A little Historical Perspective
[N]o [one] was seen begging the [occupiers] to spare his life, nor did they in ignoble fashion fall and cling to the knees of their conquerors. But neither did the agony of courage elicit pity from the foe nor did the day’s length suffer for the cruelty of their vengeance. All the city was pillaged. Everywhere boys and girls were dragged into captivity as they wailed piteously the names of their mothers. […] In the end, when night finally intervened, the houses had been plundered and children and women and aged persons who had fled into the temples were torn from sanctuary and subjected to outrage without limit.
IVAW member, battle of Fallujah, 2006Diodorus, recounting the attack of Phillip of Macedon on Thebes August 2, 338 BC.
This will be a multi-part, multi-purposed post. First off, it is part of my refutation of the Rooney belief that the state is the largest purveyor of crime and violence, and that such is getting worse. In might seem counterintuitive that I would start with an historical discussion of attacks on civilian populaces, but bear with me. This post also serves as my response to the absolutely absurd work by Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian (mis)entitled Collateral Damage, America’s War Against Iraqi Civilians.
I’ve noted in the past how I find it interesting the way IVAW members ridicule the service of others who disagree. For instance, Kokesh has ridiculed Jonn for his service, even though it was in Special Ops units. My service in a combat unit in Afghanistan has been categorized as less meaningful than that of a Sniper who served (oddly) in Poland. Vietnam vets faced that from WWII vets, and DSI vets got in from their Vietnam predecessors. The point of all this is that every group seems to think that their experiences are not only singular, but far superior to those preceding and following them.
An early warning on this post. Most of it is taken from a paper I did in law school entitled “Reputational Costs: An Historical Analysis of State Supported Military Attacks on Foreign Civilian Populaces.” Unfortunately, I don’t seem to have the final copy, and this reads as if I wrote it at 4 in the morning listening to Wagner or something. I don’t know why my first drafts come off so pompous, but there it is. Anyway, this post will only look historically at attacks on civilians, not something which just sprung up with the recent conflict in Iraq. If you want the footnotes because you challenge it, I will provide each if anyone needs it.
In the famous Melian Diologues of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian war, the Athenians famously state that the “strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” The Melians, in turn, seek to dissuade the Athenians from this hostile course of action with pleas to remaining neutral, neither enemy nor ally, but instead as mere friends. The Athenian response is: “your hostility cannot so much hurt us as your friendship will be an argument to our subjects of our weakness, and your enmity of our power.” And while the dialogues themselves take up 28 paragraphs in History, the entirety of the siege is recounted in two, and the tragic denouement in a half of a single sentence:
and some treachery taking place inside, the Melians surrendered at discretion to the Athenians, who put to death all the grown men whom they took, and sold the women and children for slaves, and subsequently sent out five hundred colonists and inhabited the place themselves.
In 378, Thrace was once again revisited with utter destruction, this time at the hands of Fridigern, leader of the Ostrogoths.
Without distinction of age or sex all places were ablaze with great fires, sucklings were torn from the very breasts of their mothers and slain, matrons and widows whose husbands had been killed before their eyes were carried off, boys of tender or adult age were dragged away over the dead bodies of their parents.
Theological differences could often lead to atrocities, no place more clearly depicted than during the Albigensian Crusade in 1209, when a group of crusaders attacked the town of Beziers, located in present day France. The Catholic warriors came to eradicate the Cathars who lived there. In the ensuing carnage, the leader of the group, Papal legate Arnaud-Amaury was asked by a Crusader how the Cathars might be distinguished from other citizens. To which he responded “Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius” — “Kill them [all]! Surely the Lord discerns which [ones] are his.”
Discovery of the New World opened a new front for both congregants and coin, and again more attacks against civilian populaces. Spanish conquistadors under Pedro de Alvarado in 1523 were savage in their attempts to increase both, including forays into Guatemala chronicled by Catholic Priest Bartolome de Las Casas:
He [Alvarado] advanced killing, ravaging, burning, robbing and destroying all the country wherever he came, under the pretext, namely, that the Indians should subject themselves to such inhumane, unjust and cruel men, in the name of the unknown King of Spain, of whom they had never heard and whom they considered to be more unjust and cruel than his representatives.
However, it should not be overstated that all attacks against civilian populaces were dictated by economic desires, be they financial in nature or in terms of reputational gains. Some simply reveled in the destruction. To Mongol leader Ghengiz Khan is attributed a quotation which has widely been cited in popular culture 800 years after its’ utterance:
[t]he greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.
Others sought destruction as retribution for past atrocities, like the sack of Antwerp by the Spanish Army in 1576. A contemporary account of that action commends the bravery of the Spanish, but notes that:
as their valiance was to be much commended; so yet I can much discommend their barbarous cruelty in many respects…they neither spared Age nor Sex, Time nor Place, Person nor Country, Profession nor Religion, Young nor Old, Rich nor Poor, Strong nor Feeble: but, without any mercy, did tyrannously triumph, when there was neither man nor means to resist them. I refrain to rehearse the heaps of dead carcasses which lay at every trench where they entered; the thickness whereof did in many places exceed the height of a man.
Likewise in the British retreat to Corunna during the Napoleonic Wars, where a unit of British Dragoons exacted a horrific revenge for an earlier engagement.
Frantic women held forth their babies, suing for mercy by the cries of defenseless innocence; but all to no purpose. The dragoons of the polite and civilized nation advanced, and cut right and left, regardless of intoxication, age or sex. Drunkards, women and children were indiscriminately hewn down – a dastardly revenge for the defeat at Benevente.
According to Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, president of Genocide Watch,
[t]he Nazi Holocaust was among the most evil genocides in history. But the Allies’ firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also war crimes – and…also acts of genocide. We are all capable of evil and must be restrained by law from committing it.
With regard to Dresden, Historian Max Hastings provides the contrary view:
I believe it is wrong to describe strategic bombing as a war crime, for this might be held to suggest some moral equivalence with the deeds of the Nazis. Bombing represented a sincere, albeit mistaken attempt to bring about Germany’s military defeat.
The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japanese cities created a much larger controversy. On a previously unknown scale, the bombs were capable of massive casulaties, indiscriminate to military or civilian personnel. Several considerations went into the decision to drop the bombs, harbingers of the theories of such weapons which have persisted to this day. Namely, “the commitment to ending the war with Japan as quickly as possible, the assumption that the bomb would be used when it became available, the willingness to attack civilian targets as a legitimate means of waging war, and the hope that the bomb would help advance American diplomatic objectives.” According to President Harry Truman, the decision to drop the bomb was “never any decision you had to think about.”
The man whose task it was to drop the bomb was equally blunt in his assessment, although he seemingly also included a retributory angle to the utilitarian/economic one of simply saving lives. Said Brigadier General Paul Tibbets:
Most writers have looked to the ashes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to find answers for the use of those atomic weapons. The real answers lay in thousands of graves from Pearl Harbor around the world to Normandy and back again. The actual use of the weapons as ordered by the President of the United States was believed to be the quickest and least costly (in terms of lives cost) way to stop the killing. I carried out those orders with the loyal support of the men [of his unit] and the United States military at large. Our job was to serve. Our sworn duty was to God, country, and victory.
One of the most recognized events in the Vietnam conflict was the atrocities of Mai Lai, perpetrated by Lt. William Calley. According to one account:
Calley’s platoon had crossed the plaza on the town’s southern edge and entered the village. They encountered families cooking rice in front of their homes. The men began their usual search-and-destroy task of pulling people from homes, interrogating them, and searching for VC. Soon the killing began. The first victim was a man stabbed in the back with a bayonet. Then a middle-aged man was picked up, thrown down a well, and a grenade lobbed in after him.
According to the Military Court which would later hear the Calley case:
No doubt Lieutenant Calley would never have directed or participated in a mass killing in time of peace. Nevertheless, he committed an atrocity in time of war and it is in the context of war that we judge him. Destructive as war is, war is not an occasion for the unrestrained satisfaction of an individual soldier’s proclivity to kill.
The case of Lt. Calley is especially important in that it was one state holding its actor culpable for acts committed. No doubt there was a sincere desire to punish Lt. Calley for his heinous acts, but equally certain is the fact that the United States Military and Government had an eye towards its reputation both within the country and internationally. Indeed, in the years since the Vietnam conflict, the US Department of Defense has had a “Law of War Program” which aims to “[e]nsure that the members of the DoD components comply with the law of war during all armed conflicts, however such conflicts are characterized, and in all other operations.” These principles are those set forth in both the Geneva Convention and the United States Code.
Anyway, if there were a Readers Digest Version of this post, it would be “War is Hell, get used to it.” But more so, note that during the 20th and 21st Centuries, there is finally an active attempt to limit collateral damage. Doesn’t jive too well with the hyperbole about this war and Bush being the worst thing of all time does it. Will have more next week and debunk the entire premise of this piece of [IVAW] book Collateral Damage.
Category: Politics
TSO- First of all, I appreciate your level of thought and analysis in this open discussion we are having. But please do not group me in with IVAW. I do not know them or anything they support. Their ideas are their own and in no way should they be tied to mine, or mine to theirs.
Your logical progression that we have moved from an age of indiscriminate killing to more precise methods of killing with limited collateral damage while enforcing rules of war still does not explain the need for States to carry out this violent act of war against each other in the first place at all (and does nothing to explain the violence carried out by the State on its own citizens). Even if we take the ethnocentric view that our State’s acts of war are just and honorable in the face of an evil opponent State- it still doesn’t explain the need for that evil opponent State to exist. I see little else in this post that pertains to what we were discussing yesterday, so I will leave a more detailed response in yesterdays thread where I think we can expand on some unresolved issues. Again- I appreciate your inputs and look forward to more of this civilized exchange of ideas because I will be the first to admit that I have not found my final answers to the issues I ponder.
TSO: Grouping only included to answer 2 questions at the same time. Not that you and IVAW share a philosophical underpinning. And this was part 1, but I intend to expand this part to a discussion of the “rational actors” view of internations (and interpersonal) affairs. What plagues the small group is the same that effects larger groups, only I believe that larger couplings decrease the overall damage. The failed states scenarios from yesterday were the catalyst for this post. Anyway, will continue it in the future.
“…Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian (mis)entitled Collateral Damage, America’s War Against Iraqi Civilians.”
When I first saw the article in The Nation about that book, I figured that this was WInter Soldier subrosa, that it would be the attempt to smear this generation the way the VVAW smeared their generation with Winter Soldier.
I believe that IVAW is a clooection of lowlifes, but even I didn’t believe that they would attempt a repeat of Winter Soldier down to the last detail.
With all the hindsight that the Vietnam Vets were treated very badly and knowing that the VVAW and Winnter Soldier were the biggest contributor to that sin, I figured nobody would be that shameless.
I was wrong, IVAW went on to sink deeper in the slime.
Rooney –
Unless I’m misreading TSO here, I believe he has just addressed your statement that “history has proven through all the violent acts of the State that the Nations have failed to keep up their end of this balance and restraint.” As he points out, the active and evolving attempts of States to address issues concerning the protection of civilian noncombatants living within a combat zone contradicts your claim that Nations are failing to “keep up their end of this balance and restraint”. Clearly, responsible States are making an effort to develop legal instruments, as well as more accurate weapons systems, that are intended to restrain and prevent the loss of civilian life, as well as human rights violations that contravene the Geneva Conventions or any other applicable human rights covenant.
Mike- Ha!… looks like we crossed threads here, I was just replying in yesterday’s thread.
If we truly wanted to limit the destructive nature and collateral damage of war then maybe we should revert back to the 1700s method of meeting in a field, lining up in opposing lines and shooting each other point blank in the face. But then the US broke that traditional law of war against the Redcoats when they employed guerrilla warfare style militias. Maybe one day we could settle our disputes with soccer matches. I know that is a silly answer but that is because I don’t see the validity of how we can ever limit the destruction of war. In Iraq we have the luxury of such tactics because of our overwhelmingly superior power. But do you think such tactics would work for the Nazis in Russia? In the ideal world TSO described the best we could hope for was parity- but the paradox is that this parity would cause much more violent wars between States (the opposite of US vs Iraq).
And there is still no answer to the issue of States acting out violently against their own citizens.
States only take. They never produce.
TSO: And in the absence of states, everyone takes whatever you produce, unless you are strong enough to defend it. As for states acting violently against their own citizens, since the state is made up of people, and the state is acting irrationally in doing so, what possible diminutive effect could it have on the micro scale. Without gov’t, would Mugabe as an individual spend his day tilling a farm? Or would he wait until someone else did so, and then just steal his stuff? And while parity might make for more violent wars IF (IF) they occurred, would the corollary not be true that such violence would be less likely? One seldom picks a fight with a dude of the same size. Bullies aren’t noted for stealing lunch money from football players, they go after guys in the gaming club, nicht wahr?
So Mugabe steals some beets and a bushel of corn, ok great. I’d take any day over the mass violence he has carried out in Zimbabwe.
Only difference is that in Zimbabwe he is the irrefutable head of State wielding power that can not be questioned or denied by the individual. In your hypothetical example of Mugabe the farmer, he has the individual to fear. Without the authority and armor of the State he is vulnerable to the individual’s right of self defense.
So maybe you think States limit the amount of violence a man like Mugabe can cause. I would argue the 180′ opposite.
TSO: If Mugabe were the only one involved, I might even agree with your argument. However, he didn’t get there in a vaccuum, he had a lot of help. Besides, is not outside influence from the international community painting him into a box? If in a natural state everyone sees Mugabe stealing beets and corn, what possible benefit would a strong individual have in making his own beets and corn when instead he could just wait and steal whatever he wanted if Mugabe had done so with impunity? Far be it for me to argue MORE state involvement, I do not, however, some state is needed, and collectively numerous sovereigntys all offended by a state action, can isolate that individual. When it becomes economically infeasible to coalesce power then states will stop doing so would be my argument. Far better to allow capitalism to reign virtually unfettered and the state to take it’s minimal cut to provide the framework.
1. “what possible benefit would a strong individual have in making his own beets and corn when instead he could just wait and steal whatever he wanted if Mugabe had done so with impunity?” A: the risk of the individual’s self defense. I would compare the risk a strong individual assumes when he decides to raid his neighbor’s farm to the DC handgun ban issue we just saw. Bare with me here… You see, during the ban criminals could prey on the innocent without risk of retribution because they were fairly certain that the law abiding citizen wasn’t packing. Now that the ban is lifted there is an inherent risk when breaking into someone’s house that might not have existed before. The criminal’s sole possession of firearms was equivalent to the State’s sole possession of authority.
2. “Far better to allow capitalism to reign virtually unfettered and the state to take it’s minimal cut to provide the framework.” I would like to see an example of a State relinquishing power once it has been established. They don’t. The US will never revert back to this ideal you talk about. From it’s inception the US has degenerated into a simultaneous welfare state/warfare state.
TSO: So then it simply becomes an arms race. Then wouldn’t people maximize their power by banding together? And would this in turn not become a de facto gov’t? As for #2, I don’t neccessarily disagree. At some point I suspect that there will be a tipping point and the masses will force the gov’t to scale everything back. For me, we hit that point a while back. unfortunately, most Americans are blissfully ignorant of the amount of skimming going on. I know of no state which has relinquished power, but I do know some nations that got pissed off and throw off the yoke. (Poland, Soviet Union)…
1. “what possible benefit would a strong individual have in making his own beets and corn when instead he could just wait and steal whatever he wanted if Mugabe had done so with impunity?” A: the risk posed by the individual’s right to self defense. I would compare the risk a strong individual assumes when he decides to raid his neighbor’s farm to the DC handgun ban issue we just saw. Bare with me here… You see, during the ban criminals could prey on the innocent without risk of retribution because they were fairly certain that the law abiding citizen wasn’t packing. Now that the ban is lifted there is an inherent risk when breaking into someone’s house that might not have existed before. The criminal’s sole possession of firearms was equivalent to the State’s sole possession of authority.
2. “Far better to allow capitalism to reign virtually unfettered and the state to take it’s minimal cut to provide the framework.” I would like to see an example of a State relinquishing power once it has been established. They don’t. The US will never revert back to this ideal you talk about. From it’s inception the US has degenerated into a simultaneous welfare state/warfare state.
“At some point I suspect that there will be a tipping point and the masses will force the gov’t to scale everything back.”
I think we have reached some common ground here. Which brings me back to my original point that I hope Obama wins. This is solely based on the belief that I think he will utterly disappoint the Dems, thus leading to greater loss in faith in the US govt.
TSO: I agree there as well, but your original premise was not for less gov’t intervention, it was for NO GOV’T. I submit that whatever is best for encouraging economic development and “making the world flat” is what is best. Anything which inhibits that is bad.
Come on TSO, I was trying to build some connection! LOL! Yes you are correct, I stand behind my no govt stance still.
TSO: Believe you me, our agreeing causes us equal harm. Now, I am off to use a brillo pad and ammonia to wash away the memory of the day we almost espoused the same positions.
Rooney, without the state, led by rational men accountable to the populace, tribes form, alliances are created and eventually enemies are made and then they war against each other. Back to square one.
We tried anarchy on planet Earth for a time. I think we are are moving in the right direction, but humanity has never been perfect and never will be. There will always be violence and irrational aggression. The best we can do is try to limit them and end them as swiftly as they begin.
You’ve really gone over to the Dark Side, Rooney – NOTHING is worth an Obama presidency.
Those two (TSO, Rooney) are kinda cute.
Fiddlin’ while Rome burns?
I WAS gonna wait for subsequent posts from TSO before weighing in.
But I’m taking a mowing break… so I’ll toss in my lightweight two cents.
In terms of social systems we are dealing with anarchy at one extreme and communism (ala Marx) at the other.
That’d be my basis for discussion. Neither offers the individual more than lip service. The moment the individual rises to importance we have capitalism, and, maybe, a government that supports that.
This discussion, so far, is circular, and approaching non-sense.
Socialism, and communism have killed more individuals throughout history than any middle ground. The raw numbers for historical anarchy are irrelevant.
It would take a fool to think that anarchy in this day and age would result in anything other than millions of ‘collateral’ deaths.
TSO: Um, am I supposed to be arguing the communist position then? On a continuum, you don’t see a huge break between NO gov’t and SOME gov’t? Sorry that you find it nonsensical, as I stated this is merely one part, but I see you will obviously be glued to later parts.
TSO: am I supposed to be arguing the communist position then? On a continuum, you don’t see a huge break between NO gov’t and SOME gov’t?
Not hardly, but those would seem to be the benchmarks, or starting positions… Most certainly the difference is huge.
Also; I was NOT referring to your position, only this discussion. To my feeble mind it is abutting on non-sense.
I already said I’ll be glued to your further posts. Lookit… I’ve been mowing and/or brush-hogging for the past several hours. I fuel the machinery as appropriate and fuel myself with beer.
That bit aside I do regret not using the term ‘silly’.
I’ll shut up for now. This particular thread is one of those that tickles my fancy. Intellectual discussions are a phenomena only available in a society in between.
TSO: That’s it Ponsdorf, if that is your real name! War! (I was just messing with you bud. Seriously.)
Rooney Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 10:40 am
“Your logical progression that we have moved from an age of indiscriminate killing to more precise methods of killing with limited collateral damage while enforcing rules of war still does not explain the need for States to carry out this violent act of war against each other in the first place at all (and does nothing to explain the violence carried out by the State on its own citizens).”
The need, in our case, is retaliation for the survival of western civiliazation against Islamofascist zealots.
Wars and the nature thereof, has existed since we first crawled out of the primordial goop.
“Need” is based on everything from empire-building to self-defense.
“Even if we take the ethnocentric view that our State’s acts of war are just and honorable in the face of an evil opponent State- it still doesn’t explain the need for that evil opponent State to exist.”
Are you suggesting that if evil/enemy states didn’t exist we’d have to invent them?
Typos: civiliazation=civilization
Wars and the nature thereof, HAVE existed….
Aha, the cold light of day…
Here’s the thing; I used non-sense with a hyphen intentionally. Suggesting, I’d hoped, that the discussion didn’t seem to have a solid basis. Rooney appears to be suggesting that anarchy is less deadly than ‘The State’. However, ‘The State’ encompasses such a broad spectrum of entities that the term needs to be focused for meaningful discussion.
Similarly, I was noting the leaps from the specific – to the general – than back to a different specific as if they were connected.
Now I’ll shut up and wait for the next installment.
GI Jane-
“The need, in our case, is retaliation for the survival of western civiliazation against Islamofascist zealots”
Your quote above reveals your inability to understand my statement you ask about.
You misunderstood.
Rooney wrote:
“Your logical progression that we have moved from an age of indiscriminate killing to more precise methods of killing with limited collateral damage while enforcing rules of war still does not explain the need for States to carry out this violent act of war against each other in the first place at all…”
There is no innate “need” of states to war against each other. When was the last ime Guatemala and Sweden went at it?
“There is no innate “need” of states to war against each other. When was the last ime Guatemala and Sweden went at it?”
I think you missed the point. Replace the word need with purpose if that helps.
“Rooney, without the state, led by rational men accountable to the populace, tribes form, alliances are created and eventually enemies are made and then they war against each other. Back to square one.
We tried anarchy on planet Earth for a time. I think we are are moving in the right direction, but humanity has never been perfect and never will be. There will always be violence and irrational aggression. The best we can do is try to limit them and end them as swiftly as they begin.”
Martino- yes that is one theory. TSO and I already hashed this out and I have little to add right now… I’m a little burned out to be honest. But sounds like there is more to come so staty tuned.
The vector of humankind is toward peace, notwithstanding the world wars and holocausts of modern times. Civilization is a pacifying force in human history. Anarchy is a violent force. Nicholas Wade wrote in “Before the Dawn” (which I strongly recommend for a deep understanding of humans and human conflict) that about one third of men in our earliest history died violent deaths. The first five million years of human history were occupied in continual raiding which steadily killed off people in small batches. Today, only a fraction of a percent of the world population dies in wars. The difference is civilization. Early humans were incredibly aggressive, too aggressive to engage each other peacefully or settle down. Evidence for this comes in the bones found of our ancient ancestors, of which many have been cooked. The thick-boned and thick-muscled remains of those original humans demonstrate that they were built for combat. The probable reason for this is that men and women organized themselves into separate hierarchies, requiring men to fight each other to mate. Somewhere about 50,000 years ago, humans changed. They changed from robust to gracile, ie fine-boned. They invented clothes and shoes and settled down in permanent villages. The reason may be that men and women coupled off in permanent relationships, which minimized the fighting over mates and allowed for more effective cooperation which made their social unit stronger. The trend in human civilization since has been toward ever greater combinations which bring greater peace. While the occassional pitched battles of recorded history have become bigger and more lethal, they are less deadly than the continual skirmishing of human prehistory. When you fight pitched battles to an authoritative conclusion it kills less people than fighting indecisive small battles to ambiguous ends. The pacifists and anti-American critics who claim the atom bombings indicate a greater propensity for violence by civilization, particularly the USA, are wrong. The high tech killing by the atom bomb stopped the much larger low tech killing by the samurai sword. Specifically, it made unnecessary an invasion of Japan that would have been half again as large… Read more »
Thanks, TSO. “Nonzero” looks interesting on Amazon. I believe the premise is sound that human society benefits from more complex moral codes like trust and altruism and evolves toward them. Matt Ridley makes a parallel case for that in “Origins of Virtue” that sounds like the “Nonzero” argument in another form.
You can see in modern times that societies with higher levels of trust succeed better than those with lower trust. For example, Western civilization is more peaceful and successful because it has high levels of trust. The Middle East fails because it has low levels of trust. You need go no further than to examine their architecture to see the dysfunction: each Arab home is built like a fort.
Orangeducks, a contractor blogging from Iraq, explains how the corrupt morality of Arab culture leads to failure:
http://conprotantor.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-progress-in-iraq-is-so-slow.html
Hirsi Ali, the Somali Muslim refugee and critic of Islam, comments that Western society is more successful than Islamic society because the personal relationships are better.
Other bloggers writing from experience in the Middle East say that Arab culture, particularly Saudi culture, prizes the ability to manipulate other people, to get over, rather than pride in a job well done. That’s what’s behind the endless haggling and reneging on agreements. They see human interactions in win-lose terms, rather than win-win.
Meanwhile, in the developed world, the most successful companies are those who form trusted relationships with each other. McDonald’s closely cooperates with its vendors to make sure the right number of soda, buns, burgers, and napkins gets to each restaurant at the right time. The Just-In-Time manufacturing concept relies on the primary manufacturers sharing their business info with their suppliers to eliminate waste. This level of trust is unimagineable in the Middle East and Africa, which consequently fail.
The morality of civilization is the glue that holds it together, makes it successful, and pacifies it.
Tantor- You confuse civilization with the State. Civilization can and did survive without the State. The advances you sight in civilization can be attributed to the rise of free markets- domestication of crops and livestock, surplus, division of labor, specialization, re-investment, tradeable commodities or assets convertible into money and so on. Civilization and the individual accomplished this, not the State. The State in not a productive contributor to civilization. It is only a tool for coercion, violence, and confiscation.
The rest of your post merely splits hairs over how the State carries out this unwarranted violence so will refrain from rehashing points already discussed. Your second post appears to be a highly ethnocentric rant which I won’t even attempt to touch.
TSO: Rooney, you’re losing your mind. Without the state, you would have no libraries. Without the state, you would have no research unless it was individually profitable. Without a state, there is no civilization, and I challenge you to show me one civilization that was not preceded by a state.
TSO- careful, temper temper… Libraries? Who needs welfare libraries? What entitles a person to have free rental of books? More importantly, why should the State waste your money to pay for someone else to read? There should be private libraries who rent books just like Blockbuster or Netflix. That way the cost of renting books is bared by the individual who uses them. I know you don’t favor a welfare state do you? Individually profitable research? Too easy… You mean like the research that led Alexander Bell to invent the Telephone? Or how about Thomas Edison and the light bulb? Your attributing abundance in research and any other field to government is an argument in favor of the Total State (i.e. Communism). So man just threw down his club and stone tools one day and drafted a State framework? Again I think you are confusing cause and effect between the State and civilization. Producers are responsible for the advancement of society, not governments. The cause and effect relationship between production and government is perfectly encapsulated in the framework of taxation: before one can be taxed, one must first produce. TSO: No temper at all. And by library, I meant more like the Library of Alexandria as opposed to where you get your Harlequin Romance novels. Man discovered agrarian life, banded together for safety, didn’t need to move, to handle conflict within the tribe, created the state. Again, name me one civilization without a state. And no, it is not an argument for total state, which takes away the striving to succeed, thereby lowering output. However, when a man strives to succeed, and is allowed to, the state can take some of that and turn around and do things which without the state would be impossible, like have artisans, etc. And again, you are changing the argument. I’ve on atleast 10 occasions said that it is indeed individuals who advance us. And I have stated that without security to do so, we wouldn’t have those people doing their utmost. Correct me if I am wrong, but Bell and Edison made those… Read more »
I don’t see how the Library of Alexandria wouldn’t exist. In fact there might be several competing private libraries who each touted themselves as the “World’s Largest Collection of Books”. And through competition we would get an even better/bigger product.
You want a method of handling conflict? Then how about private courts or voluntary arbitration? Why should the State have a monopoly on conflict resolution?
Protection? How about private security and insurance companies? Again- why should the State have a monopoly on protection?
Agriculture was invented about 12,000 years ago. The earliest State known in history is Sumer from about 8,000 years ago.
TSO: Rooney, if this were an attempt to just tire me out, you win. Have a weekend filled with suculent dreams of anarchy! And baseball. Or whatever it is that brings you happiness. At 2pm on a Friday, I would concede nearly anything.
Sorry if this is a double post but looks the first one didn’t go through…
Jonn wrote: For some reason, you’ve been going straight to the SPAM folder today (appropriately enough) so if you don’t see your post, I’ll find it in the folder eventually. Don’t post it again. Thanks.
I know what you mean man, I’m a little burned out too. LOL! No hard feelings buddy. I’m just trying to see if I can convince myself with this argument and I figure the best way to do that is to see if I can defend it against someone who really knows what they are talking about like you. Like I said- I still haven’t completely made up my mind. Like I used to tell my troops- “Don’t come to me or your Chief with a gripe unless you can also offer a solution.” Well I found my gripe and now I’m searching for the solution.
“You want a method of handling conflict? Then how about private courts or voluntary arbitration? Why should the State have a monopoly on conflict resolution?”
To establish and enforce the Rule of Law.
Mike- Yes correct. Private Merchant courts existed before the State got involved that were based on common law
TSO: Rooney you bastard! What’s with the Palestinian Truce agreement? Common Law is based on previous court decisions, court decisions come from teh state.
Hah! What’s wrong buddy? Not private courts and arbitration.
TSO: Stop reading stuff like this It leads to peptic ulcers (for me)
Rooney,
What got lost in translation? You stated:
“Your logical progression that we have moved from an age of indiscriminate killing to more precise methods of killing with limited collateral damage while enforcing rules of war still does not explain the need for States to carry out this violent act of war against each other in the first place at all (and does nothing to explain the violence carried out by the State on its own citizens).”
What does more “precise methods” and ROE have to do with the reasons we entered the WOT?
Methods of killing the enemy are subsequent to entering conflict. The need to go to war in the first place was instigated by 9/11. You used a general, broad statemt. I got specific.