We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Part II of III
What would be the requirements of a libertarian just war? Libertarianism permits the killing of another if it is an act of reasonable self-defence. Nothing in libertarianism precludes the possibility of a collectively exercised right to self-defence. This has been accepted by most libertarians as one of the few valid functions of a ‘night-watchman’ state. As long as every individual in a society agreed to be defended by a state and the state acted against only those individuals who were actual aggressors, e.g. an invading army, on what grounds could a libertarian object?
Given that it is not practically possible to fulfil the above conditions, especially the first one, it seems to me that many of those who engage in the debate about war on Iraq for genuine and morally inspired reasons are trying to choose between two evils. Their side in the debate usually depends on which of the two evils seems more morally unacceptable to them. There are also those who find it impossible to choose, their instincts oscillating between the need for self-defence and protection, and fear of compromising their fundamental principles by condoning killing of innocent civilians. One of those is Chris Newman whose comment captures the agony of such moral choice.
The statement ‘as long as harming innocents is not the objective, if a given use of force is justified then innocent bystanders are often just a regrettable consequence’ is based on the acceptance of the doctrine of double effect. It is a useful rule, often used in moral dilemmas that can be summed up as “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. An act with both good and bad effects is morally permissible if and only if the following conditions are all met:
- The action itself is not forbidden by a moral rule.
- Only the good effect is intended.
- The bad effect is proportional to the good.
- The bad effect is not a direct means to the good effect (e.g. bombing cities to demoralise a population and hence hasten a war’s end).
And since Michael Walzer’s influential book Just and Unjust Wars (1971), in the context of war it is common to see added the following condition:
- Actions are taken to minimise the foreseeable bad effects, even if this means accepting an increased risk to one’s own combatants (e.g. one’s own soldiers)
In modern warfare the principle of the double effect is frequently applicable. In waging a just war a nation may launch an air attack on an important military objective of the enemy even though a comparatively small number of non-combatants are killed. This evil effect can be compensated for by the great benefit gained through the destruction of the target. This would not be true if the number of non-combatants slain in the attack were out of proportion to the benefits gained, as is clear from the fourth condition. Furthermore, if the direct purpose of the attack were to kill a large number of non-combatants, so that the morale of the enemy would be broken down and they would sue for peace, the attack would be immoral because the third condition for the lawful use of the principle would not be fulfilled. It would be a case of the use of a bad means to obtain a good end.
Chris Newman takes a similar route but ends up with a different point and in the utilitarian camp:
“…our moral calculus has at least three variables: the importance of the objective, the efficacy of a given type of force in achieving that objective, and the cost in innocent lives of using that type of force. Presumably, for any given values of the first two variables, there will be a point at which the value of the third becomes too high, so that the action cannot be justified…”
There appears to be a conflict between a moral justification for waging a just war and a strategic aspect of it. But does exploiting the advantage of superior military capabilities amount to using incommensurate or disproportionate force? It doesn’t because force is defined by effect on the enemy including the civilians, not by the amount of firepower. You can use superior fighting force and technology in order to shorten the war and ensure you destroy enemy fighting forces rather than civilians. → Continue reading: Just war and libertarians
Award-winning french author Michel Houellebecq is being victimized by Islamic groups in that country. It is well known to all who read their statements, interviews and translations of articles that these sorts of organization wish to bring Europeans under their medieval, violent and dismal religious law. It is just one more attempt in a campaign to turn the institutions of a liberal society against itself.
Fortuneately many others see this case as a travesty so Michel will have ample support from members of the french literary establishment.
If Islamists can’t handle his dismissal of the Koran’s literary style, tough. Let them publish their own counter critique and see if anyone wants to read it. If Michel thinks Islam is a silly religion, he is free to say so and others are free to listen or not as they choose. If he takes joy in the death of Palestinian terrorists…. well, we wouldn’t go along with that, now would we? I absolutely swear I take no more joy in the death of Palestinian fighters than Palestinians did in the death of my countrymen on 9/11.
… and we all know they are really nice people who wouldn’t dream of celebrating the deaths of our friends and relatives..
Thanks again to Instapundit for the link to this, about the history of gun control in England, and about the various Americans who seem to be doing most of the serious arguing about it.
The focus of the debate this time is professor of history at Bentley College Joyce Malcolm‘s new book Guns and Violence: The English Experience.
Time was when, as the sandal-wearing corduroy-jacket gun-wimp chick-flick-preferring libertarian that I still am, I opposed gun control only out of duty and only with difficulty. Now I’m utterly convinced, and it didn’t take the fact that recent British gun control tightening has made gun crime even worse. It was books and arguments like those of Joyce Malcolm – although not her actual book because I’ve yet to see it.
Time for another spook outing. Former US Marine and former UN arms inspector, still playing flat out for the home team, laying down his reputation for his country: Scott Ritter.
You’re the US government. You decided, soon after 9/11, to redo Gulf War 1 and this time finish it. You need inside intelligence. You dig through your mountains of electro-data with your electro-diggers. You exhaustively debrief everyone who ever has any remotely significant dealings with the Iraqi regime, and you put it all together as best you can. You’re looking for any sign of Saddam trying to get his retaliation in first, one way or another, and you’re looking for information about just how he is setting about defending himself, so that you can come at him from different directions to the ones he’s ready for.
One way in is to get your spooks onto that “UN” WMD inspection team. And … another is to set up your very own peacenik pro-Saddamite appeaser, who can tramp all over various Iraqi red carpets, shake lots of hands, talk to lots of assemblies, conspire with or be deluded by lots of Iraqi dirty tricksters and generally shine a different light on all the things and the people and the places you want to know about. Whatever happens, however Ritter’s treated and by whom – trusted, distrusted, used, abused, whatever – you learn things, and possibly (when you combine it with all the other things you’ve learned) important things. Ritter himself may never know how well he’s now doing. → Continue reading: Scott Ritter – All American good guy
…or how to die in aeroplanes.
Brian fears that the bracing postion is no good in a plane crash. May I offer a few words of reassurance. This is how I see the pros and cons of passenger jets.
The most comfortable ride (i.e. the least stomach churning) is as close to the centre of gravity as possible, generally near or over the wings and away from the windows. But this is usually between the engines and fairly close to the main fuel tanks. Sometimes the wings snap off tearing this section of the fuselage to shreds.
On the other hand the noisiest and least pleasant ride is usually right at the back, it’s also near the wash rooms which means that the queue will be leaning on your seat. However, provided the tail section doesn’t snap off too high above the ground, this is where survivors seem most likely, especially if they unfasten their seat belts and are thrown clear of the blaze.
Closet smokers who put gum in the smoke detector whilst sitting on the loo having a puff always seem to survive (airlines don’t like to admit this). The forward section is where the best service and most legroom tends to be found, and it is easiest to tell if anything is going wrong (lots of shouting or drunken singing coming from the cockpit are a give-away).
Perhaps they should put laughing gas in the masks which drop automatically when there’s a sudden drop in cabin air pressure… 
I once asked this literary agent what kind of writing paid best. He said: ransom notes.
– Harry Zimm (struggling film producer played by Gene Hackman in Get Shorty, shown on Channel 4 last night)
noun. Someone who writes for a corporate Knowledge Log (qv).
noun. See: Knowledge Log. Also: Klog, K-Blog.
K-logs are usually internal blogs (i.e. on an intranet and not visible to the general public) and are used as highly effective knowledge management systems and/or internal company communication systems (such as project blogs, for example).
noun. Corporate knowledge management weblog.
Also see: K log, K blog
Not even Fox News can bring itself to cover elections properly. It seems rather silly on their part to cover the Massachusetts gubernatorial race without mentioning Libertarian Candidate Carla Howell.
They just never learn.
noun. One or more columns along one or both sides of most blogs main page, usually used for blogroll (qv) links, contact information etc.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
