The Immorality of War
November 25, 2005
1:18 p.m., MT

In this post I asked people to donate to Antiwar.com. This prompted a negative comment from Billy Beck in which he called Tom Knapp a fool.

This has since degenerated into a food fight, which has nothing to do with the original, hence a new post to make my position clear.

There are three comments with which I take exception:

1) Mike Schneider said: Tom? If you're "anti-war", then you are also, by *definition*, "anti-SELF-DEFENSE".

Tom does an excellent job of replying, although his points seem to have been missed.

The attributes of war have always been:

A) financed by theft (taxation, usually accompanied by inflation)
B) almost total disregard for the rights (life, liberty, property) of innocent non-combatants. The few exceptions to this seem to be weak attempts to preserve "historic" buildings. These usually do not belong to private entities.
C) no one is held accountable for the violations of rights.

The above is a restatement of Tom's points. I changed the word "generally" to "always" because in my reading of history, these features have been a part of every war. If someone can identify a war in which one or more have been absent I would love to hear about it.

2) 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.

The American Revolution is a good place to start. American troops commandeered supplies from an unwilling populace, "paying" with worthless paper money. The British, when they commandeered supplies, usually paid in gold or silver. To name only one of the many repeated violations of rights committed by "the good guys".

This is not to say that the war did not have some positive effects, for some people. Of course if you were a British sympathizer, your property was confiscated after the war, regardless of your actual involvement.

Just because some good came out of it does not make it right. No sane person would argue that the Nazi use of slave labor to build highways was good because today Germany has a great road system.

The American Revolution, as conducted, was immoral. All three features were there.

3) Tom refers to war as a "necessary evil". He provides the following definitions:
"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.

Yet looking at this and the attributes of war, one sees that war is never necessary.

Let us imagine a situation where a community is attacked (or attack is threatened) by an outside agency, such as a foreign government.

First of all, taxation. If a people are going to defend themselves against an attacker, they will be willing pay for that defense. Taxation will not be necessary. In a society where the money is voluntary, it is doubtful that inflation will exist.

Secondly, the defenders will do everything they can to avoid the destruction of the property of innocents. After all they are fighting to protect the rights of those innocents.

Finally, if accidental damage does occur, compensation would be due. The compensation would ultimately be paid by the attacker.

As all three attributes are missing, this is no longer war, this is self defense, pure and simple.

War is immoral because it has those attributes, remove those attributes and the action is no longer immoral, it is also no longer war.

Also check out Anthony Gregory's speech on war and those who support it at LRC (thanks to Freeman for the link). It goes straight to the point, namely that war, all war, is immoral.

Jorge

Comments: 5 people have spoken!

On Friday, November 25th, at approximately 10:50 p.m. Mountain time, Kevin S. Van Horn said:

Thanks, Jorge, for your explanation of the fundamental moral problems with war as presently practiced. I do have a few quibbles, though, and some thoughts to add in agreement to yours.

1. It's a bit of a stretch to say that if action to repel an attack does not involve taxation, harm to innocents, nor disregard for individual rights, then it is not war. I think most people would still consider it to be war if it involved the use of lethal force against the enemy.

2. While you make a valid case that some actions taken by some of those fighting the British during the American Revolution was immoral, it does not therefore follow that the entire war was immoral. Libertarians are the last people in the world who should be making the mistake of treating a diverse collection of individuals as one monolithic, collective entity. The fact that A and B fought the same enemy, and A used immoral means in his fight, does not imply that B also used immoral means.

3. However, your criticism of the American Revolution raises a valid point about the dangers of any sort of prolonged, organized violent action: as men become accustomed to the use of violence, it becomes ever more tempting to use it in ways that are not purely defensive. War tends to be morally corrupting because it transforms violence from a rare expedient used only in extreme situations to ensure immediate survival, into a habitual activity, thereby eroding the normal inhibitions against its use.

4. It is worth noting that the American Revolution did NOT start in 1775, at Lexington and Concord. For a good ten years prior to that time, starting in 1765, the American colonists had been fighting British rule through largely non-violent measures (various sorts of non-cooperation, civil disobedience, boycotts, etc.) By early 1775, British rule was severely weakened; one British official complained that the King's officers had virtually no effective authority in the colonies. What might have happened had the colonists managed to continue resisting through nonviolent means, without submitting to the British?

On Saturday, November 26th, at approximately 12:47 p.m. Mountain time, Sean said:

Yes, wars are immoral,horrible,messy,disgusting,deadly,and often unneccessary. They will occurr with dull frequency, and they are as inevitable as rain. The people that wage them, whatever side you, or they, are on,doesn't matter, because there will be abuses that are often hideous,long-lasting,and without redress. GROW UP. While you are busy hair splitting the wonderful world of ramifications, morals, and justice, you are going to be annihilated. The Jews in Poland, Germany,Lithuania,Russia,etc.were doing just that when the inevitable beginning of the inevitable end came. Your arguments boil down to this. War is bad and conducted badly by bad people. My reply: People are no damned good in the first place! Watch a six-year old lord it over a three year old sometime. Even though you know the six-year old to be the kindest,sweetest person ever, they get a little power, they go nuts, sometimes immediately. So think,if you will, along the lines that they once did in Tahiti. You eat life, or life eats you. Where possible, show mercy, kindness, and love. Where not possible, show them your knuckles, a club, or a gun. Reality.

On Monday, November 28th, at approximately 7:05 a.m. Mountain time, Wolf DeVoon said:

People are no damned good in the first place!

Shut up.

On Friday, December 2nd, at approximately 4:22 p.m. Mountain time, Kn@ppster said:

Jorge,

I've been meaning to reply to your piece, but I wanted to take time to think it over first. So, here goes. You write:

-----
3) Tom refers to war as a "necessary evil". He provides the following definitions:
"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.

Yet looking at this and the attributes of war, one sees that war is never necessary.

Let us imagine a situation where a community is attacked (or attack is threatened) by an outside agency, such as a foreign government.
-----

As defined, "necessary" includes "inevitable" (i.e. "necessary" does not, um, necessarily include a volitional decision on the part of all parties).

So, let's take your example: a community is attacked. Guess what: There's a war on. The people of that may choose not to fight it, but that doesn't mean that the war isn't happening. In their case, the war is "necessary" because it is going to occur no matter what they do, i.e. it is inevitable. They don't get to decide whether there's a war or not. Their declared enemy already decided that for them. They just get to decide if they will fight or not, and if so, how. The fact that they might choose not to do so through taxation, the killing of innocents, or the forced waiver of damage claims doesn't mean it's not a war.

As a matter of fact, al Qaeda declared war on the US in 1992 (and Osama bin Laden later publicly and specifically stated that he considers all Americans targets of that war). At the point when he declared that war (and especially after that point, when his organization took belligerent action pursuant to it), those upon whom he declared war were in one. And we still are. Our choice is not whether or not to be in a war. Osama bin Laden decided that for us. Our choice is whether to fight it/win it and if so, how.

I don't regard the fact of the war as a free pass to tax those who happen to be part of one side (as defined by the other), or to kill innocents, or to claim immunity for damages caused (nor do I regard the state as my authorized agent for the conduct of the war). I also regard the Iraq invasion as a tactical disaster and a strategic fuckup of the first order, especially as conducted by my unauthorized, self-appointed agents. But I don't deny the fact -- or the "necessity," correctly defined -- of the war.

Regards,
Tom

On Sunday, December 4th, at approximately 10:16 a.m. Mountain time, Jorge said:

Tom,

Our disagreement hinges on the definition of "war" not on the definition of "necessary". You said "So, let's take your example: a community is attacked. Guess what: There's a war on."

Dictionary.com has a pretty standard definition of war:

1. a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
b. The period of such conflict.

If you accept this definition at face value then I agree with you. Especially since you say "I don't regard the fact of the war as a free pass to tax those who happen to be part of one side (as defined by the other), or to kill innocents, or to claim immunity for damages caused..."

However, if we look further, at how the word is actually used, we find instances which match the definition, but are not war. Notably family or clan feuds such as the Hatfields and McCoys. That feud lasted over a decade and saw 12 people killed. Yet no one would call it a war, because it did not have any of the other attributes normally associated with war. On the other hand, inner city gang wars and organized crime wars do qualify since they do have the other attributes.

In war, both sides engage in taxation, willful violation of the rights of innocents, and do not pay restitution (unless they lose and are forced to do so).

If there is an armed conflict in which neither side engages in these activities, then the conflict is not war. I think we can agree on this. Am I correct?

If there is a conflict in which one side does not engage in these activities, but the other does, is it war? I think our disagreement lies here.

I think it is not war. If, when Osama bin Laden declared war on the US in 1992, he had been hunted down and killed/arrested, that action would not have been war. If the American colonists had blown up Parliament and assassinated King George III, that would not have been war. These are not acts of warfare, they are acts consistent with self defence and retaliation.

Cross posted here.

Home
Previous entry: "I Should be Cooking Already, But ..."
Next entry: "Current Gunshot Residue Forensics are Rubbish"