|
Query. Why does a government exist? To protect people. Why do people need protection? Because they may come to harm. What would harm them? Other people. Why would other people harm them? Barring mental illnesses, the only rational reason to risk yourself against another is that you believe there is a possible gain that is worth the risk.
Thus gain, or property, as satisfaction is indicative of sadism and thus a mental disturbance, is the reason for the existence of government. Or, the protection of private property is the inherent purpose of government.
To undermine this principle is to undermine the most cursory and basic function of government, and any government engaging in actions contrary to this principle are in violation of the terms of their own necessity, and thus no longer have a reason to be allowed to exist.
This is my personal philosophy regarding government. I would like to know your own personal takes, what you see as potential flaws in my thinking, and then discuss.
Think of it as a mental exercise. I would like to keep partisan rhetoric out of the equation and try and remain in the realm of philosophy regarding governance. What are the base reasons for government, and why are YOU right? Or why am I right?
|
|
I think the purpose of government is to enforce contracts. Education is necessary too since illiterate people cannot make contracts. Basic laws are also necessary to prevent societally disruptive externalities from resulting from contracts.
|
I LOVE that video. I remember when I saw it for the first time it was like something finally clicked. Also, just as an aside, I've always appreciated and agreed with your stances in political threads. Thanks for representing the philosophy of individual liberty so well!
On February 04 2011 03:11 Gummy wrote: I think the purpose of government is to enforce contracts. Education is necessary too since illiterate people cannot make contracts. Basic laws are also necessary to prevent societally disruptive externalities from resulting from contracts. The question then becomes, why do people form contracts, and why do they need to be enforced?
I'd say voluntary exchange that results in the benefit of both parties and private property rights, what's your take? To me a contract is an extension of private property.
That is to say, what is contained IN the contract, and what the contract involves are private property as owned and exchanged by the parties involved.
|
is this a homework? origins/purpose of governments have been discussed thoroughly by many canons of politics and philosophy that i don't understand why you go to a gaming site to solicit their personal interpretation of the problem. unless you're planning to start a new government of your own?
moreover, your argument is flawed. governments were never only about protecting people (which you further, again erroneously, conclude as the protection of private properties). if i engage your query, it is only to say that the more relevant question to ask instead is "why governments are the way they are". nonetheless, i really do not see what you intend to achieve with this. it just seems blatantly arbitrary and pretentious.
|
In the pure philosophy of American Government, the government exists to ensure liberty. Foreign and Domestic enemies may plot to deprive sovereign citizens of their liberty. Government's first and foremost goal is the protect that sovereign liberty of each individual.
|
Thank you for sharing this.
|
Excellent presentation with cute little pictures =P
The only thing I disagreed with was the blanket statement that it is not ok to murder, enslave, or steal. In a perfect would it wouldn't be necessary to, but sometimes to protect your rights you must violate these principles. Self defense is always justified. War is murder, prisons are slavery, and fines are theft, but these are done so according to a code of justice, so we all buy into it that they are justified.
So no, it's not as simple as a blanket statement because people break the rules and have to be dealt with. That's what law is for.
|
On February 04 2011 04:27 gongryong wrote: is this a homework? origins/purpose of governments have been discussed thoroughly by many canons of politics and philosophy that i don't understand why you go to a gaming site to solicit their personal interpretation of the problem. unless you're planning to start a new government of your own?
moreover, your argument is flawed. governments were never only about protecting people (which you further, again erroneously, conclude as the protection of private properties). if i engage your query, it is only to say that the more relevant question to ask instead is "why governments are the way they are". nonetheless, i really do not see what you intend to achieve with this. it just seems blatantly arbitrary and pretentious.
No, this is a genuine philosophical question I had that I wanted the opinion of the TL community on.
You claim my argument is flawed, and then proceed to neglect to inform me WHY, which is part of what I asked for. Congratulations.
TL has never been just "a gaming site", this is a perfectly valid thread like many others that have come before it that were just for the sake of discussion because the TL community tends to be fairly intelligent.
Lastly calling this "blatantly arbitrary and pretentious"? Really? There's this phrase...the pot calling the kettle black...you should check it out. If you're going to be a jackass about posting, don't do it. Or would that be too "blatantly arbitrary and pretentious" an askance? O_o?
|
I really don't think that the sole purpose of having a government is protection. Sure, it's part of it, but having a centralized figure also helps to have projects which may not be undertaken by entrepreneurs on a good scale, like seemingly futile experiments which sometimes don't directly result in anything "sellable" and invariably run a deficit. I'm thinking about some forms of science and space exploration, for instance. Naturally, anarchists disagree but they also don't understand reality.
I think that democracy and relatively well-run government seriously helped our society develop and become what it is - and hopefully it will get better.
I'd keep writing but I have to go. Will check back later.
|
On February 04 2011 04:35 GeneralStan wrote: In the pure philosophy of American Government, the government exists to ensure liberty. Foreign and Domestic enemies may plot to deprive sovereign citizens of their liberty. Government's first and foremost goal is the protect that sovereign liberty of each individual. But "liberty" is non-quantifiable. It's intangible. How do you protect something that is so intrinsically abstract? Opinions on liberty will differ, but does that mean what you're ensured as a right is only as superfluous as what your neighbor is willing to vote you? If so, it's not much to go on.
|
My opinion?
Government exists because long ago in humanity's history, you had farmers and you had hunter/ gatherers. Eventually the hunger/gatherers came to the realization, probably in a situation of desperation, that the farmers were much stable and well off than they were, but at the same time - they were much less skilled in the arts of violence. So the hunters attacked the farmers, taking the products of their labor for themselves. Only this created more problems for the hunters, because you can only steal from a dead farmer once. Eventually the hunters came to the realization that instead of just killing the farmers and taking their wealth, they could live with them, occupy their villages, and force the farmers to give them a portion of their products - allowing the hunters to have a perpetual income, instead of a one time grab. This of course led to other "responsibilities", because the hunters would then have to defend the farmers from other groups of hunters. So while taking a portion of their product, they also became the farmers protector. Over time this evolved into the governments we see today.
|
Good luck reading 2500 years of philosophy talking on that matter.
The thing is, we most of the time talk without even knowing that we reason with concepts which have been discussed for thousands of years, without even realizing that there are different perspective than the one we are used to.
Everything you will hear on a website like teamliquid will be variations on economy-oriented liberal philosophy which is absolutely egemonic today. Thing is, even the concept of freedom which seems very obvious can have definitions incredibly different than the one that we, as liberals, are used to. Civic humanist definition of freedom, for example, is pretty much the opposite of what everybody here understand when the word is used.
My advice if you are really interested is to read Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics and Laws, and then probably Machiavel, Rousseau (Social Contract) and Adam Smith. And if you are really into it, definitly Marx.
Then you have kind of an overview and you stop thinking that you are reasonning freely while in fact you are repeating the same liberal doxa than almost everybody else in western world today.
That's for the longer road. Longest but most interesting.
You can't have a good answer to such a complex question without spending a lot of time studying it and reading philosophers and thinkers.
|
On February 04 2011 06:22 Biff The Understudy wrote: Good luck reading 2500 years of philosophy talking on that matter.
The thing is, we most of the time talk without even knowing that we reason with concepts which have been discussed for thousands of years, without even realizing that there are different perspective than the one we are used to.
Everything you will hear on a website like teamliquid will be variations on economy-oriented liberal philosophy which is absolutely egemonic today. Thing is, even the concept of freedom which seems very obvious can have definitions incredibly different than the one that we, as liberals, are used to. Civic humanist definition of freedom, for example, is pretty much the opposite of what everybody here understand when the word is used.
My advice if you are really interested is to read Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics and Laws, and then probably Machiavel, Rousseau (Social Contract) and Adam Smith. And if you are really into it, definitly Marx.
Then you have kind of an overview and you stop thinking that you are reasonning freely while in fact you are repeating the same liberal doxa than almost everybody else in western world today.
That's for the longer road. Longest but most interesting.
You can't have a good answer to such a complex question without spending a lot of time studying it and reading philosophers and thinkers. I've read Republic, Wealth of Nations, The Prince and The Republic.
I'm not really looking for an "answer" per say, more so just a discussion with some philosophically minded folks on TL. I realize that finding a suitable answer to something like this is a time consuming endeavor, and I'm already doing what I can, but just some live dialogue can often be more stimulating than a book because it requires a degree of mental dexterity as well as having a good answer.
|
Hungary11232 Posts
I think you are confusing aggression with sadism. Sadism, in my mind, is hurting others since you plainly enjoy it. Aggression doesn't mean you are necessarily having fun, but that you are trying to gain an advantage on others. That, on the other hand, is rather natural behaviour, and governments serve the purpose to get it out of humans.
|
One thing to consider is, I don't think there is any example of a population where the majority has in say as to what type of government they have. Though there is some level of acceptance because generally if a majority of the population rebels the government probably will not last - this doesn't mean they are happy with the government though, because rebellion is putting your own life at risk, it just means that the ills of government are viewed as less than the ills of rebellion. The government is always or almost always a small group of people that take control, say they're in charge, and have some level of manpower to instill fear and/or obedience in the people.
|
On February 04 2011 06:45 Aesop wrote: I think you are confusing aggression with sadism. Sadism, in my mind, is hurting others since you plainly enjoy it. Aggression doesn't mean you are necessarily having fun, but that you are trying to gain an advantage on others. That, on the other hand, is rather natural behaviour, and governments serve the purpose to get it out of humans.
What do you mean by serving the purpose to get it out of humans?
|
My philosophy of what a government should be is taking the wisest, brightest, most motivated, most capable people in the country and letting them decide how we should as a group act, because they are superior to the common man and will prevent the common man's idiocy from getting in the way of his life's betterment.
Government should:
educate create infrastructure protect encourage inform advance technology heal
|
On February 04 2011 07:08 sc4k wrote: My philosophy of what a government should be is taking the wisest, brightest, most motivated, most capable people in the country and letting them decide how we should as a group act, because they are superior to the common man and will prevent the common man's idiocy from getting in the way of his life's betterment.
Government should:
educate create infrastructure protect encourage inform advance technology heal
It seems like a nice thought, but I don't think it holds up. First, how are you going to find these people? Second, no one will ever agree on who these people are. This is basically what politics already is, and I think it's clear that it's not working that well. Everyone votes for who they think is best, but no one agrees on who they think is best, then you're left with choosing the lesser of two evils and all that bullshit.
|
On February 04 2011 06:45 Aesop wrote: I think you are confusing aggression with sadism. Sadism, in my mind, is hurting others since you plainly enjoy it. Aggression doesn't mean you are necessarily having fun, but that you are trying to gain an advantage on others. That, on the other hand, is rather natural behaviour, and governments serve the purpose to get it out of humans. That was actually precisely my point. Sadism is an unnatural and overt extension of aggression. I'm saying that the only reason for aggression to occur is because of a perceived gain, or "advantage" as you put it.
|
On February 04 2011 06:31 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 06:22 Biff The Understudy wrote: Good luck reading 2500 years of philosophy talking on that matter.
The thing is, we most of the time talk without even knowing that we reason with concepts which have been discussed for thousands of years, without even realizing that there are different perspective than the one we are used to.
Everything you will hear on a website like teamliquid will be variations on economy-oriented liberal philosophy which is absolutely egemonic today. Thing is, even the concept of freedom which seems very obvious can have definitions incredibly different than the one that we, as liberals, are used to. Civic humanist definition of freedom, for example, is pretty much the opposite of what everybody here understand when the word is used.
My advice if you are really interested is to read Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics and Laws, and then probably Machiavel, Rousseau (Social Contract) and Adam Smith. And if you are really into it, definitly Marx.
Then you have kind of an overview and you stop thinking that you are reasonning freely while in fact you are repeating the same liberal doxa than almost everybody else in western world today.
That's for the longer road. Longest but most interesting.
You can't have a good answer to such a complex question without spending a lot of time studying it and reading philosophers and thinkers. I've read Republic, Wealth of Nations, The Prince and The Republic. I'm not really looking for an "answer" per say, more so just a discussion with some philosophically minded folks on TL. I realize that finding a suitable answer to something like this is a time consuming endeavor, and I'm already doing what I can, but just some live dialogue can often be more stimulating than a book because it requires a degree of mental dexterity as well as having a good answer. Ok, I'll try then to give an answer which is not completely naive, but taht's going to be difficult since any kind of position implies at least 500 years of thinking on the subject (I say 500 years since that's the birth of merchant humanism which leads to liberalism, the system in which we are usually reasonning).
The only think I could say, is that in my opinion, we should maybe give a bit more attention to Republican tradition which is pretty much dead since Condorcet and Paine (although Hannah Arendt could be considered as a Republican philosopher), and which consider the State and politics in general not only as a mean but as an end in itself. In short, in the Replican tradition, a free man is a citizen fully involved in the affairs of the State, in opposition to our modern liberal conception for which the role of the State is to regulate society so that people can be free to chose the way they want to live.
Obviously, republican tradition impllies a substancial and positive definition of freedom, very different than the negative and formal way we are used to.
A good example of such position is Rousseau. Republicanism is very refreshing since libreal positions are absolutely hegemoic today although anybody can see their limit at any moment of his life (in short, we know that having the choice between two brands of soda in a supermarket is a quite poor definition of freedom).
|
On February 04 2011 07:18 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 07:08 sc4k wrote: My philosophy of what a government should be is taking the wisest, brightest, most motivated, most capable people in the country and letting them decide how we should as a group act, because they are superior to the common man and will prevent the common man's idiocy from getting in the way of his life's betterment.
Government should:
educate create infrastructure protect encourage inform advance technology heal It seems like a nice thought, but I don't think it holds up. First, how are you going to find these people? Second, no one will ever agree on who these people are. This is basically what politics already is, and I think it's clear that it's not working that well. Everyone votes for who they think is best, but no one agrees on who they think is best, then you're left with choosing the lesser of two evils and all that bullshit.
That's just my idealism. I believe in meritocracy, and responsible moderately-sized government. It's a lot less unachievable than some of the crazy ideologies espoused here such as libertarianism or communism.
Anyway, I think it holds up. I don't know about your government, but the UK government does all of the things I mentioned to a certain extent. Also, lots of the people in my government are really clever bastards, many have worked very hard. They may not be the wisest or the cleverest or the hardest working, but most of the time the truly incompetent or idiotic people are found out...it's a tough one, but that's the general idea. I hope in the future our house of lords can become a body of peers who have been elected by fellows in their fields such as science and education and such. They would truly be a council of elders, to provide temperance and knowledge to the standard policy-making, which comes out of the general motivation of placating the majority (and is therefore usually extremely shortsighted)
|
Saw the title of the blog, and mused "lol, must be Kimaker". I was kinda surprised to see that it actually WAS Kimaker.
On topic: I already know your views pretty well from our numerous discussions, but I've never really gotten a good answer for this. Kimaker, how does your Libertarian stand deal with endeavors too large, and without immediate gain for an entrepreneur to ever consider undertaking? Like space exploration, or things like CERN?
|
How old are you OP? This would have made for a decent, not great, discussion, but your language is discouraging. "Think of it as a mental exercise"? Of course, this could be nothing more than a mental exercise, what else! You sound like you don't read much, otherwise you'd already be exhausted just thinking about the REAL problem, if you know what you are talking about. Or maybe you have the wrong reading list.
Let me humor you with your little question here. In its most vulgar form, Governments are the embodiment of the peoples desires, protection from each other, as you say, is only one of them, in fact the most minor. It also, at least ideally, ensures equal opportunity for everyone to pursue their goals individually and society as a whole, mostly as a function of political economy, ie who/what is in power at any given time. Which is why, as the reply above, we have space exploration and CERN.
|
On February 04 2011 07:24 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 06:45 Aesop wrote: I think you are confusing aggression with sadism. Sadism, in my mind, is hurting others since you plainly enjoy it. Aggression doesn't mean you are necessarily having fun, but that you are trying to gain an advantage on others. That, on the other hand, is rather natural behaviour, and governments serve the purpose to get it out of humans. That was actually precisely my point. Sadism is an unnatural and overt extension of aggression. I'm saying that the only reason for aggression to occur is because of a perceived gain, or "advantage" as you put it.
You're still misunderstanding the concept of sadism.
Sadism is deriving pleasure from the infliction of pain. It is not at all an extension of aggression as you can be very aggressively masochistic.
This statement
"Thus gain, or property, as satisfaction is indicative of sadism and thus a mental disturbance"
is way off.
First, you haven't even proven that sadism is a mental disturbance. Secondly, I don't see how satisfaction from gain or property is indicative of sadism at all.
I'm not even going to go in to how you build upon an unproven premise of "Why does a government exist? To protect people"
|
On February 04 2011 04:49 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Excellent presentation with cute little pictures =P The only thing I disagreed with was the blanket statement that it is not ok to murder, enslave, or steal. In a perfect would it wouldn't be necessary to, but sometimes to protect your rights you must violate these principles. Self defense is always justified. War is murder, prisons are slavery, and fines are theft, but these are done so according to a code of justice, so we all buy into it that they are justified. So no, it's not as simple as a blanket statement because people break the rules and have to be dealt with. That's what law is for.
Lol, no....self defense is not always justified.
Killing someone for stealing a bag of potato chips is not a justifiable action, for example.
Neither is beating up a child who hits you, or hell, even attacks you.
This is fine in principle, but it's a little too naive to actually put into practice. There are a lot of situations in which these blanket principles just don't apply.
|
On February 04 2011 13:07 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 04:49 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Excellent presentation with cute little pictures =P The only thing I disagreed with was the blanket statement that it is not ok to murder, enslave, or steal. In a perfect would it wouldn't be necessary to, but sometimes to protect your rights you must violate these principles. Self defense is always justified. War is murder, prisons are slavery, and fines are theft, but these are done so according to a code of justice, so we all buy into it that they are justified. So no, it's not as simple as a blanket statement because people break the rules and have to be dealt with. That's what law is for. Lol, no....self defense is not always justified. Killing someone for stealing a bag of potato chips is not a justifiable action, for example. Neither is beating up a child who hits you, or hell, even attacks you. This is fine in principle, but it's a little too naive to actually put into practice. There are a lot of situations in which these blanket principles just don't apply. Killing someone over minor theft would not be considered self-defense because it's disproportionate to the crime being commited. The only reason a blanket principle would not apply to a specific situation, is that the principle itself is not well enough defined. For instance, Force = Mass X Acceleration. It is true for most situations, until you near the speed of light, when the equation breaks down. This does not mean it is not an accurate equation for most situations, just that it is poorly defined for a small set of cases.
Self-defense is always justifiable so long as it is proportionate with the crime being defended against.
|
On February 04 2011 12:36 Q.E.D. wrote: How old are you OP? This would have made for a decent, not great, discussion, but your language is discouraging. "Think of it as a mental exercise"? Of course, this could be nothing more than a mental exercise, what else! You sound like you don't read much, otherwise you'd already be exhausted just thinking about the REAL problem, if you know what you are talking about. Or maybe you have the wrong reading list.
Let me humor you with your little question here. In its most vulgar form, Governments are the embodiment of the peoples desires, protection from each other, as you say, is only one of them, in fact the most minor. It also, at least ideally, ensures equal opportunity for everyone to pursue their goals individually and society as a whole, mostly as a function of political economy, ie who/what is in power at any given time. Which is why, as the reply above, we have space exploration and CERN. ...sigh*
I read LOTS. I'm at university and am 20. I wrote this in the middle of a 48 hour sleep free binge and am now regretting it having woke up from my first real sleep in two days.
On February 04 2011 12:46 lixlix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 07:24 Kimaker wrote:On February 04 2011 06:45 Aesop wrote: I think you are confusing aggression with sadism. Sadism, in my mind, is hurting others since you plainly enjoy it. Aggression doesn't mean you are necessarily having fun, but that you are trying to gain an advantage on others. That, on the other hand, is rather natural behaviour, and governments serve the purpose to get it out of humans. That was actually precisely my point. Sadism is an unnatural and overt extension of aggression. I'm saying that the only reason for aggression to occur is because of a perceived gain, or "advantage" as you put it. You're still misunderstanding the concept of sadism. Sadism is deriving pleasure from the infliction of pain. It is not at all an extension of aggression as you can be very aggressively masochistic. This statement "Thus gain, or property, as satisfaction is indicative of sadism and thus a mental disturbance" is way off. First, you haven't even proven that sadism is a mental disturbance. Secondly, I don't see how satisfaction from gain or property is indicative of sadism at all. I'm not even going to go in to how you build upon an unproven premise of "Why does a government exist? To protect people" I'm missing a comma, and it's HORRIBLY worded. Something I'll have to fix later when I have time. It does not read as I intended it as ALL. My bad.
And as for your second and third points: THAT'S WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO. This was meant to be a cursory statement to induce discussion. Find holes, and tell me why they're wrong so we can get a dialogue going. I'm fully aware this is an incomplete thought, I've taken it further with other people, but I just want to see what new blood will do to the basic concept.
It should read something closer to: "Thus gain, or property as we will call it because satisfaction as a form of gain is indicative of sadism and thus a mental disturbance, ..."
|
On February 05 2011 02:15 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 13:07 wherebugsgo wrote:On February 04 2011 04:49 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Excellent presentation with cute little pictures =P The only thing I disagreed with was the blanket statement that it is not ok to murder, enslave, or steal. In a perfect would it wouldn't be necessary to, but sometimes to protect your rights you must violate these principles. Self defense is always justified. War is murder, prisons are slavery, and fines are theft, but these are done so according to a code of justice, so we all buy into it that they are justified. So no, it's not as simple as a blanket statement because people break the rules and have to be dealt with. That's what law is for. Lol, no....self defense is not always justified. Killing someone for stealing a bag of potato chips is not a justifiable action, for example. Neither is beating up a child who hits you, or hell, even attacks you. This is fine in principle, but it's a little too naive to actually put into practice. There are a lot of situations in which these blanket principles just don't apply. Killing someone over minor theft would not be considered self-defense because it's disproportionate to the crime being commited. The only reason a blanket principle would not apply to a specific situation, is that the principle itself is not well enough defined. For instance, Force = Mass X Acceleration. It is true for most situations, until you near the speed of light, when the equation breaks down. This does not mean it is not an accurate equation for most situations, just that it is poorly defined for a small set of cases. Self-defense is always justifiable so long as it is proportionate with the crime being defended against.
Again, I disagree (and I knew someone would pull this)
Who defines the justifiability of self-defense? Is it the defender? If so, what's stopping anyone who retaliates "in self-defense" from claiming that they were justified?
Is it okay for a man to shoot someone who breaks into his home? Is he to be charged with manslaughter or murder when that intruder then dies in the hospital? What if the intruder is underage? What if the defender is inebriated or under the influence of drugs, and kills the intruder outright?
Is it okay for a police officer to shoot to kill a man on trial who becomes unruly?
Is it okay for a country to wage war because of a small set of nationals who commit a "crime of terrorism?"
Is it okay to kill an animal that attacks you?
Is it okay to shoot someone who doesn't steal a bag of potato chips, but perhaps steals your car? What about a homeless person who breaks into your Porsche because he sees food in it?
Is it justifiable to shoot or beat a mentally retarded person who screams at you that they're going to kill you?
Blanket terms like "self-defense is always justified" don't work in principle. Everyone's definition of justification is different. This isn't physics, where there are no blanket principles anyway. Everything in modern physics applies specifically under different conditions. Quantum mechanics applies to things at the microscopic scale, for example, while relativity applies to things moving at very great velocities. (I am a physics major, btw) Different standards are required for different situations.
Also, to the OP: If government exists solely to protect the people, then should public schools exist? What about government healthcare systems, trade and commerce regulation, emergency services, government-sponsored infrastructure, government energy policies, environmental regulation, and projects such as NASA? Perhaps you can define parts of these things under "protection," but surely none of those things fall under the realm of government as you define it. Under your definition, the majority of government would simply be the military!
|
On February 06 2011 08:31 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 02:15 Millitron wrote:On February 04 2011 13:07 wherebugsgo wrote:On February 04 2011 04:49 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Excellent presentation with cute little pictures =P The only thing I disagreed with was the blanket statement that it is not ok to murder, enslave, or steal. In a perfect would it wouldn't be necessary to, but sometimes to protect your rights you must violate these principles. Self defense is always justified. War is murder, prisons are slavery, and fines are theft, but these are done so according to a code of justice, so we all buy into it that they are justified. So no, it's not as simple as a blanket statement because people break the rules and have to be dealt with. That's what law is for. Lol, no....self defense is not always justified. Killing someone for stealing a bag of potato chips is not a justifiable action, for example. Neither is beating up a child who hits you, or hell, even attacks you. This is fine in principle, but it's a little too naive to actually put into practice. There are a lot of situations in which these blanket principles just don't apply. Killing someone over minor theft would not be considered self-defense because it's disproportionate to the crime being commited. The only reason a blanket principle would not apply to a specific situation, is that the principle itself is not well enough defined. For instance, Force = Mass X Acceleration. It is true for most situations, until you near the speed of light, when the equation breaks down. This does not mean it is not an accurate equation for most situations, just that it is poorly defined for a small set of cases. Self-defense is always justifiable so long as it is proportionate with the crime being defended against. Again, I disagree (and I knew someone would pull this) Who defines the justifiability of self-defense? Is it the defender? If so, what's stopping anyone who retaliates "in self-defense" from claiming that they were justified? Is it okay for a man to shoot someone who breaks into his home? Is he to be charged with manslaughter or murder when that intruder then dies in the hospital? What if the intruder is underage? What if the defender is inebriated or under the influence of drugs, and kills the intruder outright? Is it okay for a police officer to shoot to kill a man on trial who becomes unruly? Is it okay for a country to wage war because of a small set of nationals who commit a "crime of terrorism?" Is it okay to kill an animal that attacks you? Is it okay to shoot someone who doesn't steal a bag of potato chips, but perhaps steals your car? What about a homeless person who breaks into your Porsche because he sees food in it? Is it justifiable to shoot or beat a mentally retarded person who screams at you that they're going to kill you? Blanket terms like "self-defense is always justified" don't work in principle. Everyone's definition of justification is different. This isn't physics, where there are no blanket principles anyway. Everything in modern physics applies specifically under different conditions. Quantum mechanics applies to things at the microscopic scale, for example, while relativity applies to things moving at very great velocities. (I am a physics major, btw) Different standards are required for different situations. Also, to the OP: If government exists solely to protect the people, then should public schools exist? What about government healthcare systems, trade and commerce regulation, emergency services, government-sponsored infrastructure, government energy policies, environmental regulation, and projects such as NASA? Perhaps you can define parts of these things under "protection," but surely none of those things fall under the realm of government as you define it. Under your definition, the majority of government would simply be the military! The courts decide whether or not any of those actions of self-defense are justified. And as for things like "Is it okay to kill an animal that attacks you?" or "Is it justifiable to shoot or beat a mentally retarded person who screams at you that they're going to kill you?" Do you expect me to just LET that animal attack me, or let that person kill me? Again, its proportionality that matters. If that animal has the capacity to seriously harm or kill me, and stopping it without killing it is far more difficult and likely to end with me being injured or killed, its as good as dead in my book. Same with the person. If I feel they pose a serious threat, i.e. are brandishing a weapon or are simply much physically stronger than I, then I WILL defend myself. I'm not going to just stand around and get stabbed or what have you. If I can defuse the situation peacefully, great, I will. But that isn't always an option. The courts will decide afterwards if I was justified, and if I was, cool. If not I'll be punished for murder or manslaughter or however the court decides.
I was a physics major my freshman year too. I quit because I couldn't handle Calc 3, but I know enough to know that there ARE vast fields of study where Newtonian Mechanics, or Classical E&M hold true. Seems like a blanket statement to me.
|
Basically, I view humans as selfish. In other words, above all else, we do what we do for pleasure - luckily some members of our society get pleasure from the pleasure of other - we call that being selfless. Anyway, given that some members of society, for whatever reason, draw pleasure from the pain of others, it becomes necessary to use government to protect people from other people - economically, physically, and mentally.
In order to do this and guarantee some liberties, government must restrict some others - take away man's ability to harm others. Furthermore, I would argue that it is also government's job to guarantee people's rights to pursue whatever they want in life - people should be born into our society as equals. Therefore government must also attempt to guarantee this equality via the guaranteeing of things like education, universal health care etc. etc.
I'm like a really, really far left democrat.
|
I encourage everybody interested in this kind of stuff to read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Predator-State-Conservatives-Abandoned-Liberals/dp/141656683X
I think it's THE definitive history book on how selfish pragmatists have managed to take the philosophies and ideals of people like the OP to shape the US government into something that directly benefits them over the last 50 years.
But don't listen to me, just read the book. If you study the history of US Government it should be pretty clear that it's description of the last 50 years is dead-on. Then maybe people like the OP would reevaulate their philosophies and ask themselves whether or not it truly benefits the few or the many.
(the chapter on "economic freedom" is especially enlightening)
I'm a pragmatist, philosophy and ideals are nice but they need to map onto reality. Most pure ones don't.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Interesting. I have been studying this exact same topic for the past 7-8 hours due to midterms coming up. I will try to give you my take, which is influenced by what I am currently studying, that is Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Adam Smith, Karl Marx, etc.
To answer the question of why government exists, we must think back to the "state of nature", a term that was coined during the period of Hobbes/Locke/Rousseau. The state of nature is defined as the actions and thoughts of humans without any government. The general consensus here (I think) is that humans without government will act within their own self-interest. As all humans are endowed with the same natural liberties from birth--that is, they are all equal and all have the same rights--they answer to no one but themselves. Therefore, humans that are acting in their own self-interest may impede on another person's liberties for their own profit, which causes others to always be cautious and strive to protect what is theirs. That is the state of nature.
Thus, government is formed. My philosophy is a mixture of Locke's and Rousseau's, in that humans then band together for mutual protection of their interests (interests here being defined as property, which, in this case, is defined as life, liberty, and estates). It is this "sovereignty of the General Will," as Rousseau puts it, that creates a legitimate government; one that is built upon a rational need for self-preservation and with consent of the populace.
Of course, I could go further, but then it'd get long and drawn out, so I'll stop here. =p
|
I think the main purpose of a government is to stack capital and put that capital in their own pocket, which happens in most cases. The way they do that is they turn one group of people to be an enemy of another group of people, so the focus gets bended away from the government and down back into the people.
The better the government you have the better they are at dividing the people. Divide and conquor.
If it should happen that your government goes out and say we should all live in peace, you know for sure that, thats not their real intentions, and they are lying. Infact they are lying all the time.
|
On February 04 2011 06:22 Biff The Understudy wrote: Good luck reading 2500 years of philosophy talking on that matter.
The thing is, we most of the time talk without even knowing that we reason with concepts which have been discussed for thousands of years, without even realizing that there are different perspective than the one we are used to.
Everything you will hear on a website like teamliquid will be variations on economy-oriented liberal philosophy which is absolutely egemonic today. Thing is, even the concept of freedom which seems very obvious can have definitions incredibly different than the one that we, as liberals, are used to. Civic humanist definition of freedom, for example, is pretty much the opposite of what everybody here understand when the word is used.
My advice if you are really interested is to read Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics and Laws, and then probably Machiavel, Rousseau (Social Contract) and Adam Smith. And if you are really into it, definitly Marx.
Then you have kind of an overview and you stop thinking that you are reasonning freely while in fact you are repeating the same liberal doxa than almost everybody else in western world today.
That's for the longer road. Longest but most interesting.
You can't have a good answer to such a complex question without spending a lot of time studying it and reading philosophers and thinkers.
Probably shouldn't leave out John Locke and the Founding Fathers if you are throwing those heavyweights around.
As far as the rhetoric issue of reasoning freely and definitions of liberals and the like. While I agree a good portion of people are like that, especially in the States. I don't think that is true for everyone. I am a philosophy and political science major though, and have read a ton on the subject. So I could just be around a lot of individuals who have done quite a bit of reading on the subject. I think that reading this material is extremely interesting and worthwhile. The relevancy of it to all aspects of other knowledge is unfathomable. Anyone that is ever interested should def. start reading up on those powerful philosophical works. Starting with the Classics of course.
|
The second portion of this has been so much more useful than the first half where everyone just waved around the E-Penis and told me I was retarded xD
|
On February 06 2011 10:35 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2011 08:31 wherebugsgo wrote:On February 05 2011 02:15 Millitron wrote:On February 04 2011 13:07 wherebugsgo wrote:On February 04 2011 04:49 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Excellent presentation with cute little pictures =P The only thing I disagreed with was the blanket statement that it is not ok to murder, enslave, or steal. In a perfect would it wouldn't be necessary to, but sometimes to protect your rights you must violate these principles. Self defense is always justified. War is murder, prisons are slavery, and fines are theft, but these are done so according to a code of justice, so we all buy into it that they are justified. So no, it's not as simple as a blanket statement because people break the rules and have to be dealt with. That's what law is for. Lol, no....self defense is not always justified. Killing someone for stealing a bag of potato chips is not a justifiable action, for example. Neither is beating up a child who hits you, or hell, even attacks you. This is fine in principle, but it's a little too naive to actually put into practice. There are a lot of situations in which these blanket principles just don't apply. Killing someone over minor theft would not be considered self-defense because it's disproportionate to the crime being commited. The only reason a blanket principle would not apply to a specific situation, is that the principle itself is not well enough defined. For instance, Force = Mass X Acceleration. It is true for most situations, until you near the speed of light, when the equation breaks down. This does not mean it is not an accurate equation for most situations, just that it is poorly defined for a small set of cases. Self-defense is always justifiable so long as it is proportionate with the crime being defended against. Again, I disagree (and I knew someone would pull this) Who defines the justifiability of self-defense? Is it the defender? If so, what's stopping anyone who retaliates "in self-defense" from claiming that they were justified? Is it okay for a man to shoot someone who breaks into his home? Is he to be charged with manslaughter or murder when that intruder then dies in the hospital? What if the intruder is underage? What if the defender is inebriated or under the influence of drugs, and kills the intruder outright? Is it okay for a police officer to shoot to kill a man on trial who becomes unruly? Is it okay for a country to wage war because of a small set of nationals who commit a "crime of terrorism?" Is it okay to kill an animal that attacks you? Is it okay to shoot someone who doesn't steal a bag of potato chips, but perhaps steals your car? What about a homeless person who breaks into your Porsche because he sees food in it? Is it justifiable to shoot or beat a mentally retarded person who screams at you that they're going to kill you? Blanket terms like "self-defense is always justified" don't work in principle. Everyone's definition of justification is different. This isn't physics, where there are no blanket principles anyway. Everything in modern physics applies specifically under different conditions. Quantum mechanics applies to things at the microscopic scale, for example, while relativity applies to things moving at very great velocities. (I am a physics major, btw) Different standards are required for different situations. Also, to the OP: If government exists solely to protect the people, then should public schools exist? What about government healthcare systems, trade and commerce regulation, emergency services, government-sponsored infrastructure, government energy policies, environmental regulation, and projects such as NASA? Perhaps you can define parts of these things under "protection," but surely none of those things fall under the realm of government as you define it. Under your definition, the majority of government would simply be the military! The courts decide whether or not any of those actions of self-defense are justified. And as for things like "Is it okay to kill an animal that attacks you?" or "Is it justifiable to shoot or beat a mentally retarded person who screams at you that they're going to kill you?" Do you expect me to just LET that animal attack me, or let that person kill me? Again, its proportionality that matters. If that animal has the capacity to seriously harm or kill me, and stopping it without killing it is far more difficult and likely to end with me being injured or killed, its as good as dead in my book. Same with the person. If I feel they pose a serious threat, i.e. are brandishing a weapon or are simply much physically stronger than I, then I WILL defend myself. I'm not going to just stand around and get stabbed or what have you. If I can defuse the situation peacefully, great, I will. But that isn't always an option. The courts will decide afterwards if I was justified, and if I was, cool. If not I'll be punished for murder or manslaughter or however the court decides. I was a physics major my freshman year too. I quit because I couldn't handle Calc 3, but I know enough to know that there ARE vast fields of study where Newtonian Mechanics, or Classical E&M hold true. Seems like a blanket statement to me.
So, if the courts decide these matters, then clearly government needs to step in outside of the simple sphere of "protecting people."
No, I don't expect you to just sit there, but there is a STARK difference between saying "all self-defense is justified" and "self-defense is ONLY justified when it is in proportion to the crime being committed." To pull a physics analogy (I don't like doing this, but since we've already gone there...) it's like saying "Newtonian mechanics is always valid" or saying "Newtonian mechanics is only accurate for objects not moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light, and for larger than atomic scales." It SOUNDS like it's okay to say, well, Newtonian mechanics applies in so many fields, so you can always use it, or at least check reasonability with it.
You also conveniently ignore the examples of theft. Is protecting your property self-defense? Plenty of people will shoot intruders with guns. Is that reasonable "self-defense?" I would argue that it is not, yet the defendant would clearly state, "the intruder trespassed. I had the right to shoot him." Same goes for someone who breaks into your car or steals your wallet, or whatever it might be.
If proportionality matters, then no one is in a position to say that self-defense is always justified. Under English common law, for example, it is a precedent that the defendant is not capable of determining whether he or she applied force appropriately in self-defense, because the defendant will always claim that his or her actions were justified.
EDIT: I also chose to omit the treatment of "self-defense" on a global scale. For example, if a terrorist group were to kill thousands of people here in the U.S., is it reasonable "self-defense" to go and invade the country from whence they came?
|
On February 07 2011 14:23 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2011 10:35 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2011 08:31 wherebugsgo wrote:On February 05 2011 02:15 Millitron wrote:On February 04 2011 13:07 wherebugsgo wrote:On February 04 2011 04:49 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Excellent presentation with cute little pictures =P The only thing I disagreed with was the blanket statement that it is not ok to murder, enslave, or steal. In a perfect would it wouldn't be necessary to, but sometimes to protect your rights you must violate these principles. Self defense is always justified. War is murder, prisons are slavery, and fines are theft, but these are done so according to a code of justice, so we all buy into it that they are justified. So no, it's not as simple as a blanket statement because people break the rules and have to be dealt with. That's what law is for. Lol, no....self defense is not always justified. Killing someone for stealing a bag of potato chips is not a justifiable action, for example. Neither is beating up a child who hits you, or hell, even attacks you. This is fine in principle, but it's a little too naive to actually put into practice. There are a lot of situations in which these blanket principles just don't apply. Killing someone over minor theft would not be considered self-defense because it's disproportionate to the crime being commited. The only reason a blanket principle would not apply to a specific situation, is that the principle itself is not well enough defined. For instance, Force = Mass X Acceleration. It is true for most situations, until you near the speed of light, when the equation breaks down. This does not mean it is not an accurate equation for most situations, just that it is poorly defined for a small set of cases. Self-defense is always justifiable so long as it is proportionate with the crime being defended against. Again, I disagree (and I knew someone would pull this) Who defines the justifiability of self-defense? Is it the defender? If so, what's stopping anyone who retaliates "in self-defense" from claiming that they were justified? Is it okay for a man to shoot someone who breaks into his home? Is he to be charged with manslaughter or murder when that intruder then dies in the hospital? What if the intruder is underage? What if the defender is inebriated or under the influence of drugs, and kills the intruder outright? Is it okay for a police officer to shoot to kill a man on trial who becomes unruly? Is it okay for a country to wage war because of a small set of nationals who commit a "crime of terrorism?" Is it okay to kill an animal that attacks you? Is it okay to shoot someone who doesn't steal a bag of potato chips, but perhaps steals your car? What about a homeless person who breaks into your Porsche because he sees food in it? Is it justifiable to shoot or beat a mentally retarded person who screams at you that they're going to kill you? Blanket terms like "self-defense is always justified" don't work in principle. Everyone's definition of justification is different. This isn't physics, where there are no blanket principles anyway. Everything in modern physics applies specifically under different conditions. Quantum mechanics applies to things at the microscopic scale, for example, while relativity applies to things moving at very great velocities. (I am a physics major, btw) Different standards are required for different situations. Also, to the OP: If government exists solely to protect the people, then should public schools exist? What about government healthcare systems, trade and commerce regulation, emergency services, government-sponsored infrastructure, government energy policies, environmental regulation, and projects such as NASA? Perhaps you can define parts of these things under "protection," but surely none of those things fall under the realm of government as you define it. Under your definition, the majority of government would simply be the military! The courts decide whether or not any of those actions of self-defense are justified. And as for things like "Is it okay to kill an animal that attacks you?" or "Is it justifiable to shoot or beat a mentally retarded person who screams at you that they're going to kill you?" Do you expect me to just LET that animal attack me, or let that person kill me? Again, its proportionality that matters. If that animal has the capacity to seriously harm or kill me, and stopping it without killing it is far more difficult and likely to end with me being injured or killed, its as good as dead in my book. Same with the person. If I feel they pose a serious threat, i.e. are brandishing a weapon or are simply much physically stronger than I, then I WILL defend myself. I'm not going to just stand around and get stabbed or what have you. If I can defuse the situation peacefully, great, I will. But that isn't always an option. The courts will decide afterwards if I was justified, and if I was, cool. If not I'll be punished for murder or manslaughter or however the court decides. I was a physics major my freshman year too. I quit because I couldn't handle Calc 3, but I know enough to know that there ARE vast fields of study where Newtonian Mechanics, or Classical E&M hold true. Seems like a blanket statement to me. So, if the courts decide these matters, then clearly government needs to step in outside of the simple sphere of "protecting people." No, I don't expect you to just sit there, but there is a STARK difference between saying "all self-defense is justified" and "self-defense is ONLY justified when it is in proportion to the crime being committed." To pull a physics analogy (I don't like doing this, but since we've already gone there...) it's like saying "Newtonian mechanics is always valid" or saying "Newtonian mechanics is only accurate for objects not moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light, and for larger than atomic scales." It SOUNDS like it's okay to say, well, Newtonian mechanics applies in so many fields, so you can always use it, or at least check reasonability with it. You also conveniently ignore the examples of theft. Is protecting your property self-defense? Plenty of people will shoot intruders with guns. Is that reasonable "self-defense?" I would argue that it is not, yet the defendant would clearly state, "the intruder trespassed. I had the right to shoot him." Same goes for someone who breaks into your car or steals your wallet, or whatever it might be. If proportionality matters, then no one is in a position to say that self-defense is always justified. Under English common law, for example, it is a precedent that the defendant is not capable of determining whether he or she applied force appropriately in self-defense, because the defendant will always claim that his or her actions were justified.EDIT: I also chose to omit the treatment of "self-defense" on a global scale. For example, if a terrorist group were to kill thousands of people here in the U.S., is it reasonable "self-defense" to go and invade the country from whence they came? I never said that all self-defense is justified, just that it is always justified if it is proportionate with the crime being defended against. I agree that you can't just take the defendant's testimony as absolute truth, but the only way you can take the defendant's testimony out of the argument is by saying that self-defense is never justified, which seems absurd to me. You cannot devise a system where any of the involved parties are non-biased, so you will always have to wait until after the incident to determine if the defendant acted appropriately, i.e. in a court of law.
When it comes to theft, I would say that self-defense is still justified, albeit with more restrictions on what constitutes proportionality. If they are blatantly only looking to take your property, and clearly mean you no physical harm, i.e. they're shoplifting, I do not believe there is much that would be justified beyond just standing in their way. The issue here is that it is almost never this clear to the defendant. If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, how are you supposed to tell their motives, or if they are planning on using violence to those ends?
Global scale self-defense is different entirely. I think if said nation actually aided in the attack, then the invasion would be justified, but if it was simply a few ne'er-do-wells like the current war on terror, then a full-scale invasion is not justified, or even a good idea from a military standpoint. Why go with a full-scale invasion when a couple of Navy SEAL teams and a cruise missile or two could do the job just as well, if not better?
|
On February 09 2011 02:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2011 14:23 wherebugsgo wrote:On February 06 2011 10:35 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2011 08:31 wherebugsgo wrote:On February 05 2011 02:15 Millitron wrote:On February 04 2011 13:07 wherebugsgo wrote:On February 04 2011 04:49 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Excellent presentation with cute little pictures =P The only thing I disagreed with was the blanket statement that it is not ok to murder, enslave, or steal. In a perfect would it wouldn't be necessary to, but sometimes to protect your rights you must violate these principles. Self defense is always justified. War is murder, prisons are slavery, and fines are theft, but these are done so according to a code of justice, so we all buy into it that they are justified. So no, it's not as simple as a blanket statement because people break the rules and have to be dealt with. That's what law is for. Lol, no....self defense is not always justified. Killing someone for stealing a bag of potato chips is not a justifiable action, for example. Neither is beating up a child who hits you, or hell, even attacks you. This is fine in principle, but it's a little too naive to actually put into practice. There are a lot of situations in which these blanket principles just don't apply. Killing someone over minor theft would not be considered self-defense because it's disproportionate to the crime being commited. The only reason a blanket principle would not apply to a specific situation, is that the principle itself is not well enough defined. For instance, Force = Mass X Acceleration. It is true for most situations, until you near the speed of light, when the equation breaks down. This does not mean it is not an accurate equation for most situations, just that it is poorly defined for a small set of cases. Self-defense is always justifiable so long as it is proportionate with the crime being defended against. Again, I disagree (and I knew someone would pull this) Who defines the justifiability of self-defense? Is it the defender? If so, what's stopping anyone who retaliates "in self-defense" from claiming that they were justified? Is it okay for a man to shoot someone who breaks into his home? Is he to be charged with manslaughter or murder when that intruder then dies in the hospital? What if the intruder is underage? What if the defender is inebriated or under the influence of drugs, and kills the intruder outright? Is it okay for a police officer to shoot to kill a man on trial who becomes unruly? Is it okay for a country to wage war because of a small set of nationals who commit a "crime of terrorism?" Is it okay to kill an animal that attacks you? Is it okay to shoot someone who doesn't steal a bag of potato chips, but perhaps steals your car? What about a homeless person who breaks into your Porsche because he sees food in it? Is it justifiable to shoot or beat a mentally retarded person who screams at you that they're going to kill you? Blanket terms like "self-defense is always justified" don't work in principle. Everyone's definition of justification is different. This isn't physics, where there are no blanket principles anyway. Everything in modern physics applies specifically under different conditions. Quantum mechanics applies to things at the microscopic scale, for example, while relativity applies to things moving at very great velocities. (I am a physics major, btw) Different standards are required for different situations. Also, to the OP: If government exists solely to protect the people, then should public schools exist? What about government healthcare systems, trade and commerce regulation, emergency services, government-sponsored infrastructure, government energy policies, environmental regulation, and projects such as NASA? Perhaps you can define parts of these things under "protection," but surely none of those things fall under the realm of government as you define it. Under your definition, the majority of government would simply be the military! The courts decide whether or not any of those actions of self-defense are justified. And as for things like "Is it okay to kill an animal that attacks you?" or "Is it justifiable to shoot or beat a mentally retarded person who screams at you that they're going to kill you?" Do you expect me to just LET that animal attack me, or let that person kill me? Again, its proportionality that matters. If that animal has the capacity to seriously harm or kill me, and stopping it without killing it is far more difficult and likely to end with me being injured or killed, its as good as dead in my book. Same with the person. If I feel they pose a serious threat, i.e. are brandishing a weapon or are simply much physically stronger than I, then I WILL defend myself. I'm not going to just stand around and get stabbed or what have you. If I can defuse the situation peacefully, great, I will. But that isn't always an option. The courts will decide afterwards if I was justified, and if I was, cool. If not I'll be punished for murder or manslaughter or however the court decides. I was a physics major my freshman year too. I quit because I couldn't handle Calc 3, but I know enough to know that there ARE vast fields of study where Newtonian Mechanics, or Classical E&M hold true. Seems like a blanket statement to me. So, if the courts decide these matters, then clearly government needs to step in outside of the simple sphere of "protecting people." No, I don't expect you to just sit there, but there is a STARK difference between saying "all self-defense is justified" and "self-defense is ONLY justified when it is in proportion to the crime being committed." To pull a physics analogy (I don't like doing this, but since we've already gone there...) it's like saying "Newtonian mechanics is always valid" or saying "Newtonian mechanics is only accurate for objects not moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light, and for larger than atomic scales." It SOUNDS like it's okay to say, well, Newtonian mechanics applies in so many fields, so you can always use it, or at least check reasonability with it. You also conveniently ignore the examples of theft. Is protecting your property self-defense? Plenty of people will shoot intruders with guns. Is that reasonable "self-defense?" I would argue that it is not, yet the defendant would clearly state, "the intruder trespassed. I had the right to shoot him." Same goes for someone who breaks into your car or steals your wallet, or whatever it might be. If proportionality matters, then no one is in a position to say that self-defense is always justified. Under English common law, for example, it is a precedent that the defendant is not capable of determining whether he or she applied force appropriately in self-defense, because the defendant will always claim that his or her actions were justified.EDIT: I also chose to omit the treatment of "self-defense" on a global scale. For example, if a terrorist group were to kill thousands of people here in the U.S., is it reasonable "self-defense" to go and invade the country from whence they came? I never said that all self-defense is justified, just that it is always justified if it is proportionate with the crime being defended against. I agree that you can't just take the defendant's testimony as absolute truth, but the only way you can take the defendant's testimony out of the argument is by saying that self-defense is never justified, which seems absurd to me. You cannot devise a system where any of the involved parties are non-biased, so you will always have to wait until after the incident to determine if the defendant acted appropriately, i.e. in a court of law. When it comes to theft, I would say that self-defense is still justified, albeit with more restrictions on what constitutes proportionality. If they are blatantly only looking to take your property, and clearly mean you no physical harm, i.e. they're shoplifting, I do not believe there is much that would be justified beyond just standing in their way. The issue here is that it is almost never this clear to the defendant. If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, how are you supposed to tell their motives, or if they are planning on using violence to those ends? Global scale self-defense is different entirely. I think if said nation actually aided in the attack, then the invasion would be justified, but if it was simply a few ne'er-do-wells like the current war on terror, then a full-scale invasion is not justified, or even a good idea from a military standpoint. Why go with a full-scale invasion when a couple of Navy SEAL teams and a cruise missile or two could do the job just as well, if not better?
Exactly.
I never said self-defense is never justified. I said that you can't say something like "self defense is always justified." I didn't misquote anything. That was what was said.
The OP suggested that government exists only to protect the people. I don't believe that's true. In criminal court cases, for example, the government acts as a mediator to apply proper justice. You can't prevent everyone from crime. You can't protect children from getting bullied by sending government officials to watch over them at recess (I suppose you could...but why?)
People have different views when it comes to acceptable self-defense. Some will argue that you're not entitled to make a proper decision when intoxicated, for example, and that a killing "in self defense" when you're intoxicated is punishable in some jurisdictions. In fact, defendants have been convicted of murder/manslaughter in England in cases where they were intoxicated during the altercation and applied excessive force in defending themselves. Similar cases with sober individuals have passed off as "accidents" with no convictions, on the other hand.
Thus, the line is hazy. The definition of "appropriate force" comes down to the courts, yes, and that's precisely why it's very dangerous to say something like "self-defense is always justified." It isn't, and I think I've demonstrated that I can come up with dozens of hypothetical (and real) situations where it is clearly not justified according to current law, though it could be considered justified by an involved party.
EDIT: So on the global scale, a country is permitted to send in a specialist team in retaliation, to infiltrate a foreign country and eliminate "threats" outside of its jurisdiction, but not invade?
That's pretty two-faced. I don't think a country has any right to step outside of its bounds and apply any sort of force in a foreign country because of the actions of a small subset of said country's citizens. The only situation in which this is permissible is when that country permits the U.S., for example, to intervene.
War, on the other hand, is different. When a military organization acts, it is acting on behalf of a country. An invasion or an attack by a military should be considered an action of war. If Afghanistan did to us what we did to them, surely things would be drastically different. As it stands, none of the terrorists on 9/11 were even Afghans, they were Saudis...so I don't see where even the remotest semblance of justification for that war is (sorry I went off on a tangent haha)
|
I'm friends IRL with the OP, and have had discussions like this with him in the past, so when he said that the government's purpose is to protect the people, I am 99% sure he doesn't mean protection like in a Nanny State. He's more worried with the people's liberties being protected rather than their physical health.
Wherebugsgo, I think we're both arguing for the same thing, and our differences are simply misunderstandings. I don't think self-defense is always justified, and I agree there are specific instances which are not justified, but we can't just get rid of all self-defense because its misused here and there. Its a matter for the courts, and so since it has to be judged on a case-by-case basis, doesn't make for very good discussion in an abstract sense.
On the issue of global scale self-defense, I saw that specialist team idea as a means to avoid all the hardship we've caused the local populace while still removing the terrorists. I see that a corrupt administration could eliminate peaceful, political enemies this way, but they could do that with a full-scale invasion too. I agree we should get support of the country which harbored those individuals as well, unless they seem to be in league with the leaders of said country.
Afghanistan is a perfect example of this. The people who plotted 9/11 were (or maybe still are?) in Afghanistan. While the government of Afghanistan had nothing to do with it, they also do not have the means nor the will to extradite the offenders. The best course of action I think would be to simply have special forces teams nab the terrorists in the night, hopefully with permission from the Afghan government. Much less hardship for both sides than a full-scale war.
|
On February 10 2011 06:11 Millitron wrote: I'm friends IRL with the OP, and have had discussions like this with him in the past, so when he said that the government's purpose is to protect the people, I am 99% sure he doesn't mean protection like in a Nanny State. He's more worried with the people's liberties being protected rather than their physical health.
Wherebugsgo, I think we're both arguing for the same thing, and our differences are simply misunderstandings. I don't think self-defense is always justified, and I agree there are specific instances which are not justified, but we can't just get rid of all self-defense because its misused here and there. Its a matter for the courts, and so since it has to be judged on a case-by-case basis, doesn't make for very good discussion in an abstract sense.
On the issue of global scale self-defense, I saw that specialist team idea as a means to avoid all the hardship we've caused the local populace while still removing the terrorists. I see that a corrupt administration could eliminate peaceful, political enemies this way, but they could do that with a full-scale invasion too. I agree we should get support of the country which harbored those individuals as well, unless they seem to be in league with the leaders of said country.
Afghanistan is a perfect example of this. The people who plotted 9/11 were (or maybe still are?) in Afghanistan. While the government of Afghanistan had nothing to do with it, they also do not have the means nor the will to extradite the offenders. The best course of action I think would be to simply have special forces teams nab the terrorists in the night, hopefully with permission from the Afghan government. Much less hardship for both sides than a full-scale war.
Yes.
However, your last paragraph is completely wrong. None of the 9/11 terrorists were from Afghanistan, and it's highly unlikely they even trained there. Almost all of them were from Saudi Arabia, and, quite honestly, the United States has never truly been able to pinpoint the location of terrorist groups because they're spread thin throughout the Middle East and Africa.
Secondly, the U.S obviously didn't pursue the matter in Saudi Arabia because the country is vital to our oil industry. On the other hand, who gives a fuck if we invade Afghanistan on the pretense of pursuing terrorists? The people there are worthless to the U.S; they farm poppy seeds and opium.
It also is clear that 9/11 was a one-off event and that there is no evidence for a decrease in terrorist activity around the world. In fact, the two wars in "self-defense" probably instigated terrorist acts and hate for the Western world much more than a peaceful, condemnatory, and logical approach. What have we accomplished in either theatre other than killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians, throwing away even more young American lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars in "self defense"?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
This has gotten so off-topic... What you guys are now debating about has strayed far from philosophy.
|
No one was really debating the OP. This thread died a while ago
|
Look, Al-Qaeda operatives planned 9/11. Sure they were Saudis and not Afghans, but Al-Qaeda did have a major presence in Afghanistan. It doesn't really matter where someone is from, but rather where they are now. Why invade Saudi Arabia to look for the 9/11 conspirators when we know they aren't there? Its like with Bonnie and Clyde. They were both originally from Texas, but they caught them in Louisiana. They could've searched Texas all they wanted, but they'd never find them.
I agree that the wars were a pretty bad idea, but you can't just condemn terrorists, and expect it to have an effect. We condemn criminals all the time, but lo and behold, there's still crime. You have to actually physically stop the terrorists, because as history has shown, no one has ever been deterred from anything by a simple condemnation. Whether that physical intervention is a full-scale invasion, or just a few special forces strikes is another question entirely.
As for accomplishments of the two wars, in Afghanistan, we've captured or killed numerous Al-Qaeda leaders, including iirc their second-in-command, as well as thousands of lower ranking "front-line" members. In Iraq, we deposed the absolutely brutal Hussein regime, which, while it did not help the War on Terror, is still a good thing. Further, while we did not find anywhere near the amount of WMD's we were told existed, we DID find a few artillery shells full of poison gas (Sarin gas iirc). I agree the invasion of Iraq wasn't necessary, or even a good idea, but it hasn't been ALL bad.
|
On February 11 2011 02:42 Millitron wrote: Look, Al-Qaeda operatives planned 9/11. Sure they were Saudis and not Afghans, but Al-Qaeda did have a major presence in Afghanistan. It doesn't really matter where someone is from, but rather where they are now. Why invade Saudi Arabia to look for the 9/11 conspirators when we know they aren't there? Its like with Bonnie and Clyde. They were both originally from Texas, but they caught them in Louisiana. They could've searched Texas all they wanted, but they'd never find them.
I agree that the wars were a pretty bad idea, but you can't just condemn terrorists, and expect it to have an effect. We condemn criminals all the time, but lo and behold, there's still crime. You have to actually physically stop the terrorists, because as history has shown, no one has ever been deterred from anything by a simple condemnation. Whether that physical intervention is a full-scale invasion, or just a few special forces strikes is another question entirely. .
No, it's not like Bonnie and Clyde. If you want to make the comparison, make it accurate. If we took the Afghan approach to finding terrorists and applied it to finding wild west criminals, it would be like bombing the entire western United States because, say, we know Bonnie and Clyde were last seen somewhere in the Rockies. The collateral damage would be billions of dollars and the lives of thousands of innocent civilians. For what? Two criminals hiding in a cave.
Second, sure, there were Al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. But there were more in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Algeria, Sudan, Syria, and Lebanon, but you didn't see the U.S. pursue any of those regions. In fact, the only reason terrorist concentrations rose after 2002 in Afghanistan was because we invaded them! The invasion sparked increases in recruitments AND deaths, but did nothing to actually reduce the reasons for terrorism.
Terrorists act against the United States because they believe we are a superpower and a bully. They believe that Americans are ignorant of the world and that we let our government walk over them. They do not like our unquestionable support for Israel. By invading Middle Eastern countries, we confirm these belief and encourage more terrorism.
In fact, from that view, Americans ARE ignorant about why Muslim countries dislike us. About half of Americans believe it has to do with "our freedom" or "our democracy." In fact, it has much more to do with American foreign policy and the conflicts we have instigated, and this reaches back through the Cold War.
On the other hand, what happens if you approach the situation diplomatically, and strengthen our defense at home rather than squandering billions of dollars in doing little more than "overthrowing" a government and simultaneously killing hundreds of thousands of people? Well, you don't exacerbate hate for America. You don't give terrorist agencies an opportunity to recruit more members. The world was behind us after 9/11, and the United States decided to act immaturely in rage by invading political entities that had less to do with the attacks and more to do with the personal convictions of our leaders. We blew a perfect opportunity to effect more peace worldwide by needlessly invading two countries that couldn't be pinpointed to a map by more than half of this country.
As for accomplishments of the two wars, in Afghanistan, we've captured or killed numerous Al-Qaeda leaders, including iirc their second-in-command, as well as thousands of lower ranking "front-line" members. In Iraq, we deposed the absolutely brutal Hussein regime, which, while it did not help the War on Terror, is still a good thing. Further, while we did not find anywhere near the amount of WMD's we were told existed, we DID find a few artillery shells full of poison gas (Sarin gas iirc). I agree the invasion of Iraq wasn't necessary, or even a good idea, but it hasn't been ALL bad
And what's happened with terrorist activity and recruitment? It hasn't slowed. Incidents have stayed steady or risen since our invasion.
By our mere presence in both countries, we and the terrorists are killing thousands of innocent civilians. We have accomplished nil. Our security at home is no better than it was 9 years ago; we're merely more paranoid. Undercover U.S. agents, for example, have routinely been able to sneak bomb-making materials past airport security officials for years. Yet, we continue to waste money by sending U.S. citizens to die in wars that have claimed the lives of 120,000 civilians at LEAST in both theatres combined, a figure that is forty times the death toll on 9/11. This speaks nothing of the injuries, the economic damage, or the damage to our worldwide reputation. The world hates us because we go around waving a massive stick that basically symbolizes our country's hypocrisy.
The "absolutely brutal Hussein regime?" LOL. The war in Iraq has now killed, by the most conservative estimate, at least 115,000 people. The toll ranges from anywhere between 100,000 and 600,000 casualties, and all of this over an 8 year span, as the war began in 2003. It is estimated that anywhere between 200,000 and 800,000 casualties occurred under Saddam Hussein's regime of roughly 24 years. While I'm not defending Saddam Hussein's regime, one can clearly see the more "brutal" here...
Finally, the best way to show that the U.S. has been the hypocrite of the world? We used to call Osama bin Laden a "freedom fighter" in the 1980s. Nothing he has done has changed since then, but now he's a "terrorist." Heck, we probably provided his "terrorist organization" the same armament they use today to kill U.S. soldiers.
|
On February 11 2011 06:50 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 02:42 Millitron wrote: Look, Al-Qaeda operatives planned 9/11. Sure they were Saudis and not Afghans, but Al-Qaeda did have a major presence in Afghanistan. It doesn't really matter where someone is from, but rather where they are now. Why invade Saudi Arabia to look for the 9/11 conspirators when we know they aren't there? Its like with Bonnie and Clyde. They were both originally from Texas, but they caught them in Louisiana. They could've searched Texas all they wanted, but they'd never find them.
I agree that the wars were a pretty bad idea, but you can't just condemn terrorists, and expect it to have an effect. We condemn criminals all the time, but lo and behold, there's still crime. You have to actually physically stop the terrorists, because as history has shown, no one has ever been deterred from anything by a simple condemnation. Whether that physical intervention is a full-scale invasion, or just a few special forces strikes is another question entirely. . No, it's not like Bonnie and Clyde. If you want to make the comparison, make it accurate. If we took the Afghan approach to finding terrorists and applied it to finding wild west criminals, it would be like bombing the entire western United States because, say, we know Bonnie and Clyde were last seen somewhere in the Rockies. The collateral damage would be billions of dollars and the lives of thousands of innocent civilians. For what? Two criminals hiding in a cave. Second, sure, there were Al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. But there were more in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Algeria, Sudan, Syria, and Lebanon, but you didn't see the U.S. pursue any of those regions. In fact, the only reason terrorist concentrations rose after 2002 in Afghanistan was because we invaded them! The invasion sparked increases in recruitments AND deaths, but did nothing to actually reduce the reasons for terrorism. Terrorists act against the United States because they believe we are a superpower and a bully. They believe that Americans are ignorant of the world and that we let our government walk over them. They do not like our unquestionable support for Israel. By invading Middle Eastern countries, we confirm these belief and encourage more terrorism. In fact, from that view, Americans ARE ignorant about why Muslim countries dislike us. About half of Americans believe it has to do with "our freedom" or "our democracy." In fact, it has much more to do with American foreign policy and the conflicts we have instigated, and this reaches back through the Cold War. On the other hand, what happens if you approach the situation diplomatically, and strengthen our defense at home rather than squandering billions of dollars in doing little more than "overthrowing" a government and simultaneously killing hundreds of thousands of people? Well, you don't exacerbate hate for America. You don't give terrorist agencies an opportunity to recruit more members. The world was behind us after 9/11, and the United States decided to act immaturely in rage by invading political entities that had less to do with the attacks and more to do with the personal convictions of our leaders. We blew a perfect opportunity to effect more peace worldwide by needlessly invading two countries that couldn't be pinpointed to a map by more than half of this country. Show nested quote + As for accomplishments of the two wars, in Afghanistan, we've captured or killed numerous Al-Qaeda leaders, including iirc their second-in-command, as well as thousands of lower ranking "front-line" members. In Iraq, we deposed the absolutely brutal Hussein regime, which, while it did not help the War on Terror, is still a good thing. Further, while we did not find anywhere near the amount of WMD's we were told existed, we DID find a few artillery shells full of poison gas (Sarin gas iirc). I agree the invasion of Iraq wasn't necessary, or even a good idea, but it hasn't been ALL bad And what's happened with terrorist activity and recruitment? It hasn't slowed. Incidents have stayed steady or risen since our invasion. By our mere presence in both countries, we and the terrorists are killing thousands of innocent civilians. We have accomplished nil. Our security at home is no better than it was 9 years ago; we're merely more paranoid. Undercover U.S. agents, for example, have routinely been able to sneak bomb-making materials past airport security officials for years. Yet, we continue to waste money by sending U.S. citizens to die in wars that have claimed the lives of 120,000 civilians at LEAST in both theatres combined, a figure that is forty times the death toll on 9/11. This speaks nothing of the injuries, the economic damage, or the damage to our worldwide reputation. The world hates us because we go around waving a massive stick that basically symbolizes our country's hypocrisy. The "absolutely brutal Hussein regime?" LOL. The war in Iraq has now killed, by the most conservative estimate, at least 115,000 people. The toll ranges from anywhere between 100,000 and 600,000 casualties, and all of this over an 8 year span, as the war began in 2003. It is estimated that anywhere between 200,000 and 800,000 casualties occurred under Saddam Hussein's regime of roughly 24 years. While I'm not defending Saddam Hussein's regime, one can clearly see the more "brutal" here... Finally, the best way to show that the U.S. has been the hypocrite of the world? We used to call Osama bin Laden a "freedom fighter" in the 1980s. Nothing he has done has changed since then, but now he's a "terrorist." Heck, we probably provided his "terrorist organization" the same armament they use today to kill U.S. soldiers. I am well aware that the wars are dumb, and that Iraq was a pretty stupid place to invade. Don't go blaming civilian deaths the terrorists have caused on us though. Because by that logic, England caused all the civilian casualties in the Battle of Britain. We aren't the ones killing civilians in Iraq, the insurgents are. They are the brutal ones. Plus, remember Saddamn used poison gas (VX I think?) on his own citizens. He wiped out multiple villages with the stuff. He had torture chambers where he had political opposition eliminated. How do you propose to approach the situation diplomatically? Negotiating with terrorists only shows them that terrorism is effective, and that they should do it more often.
Some of the more fundamentalist Muslims DO hate democracy as well. The idea is that if the people decide the laws, they could in theory make a law that was against Sharia Law.
Osama hated us well before we waged any wars in the middle east. Al-Qaeda bombed US embassies in Africa well before we ever waged a war in the middle east.
|
On February 11 2011 10:12 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 06:50 wherebugsgo wrote:On February 11 2011 02:42 Millitron wrote: Look, Al-Qaeda operatives planned 9/11. Sure they were Saudis and not Afghans, but Al-Qaeda did have a major presence in Afghanistan. It doesn't really matter where someone is from, but rather where they are now. Why invade Saudi Arabia to look for the 9/11 conspirators when we know they aren't there? Its like with Bonnie and Clyde. They were both originally from Texas, but they caught them in Louisiana. They could've searched Texas all they wanted, but they'd never find them.
I agree that the wars were a pretty bad idea, but you can't just condemn terrorists, and expect it to have an effect. We condemn criminals all the time, but lo and behold, there's still crime. You have to actually physically stop the terrorists, because as history has shown, no one has ever been deterred from anything by a simple condemnation. Whether that physical intervention is a full-scale invasion, or just a few special forces strikes is another question entirely. . No, it's not like Bonnie and Clyde. If you want to make the comparison, make it accurate. If we took the Afghan approach to finding terrorists and applied it to finding wild west criminals, it would be like bombing the entire western United States because, say, we know Bonnie and Clyde were last seen somewhere in the Rockies. The collateral damage would be billions of dollars and the lives of thousands of innocent civilians. For what? Two criminals hiding in a cave. Second, sure, there were Al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. But there were more in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Algeria, Sudan, Syria, and Lebanon, but you didn't see the U.S. pursue any of those regions. In fact, the only reason terrorist concentrations rose after 2002 in Afghanistan was because we invaded them! The invasion sparked increases in recruitments AND deaths, but did nothing to actually reduce the reasons for terrorism. Terrorists act against the United States because they believe we are a superpower and a bully. They believe that Americans are ignorant of the world and that we let our government walk over them. They do not like our unquestionable support for Israel. By invading Middle Eastern countries, we confirm these belief and encourage more terrorism. In fact, from that view, Americans ARE ignorant about why Muslim countries dislike us. About half of Americans believe it has to do with "our freedom" or "our democracy." In fact, it has much more to do with American foreign policy and the conflicts we have instigated, and this reaches back through the Cold War. On the other hand, what happens if you approach the situation diplomatically, and strengthen our defense at home rather than squandering billions of dollars in doing little more than "overthrowing" a government and simultaneously killing hundreds of thousands of people? Well, you don't exacerbate hate for America. You don't give terrorist agencies an opportunity to recruit more members. The world was behind us after 9/11, and the United States decided to act immaturely in rage by invading political entities that had less to do with the attacks and more to do with the personal convictions of our leaders. We blew a perfect opportunity to effect more peace worldwide by needlessly invading two countries that couldn't be pinpointed to a map by more than half of this country. As for accomplishments of the two wars, in Afghanistan, we've captured or killed numerous Al-Qaeda leaders, including iirc their second-in-command, as well as thousands of lower ranking "front-line" members. In Iraq, we deposed the absolutely brutal Hussein regime, which, while it did not help the War on Terror, is still a good thing. Further, while we did not find anywhere near the amount of WMD's we were told existed, we DID find a few artillery shells full of poison gas (Sarin gas iirc). I agree the invasion of Iraq wasn't necessary, or even a good idea, but it hasn't been ALL bad And what's happened with terrorist activity and recruitment? It hasn't slowed. Incidents have stayed steady or risen since our invasion. By our mere presence in both countries, we and the terrorists are killing thousands of innocent civilians. We have accomplished nil. Our security at home is no better than it was 9 years ago; we're merely more paranoid. Undercover U.S. agents, for example, have routinely been able to sneak bomb-making materials past airport security officials for years. Yet, we continue to waste money by sending U.S. citizens to die in wars that have claimed the lives of 120,000 civilians at LEAST in both theatres combined, a figure that is forty times the death toll on 9/11. This speaks nothing of the injuries, the economic damage, or the damage to our worldwide reputation. The world hates us because we go around waving a massive stick that basically symbolizes our country's hypocrisy. The "absolutely brutal Hussein regime?" LOL. The war in Iraq has now killed, by the most conservative estimate, at least 115,000 people. The toll ranges from anywhere between 100,000 and 600,000 casualties, and all of this over an 8 year span, as the war began in 2003. It is estimated that anywhere between 200,000 and 800,000 casualties occurred under Saddam Hussein's regime of roughly 24 years. While I'm not defending Saddam Hussein's regime, one can clearly see the more "brutal" here... Finally, the best way to show that the U.S. has been the hypocrite of the world? We used to call Osama bin Laden a "freedom fighter" in the 1980s. Nothing he has done has changed since then, but now he's a "terrorist." Heck, we probably provided his "terrorist organization" the same armament they use today to kill U.S. soldiers. I am well aware that the wars are dumb, and that Iraq was a pretty stupid place to invade. Don't go blaming civilian deaths the terrorists have caused on us though. Because by that logic, England caused all the civilian casualties in the Battle of Britain. We aren't the ones killing civilians in Iraq, the insurgents are. They are the brutal ones. Plus, remember Saddamn used poison gas (VX I think?) on his own citizens. He wiped out multiple villages with the stuff. He had torture chambers where he had political opposition eliminated. How do you propose to approach the situation diplomatically? Negotiating with terrorists only shows them that terrorism is effective, and that they should do it more often. Some of the more fundamentalist Muslims DO hate democracy as well. The idea is that if the people decide the laws, they could in theory make a law that was against Sharia Law. Osama hated us well before we waged any wars in the middle east. Al-Qaeda bombed US embassies in Africa well before we ever waged a war in the middle east.
Number one, are you off your rocker? No, that is NOT my logic. If you think that's logic, then you need to seriously reconsider your definition of the word.
By my logic, the Germans were responsible for the civilian deaths in England, and the Allies (the English included) were responsible for the civilian deaths in Dresden, Berlin, and Potsdam. Let's not even talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The U.S. has killed thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure, the insurgents have too, but the U.S. actually possesses ways of killing civilians more efficiently (unfortunately) Coalition friendly fire has caused plenty of deaths too.
Second, what does what Saddam did have to do with our involvement in the area? I could say the same about COUNTLESS dictators around the world, yet the U.S. does nothing to stop them. The simple fact of the matter is, we are not the international police. It is not our job to go and invade countries just because they're run in a way different to our system. We are a democracy, and we were created through the revolt of the people. We were not created by some liberator country that invaded the colonies to lift the British rule. Thus, we should treat other countries similarly; democracy can only spread as the will of the people.
What the fuck are you talking about? Fundamentalist Muslims don't hate democracy any more than we do. Have you even read the news in the past 3 weeks? If Muslims hated democracy, why did hundreds of thousands of people in Egypt protest and demand that Hosni Mubarak step down? The U.S. diplomatically handled the situation in Egypt. If we invaded and overthrew Mubarak then the Egyptian people would hate us and think that we were there for our own self-interest. In fact, that would probably be true just as it is true in Iraq.
We don't negotiate with terrorists. We negotiate with the states where we think they may be hiding. Negotiation with political entities is possible because those states know their own lands better than we do. They know what the terrorists want, and they know ways to reduce the reasons for violence. In Africa, for example, terrorist and rebel groups exist because of corrupt governments and widespread poverty. We can't just go and invade Africa because there are violent groups there. If we did, the entire world would turn on us. We can provide African countries aid and negotiate with the existing political entities there (including the UN) however.
With terrorism, the U.S. should have acted calmly after 9/11 and rallied the support it was shown by the world. We should have launched a campaign to educate the U.S. people about Muslims and Islam, to show the average American that most Muslims are not radical terrorists bent on bringing down America. We should have strengthened our security policies and not just squandered money on new technologies such as full-body scanners that are far more ineffective than well-trained security personnel.
We should have partnered with European, commonwealth, and Asian countries to closely monitor transportation lanes and places that would be of interest to those who possess the intent to inflict hurt upon us. We should have improved our emergency system responses and put more money into the public safety system so that in the case of a disaster, confusion does not add to the problems already present. This would help not only with terrorism, but also with natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina (which was a total fail on the part of the government because the reform to emergency services and public safety had just not happened) and earthquakes.
We should have begun talks with the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc. with the help of the U.N. and NATO to help combat terrorism at its roots.
The simple fact of the matter is, if you attack insurgents directly, you'll kill some, sure. You'll lose some of your own people as well. However, you haven't done anything to solve the issue of WHY terrorists exist. Instead, you'll see recruitment go up because the terrorists now have even more of a reason to fight. This is exactly what we've seen recently. Insurgents die, but they're easily replaced. You can always find more radicals to support your cause if the cause is ever-present. In the eyes of the terrorists, the oppressive United States has not left the Middle East yet. Until our military presence there is minimal like it was before 2001, we will continue to encounter conflict.
|
On February 04 2011 02:58 Kimaker wrote: Thus gain, or property, as satisfaction is indicative of sadism and thus a mental disturbance, is the reason for the existence of government.
reword this sentence please it makes no sense
also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
there are a lot of government functions that you're not thinking about, like the establishment and enforcement of standards, roads, postal services, etc
|
On February 13 2011 13:07 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 10:12 Millitron wrote:On February 11 2011 06:50 wherebugsgo wrote:On February 11 2011 02:42 Millitron wrote: Look, Al-Qaeda operatives planned 9/11. Sure they were Saudis and not Afghans, but Al-Qaeda did have a major presence in Afghanistan. It doesn't really matter where someone is from, but rather where they are now. Why invade Saudi Arabia to look for the 9/11 conspirators when we know they aren't there? Its like with Bonnie and Clyde. They were both originally from Texas, but they caught them in Louisiana. They could've searched Texas all they wanted, but they'd never find them.
I agree that the wars were a pretty bad idea, but you can't just condemn terrorists, and expect it to have an effect. We condemn criminals all the time, but lo and behold, there's still crime. You have to actually physically stop the terrorists, because as history has shown, no one has ever been deterred from anything by a simple condemnation. Whether that physical intervention is a full-scale invasion, or just a few special forces strikes is another question entirely. . No, it's not like Bonnie and Clyde. If you want to make the comparison, make it accurate. If we took the Afghan approach to finding terrorists and applied it to finding wild west criminals, it would be like bombing the entire western United States because, say, we know Bonnie and Clyde were last seen somewhere in the Rockies. The collateral damage would be billions of dollars and the lives of thousands of innocent civilians. For what? Two criminals hiding in a cave. Second, sure, there were Al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. But there were more in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Algeria, Sudan, Syria, and Lebanon, but you didn't see the U.S. pursue any of those regions. In fact, the only reason terrorist concentrations rose after 2002 in Afghanistan was because we invaded them! The invasion sparked increases in recruitments AND deaths, but did nothing to actually reduce the reasons for terrorism. Terrorists act against the United States because they believe we are a superpower and a bully. They believe that Americans are ignorant of the world and that we let our government walk over them. They do not like our unquestionable support for Israel. By invading Middle Eastern countries, we confirm these belief and encourage more terrorism. In fact, from that view, Americans ARE ignorant about why Muslim countries dislike us. About half of Americans believe it has to do with "our freedom" or "our democracy." In fact, it has much more to do with American foreign policy and the conflicts we have instigated, and this reaches back through the Cold War. On the other hand, what happens if you approach the situation diplomatically, and strengthen our defense at home rather than squandering billions of dollars in doing little more than "overthrowing" a government and simultaneously killing hundreds of thousands of people? Well, you don't exacerbate hate for America. You don't give terrorist agencies an opportunity to recruit more members. The world was behind us after 9/11, and the United States decided to act immaturely in rage by invading political entities that had less to do with the attacks and more to do with the personal convictions of our leaders. We blew a perfect opportunity to effect more peace worldwide by needlessly invading two countries that couldn't be pinpointed to a map by more than half of this country. As for accomplishments of the two wars, in Afghanistan, we've captured or killed numerous Al-Qaeda leaders, including iirc their second-in-command, as well as thousands of lower ranking "front-line" members. In Iraq, we deposed the absolutely brutal Hussein regime, which, while it did not help the War on Terror, is still a good thing. Further, while we did not find anywhere near the amount of WMD's we were told existed, we DID find a few artillery shells full of poison gas (Sarin gas iirc). I agree the invasion of Iraq wasn't necessary, or even a good idea, but it hasn't been ALL bad And what's happened with terrorist activity and recruitment? It hasn't slowed. Incidents have stayed steady or risen since our invasion. By our mere presence in both countries, we and the terrorists are killing thousands of innocent civilians. We have accomplished nil. Our security at home is no better than it was 9 years ago; we're merely more paranoid. Undercover U.S. agents, for example, have routinely been able to sneak bomb-making materials past airport security officials for years. Yet, we continue to waste money by sending U.S. citizens to die in wars that have claimed the lives of 120,000 civilians at LEAST in both theatres combined, a figure that is forty times the death toll on 9/11. This speaks nothing of the injuries, the economic damage, or the damage to our worldwide reputation. The world hates us because we go around waving a massive stick that basically symbolizes our country's hypocrisy. The "absolutely brutal Hussein regime?" LOL. The war in Iraq has now killed, by the most conservative estimate, at least 115,000 people. The toll ranges from anywhere between 100,000 and 600,000 casualties, and all of this over an 8 year span, as the war began in 2003. It is estimated that anywhere between 200,000 and 800,000 casualties occurred under Saddam Hussein's regime of roughly 24 years. While I'm not defending Saddam Hussein's regime, one can clearly see the more "brutal" here... Finally, the best way to show that the U.S. has been the hypocrite of the world? We used to call Osama bin Laden a "freedom fighter" in the 1980s. Nothing he has done has changed since then, but now he's a "terrorist." Heck, we probably provided his "terrorist organization" the same armament they use today to kill U.S. soldiers. I am well aware that the wars are dumb, and that Iraq was a pretty stupid place to invade. Don't go blaming civilian deaths the terrorists have caused on us though. Because by that logic, England caused all the civilian casualties in the Battle of Britain. We aren't the ones killing civilians in Iraq, the insurgents are. They are the brutal ones. Plus, remember Saddamn used poison gas (VX I think?) on his own citizens. He wiped out multiple villages with the stuff. He had torture chambers where he had political opposition eliminated. How do you propose to approach the situation diplomatically? Negotiating with terrorists only shows them that terrorism is effective, and that they should do it more often. Some of the more fundamentalist Muslims DO hate democracy as well. The idea is that if the people decide the laws, they could in theory make a law that was against Sharia Law. Osama hated us well before we waged any wars in the middle east. Al-Qaeda bombed US embassies in Africa well before we ever waged a war in the middle east. Number one, are you off your rocker? No, that is NOT my logic. If you think that's logic, then you need to seriously reconsider your definition of the word. By my logic, the Germans were responsible for the civilian deaths in England, and the Allies (the English included) were responsible for the civilian deaths in Dresden, Berlin, and Potsdam. Let's not even talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The U.S. has killed thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure, the insurgents have too, but the U.S. actually possesses ways of killing civilians more efficiently (unfortunately) Coalition friendly fire has caused plenty of deaths too. Second, what does what Saddam did have to do with our involvement in the area? I could say the same about COUNTLESS dictators around the world, yet the U.S. does nothing to stop them. The simple fact of the matter is, we are not the international police. It is not our job to go and invade countries just because they're run in a way different to our system. We are a democracy, and we were created through the revolt of the people. We were not created by some liberator country that invaded the colonies to lift the British rule. Thus, we should treat other countries similarly; democracy can only spread as the will of the people. What the fuck are you talking about? Fundamentalist Muslims don't hate democracy any more than we do. Have you even read the news in the past 3 weeks? If Muslims hated democracy, why did hundreds of thousands of people in Egypt protest and demand that Hosni Mubarak step down? The U.S. diplomatically handled the situation in Egypt. If we invaded and overthrew Mubarak then the Egyptian people would hate us and think that we were there for our own self-interest. In fact, that would probably be true just as it is true in Iraq. We don't negotiate with terrorists. We negotiate with the states where we think they may be hiding. Negotiation with political entities is possible because those states know their own lands better than we do. They know what the terrorists want, and they know ways to reduce the reasons for violence. In Africa, for example, terrorist and rebel groups exist because of corrupt governments and widespread poverty. We can't just go and invade Africa because there are violent groups there. If we did, the entire world would turn on us. We can provide African countries aid and negotiate with the existing political entities there (including the UN) however. With terrorism, the U.S. should have acted calmly after 9/11 and rallied the support it was shown by the world. We should have launched a campaign to educate the U.S. people about Muslims and Islam, to show the average American that most Muslims are not radical terrorists bent on bringing down America. We should have strengthened our security policies and not just squandered money on new technologies such as full-body scanners that are far more ineffective than well-trained security personnel. We should have partnered with European, commonwealth, and Asian countries to closely monitor transportation lanes and places that would be of interest to those who possess the intent to inflict hurt upon us. We should have improved our emergency system responses and put more money into the public safety system so that in the case of a disaster, confusion does not add to the problems already present. This would help not only with terrorism, but also with natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina (which was a total fail on the part of the government because the reform to emergency services and public safety had just not happened) and earthquakes. We should have begun talks with the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc. with the help of the U.N. and NATO to help combat terrorism at its roots. The simple fact of the matter is, if you attack insurgents directly, you'll kill some, sure. You'll lose some of your own people as well. However, you haven't done anything to solve the issue of WHY terrorists exist. Instead, you'll see recruitment go up because the terrorists now have even more of a reason to fight. This is exactly what we've seen recently. Insurgents die, but they're easily replaced. You can always find more radicals to support your cause if the cause is ever-present. In the eyes of the terrorists, the oppressive United States has not left the Middle East yet. Until our military presence there is minimal like it was before 2001, we will continue to encounter conflict. There ARE Muslims who hate democracy because of their faith. Like I said, if the system allows the creation of laws that contradict Sharia Law, then that is a sin to them. I never said ALL Muslims hate democracy, just that there are ones who do. You said that they hate our constant involvement in the Middle East, and NOTHING else, which is simply wrong.
While we didn't invade simply because of this, getting rid of Saddam Hussein WAS a good thing. You can't look at the situation as ALL bad, because that gives you a biased viewpoint from which you're lead to biased conclusions.
Last, you claim that terrorism is because of our military presence in the Middle East since 2001, and that it won't go away until we leave. This is a flawed argument because there has been terrorism from the Middle East since before the first Gulf War. They bombed embassies as far back as the 80's.
I don't think we should be the World Police either, but now that we're over there, we can't just up and leave. There's more to it than that. Look at World War One. As soon as the war was over, the Allies basically just said "Deal with it, Germany", and look how that turned out.
|
|
|
|