Foreign retaliation against a free country ever justified?

[Maarten]

If a free country (like the U.S.) invades a certain country that is a dictatorship or anarchy then I understand they don't need a reason for that, as the country would have no right of sovereignty. I would hope they have a reason because otherwise the action is not in the country's self-interest and it would be immoral because of that, but that is not very relevant in this specific case.

However, if in this war a part of the population of the non-free country dies then at least from their perspective it would seem that their rights are being violated, and that would give them the right to retaliate. In a case where the free country that is invading has a legitimate reason motivated by self-defense this is not true, because the force used would be retaliatory in nature and hence would not give someone the right to in turn retaliate against that.

My question is basically if this would still hold (i.e. the citizens in the attacked, non-free country have no right to retaliate against the free country) if the free country attacked for no reason? If I am wrong on the premise that the free country doesn't need a reason, then I see where my mistake is, but if I am right about it I don't see why the force used in this case is retaliatory in nature?

Wouldn't the war waged against the dictatorship (and its population) involve a violation of their rights in this case? Or does a country where people don't respect each others rights also take away their right to defend themselves because of this? I.e. can you say that a certain society first needs to recognize rights before they can have rights?

I don't think I am (or should be) allowed to kill a limitless number of savages who don't know what rights are , unless I have a good reason (like self-defense). So it seems that even though someone does not necessarily respect rights (because they don't know what rights are, for example) that doesn't make them fair game, so to speak, for anyone to kill or enslave.

Could anyone point to what I am missing here? The reason I ask is because it seems wrong that a guy living in a dictatorship that is invaded by the U.S. has the right to retaliate against the U.S. afterwards (because his family died by their hands, or something like that), but I cannot quite validate why this is not right. Some help would be appreciated, I think the application of rights is one area where I am having some difficulties applying the principles correctly.

[The Wrath]

I've wondered this too. Canada, for instance, is less free than the United States. Yes, I intentionally chose a country that is not downright evil, but is fairly close to us. Would Canadians have a right to retaliate against the US if we suddenly attacked Ottawa? If so, then the line must be drawn somewhere between Canada and Zimbambwe. Where is it?

[LaszloWalrus]

Didn't Ayn Rand say that what characterizes a country as unfree is things like one party rule, censorship, imprisonment without trial, and arbitrary expropriation of propery?

[Maarten]

But that still leaves the questions of which of these is more serious and how many of these characteristics are needed before one can say a country has no rights anymore?

I mean, if you look at the whole eminent domain mess that would probably classify as arbitrary expropriation of property as well, but I do not think the U.S. counts as a dictatorship for that reason alone.

Furthermore there needs to be some sort of hierarchy here so one can determine whether country A is more free than country B. Sure, the difference between Iran and the U.S. is very easy to tell, but with other cases it is not so easy. For example, the Netherlands is probably less free than the U.S., but I think it has around the same degree of freedom as Belgium. If the Netherlands was slightly more free than Belgium, could it invade the country?

I don't think so, because the difference is too small here. But, what then is a proper difference in degree of freedom that opens a country for invasion?

[Capitalism Forever]

Free countries don't attack other nations without just reason.

[The Wrath]

The United States is a largely free nation and we went to Viet Nam without a proper reason. Granted, the North Vietnamese government had no right to exist, but neither did we have a right to go there in the first place, because it was not in our national interest. Same thing with the operation in Mogadishu. Or are you prepared to argue Addid's tribal warfare was a threat to the United States? These are both instances of a free country (US) invading a non-free country. The US was certainly the lesser of so many evils, but that is precisely why the question arises.

[Capitalism Forever]

The United States is a largely free nation and we went to Viet Nam without a proper reason. Granted, the North Vietnamese government had no right to exist, but neither did we have a right to go there in the first place, because it was not in our national interest.

It is not in my interest to learn Swahili, but I have a right to do so. Rights do not depend on the interests of the party acting, only on the interests of those who may be affected by the action.

[The Wrath]

But you do not have the right to sacrifice the lives of American soldiers, so that you can learn Swahili. Unless I'm mistaken, Ayn Rand herself believed that nations do not have a right to act in foreign conflicts, unless their own national interests were at stake.

[Capitalism Forever]

But you do not have the right to sacrifice the lives of American soldiers, so that you can learn Swahili.

Sure, the American government had no right to draft American citizens to fight against the Commies in Vietnam. But that is between the government and the draftees, and has no bearing on whether an opponent of Communism may attack Vietnam.

Unless I'm mistaken, Ayn Rand herself believed that nations do not have a right to act in foreign conflicts, unless their own national interests were at stake.

This is what she wrote in VOS:

"Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent 'rights' of gang rulers. It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses."

Also, there is no conflict of interest between free nations. If, say, Britain is threatened, any group of American servicemen may volunteer to fight on the side of the British, under American command and with voluntary funding from American citizens.

[JMeganSnow]

I thought the whole purpose of attacking another nation was to render it (or at least those parts of it that are evil and aggressive) incapable of retaliation. If this plan succeeds, you don't really need to worry about whether it's right for Canada to attack you because you attacked them. War isn't some diplomatic ploy where you attack a few border towns, make a lot of noise, and that's the end of it: if you aren't prepared to smush them utterly, you're in the wrong business.

I think the question is, more, do other nations have a right to attack you because you've attacked a less-free nation? The answer to that question is, yes, unless the nation you're attacking is in such a state that the citizens of that country would be justified in instigating a bloody revolution, the conditions for which Ayn Rand has neatly summarized already. Why are those conditions important? Because, for a bloody revolution to be justified, it essentially has to have reached the stage where there is no forum for people to hear ideas and be convinced, by means of reason, of an alternate view.

[Lathanar]

Sure, the American government had no right to draft American citizens to fight against the Commies in Vietnam. But that is between the government and the draftees, and has no bearing on whether an opponent of Communism may attack Vietnam.

This is what she wrote in VOS:

In the next paragraphs, however, she qualifies this with conditions, such as just because the government of that country being invaded has no national rights , it's citizens still have individual rights, even if not recognized by their own government. The conquerer has no right to violate those rights. She also makes it quite clear that just because there are no fully free countries in the world, every country on earth is not open to invasion.

Captilism should be the one political system that is the most opposed to war, yet in the recent past, America is pushing it as much as possible. A nation should only attack another nation when it has an objective reason to do so, and it must be in it's self interest to do so. Invading a country to fight political, religious beliefs is not an objective reason, and too many are quick to jump on the 'they might stare at us wrong so we should wipe them all out' ideology. Just as a free society restricts it's citizens from use of force as much as possible, the nation itself should do the same. Fighting a war in Vietnam just to fight communism was wrong.

[Eurynomus]

In the next paragraphs, however, she qualifies this with conditions, such as just because the government of that country being invaded has no national rights , it's citizens still have individual rights, even if not recognized by their own government. The conquerer has no right to violate those rights.

Alright, now I'm kind of confused. In Dr. Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein's speech about Just War Theory, they refuted the basic tenents of Just War and said that with an Egoist approach to war, a nation must do whatever it can to achieve victory, even if it means killing the civilians of the enemy country (versus the sacrifice of our own soldiers for the civilians of the other country, as Just War advocates).

How does this fit with Ayn Rand's position in VOS? Aren't these two conflicting approaches?

[Marc K.]

How does this fit with Ayn Rand's position in VOS? Aren't these two conflicting approaches?

You'll have to be more specific since VOS is quite long but if you are referring to this:

In the next paragraphs, however, she qualifies this with conditions, such as just because the government of that country being invaded has no national rights , it's citizens still have individual rights, even if not recognized by their own government. The conquerer has no right to violate those rights.

Then there is no conflict.

When a people are subject to the depredations of a tyrannical government it is their responsibility to free themselves. And while they may suffer as long as they like, once their government threatens another, they have no right to expect the people of a free nation to suffer similar depredations.

Once a free country has defeated the tyranny by eliminating the government and ending the aggression, that is, once they become the "conqueror", then the have a responsibility to respect the individual rights of the citizens that are still alive.

Some of this has been touched on in several of the war threads including most recently this thread called Israel's Disproportionate use of Force, What a Joke! in the Terrorism and Islamic Fundamentalism sub-forum.

[Lathanar]

Alright, now I'm kind of confused. In Dr. Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein's speech about Just War Theory, they refuted the basic tenents of Just War and said that with an Egoist approach to war, a nation must do whatever it can to achieve victory, even if it means killing the civilians of the enemy country (versus the sacrifice of our own soldiers for the civilians of the other country, as Just War advocates).

How does this fit with Ayn Rand's position in VOS? Aren't these two conflicting approaches?

There really isn't a contradiction here, it's a qualifier. There are many circumstances which would lead to civilian deaths in a war, and like the current conflict in Lebanon, if they have civilians in what intelligence is calling a military target, so be it. It removes the use of indiscriminate force, if you're going to kill someone, you need a reason to do it.

[Marc K.]

and like the current conflict in Lebanon, if they have civilians in what intelligence is calling a military target, so be it. It removes the use of indiscriminate force, if you're going to kill someone, you need a reason to do it.

War is a good reason, as long as it is justified.

Judging by the reception Hezbollah gets there I would say the entirety of Lebanon is a legitimate military target. If not for the US, most certainly for Israel.