Would you rather the wars as they are now, inimically endless, or no wars at all, as leftists would have?
This is one area where I tend to disagree with many objectivists.
I think the wars as they are being run now actually make the country less safe, as well as bankrupt the country, and the loss of our soldiers.
It looks like we’ll be in these wars for another 8 years, and unfortunately Neocons and hopefully (not objectivists) seem to be okay with that.
The whole situation is just terrible.
“No wars at all” without further context is be far the more dangerous option.
Do you what you want to us, we will turn the other cheek so you can do it to that one too.
I guess I just don’t see the sensibility of this question asked the way it is, something RationalBiker has already remarked upon. If you are going to offer those two alternatives, especially the latter without context you might as well offer some others, like a rational foreign policy. I am for pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq as I believe them to, currently, be misadventures, however I advocate this in the context that it allows us to re-evaluate our situation properly and act appropriately after this evaluation has been completed.
I would prefer there were no wars, but you can’t let terrorists just plan and plot with impunity. Unless you go on the offensive they will just keep coming forever.
BTW, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are not bankrupting the US, it is social programs that are doing that.
This document is a few years old but there are several similar documents on the web and it shows that even at peak expenditure, the Iraq war cost only 1% of GDP. Speaking purely financially, the US could maintain the current presence in Afghanistan and Iraq “forever” and not go bankrupt.
I’m sorry but this is weasel talk.
Madlibs version:
Do you support \ gangs and gang activity_ like _ the libs__ or do you want \ crime_ to disappear forever like _ the conservatives__ do? Surely you and \ whatever movement you’re associated with_ are against _ the continuing rape and murder of innocent civilians__, right?
I think what you need to analyze is how wars are begun in the first place. It was never the baker in New York who declared war on the Car Salesman in “Nazi” Germany. Wars are always begun by governments, never people, and have historically never accomplished the goal of “security” that they promised. Of all the wars the US was in, tell me which one was justified in the innocent death of individuals? Wars will never end until government ends.
Of course, most Objectivist will critique this argument, stating that the proper role of government is to protect the individual from harm, both foreign and domestic. But 9/11 did nothing to me. I have no qualm with Iraq or Afghanistan. This is not an argument against justice, but rather an argument that the government can never be an instrument of justice: never has been and never will be. We captured Osama in Pakistan, where he has been in 6 years. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan…
[Edit begins here to qualify]
I don’t want to come across as a peace-loving MLK “hippie”. I was merely trying to point out that justice stems from an individual, not a “national” or “collective” level. Once these artificial bodies take up the cause of justice, they automatically will use and abuse individuals in such a “pursuit”.
Wars are always begun by governments, never people, … …
In Western countries where people elect their governments, those governments are pretty representative of the views of the people. For instance, if U.S. politicians will hang on to welfare programs it is because voters really don’t want to let them go, if they talk about cutting the budget but try to kick the can down the road it is because voters want to evade that issue. Not all voters, of course, but a significant number. In countries like the U.S. and France and U.K., people generally get the government they “deserve”, based on their political and moral philosophy, however confused that may be.
Yes, governments do act independent of their people, and sometimes contrary to what the majority wants. However, that is not routine and long-lasting in a western democracy. And, yes, people in government can sometimes persuade voters to go along with them on some issue, at least for a while. However, they often pay for it when they have “led” from too far outside the mainstream opinion. Then, they are replaced. On the average, the voters get the government they deserve. So, when you want to point a finger of blame look at your neighbors who cheered the U.S. going to war in Iraq, even if they later changed their minds. By and large, the bulk of U.S. voters are responsible for the actions of their government, just as buyers – rather than Madison Street – are responsible for the purchases they make.
Of course the famous example is Hitler, who was voted into power, and cheered on, not just by many Germans but look at the cheering ethnic Germans in some countries he marched into.
[P.S. There are other issues with your post, but I just want to focus on this one point because people repeat it in all sorts of contexts, and it is a pet peeve of mine 
. I also think that the attitude allows one to feel alienated: us vs. them – voters vs. government – and that will lead to the wrong actions (or inaction). One has to identify the real issue in order to deal with it, and it clearly is voter vs. voter. that is to say: it is an issue of conflicting ideologies among a country’s voters.]
Wars will never end until government ends.
It’s not much of an argument, no different than “real capitalism” being impossible. I cannot think of any wars that have ever been justified or carried out in a justified way, but it doesn’t follow that all are by definition immoral. No one has even defined what a war is here. If a war is just two governments fighting with their military, of course wars won’t end until government ends. At the same time, can you think of any government in existence that defends individual rights and nothing else? Since the answer is no, it’s hard to say any war has ever been justified. It doesn’t follow that war is always wrong without context applied. There’s no reason to say government causes immoral wars, it makes more sense to say immoral governments cause immoral wars.
I think what you need to analyze is how wars are begun in the first place. It was never the baker in New York who declared war on the Car Salesman in “Nazi” Germany. Wars are always begun by governments, never people, and have historically never accomplished the goal of “security” that they promised. Of all the wars the US was in, tell me which one was justified in the innocent death of individuals? Wars will never end until government ends.
But Al Qaeda destroyed the twin towers and they are not a government. People can just get together with others who have similar ideas and form groups, and those groups can get ugly. But you can’t ban the forming of all groups, what about good groups? You have to look at the fundamental problem which is violence and ban that, and then you need someone to enforce it which is a government.
In Western countries where people elect their governments, those governments are pretty representative of the views of the people. For instance, if U.S. politicians will hang on to welfare programs it is because voters really don’t want to let them go, if they talk about cutting the budget but try to kick the can down the road it is because voters want to evade that issue. Not all voters, of course, but a significant number. In countries like the U.S. and France and U.K., people generally get the government they “deserve”, based on their political and moral philosophy, however confused that may be.
But especially in the United States, the government they “deserve” is defined by simple majority, or 50% + 1. That means that 49% are subjected to the whims of the other 50%. Is this a support of individual rights?
Yes, governments do act independent of their people, and sometimes contrary to what the majority wants. However, that is not routine and long-lasting in a western democracy. And, yes, people in government can sometimes persuade voters to go along with them on some issue, at least for a while. However, they often pay for it when they have “led” from too far outside the mainstream opinion. Then, they are replaced. On the average, the voters get the government they deserve. So, when you want to point a finger of blame look at your neighbors who cheered the U.S. going to war in Iraq, even if they later changed their minds. By and large, the bulk of U.S. voters are responsible for the actions of their government, just as buyers – rather than Madison Street – are responsible for the purchases they make.
So I am responsible for the choices of others, even if I didn’t make it myself? Where is this “social contract” I signed by being born?
There’s no reason to say government causes immoral wars, it makes more sense to say immoral governments cause immoral wars.
And government, or any type of non-voluntary system of regimentalization, is immoral.
But Al Qaeda destroyed the twin towers and they are not a government. People can just get together with others who have similar ideas and form groups, and those groups can get ugly. But you can’t ban the forming of all groups, what about good groups? You have to look at the fundamental problem which is violence and ban that, and then you need someone to enforce it which is a government.
There is no possible way to “ban” violence. Groups will form, of course, and some groups (ie. individuals) will act violently. In such a situation, it is only moral for those who were wronged to seek justice. That is not a noose on somebody else to force them to support you.
But especially in the United States, the government they “deserve” is defined by simple majority, or 50% + 1. That means that 49% are subjected to the whims of the other 50%. Is this a support of individual rights?
I didn’t say it was right that a majority is able to make the minority do what it wishes, or to have the government do what it – the majority – wishes. I’m simply pointing out that the notion that governments go to war and people don’t is a faulty idea. If you had said that majorities in countries go to war and the minorities cannot do much about it, that would be a different idea altogether.
So I am responsible for the choices of others, even if I didn’t make it myself? Where is this “social contract” I signed by being born?
You signed no contract and are not responsible for your neighbors decisions. However, recognize that it is their decisions we’re talking about, not some abstract “government” acting independently of “the people”.
And government, or any type of non-voluntary system of regimentalization, is immoral.
What do you mean by system of regimentalization?
But 9/11 did nothing to me.
If you believe this then you truly are a fool of the greatest proportions.
If you believe this then you truly are a fool of the greatest proportions.
Agree wholeheartedly.
If you believe this then you truly are a fool of the greatest proportions.
Yep, someone is living in La La Land.
Would you rather the wars as they are now, inimically endless, or no wars at all, as leftists would have?
False dichotomy.
Thanks for playing.
I didn’t say it was right that a majority is able to make the minority do what it wishes, or to have the government do what it – the majority – wishes. I’m simply pointing out that the notion that governments go to war and people don’t is a faulty idea. If you had said that majorities in countries go to war and the minorities cannot do much about it, that would be a different idea altogether.
You signed no contract and are not responsible for your neighbors decisions. However, recognize that it is their decisions we’re talking about, not some abstract “government” acting independently of “the people”.
I understand that people elect their governments, and that their decisions lead to shaping the society that we live in. My point is that their decision ought not be a noose around my life. Of course there is a difference between things as they are and things as they ought to be, and I am not trying to conflate the two; rather, I am saying that things ought to be such a way as to where each individual is responsible for his own decisions. If an individual voluntarily joins a group, and that group goes to “war”, then yes of course they have made that decision.
If you believe this then you truly are a fool of the greatest proportions.
Funny but full of conviction, so I respect it. But are you telling me that it’s okay for my work to be stolen from me so that more people can die in wars not of my choosing than the terrorist act on 9/11?