Donate to Antiwar.com
November 11, 2005
6:34 p.m., MT

Antiwar.com is having a fund raiser. You can contribute here. I have just contributed $25 and can't think of a better way to honor those who have died in the many wars fought throughout history.

Thanks to Knappster for the idea.

Jorge

Comments: 25 people have spoken!

On Saturday, November 12th, at approximately 9:01 a.m. Mountain time, Billy Beck said:

I wouldn't send those morons the liner out of a bent bottle-cap. They're amoral creeps, and Knapp is a bloody fool.

On Saturday, November 12th, at approximately 9:37 a.m. Mountain time, Jorge said:

Billy, please expand on that. I find the articles quite good. They are against war in general and the war in Iraq in particular, both of which I agree with. In what way are they "amoral creeps"?

On Sunday, November 13th, at approximately 8:58 a.m. Mountain time, Billy Beck said:

One *cannot* be "against war in general" without being amoral about it. We could start with the American Revolution as a good example of what I'm talking about.

On Wednesday, November 16th, at approximately 7:58 a.m. Mountain time, John T. Kennedy said:

How's this for honoring those dead?

My conversations with antiwar Senior Editor Jeremy Sapienza lead me to conclude that such views are not unusual at all at antiwar, they're just usually kept quiet.

On Wednesday, November 16th, at approximately 1:05 p.m. Mountain time, Kn@ppster said:

Quoth Bill Beck:

-----
One *cannot* be "against war in general" without being amoral about it. We could start with the American Revolution as a good example of what I'm talking about.
-----

So the American revolutionists were "amoral fools" for treating war as a last-ditch, necessary evil to be undertaken only after all other avenues had been exhausted, eh?

Regards,
The Bloody Fool

On Thursday, November 17th, at approximately 3:32 a.m. Mountain time, John T. Kennedy said:

How can what's necessary be evil?

On Thursday, November 17th, at approximately 12:34 p.m. Mountain time, Kn@ppster said:

Quoth John T. Kennedy:

-----
How can what's necessary be evil?
-----

Happens all the time:

"Necessary - 1. Such as must be; impossible to be otherwise; not to be avoided; inevitable." -- Wesbster's 1913 ed.

"Evil - 1. Having qualities tending to injury and mischief; having a nature or properties which tend to badness; mischievous; not good; worthless or deleterious; poor; as, an evil beast; and evil plant; an evil crop." -- op.cit.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

On Monday, November 21st, at approximately 8:10 a.m. Mountain time, Billy Beck said:

Look, Thomas: a value chosen in the last extremity is *still* a value.

I told you in e-mail a couple of weeks ago that you're not accounting for the nature of values. You went out like a light, just like you did when I pointed out that your notion (which is all it is: it's not an actual concept) of "cooperative socialism" would describe my uncles' plumbing business. You don't know what you're talking about, and you're helping do great harm to concepts necessary to understanding what's wrong in the world. What all this tells me is that you are not -- at the moment -- approachable with reason. Facts don't matter to you: "you just turn your pretty head and walk away" (in the immortal words of The James Gang). Now, that's one thing, bad as it is, but another thing is that it's important to make the point to people looking-in, that you don't know what you're talking about.

On Tuesday, November 22nd, at approximately 5:35 p.m. Mountain time, Kn@ppster said:

Quoth Billy Beck:

"Look, Thomas: a value chosen in the last extremity is *still* a value."

Thank you for establishing that you don't understand what values are. Values are those things which one acts to defend -- not necessarily the means by which one might be forced to defend them.

"I told you in e-mail a couple of weeks ago that you're not accounting for the nature of values. You went out like a light"

Suffice it to say that my recollection of the exchange materially differs from yours.

"that your notion (which is all it is: it's not an actual concept) of 'cooperative socialism'"

I don't believe I've ever in my life used the term "cooperative socialism." I don't know if your uncle's plumbing business is a worker-owned cooperative (i.e. a voluntaryistic socialist enterprise) or not.

"What all this tells me is that you are not -- at the moment -- approachable with reason. Facts don't matter to you ..."

To my ear, this sounds a lot like: "Screw rational definition and objective reality -- the true criterion of what things are is what Billy Beck wishes they were, dammit." [sound of foot stomping]

... but I'm willing to consider the possibility that I'm mistaken.

I'm more than willing to debate anything you care to debate, but little fencing matches on cherry-picked bits via email and blog comment areas probably isn't the best way. Care to suggest a non-changing proposition and a reasonably accessible format?

Regards,
Tom

On Wednesday, November 23rd, at approximately 8:28 a.m. Mountain time, Billy Beck said:

"Suffice it to say that my recollection of the exchange materially differs from yours."

I'm a packrat, Thomas. I keep everything.

You want copies?

On Wednesday, November 23rd, at approximately 8:54 a.m. Mountain time, Billy Beck said:

Well, now. This is embarrassing and not a little bit astounding. I just looked at my archives. So far, I cannot find a single one of those e-mails from you during our exchange, which took place on Friday, November 4, and Saturday, November 5. I *do* have my replies to you, which include text of yours that I quoted back to you. This is quite unprecedented, and I don't know what to make of it.

I speak plain English, Thomas. I'm not responsible for your "ear". And I'm here to tell you -- among other things -- that there is no such thing as "a voluntaryistic socialist enterprise". As I told in you the last e-mail to which you did not respond (you "went out like a light", you are helping to actively *destroy the concept* of "socialism", and you have no idea how dangerous that is. I'm not the one "changing" the "proposition".

Stop it.

On Wednesday, November 23rd, at approximately 11:15 a.m. Mountain time, Kn@ppster said:

Quoth Billy Beck:

"I just looked at my archives. So far, I cannot find a single one of those e-mails from you during our exchange, which took place on Friday, November 4, and Saturday, November 5."

I'm reasonably certain that I have copies. I'll be glad to send you an omnibus message containing all the correspondence you refer to.

And then:

"there is no such thing as 'a voluntaryistic socialist enterprise.'"

There's a nicely stated proposition; if you're up for a debating it somewhere other than in the comments section of a blog entry unrelated to it, let me know.

Speaking of "out like a light," I notice that you didn't respond to my pointing out that values are ends, not means.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

On Wednesday, November 23rd, at approximately 12:33 p.m. Mountain time, Billy Beck said:

"Speaking of "out like a light,..."

Listen: whether you like it or not, I've seen a million of 'em like you, and I always see 'em coming a mile away. But I'll do a lap with you.

Briefly.

I don't need a lecture from you on the nature of values. I will, however, point out that that *gaining* values is impossible without means: "action".

Now: the implications should be clear.

I am not going to attempt to think it through for you. That's your job. And standing "against war in general" in no way qualifies.

On Wednesday, November 23rd, at approximately 1:32 p.m. Mountain time, Kn@ppster said:

Quoth Billy:

"I don't need a lecture from you on the nature of values. I will, however, point out that that *gaining* values is impossible without means: 'action.'"

No argument there. Some follow-up questions:

* Is it possible to act immorally in, or incidental to, the process of acquiring or defending something one values?

* Is it possible to be forced, in defending a value which one properly possesses, to take actions which one would prefer not to take?

* If you value something, and someone is forcibly trying to take it from you or prevent you from gaining it, is it acceptable for you to take the values of uninvolved others, or forcibly prevent them from gaining those values in pursuit of your own interests?

Regards,
Tom Knapp

P.S. Consider this yet another pro forma protest of venue. Comment forms are not the most comfortable writing environment.

On Wednesday, November 23rd, at approximately 2:11 p.m. Mountain time, Mike Schneider said:

Tom? If you're "anti-war", then you are also, by *definition*, "anti-SELF-DEFENSE".

On Wednesday, November 23rd, at approximately 2:30 p.m. Mountain time, Mike Schneider said:

Knapp: "If you value something, and someone is forcibly trying to take it from you or prevent you from gaining it, is it acceptable for you to take the values of uninvolved others, or forcibly prevent them from gaining those values in pursuit of your own interests?"

It depends on the *values*; Osama, after all, has "values".

Beyoud the sheer irrelevency of it all (given the non-involvement), what's your point? -- A moral-equivalence fallacy?

On Wednesday, November 23rd, at approximately 3:50 p.m. Mountain time, Kn@ppster said:

Quoth Schneider:

"Tom? If you're "anti-war", then you are also, by *definition*, "anti-SELF-DEFENSE"."

I guess I'll take the hit for being insufficiently explicit. So, here goes:

I am not a pacifist.

I recognize a right of self-defense.

I apply a fairly lenient standard in defining self-defense (i.e. I consider a known intent to do harm, or an offer to do harm, an initiation of force which may be pre-emptively defended against).

I acknowledge that the right of self-defense may be exercised by more than one person acting in concert, of themselves "as a group" and/or in defense of each other.

I am, however, "anti-war" in several important respects:

I oppose the war on Iraq for several reasons. In no particular order, and without any implication that there aren't others:

1) The war is a strategic blunder.

2) The war is a tactical clusterfuck.

3) The war is contrary to the national security interests of the United States insofar as it has directly harmed the US and directly benefited al Qaeda, Iran and other enemy states and groups.

To the extent that I'm "anti-war" in general, I offer the following reasons (also in no particular order and also with no claim to exhaustiveness):

1) War as historically conducted is generally (and in the specific case of the Iraq war) financed through theft.

2) War as historically conducted generally (and in the specific case of the Iraq war) includes actions which accidentally, negligently or intentionally result in harm to (i.e. they constitute an initiation of force toward) innocent non-combatants against whom no reasonable claim of "self-defense" could be lodged.

3) War as historically conducted (and in the specific case of the Iraq war) generally gives rise to claims on the part of the belligerents that neither the belligerent states/groups, nor the individual combatants, are, or may be held, responsible for the actions described in (2) above.

Even given all those reasons, I acknowledge that war may sometimes be necessary (although, in the case of the Iraq war, it most manifestly was not). The fact that some wars may be necessary, however, does not make war a good or desrirable thing.

War is -- or at least should be -- a last resort of exigency when all reasonable alternatives have failed to secure the desired result (with the obvious addendum that the result toward which the war is aimed must itself be within the bounds of the ethically justifiable).

If I have to cut off my hand to survive because a cobra has bitten it, I have to -- but that doesn't mean that cutting off one's hand is a "good thing." It's a bad thing one may have to do in order to preserve the greater value than the hand.

Finally, as the Objectivists like to say, "context is everything." When I refer to myself as "anti-war," keep in mind that there is a specific war at issue.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

On Wednesday, November 23rd, at approximately 3:52 p.m. Mountain time, Sunni said:

Gents -- that is, Billy and Tom, if you'd like to address your differences in "neutral territory", and out of the constraints of a comment section, I hereby invite each of you two work up a guest-blog entry for publication here. Comments open on each, o'course, and followups may be possible.

Would that be an acceptable venue and terms? (The only additional term is my constant one, that the conversation is civil, and kept to the issue -- not directed at individuals.)

On Wednesday, November 23rd, at approximately 3:57 p.m. Mountain time, Kn@ppster said:

Further quoth Schneider:

"Knapp: 'If you value something, and someone is forcibly trying to take it from you or prevent you from gaining it, is it acceptable for you to take the values of uninvolved others, or forcibly prevent them from gaining those values in pursuit of your own interests?'

"It depends on the *values*; Osama, after all, has 'values.'"

Actually, no, it doesn't depend on the values -- Osama is entitled to hold any values he wants. His values are not at issue. His actions are. He's entitled to possess all the sharia law he wants until he inflicts it on unwilling others. Then it may be necessary to act. It does not follow from the fact that it may be necessary to act that all conceivable actions are actually necessary, or that any of the actions are "good" in the sense that they are themselves desirable.

"Beyoud the sheer irrelevency of it all (given the non-involvement), what's your point? -- A moral-equivalence fallacy?"

No, actually precisely the opposite. I oppose the diminution of my country to the same moral plane as Osama. This requires recognizing the difference between "something good we can do" and "something evil that we are forced to do," and acting accordingly. The failure to recognize the latter condition results in any number of errors and evil being misportrayed as "good."

Tom Knapp

On Wednesday, November 23rd, at approximately 3:59 p.m. Mountain time, Kn@ppster said:

Sunni,

I have no problem with your suggestion, but I'd at least like to see some semblance of a proposition to argue for or against. Right now, this is like trying to vacate fleas from various body parts with no clue as to where the nest is located so that it can be eradicated.

Regards,
Tom

On Wednesday, November 23rd, at approximately 4:08 p.m. Mountain time, Sunni said:

Well, I don't know for sure what started all this, but it seems to be the morality of war. Or the amorality of being antiwar. Maybe both.

On Wednesday, November 23rd, at approximately 5:48 p.m. Mountain time, Mike Schneider said:

> 1) The war is a strategic blunder.

Stripping Saddam Hussein of power is a strategic success.

> 2) The war is a tactical clusterfuck.

Given that no battles have been won by the enemy, and that casualties are so light that it barely qualifies as "war" in the first place, it's hard to imagine how you're defining "clusterfuck" comparative to, say, the sense in which it was employed to describe Vietnam.

> 3) The war is contrary to the national security interests of the United States insofar as it has directly harmed the US and directly benefited al Qaeda, Iran and other enemy states and groups.

In what way have the interests of the US been harmed, and those of the Shari'a Caliphate been enhanced, over that of allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in power?

> To the extent that I'm "anti-war" in general, I offer the following reasons (also in no particular order and also with no claim to exhaustiveness):
>
> 1) War as historically conducted is generally (and in the specific case of the Iraq war) financed through theft.

So is *municipal trash-removal* -- You're essentially arguing that you're anti-municipal-trash-removal, as if trash-removal is a value which ceases to be a value if a state comes along to declare a monopoly on it.

On Wednesday, November 23rd, at approximately 5:57 p.m. Mountain time, Mike Schneider said:

> When I refer to myself as "anti-war," keep in mind that there is a specific war at issue.

I'd rather admonish you for adopting a "glittering generality" lapel-pin (which caters to, and plays along with, the interests of Leninists and Islamists everywhere) if your issue is actually that specific -- because all you're doing is sowing confusion.

On Thursday, November 24th, at approximately 3:08 p.m. Mountain time, another bloody fool said:

War: n. 1. State or fact of using violence against another; esp., a contest of force between states; ... declared and open hostilities.

Revolution: n. 6. A fundamental change in political organization, or in a government or constitution; overthrow of one government, and substitution of another, by the governed;.

(Tom, the Webster's I'm using is a 1936 edition.)

Presuming that people who comment here are freedom lovers, how is it "amoral" to oppose contests of force between states or the initiation of violence against another?

Contests which inevitably require people to fight on behalf of the State, whether by conscription or voluntary enlistment (often a result of deceptive recruiting practices, or State propaganda demonizing the "enemy" state) and usually entail the death and dismemberment of myraid "non-combatants," individuals who would choose not to fight if given free will?

If "War is the health of the State," which seems to be an accurate and astute observation, where is the virtue in being pro-war... the logical opposite of being "anti-war," and by extension of logic, being pro-state?

If wars are waged between states by states, whereas revolutions are fought by people, and the former tends to undermine freedom while the latter tends to preserve and/or secure individual liberties, I'd count myself as one of the anti-war, pro-freedom crowd.

On Friday, November 25th, at approximately 3:19 a.m. Mountain time, Mike Schneider said:

Yes, yes, yes... Given that *talking* one's way into liberty has had such a great track-record of success throughout the ages, it would be folly to suggest shooting various & sundry bastards right between their beady, bloodshot eyes.

-- That being a *value*, and all.

Home
Previous entry: "Disorientation"
Next entry: "Endervidualism Makeover"