Practical Anarcho-Capitalist in favor of small war on Libya

[RokiLothbard]

ya, I'm kind of stirring the pot

conditions:

1) withdraw from Iraq
2) withdraw from Afghanistan
3) all-volunteer forces*
4) all funds** for project are raised on a voluntary basis***

* I don't mean they volunteered for the Navy. I mean they volunteered for this particular mission/campaign. Combat pay is negotiable, but must be compatible with condition (4).

** yes there is some accounting to be done for capital depreciation on US millitary hardware. the accounting won't be perfect. I just ask that an honest effort is made.

*** overseas donations are welcome.

I mean really. Even I as an Acarcho-Capitalist think that if there is one "legitimate" use for "legitimate" government, then it's to go kick the crap out of other "legitimate" governemnts who are more evil. And I do think that the Libyan goverment meets meets the criterion here.

 

[Vessol]

Wars are incompatible with a Stateless society. What you are proposing is volunteers being paid with voluntarily raised funds so that they can go shoot people who may or may not be innocent. Let's just get over the fact that not all of those serving Gadaffi are evil. What about crossfire and collateral damage?

Sorry, this is a horrible idea.

Murder is immoral unless it is in immediate self-defense. This is not immediate self-defense.

 

[Stary Hickory]

So which side are you gonna shoot?

The bad guys duh

 

[South Park Fan]

If it's all volunteers with voluntary fundraising, then you wouldn't even need the government's involvement in the first place. Is there anything to prevent you as a private individual from dropping AKs and anti-aircraft guns from the skies into the hands of Libyan rebels? If so, then you would have as much chance at repealing the government regulations that prevent that as in implementing the plan you propose.

 

[Stary Hickory]

The only thing is this, with a voluntary everything....it still would be US forces....so I would want the US government to distance itself completely as possible from the whole thing. I don't want anyone interfering over there on my behalf, whether that be just in name only.

 

[low preference guy]

Wars are incompatible with a Stateless society. What you are proposing is volunteers being paid with voluntarily raised funds so that they can go shoot people who may or may not be innocent.

Murder is immoral unless it is in immediate self-defense. This is not immediate self-defense.

I agree mostly, but if someone is about to shoot somebody you know, and you shoot him to prevent it, it's not really self-defense but it's ok to do it. Do you disagree?

 

[Carehn]

I consider myself to be what some may call and anarcho-capitalist. Go to war on your dime and NOT in my name.... Ya. go for it. K

Don't expect me to fund a government that then rents its stuff out to people who go around killing in the name of peace. I don't like that at all. All your stuff guns and widgets must come from an uncorrupted market place where no part of it survives off of government funds directly or indirectly.


I could go on and on but by the time you met my needs of approval it would no longer be worth the effort. the world would have to be that in witch the stuff in libya would have never happened in the 1st place.

There is NO "legitimate" government act. Not even War on poor dark colored people.

 

[Vessol]

I agree mostly, but if someone is about to shoot somebody you know, and you shoot him to prevent it, it's not really self-defense but it's ok to do it. Do you disagree?

If you intentionally put yourself in that situation, I don't think it is alright. I don't think it's necessarily as immoral, but still..

It's like if I broke into a house with a gun. The home owner comes out and points a shotgun at me and I shoot him first, am I in the morally good light?

 

[Stary Hickory]

If you intentionally put yourself in that situation, I don't think it is alright.

It's like if I broke into a house with a gun. The home owner comes out and points a shotgun at me and I shoot him first, am I in the morally good light?

I disagree here, I think you are justified in preventing aggressive acts of violence against others...what kind of world do you want to live in, when you cannot protect your fellow man from aggressive acts of violence? There will always be organized elements of aggression yet you effectively argue that organized elements of resistance are immoral because they are "putting" themselves in that situation.

 

[RokiLothbard]

If it's all volunteers with voluntary fundraising, then you wouldn't even need the government's involvement in the first place. Is there anything to prevent you as a private individual from dropping AKs and anti-aircraft guns from the skies into the hands of Libyan rebels? If so, then you would have as much chance at repealing the government regulations that prevent that as in implementing the plan you propose.

I agree in theory. I'm trying to be a Practical Anarcho-Capitalist.

I'm pretty sure the U.S. govmt would have a problem with any attempts at a modern day "lincoln brigade" type deal. So wouldn't my proposed alternative be preferrable to both (a) Kadaffi staying in power and (b) the status quo method of "foreign intervention"?

 

[low preference guy]

If you intentionally put yourself in that situation, I don't think it is alright. I don't think it's necessarily as immoral, but still..

It's like if I broke into a house with a gun. The home owner comes out and points a shotgun at me and I shoot him first, am I in the morally good light?

Of course not. He is trying to rob you.

Let me be more specific. Suppose you go shopping with your girlfriend. Somebody points a gun to her head and says he will shoot her. You have a gun and are in a situation where you can shoot him first and do it. Do you think you did something wrong?

 

[Vessol]

I disagree here, I think you are justified in preventing aggressive acts of violence against others...what kind of world do you want to live in, when you cannot protect your fellow man from aggressive acts of violence? There will always be organized elements of aggression yet you effectively argue that organized elements of resistance are immoral because they are "putting" themselves in that situation.

He isn't promoting a volunteer force going to Libya to protect the rebel forces, but rather to fight for the rebel forces.

I asked: What about collateral damage and crossfire? Wars are not fought between two even armies on a clear battlefield anymore.

The moral approach is to not involve yourself.

Of course not. He is trying to rob you.

Let me be more specific. Suppose you go shopping with your girlfriend. Somebody points a gun to her head and say he will shoot her. You have a gun and are in a situation where you can shoot him first and do it. Do you think you did something wrong?

Not at all, you are entering a unspoken voluntary agreement with someone to assist them in immediate self-defense.

Now what if I went into that mans house, waved a gun around and then he pointed a gun at my girlfriend and threatened to shoot her if I didn't leave? Clearly it would be understandable if I shot him, but would I really be in the right for entering his home in the first place?

Sorry, I just don't see any morale argument for volunteers helping Libyan rebels.

What are those volunteers, whom will most likely be in the minority, do when the rebels find loyalist sympathizers and kill them? Or rape them? Or torture them? Those things will happen on both sides of every war.

There is no morally good side in a war because it is the organized practice of mass murder.

Sure there may be less immoral sides, but immoral acts are always committed on both sides. As so many here seem to worship it, during the American Revolution, American forces killed, tarred and feathered, and burned down the property of peaceful British loyalists, simply because they didn't agree with them. I'd consider that immoral.

 

[low preference guy]

Not at all, you are entering a unspoken voluntary agreement with someone to assist them in immediate self-defense.

Well, a literal reading of your first post didn't make those clarifications. Self-defense is not the same as defending other people.

I'm not talking about Libya, but about your statement of when it's proper to kill somebody.

 

[Vessol]

Well, a literal reading of your first post didn't make those clarifications. Self-defense is not the same as defending other people.

It's self-defense to enlist the voluntary help of others to defend you as it involves yourself. Self-defense stems from the the person whom is being aggressed against, they can take any number of decisions in order to actually defend themselves.

Go to @3:25

 

[low preference guy]

It's self-defense to enlist the voluntary help of others to defend you as it involves yourself.

The act of defending others is not self-defense. Self-defense, as the word suggests, is about defending yourself.

 

[Stary Hickory]

He isn't promoting a volunteer force going to Libya to protect the rebel forces, but rather to fight for the rebel forces.

I asked: What about collateral damage and crossfire? Wars are not fought between two even armies on a clear battlefield anymore.

The moral approach is to not involve yourself.

It still does not work as you would like. You are dealing with organized forces of aggression. If your answer is to simply not get involved because individually you cannot determine who is what, then you may as well lay down and take in the rear. What about the US? Would you fight in a revolution here? A similar situation would unfold.

 

[RokiLothbard]

He isn't promoting a volunteer force going to Libya to protect the rebel forces, but rather to fight for the rebel forces.

I'm pretty sure if the Kaddaffi guys can get a hold of the "rebel forces", they are going to kill them. Do you disagree?

 

[Vessol]

The act of defending others is not self-defense. Self-defense, as the word suggests, is about defending yourself.

No self-defense means, defense of ones self. You can defend yourself by many means, whether it be by using a gun, buying a dog or enlisting the voluntary help of others.

Again, go to the video and go to @3:25. I can't believe how often I have to post this video.

I'm pretty sure if the Kaddaffi guys can get a hold of the "rebel forces", they are going to kill them. Do you disagree?

And I'm pretty sure that the forces who are fighting FOR Ghadaffi have families themselves. Spouses and children. What'll happen to them when the rebels capture them? Or what about Ghadaffi's family?

It still does not work as you would like. You are dealing with organized forces of aggression. If your answer is to simply not get involved because individually you cannot determine who is what, then you may as well lay down and take in the rear. What about the US? Would you fight in a revolution here? A similar situation would unfold.

Of course not. What side would I deal with? Both sides would be immoral. The only moral choice is to protect yourself and those around you. This could extend far more than just your neighborhood, but to an entire region. A collective voluntary defense, if you will. A side which isn't trying to enforce its violent will upon others, like both sides were trying to do during the American Revolution.

 

[low preference guy]

No self-defense means, defense of ones self. You can defend yourself by many means, whether it be by using a gun, buying a dog or enlisting the voluntary help of others.

Again, go to the video and go to @3:25. I can't believe how often I have to post this video.

I watched the video. It doesn't change anything.

Suppose I'm not enlisting the help of others to defend myself. I'm a badass and I don't care about death, so I specifically ask everyone to not defend me when I'm attacked. But I do care about defending others. And just when a killer was about to murder an innocent kid, I shot him. How did I defend myself?

 

[Stary Hickory]

No self-defense means, defense of ones self. You can defend yourself by many means, whether it be by using a gun, buying a dog or enlisting the voluntary help of others.

Again, go to the video and go to @3:25. I can't believe how often I have to post this video.

You still have the right to defend your fellow man from attack. In a free market you could act as a security force for hire, you entire profession would revolve around using force to stop aggressors.