians living in Iran are sanctioners of evil (with which I'd disagree) simply by continuing to live there?

Where do I have a choice of not paying income tax?

Well, to paraphrase, you are faced with the choice of leaving or contributing to the income tax system. If people who have non-risky alternatives and choose to stay under a dictatorship are condoning their government's actions on some level, are you too, on some level, saying that income taxing is okay by voluntarily staying here and paying it?

Taxes suck, bite and blow, but the fact of taxes doesn't make the US an evil dictatorship. We have elected governments who more or less follow the rule of objectively specified law (albeit not, generally, objectively justified law), our rights are largely respected and we can protest the government's actions, and even change the government by political process.

"More or less" and "largely" compared to what? Other countries, or a Galt's Gulch ideal nation?

I do get the point that there are worse evils out there, but if income tax is indeed evil, this at best means that income tax is a "lesser" evil, and (applying your statement ) supporting it is a sanction of a "lesser" evil.

*hunterrose wishes he didn't have to pay into social security...*

[Lathanar]

You are saying that Americans aren't sanctioners of evil for living in an income taxing country (with which I'd agree), but Iranians living in Iran are sanctioners of evil (with which I'd disagree) simply by continuing to live there?

I think a primary difference between countries like America and countries that do not respect rights like dictatorships, is that America has in place non-violent means to repeal and get rid of those evils we do have. I don't see many options in countries like Iraq, Iran, China, N Korea, etc.

[aequalsa]

I think a primary difference between countries like America and countries that do not respect rights like dictatorships, is that America has in place non-violent means to repeal and get rid of those evils we do have. I don't see many options in countries like Iraq, Iran, China, N Korea, etc.

Any non-violent suggestions on how to eliminate income tax?

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. "--Benjamin Franklin

[Lathanar]

Any non-violent suggestions on how to eliminate income tax?

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. "--Benjamin Franklin

By electing people that aren't idiots into office.

[aequalsa]

By electing people that aren't idiots into office.

In other words, try to convince the wolves I won't taste good?

[Lathanar]

In other words, try to convince the wolves I won't taste good?

Do you want to live in an anarchy or a government? Do you want have political parties and elections or just who has the biggest guns make the rules? Everytime some law gets created by the law makers that doesn't quite fit the bill, do we rise up in arms, flee the country, or try to correct it civily?

[aequalsa]

Do you want to live in an anarchy or a government? Do you want have political parties and elections or just who has the biggest guns make the rules? Everytime some law gets created by the law makers that doesn't quite fit the bill, do we rise up in arms, flee the country, or try to correct it civily?

I'm all for civility, I just don't see that kind of change happening in my lifetime short of something more dramatic. Taking 40% of the wealth produced in the country every year and monopolistic control of the banking and monetary system is a little more significant then an annoying city code outlawing public kissing in Atlanta. Regardless, it'd likely require the same will to overthrow a government bent on thieving as to do as you suggest within the system. Of course that is true of anywhere.

I am really not advocating armed rebellion, just trying to understand the notion of citizens of a country being responsible for it's governments behavior. (although it should be noted that the American revolution occurred over a good deal less then 40% taxation) However, if I really am to blame for the evils of my government then how hard should I be pushing to change it? How much time, energy, risk, and money ought a moral person invest to change the actions of their government before they are no longer to blame? I have a great deal of trouble with this line that's drawn between OK countries and Bad countries where it is morally just for the OK countries to invade bad ones and not worry about collateral damage to individuals within it if it is in the OK countries best interests. It sounds as hypocrytical to me as a thief who steals $12 criticizing the morality of the thiefs who stole $19. What I need to sort out is why the quantity of damage is significant on a moral level.

[Lathanar]

I'm all for civility, I just don't see that kind of change happening in my lifetime short of something more dramatic. Taking 40% of the wealth produced in the country every year and monopolistic control of the banking and monetary system is a little more significant then an annoying city code outlawing public kissing in Atlanta. Regardless, it'd likely require the same will to overthrow a government bent on thieving as to do as you suggest within the system. Of course that is true of anywhere.

I am really not advocating armed rebellion, just trying to understand the notion of citizens of a country being responsible for it's governments behavior. (although it should be noted that the American revolution occurred over a good deal less then 40% taxation)

At this point it will be a rather long protracted fight to reverse the damage done in the country and I'm not expecting it in my lifetime either. Our situation is very different than the situation leading to our revolution, that was taxation without representation. Armed revolution was the last and final step they could take to gain that representation. After gaining it, we voted our own taxes into place, but at least they are taxes we agreed upon. We have other means at our disposal, but even with the immorality of the welfare systems in place, we still exhibit a huge amount of personal freedoms, it is not a repressive regime. Most evils we do have right now, we the citizens put there, by electing the wrong people to lead us. Some unelected dictator didn't just up and decide to start huge taxation programs.

However, if I really am to blame for the evils of my government then how hard should I be pushing to change it? How much time, energy, risk, and money ought a moral person invest to change the actions of their government before they are no longer to blame?

You can't stop till the job is done. It is the general apathy of the people right now that believe that nothing can be done about the system that is one of the chief problems. Those people that think their voice and vote don't count and sit back and take it ARE to blame for what we have now along with those that continue to vote in and back the policies.

I have a great deal of trouble with this line that's drawn between OK countries and Bad countries where it is morally just for the OK countries to invade bad ones and not worry about collateral damage to individuals within it if it is in the OK countries best interests. It sounds as hypocrytical to me as a thief who steals $12 criticizing the morality of the thiefs who stole $19. What I need to sort out is why the quantity of damage is significant on a moral level.

If the country is completely repressive of individual rights, and the populace has no options other than armed insurrection to change the leadership, the typical dictatorship, then those people inside the country that are not responsible, the ones that wish the evil would end would become the resistance movements to make the liberators job easier with less blood shed. Not everyone in those countries are to blame for the country, even Rand said as much, those are the ones that fight against the rulers however they can and will welcome the liberators, even if it gets them killed.

Another thing I think people keep setting aside in these threads about moral/immoral governments, the rights of one government to take over another, and even the best interests of a government is that these governments are not entities with rights or a collective consciousness. Only people, individuals, have rights and self-interests. These arguments that use the line that if you are attacked by a man with a gun, you have moral justification to do whatever you need to do to save yourself, a government is not a person.

[DavidOdden]

"More or less" and "largely" compared to what?

Any existing nation. Objectivism being an existence-centric philosophy and not a wish-centric one, the proper comparison is between the US and whatever other nations exist, not whatever nations you wish existed or could imagine existing.

[Ifat Glassman]

Yeah, my point is that "blame" and "responsibility" are related but not identical. Responsibility is the broader concept, as Jennifer said "that (you) caused what happened". Blame is a moral evaluation. Of course I could use the word "responsible" only to refer to "caused some good outcome" for example "Bill Gates is responsible for the massive expansion of the software industry". But that doesn't mean that "responsible" then means "caused a good outcome".

Of course, carpet-bombing dictatorships which to not initiate force against free nations is not morally justified. When they attack you, you have the right to defend yourself -- with no concern for the "innocent civilians" who are in part responsible for the attack, even if some are not to blame.

Why should there be "no concern"? Of course there should be a concern, if those people oppose the government. Every attempt should be made to avoid killing innocent poeple. You think that choosing the absolute safest, easiest solution, without any risk to your army should always be chosen, even if it means killing millions of innocent people, so that one american soldier wouldnt get hurt? if you think that, you dont value human life much.

It would be just like a case of killing everyone in a bank, hostages and bank robbers as one, just to get the bank robbers.

Another question is, what if anither country drops a neuclear bomb on your country? does that mean that the best way to react is by doing the same? Why? why isnt it better just to focus on anihilating the regime and the army and resources of that regime? What would be the purpose of neucing them as well? ("You punched my nose, so I'll punch yours twice as hard?")

As for the responsibility business? what if there's a tornado and the roof of my house flies 500 metters and destroys somebody else's house? does that mean I should be held responsible (by law) of the damages of that person's house? and if not, what is the difference between this case and the case that my tree falls on my neighbor's roof during a storm? I dont think that in any case there should be any blame on the person's whos property is flying and destroying things. it's not his fault that his property is flying around . and if you hold him responsible for the accident, might as well hold responsible the man who sold him that tree in the firstplace, or the gardener who watered it. They all contributed to the existence of that tree.

[DavidOdden]

Why should there be "no concern"?

Because my life is at stake. I cannot and will not commit suicide to save the hide of a stranger, especially one who is part of an attack against me. The concern should not be with the lives of citizens of aggressor nations, and if it is necessary to kill some of them to stop the agression, you must kill them.

if you think that, you dont value human life much.

Are you suggesting that human life has an intrinsic value? My own life has a value, and any decision that I may make to bomb or not bomb some village will have to do with the benefits to me of that decision. Namely: if it is necessary to bomb that village to save my life, I will.

[Ifat Glassman]

Because my life is at stake. I cannot and will not commit suicide to save the hide of a stranger, especially one who is part of an attack against me. The concern should not be with the lives of citizens of aggressor nations, and if it is necessary to kill some of them to stop the agression, you must kill them.Are you suggesting that human life has an intrinsic value? My own life has a value, and any decision that I may make to bomb or not bomb some village will have to do with the benefits to me of that decision. Namely: if it is necessary to bomb that village to save my life, I will.

"Because my life is at stake" is not a good enough justification. "Because your life is at stake" does not justify killing an innocent man, stealing, or violating anyone else's rights (assuming they did nothing to hurt you). I didnt say that you should commit suecide to save the hide of a stranger. I am telling you that anyone who is willing to kill innocent poeple as the first resort to save their own life, is bad (and some other things, that I won't say here, excuse my hot temper).

Take Israel for example (The country I live in): We act very aggressively against terrorists, and we destroy any site of missiles launch, even if it means destroying nearby vilages in gasa, and killing palestinians. However, we do try to avoide hurting them, and that is the main point. Of course that the easiest solution would have been to carpet bomb them. (ignoring the sanctions that would follow) it would be the easiest because it would be minimum risk for Israel soldiers and citisens. But it won't be moral, as long as we have the chooice not to kill them. To make my point clearer, I want to say that I do think that if there is a demonstration of palestinians that support terror organizations, I will gladly wipe them off (kill them all). Because they protest to be an enemy of mine in an open way, and this enemy has acted against Israel. However, I do not have the right to do the same thing to people in their house, just because it would save me the risk of going after the bad guys.

If we compare this issue to the individual case (instead of countries) then your suggestion would mean that the law should support you if you started spraying people in the street with an automatic weapon because one of them has pulled a gun at you. What would be the justification? the fact that your "life is at stake. I cannot and will not commit suicide to save the hide of a stranger"

As for all of you who say that the people who live in evil countries (like north Korea) are responsible for the doings of their government: two things: 1) They are under a life threat. you, are free to act against their government and you have the resources. according to your definition of "responsible", who is more responsible to the existence of those regimes? They, who have little means of opposing their dictators, or you, who have the means? (I'm just asking, I'm not implying that it is the liability of a freer country to liberate a less freer country). and 2) How many of you actually do anything to oppose what you dont like in your government? (and no, being a member of this forum does not count). If you don't so much, and you are freer men, how can you hold them responsible for their government?

As for human life's value being intrinsic: yeah, why not? I value another person's life even if I don't know them, because I assume they are good until proven otherwise.

Edited July 10, 2006 by ifatart

[Myron Azov]

"Because my life is at stake" is not a good enough justification. "Because your life is at stake" does not justify killing an innocent man, stealing, or violating anyone else's rights (assuming they did nothing to hurt you). I didnt say that you should commit suecide to save the hide of a stranger. I am telling you that anyone who is willing to kill innocent poeple as the first resort to save their own life, is bad (and some other things, that I won't say here, excuse my hot temper).

No, the bad person is the one who makes deadly threats, especially if he does so from a position where defense against him necessitates the unavoidable killing of innocents. Responsibility for any harm done to those innocents rests with the aggressor, not with those providing for their self-defense in the only way they can.

Take Israel for example (The country I live in): We act very aggressively against terrorists, and we destroy any site of missiles launch, even if it means destroying nearby vilages in gasa, and killing palestinians. However, we do try to avoide hurting them, and that is the main point. Of course that the easiest solution would have been to carpet bomb them. (ignoring the sanctions that would follow) it would be the easiest because it would be minimum risk for Israel soldiers and citisens. But it won't be moral, as long as we have the chooice not to kill them.

Surely, then, you would advocate that Israel divest itself of all nuclear weapons, for do not such weapons inevitably entail injury and death to persons other than the evil leaders of the target country?

If we compare this issue to the individual case (instead of countries) then your suggestion would mean that the law should support you if you started spraying people in the street with an automatic weapon because one of them has pulled a gun at you. What would be the justification? the fact that your "life is at stake. I cannot and will not commit suicide to save the hide of a stranger"

You would have to demonstrate that spraying everyone in the street as opposed to killing the one person threatening you was the only self-defense action available.

As for all of you who say that the people who live in evil countries (like north Korea) are responsible for the doings of their government: two things: 1) They are under a life threat. you, are free to act against them and you have the resources. according to your definition of "responsible", who is more responsible to the existence of those regimes? They, who have little means of opposing their dictators, or you, who have the means? (I'm just asking, I'm not implying that it is the liability of a freer country to liberate a less freer country). and 2) How many of you actually do anything to oppose what you dont like in your government? (and no, being a member of this forum does not count). If you don't so much, and you are freer men, how can you hold them responsible for their government?

1) The people of N. Korea are responsible for deposing their own evil government. If they cannot or will not undertake that task, it is the responsibility of any government whose nation is threatened by Pyongyang to eliminate N. Korea as a threat. 2) The fact that Americans are freer than North Koreans does not shift the primary responsibility to us. Our task is to take care of our own government first.

Never again! No more 911s. North Korea delenda est!

[Ifat Glassman]

No, the bad person is the one who makes deadly threats, especially if he does so from a position where defense against him necessitates the unavoidable killing of innocents. Responsibility for any harm done to those innocents rests with the aggressor, not with those providing for their self-defense in the only way they can. ..... You would have to demonstrate that spraying everyone in the street as opposed to killing the one person threatening you was the only self-defense action available.

So if somebody pointed a gun at you in a busy street, and you had the option of shooting back, but with a great chance that you would hit other people on the way, would you justify killing other poeple in the street to save your own life? I wouldn't. I would let your ass sit in jail for a long time if you start shooting everyone just to save your own life. Especially if you have the option of running, hiding, calling the police, or calling for help, even if it means greater risk, you should take that risk rather than killing innocents.

As you said, a person in this case would have to prove that this was the only self defense action available. Why, then, does this rule do not apply to citisens of different countries? I don't get it. why are innocent americans better than innocent Iraquies? why would you protect the first by law, but feel free to kill the later to prevent the slightest risk your army would have to endure?

Surely, then, you would advocate that Israel divest itself of all nuclear weapons, for do not such weapons inevitably entail injury and death to persons other than the evil leaders of the target country?

No, I wouldn't. I do think that in case that there is no other option available, and we are facing ither annihilation or using the bomb, then use the bomb against the attacking country. (which would be the same as letting free a man who killed someone under a gunpoint, on the individual case). Besides, the bomb is a good method to deter enemy countries from attacking.

1) The people of N. Korea are responsible for deposing their own evil government.

I have a simple question: Why? Why are they responsible (if they didnt vote for the government or accept any of their ideas)? it's like saying that it is the responsibility of hostage people to oppose their captors (or like saying that the people in the ariplanes on 9 11th were responsible for opposing their kidnapers. Would you say it is ok to blow up the plane to bits (before you knew what would eventually happen with it) because the passangers are responsible for the deeds of the kidnapers, because they did not overthrow them?

[~Sophia~]

2) As for all of you who say that the people who live in evil countries (like north Korea) are responsible for the doings of their government.....How many of you actually do anything to oppose what you dont like in your government? (and no, being a member of this forum does not count). If you don't so much, and you are freer men, how can you hold them responsible for their government?

2) The fact that Americans are freer than North Koreans does not shift the primary responsibility to us. Our task is to take care of our own government first.

I don't think his point in #2 was to shift responsibility. He was asking how many Americans take direct action to change things they do not like about their own government, especially since, as free men living in a free country, advocating capitalism or abolition of taxation, for example, is not putting them in any danger? Action meaning as actually doing something to change the system - not just discussing your opposition to it with your friends and like minded people.

Contrast that with the people living under a dictatorship who must risk their life and the life of their loved ones to do the same. Many in fact do make that choice.

The stake of what you are fighting for is perhaps not the same but the principal involved is.

edit: Actually, I take back the last sentance - I do not think those values are any less important.

Edited July 10, 2006 by ~Sophia~

[RationalBiker]

1) They are under a life threat.

Both of your points are fallacious.

Which is precisely why it is their responsibility. It is in THEIR self interest to fight for freedom. Your position seems to assume that no American has ever had to die to achieve the (relative) freedom and prosperity we have earned today. That is the wrong assumption. If they do not value freedom enough to be willing to die (quicker than they already are) for it, then they can continue to die their slow deaths until they are willing to risk their lives to make changes, or until their government takes actions against America such that it becomes in America's best interest to act to solve their problem for them. Like any venture, when one seeks to have someone else solve their problems for them, they might not be happy with the outcome.

2) How many of you actually do anything to oppose what you dont like in your government?

Sorry, but you don't get to discount what is considered "actually doing something" about changing what we might not like about our government. We live in a different context and situation than North Koreans so that requires different types of activity to bring about change. Yes, participating on this forum IS a useful way to exchange ideas for change because we don't have to resort to guns, rocks and knives to make changes in our government at this point. You underestimate the value of spreading rational ideas and promoting a sound philosophy. Our country has already past many points in history in which the acquisition and defense of our freedom has involved bloodshed and loss of life. I have little doubt we will be faced with such issues in the future as well.

Having the means does not equal having the responsibility to act. That is altruistic thinking, thinking that attempts to impose a non-existent obligation on the part of the so-called "haves". That is thinking that asks others "please die for us as we are unwilling to die for ourselves."

[Ifat Glassman]

First of all, I would like to say that what Sophia said is correct. I did not say that those who have means should liberate those who dont have means. I actually wrote it as well, if you paid attention to what I wrote.

I actually agree with your last paragraph.

We live in a different context and situation than North Koreans so that requires different types of activity to bring about change. Yes, participating on this forum IS a useful way to exchange ideas for change because we don't have to resort to guns, rocks and knives to make changes in our government at this point. You underestimate the value of spreading rational ideas and promoting a sound philosophy

I agree with that as well, and I don't underestimate the power of promoting the right philosophy at all. However, if the US is freer, shouldnt it be easier to oppose the things you don't like in your government and their laws? Are you really doing everything you can to fight the things you don't like, or do you find it more comfortable to just wait around for things to change? why is your method of waiting around for the majority's opinion to change is good for taxes issues, but not good for issue of individual rights? it's pretty easy to point the finger at someone else and say "guilty". But you don't have the right to do so before you pointed it to yourself and asked the same question.

Now: you entirely avoided the main point I was making. If it is "their responsibility to fight for freedom" then it is also the responsibility of any hostage to fight it's captors. According to what you say, if they don't then taugh luck. We will have to wipe them out along with the bad guys.

Think about the example I gave about the 9 11th people in the ariplanes and what would you decide.

I also got no answer for my question "Why would you protect innocent americans by law but feel free to kill innocent citisens of an unfree country to prevent the slightest risk your army would have to endure"?

And please, if you reply to what I say, I prefer counter arguments instead of an arbitrary "Both of your points are fallacious", which has no value to me whatsoever.

One last thing, I didn't understand why you said "Your position seems to assume that no American has ever had to die to achieve the (relative) freedom and prosperity we have earned today". I have no idea how you came up with that conclusion.

Edited July 10, 2006 by ifatart

[~Sophia~]

I agree with you, RationalCop. It is in their best interest to fight for freedom. Many of them do in fact but change takes a long time.

This forum has a purpose, is useful when it comes to the exchange of ideas but how much does it actually affect the system? How much change have spreading of ideas of Objectivism had directly on 'the system' since 1960s? In recent years mysticism in America actually increased (which to me is a pure irrationality) instead of decreasing eventhough the sales of Rand's books have been very strong. Do you see that the change does not come easy?

To carpet bomb a country, which is what we are talking about here, indisciminate killing - because the change is not comming fast enough is not justified.