Rand's article in Foreign Policy Magazine: Peace thru Strength

[Matt Collins]

Really? Your response to the charge that your position on this does not make sense is to say that governments are involved - and that therefore, your position on this is not supposed to make sense and should not be expected to make sense. Seriously?

No, it makes sense, if you understand international relations. Have you ever taken a college level formal course on international relations, or international politics?

The meaning of "act of war" is any act that justifies a country going to war

Exactly, and in many cases governments don't consider sanctions that are imposed on them a justification for going to war.

And governments don't just make "international law" - they make "domestic law," too. So given your respect for what governments decide should be the law, I can only conclude that you believe that, say, smoking pot should be a crime. Because after all, governments "are in a good position to decide what is and isn't" a crime. Funny - I never pegged you for a legal positivist. "That's what it is because governments say that's what it is."

The difference is we are discussing intergovernmental relations, international relations. This about how governments interact with one another. This has nothing to do with how governments interact with individuals or citizens.

A punch in the nose is a punch in the nose - and a punch in the nose is an "act of war" regardless of whether the person whose nose got punched decides to punch back or not.

You are free to believe what you want, even if you're wrong.

 

[eduardo89]

Peace through strength? Hmmmm. Where have I heard that one before? Is that Dick Cheney or Rand Paul?

Ronald Reagan in 1980.

To preserve our peace and our freedom we must maintain a margin of safety. Not numerical superiority in arms and armament , but a margin of safety that is a combination. A balance of a strong economy, mutual respect and unity among our great allies and a revitalized up to date military capability. History has taught us only too well, that tyrants are tempted only when the forces of freedom are weak, not when they're strong.

 

[klamath]

An "act of war" is any act by country A that would justify country B in attacking country A.
Whether country B actually does attack country A or not has got NOTHING to do with it.
This is necessarily true by definition of "act of war." Try studying common sense sometime.

Nice try with that ad verecundiam "all governments" shtick, though.
I guess that means fiat money printing is sound economics, too.
"All governments agree," after all ...

So when the US was training to seize the oil fields of the middle east during the '70's oil embargo we would have been justified. Right?

 

[klamath]

So the people that hate "Peace through strength" are really buying personal weapons to Kill people they are not buying it for personal protection... The liberals have it right... repeal the second admendment. Guns Kill!

 

[Occam's Banana]

So when the US was training to seize the oil fields of the middle east during the '70's oil embargo we would have been justified. Right?

I don't know. Would we?

What has this got to do with anything I said?

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

So the people that hate "Peace through strength" are really buying personal weapons to Kill people they are not buying it for personal protection... The liberals have it right... repeal the second admendment. Guns Kill!

Except that a citizen who purchases a gun is more likely to establish "peace through strength" than a government/military with guns. Oh and bombs.

 

[Occam's Banana]

No, it makes sense, if you understand international relations.

And punitive-tariff protectionism "makes sense," if you "understand" mercantilism.
And government stimulus of the economy "makes sense," if you "understand" Keynesianism.
And the laws of similarity and congruence "make sense," if you "understand" magic & occultism.

Your attempt to conflate "understanding" something with that something "making sense" is full of question-begging bogosity.

Exactly, and in many cases governments don't consider sanctions that are imposed on them a justification for going to war.

No - in many cases governments decide (for entirely prudential reasons) that they will not go to war or otherwise engage in anything other than rhetorical posturing over sanctions that have been imposed on them (often because the sanction-imposers are bigger and much more powerful than they are). This is NOT the same thing. Maybe sanctions are an "act of war." Maybe they are not. But the question of whether sanctions are an "act of war" has nothing to do with what sanctioned countries prudentially decide to do about having been sanctioned.

The fact that a 98-pound weakling decides not to do anything (except maybe whine and complain) after the beach muscle-man kicks sand in his face has got absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the muscle-man initiated aggression against the weakling. Whether the weakling retailiates or not has got nothing to do with whether or not retaliation would be justified.

You are free to believe what you want, even if you're wrong.

This is gatuitously non-responsive.

But by all means, continue your dance around the positivist "School of Government" maypole of "international relations" ...

 

[CaptUSA]

You know, I don't get to these forums enough anymore... I can't believe all the Rand-bashing. It's like we have people that are actively looking for things they can hold against the man. Don't you guys get it?! There are all different paths to liberty. Yours is not the only one. Rand may not appeal to you directly, but he is on our side. This same thing happens with Alex Jones. Kokesh. Cruz. And so on and so on... Hell, even Stossel, for Chrissakes. Why divide ourselves over messaging issues? It seems like the only one who generally escapes this wrath is Ron Paul.

Can't you guys say something like, "I support everything he's doing, but I wish he would have put it this way instead..." At least then, I may think that you actually understood the message of Ron Paul. Everyone is different. You have a system that is ever-growing and liberty fades with each spurt. We need as many people fighting that as possible. If you don't think this is the way to fight it, fight it in your own way - but I beg you, do not be so callous as to believe that yours is the only way. Especially, when we have such powerful forces on the fronts. Why must we turn our fire inward? Let each man engage the enemy in the manner they see fit.

This is meant to be a wake up call.

 

[Matt Collins]

No - in many cases governments decide (for entirely prudential reasons) that they will not go to war or otherwise engage in anything other than rhetorical posturing over sanctions that have been imposed on them (often because the sanction-imposers are bigger and much more powerful than they are). This is NOT the same thing. Maybe sanctions are an "act of war." Maybe they are not. But the question of whether sanctions are an "act of war" has nothing to do with what sanctioned countries prudentially decide to do about having been sanctioned.

As I have said, they are only an act of war if the receiving country considers them so.

Study international law, and study history.