The historian and libertarian writer, Robert Higgs. is most upset that some Americans had celebrated when Osama bin Laden was killed by US special forces a few days ago:
“The caretakers who comfort the sick and dying are often great. The priests and friends who revive the will to live in those who have lost hope are great. The entrepreneurs who establish successful businesses that better satisfy consumer demands for faster communication, safer travel, fresher food, and countless other goods and services are great. The scientists and inventors who peer deeper into the nature of the universe and devise technologies to accomplish humane, heretofore impossible feats are great. The artists who elevate the souls of those who hear their music and view their paintings are great.”
“But mere killing is never great, and those who carry out the killings are not great, either. No matter how much one may believe that people must sometimes commit homicide in defense of themselves and the defenseless, the killing itself is always to be deeply regretted. To take delight in killings, as so many Americans seem to have done in the past day or so, marks a person as a savage at heart. Human beings have the capacity to be better than savages. Oh that more of them would employ that capacity.”
I agree utterly with the first paragraph. We should celebrate goodness more than we do. Absolutely right. But come on. I really have had it with the moral posturing of people who wax indignant about their countrymen feeling pleased because an evil man has been killed. When an evil person, in a confrontation such as occurred a few days ago, is killed, then why should not the admittedly rough justice of what happened be marked by a certain degree of grim satisfaction? I don’t imagine for a moment that anyone who voiced satisfaction at OBL’s death is under the illusion that this can possibly put right the evil that was done on 9/11. There are times, however, when grim satisfaction at what happened to OBL is not only the understandable reaction, but the just one.
It interests me how some on the almost pacifist wing of the libertarian movement – if I can call it that these days – have reacted to the demise of this man. After all, such folk often complained that “neoconservatives” who supported the overthrow of Saddam or the Taliban, say, were going beyond just retribution in response to the 9/11 attacks. So what I would ask of Higgs, and for that matter, would-be POTUS Ron Paul, is what exactly do they suggest should have happened in the case of OBL, had by any chance a pristine, moral libertarian regime have managed to find him and track him down? File a lawsuit? Suggest he surrenders to the nearest police station where he can be read his Miranda rights? That was not going to happen: the most probable outcome for a person such as this would be a messy arrest, and the charade of a trial and lifetime jail term/execution, or a firefight. Welcome to reality.
Higgs finishes with this:
“Glory to the USA, glory to its hired killers, glory above all to its heroic Great Leader. The whole spectacle is profoundly disgusting. Yet we can see that many Americans have enthusiastically fallen for this trick, dancing in the streets in celebration of a man’s death in faraway Pakistan. Such unseemly behavior is not the stuff of which true greatness is made.”
“Unseemly”. Oh get over yourselves.
Here are some more thoughts over at Pajamas TV. I particularly enjoyed Bill Whittle’s comments. I share his take.
This article is why I read Samizdata. Thank you.
Well, so far, things are not as bad as I feared. I am glad we got him, though I would have preferred a trial and solitary confinement for life- so he could never be considered a martyr. but i prefer rough justice to no justice. How would Higgs have felt if Osama had died free and peacefully, just of old age?
I respect Higgs a lot, and Rockwell – whose site relishes America-bashing to an “unseemly” degree.
In their defense let me say: when you understand that the State is thoroughly rotten, all its action are thoroughly rotten.
When a mafioso’s mom is wacked, do you celebrate his revenge?
The hanging of George Joseph Smith in 1915 improved the moral tone of the whole Century to follow: God knows what it would have been without that saving grace.
Oh, those humans, celebrating the death of someone hated.
It seems to me that humans are human. Accept that, learn to deal with it, or be frustrated, unhappy, and ultimately destructive.
We didn’t kill a human being. OBL ceased having that title and all that goes along with it when he decided to kill people who had never done him any harm indecriminately. We put down a rabid and dangerous animal. I celebrate the removal of a threat that is no longer in a position to do harm to me and mine. If it makes me a savage for being glad the last thing he saw before dying was a US Navy sailor, I’m okay with that too.
I actually feel worse when we have to put down animals because they are sick or threatening a person. The animal doesn’t choose to get rabies or choose to inject a toddler with poison or whatever. They’re just doing what animals choose to do. OBL chose his evil.
Those SEALs that killed OBL weren’t great because they took out the trash. Yoda was right; wars don’t make someone great. What makes those SEALs great were the fact that they willingly put themselves in harm’s way to remove a threat.
What we wrote(Link) the night the news broke. As an American, seeing bin Laden’s name in the news was little more than a depressing reminder of what this country has allowed itself to become since 9/11. I didn’t feel any sort of jubilation in his death, for the simple reason that his death didn’t change anything. It did nothing for liberty here, and (judging by the DHS and military response) it hasn’t lessened the terrorist threat at all. So, for us, the celebrating is just sound and fury signifying nothing.
Higgs acknowledges that killing is sometimes necessary, but he decries “tak[ing] delight in killings.” Johnathan considers it appropriate to take a “a certain degree of grim satisfaction” in OLB’s death. I don’t think the two of you are really all that far apart. Nothing I read in the passages quoted suggests to me that Higgs would take offense at Johnathan’s “grim satisfaction”, nor have I read Johnathan to advocate “dancing in the streets in celebration of a man’s death.” I think you both are correct. (And I also think that “unseemly” is precisely the right word here.)
After all these years, I at last disagree with Johnathon on something enough to comment.
Higgs is absolutely correct. The scenes of Americans celebrating outside the White House in exactly the same fashion they celebrate a victory of the local basketball squad was, to me, an embarrassment, reducing a necessary and seriously adult deed done well to the status of a last-second game-winning dunk.
Bin Ladin claimed responsibilty for an unforgivable act of malevalence that needed answering. The answer proferred up was that no matter how long or how far away, we will find and end those kinds of enemies. In this matter, our SEALS are among the best for this kind of job. But as much as I respect these men for their professionalism and skills, their’s is not heroic work. It is a job specialty. In a sense, they are human plumbers that can remove the clog. Even we ‘pacifist libertarians’ recognize that an occasional lump of shit needs to be removed, but it’s not a cause for celebration. If we hadn’t done the wrong things in the first place, there likely would not have been a clog to remove.
And as much as I admire Bill Whittle, one of the great polemicists of our time who can easily reduce a grown man to tears, his nationalist tendencies undermine his great libertarian arguments. To celebrate the expenditure of millions of stolen dollars in pursuit of one man misses the broader arguments of from where and how that money was acquired as well as the State policies and activities that led to his rise in the first place.
Johnathon hedges a bit in calling us the “almost pacifist wing of the libertarian movement.” I can assure him that we who despise the State and its foreign intrigues will be not at all reluctant to actively, forcefully, and effectively defend our homes, property, and neighbors. Not even a bit pacifistic, you see.
Well, Mr. Higgs, maybe not mere killing, but the kind that swooped down out of the sky and made off with old Osama was pretty darned impressive, admit it.
Not homicide and you know it. It was payback at long long last, justice finally, superbly served.
USA! USA! USA!
Speaking of tricks, how about that one where you make it sound like a plotting, pontificating mass-murdering SOB with global reach is – excuse me, was – some kind of a humble goat-herder far too “faraway” to cause harm.
Like your hanky-clutching case of the whining vapors ever could be.
Lots of so called libertarians are just socialists who want to screw around. it ain’t easy to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Chuck,
I admit it is sometimes hard to tell the difference.
It may not be the most Christian of attitudes, and I don’t know if it’s libertarian, socialist, or just plain anarchosyndicalist of me, but I stand by the old chestnut: some people just need killin’. And I’m not going to gnash my teeth or rend my clothes or wail like a woman because someone took out the trash and I laughed about it afterwards. OBL hurt us and hurt us bad and for that one brief moment we celebrated. He had it coming and he finally got it. I’m not going to apologize for cracking a beer in celebration of what those SEALs did for us or to OBL. If a bunch of people want to cluck their tongues and stroke their beards when neanderthals like me say “I hope it hurt”, well I’m not going to lose any sleep over their judgment of me that’s for sure.
“Johnathan hedges a bit in calling us the “almost pacifist wing of the libertarian movement.” I can assure him that we who despise the State and its foreign intrigues will be not at all reluctant to actively, forcefully, and effectively defend our homes, property, and neighbors. Not even a bit pacifistic, you see.”
That is a bit evasive, if you don’t mind my saying so. Even an anarchist might want to destroy an organisation/persons responsible for inflicting mass terror/death on their property. It seems to be me to be entirely within the ethical framework of even a Murray Rothbard-style libertarian to want to catch, punish, and if necessary kill, someone responsible for organising, planning and financing such mass death.
And to do that requires things such as forces of some kind. Unless those who criticise the Navy SEALs and their political masters can provide me with a coherent suggestion of how justice could be done, I will continue to regard such people as pretty much pacifists, however much they talk about “defending their homes”. The legitimate use of force does not rule out using force to punish and destroy a proven attacker.
Do you have any idea how absurd that is? Probably not.
The libertarians in question can be criticised for their suicidal world view (i.e. “I am not pacifist but will form militias with my equally armed neighbours to defend our town” as if that would actually work against a global enemy with aircraft and missiles or a non-state enemy with suicide bombers in the context of a globalised free trading world)… but to call a free market capitalist who thinks severalty is the keystone of civilisation a “socialist” suggest you either do not know what a socialist is or a libertarian is or you have not pondered your comment through very carefully.
It may be necessary to kill an evil person as in the case of Bin Laden.
But to celebrate that you had to do it is immoral.
It is as to celebrate his evil. I think we would all rather he had not been evil and therfore that he did not need killing.
It is sad that he needed to be killed.
As Laird has already said Higgs did not criticise the act of killing just that it should not be celebrated.
JP is agruing over something that Higgs didn’t say:
“And to do that requires things such as forces of some kind. Unless those who criticise the Navy SEALs and their political masters can provide me with a coherent suggestion of how justice could be done, I will continue to regard such people as pretty much pacifists, however much they talk about “defending their homes”. The legitimate use of force does not rule out using force to punish and destroy a proven attacker.”
Higgs simply didn’t say that Bin laden should be spared.
I suggest you read more carefully.
It must be nice to be an academic like Higgs where you most you ever have to worry about is getting a coed pregnant.
Why? Please explain the moral theory that celebrating the destruction of a source of evil is a bad thing. I do not just oppose some people for what they do, I *hate* them and wish them every misfortune and I am delighted when my wishes are granted by fate, or on this occasion, the US Navy. I find such squeamishness baffling.
Robert Higgs is the reason I stopped contributing to the Foundation for Economic Freedom. He is intentionally flammatory, especially when it comes to National Defense.
While in theory, the words are a warning to not become a celebrant of death, in practice we waited ten years for this particular death and the victorious closure of that particular chapter of history was indeed one that caused an upwelling of joy that needed an outlet.
We have preachers to tell us we shouldn’t; but the good preachers know that because we are human we must. It’s an issue of balance and when to suspend the rules.
I was not the least put out by the celebrations other than that I missed them by minutes because I had already left the bar in Midtown going up and was probably under ground when the announcement was made. Had it come on the TV in the ‘usual place’, I am sure I and my compadres would have walked the few blocks to Time Square and joined in or at the very least have had a few extra bottles so that we could clink them together and loose the emotionb of the moment.
A nation that can not take pride in its defenders (such as the Navy SEALs) is a nation that is doomed.
Libertarians who cut themselves off from the nation – can not expect the nation (the people) to think of them highly either.
This is a mistake that neither Ludwig Von Mises (a utilitarian) or the Randian Objectivists (natural rights people) made.
It is a very Rothbard thing – and Robert Higgs (in many ways a great man) is under the influence of Rothbard here.
The thing is that Murray Rothbard himself was a great man – he really was, for example he was a great historian of economics.
The trouble is that Murray Rothbard had a “problem” with the United States – basically he viewed Uncle Sam (and Britain also) as being in the wrong in every war for the last couple of centuries.
The Slave Empire (the Confederacy), Imperial Germany, National Socialist Germany, international Marxism (led by the Soviet Union and Red China).
It did not matter to Rothbard – America was AUTOMATICALLY in the wrong in fighting any of them.
Well a person can take that apriori view of history and international politics if they wish – they may even feel it is their duty (as anarchocapitalists) to do so (although, I believe, that even an anarachist should see that MOST OF THE TIME Uncle Sam has been in the right – i.e. that the foes of America have been the bad guys).
But one can not take that position and expect widespread public support.
“You do not understand Paul – Higgs is not attacking Americans, he is just attacking the government”.
Calling people who risk their lives for the United States “hired killers”?
Does not sound that way to me.
As so often with Rothbardianism – this was basically a political suicide note, spitting in the face of Americans and then being astonished when they turn their faces away.
As for “America started it”.
How?
By having a few bases in the Arabian desert?
That was Bin Laden’s orginal excuse – but as he (like Muhammed) wanted the Islamic conquest of the world he would have just found another excuse had these bases been closed.
One can not appease such people.
And (I repeat) this Rothbardianism has direct political consequences.
For example, Ron Paul has, by declaring that he would not have had Bin Laden killed, basically destroyed his campaign – only a couple of days after formally getting into the race.
‘It’s Tommy this an Tommy and Tommy ‘ows your soul. But it’s thin Red Line of Heroes when the drums begin to roll’.
There is a particularly degenerate stripe in the post war American generation of which I must sadly count myself. It manifests itself by always attempting to use events like this or perhaps the execution of a Ted Bundy by vocally converting the situation into a fulcrum to demonstrate their own personal sanctity. Hence the breathless articles and the odious candle light vigils, small matter what ever became of what’s his name as long as their ‘superior position’ has been noted.
‘Hired killers’? I can only this pompous buffoon might find his way to Little Creek or Fayetteville and then perhaps he would be in need of either noble caretaker or priest.
Perry:
“to celebrate that you had to do it is immoral”.
I think a similar situation occurs with the death penalty. It is clearly sad that that we have to end someones life because of what they have done. It is sad that they lost their way and their acts have led to our violent reaction.
I wonder how much death you have seen other than on a television screen to laud it as something to celebrate.
With regard to Ron Paul. He is a man of principle and that principle is truth. If you ask him a question he will tell you what he thinks. I admire him for that. It is Rothbards influence on Paul as well and that is no bad thing.
Those that argue in favour of the kinds of state intervention in foreign lands fail utterly to prove that their objective has any chance of success. Are we safer? Are the thousands of innocent lives worth the death of one crazy man? As a utilitarian this really should be of prime importance.
Paul:
“A nation that can not take pride in its defenders (such as the Navy SEALs) is a nation that is doomed.”
Utter crap. Is that regardless of their actions?
Should we not decry the armed forces compliance in their continuing EU integration?
Belief in property rights in not time limited.
Rob writes:
Oh really? I got the distinct impression that he said that the killing of OBL and indeed other such folk is to be “deeply regretted”.
The truth of the matter is that Professor Higgs seems to be trying to have his cake and eat it; he probably realises that governments sometimes have to do nasty things to deal with certain situations, and then wants to get all precious when the plebs show some signs of pleasure that a thug has been put out of commission.
What Paul Marks and Vinegar Joe said.
Rather a lot actually. Spent a fair old time between 1992-1996 in Croatia and BiH. Seen it and smelled it. Met families left behind and spent a few nervous hours underground waiting for the shelling to stop on a couple occasions. That was where I learned to hate those who do wicked things to people. I have a nice “senior-moment” minefield related story too if I am drunk enough. How ’bout you?
I believe that Osama Bin Laden had a long overdue appointment with the sword, and good riddance to him.
I also believe that a few of the people who pushed the button on his demise are also deserving candidates for the sword.
I don’t see how this is inconsistent with libertarian principles.
Ron ‘we gave [Saddam Hussein] the gas’ Paul has less connection to the truth than I have to my ex-wife. He is both loon and liar.
I’m also a little confused as to the US Navy’s involvement in the EU either.
As for the original topic, the only thing I feel bad about is that I don’t feel bad. May God have mercy on OBL on the next life and good riddance to him from this one. For sheep to graze in peace, sometimes wolves just need 77 grains in the snot locker.
What insitutions in the United States are not totally dominated by leftist ideolgy and culture.
The armed forces and a lot (not all) police forces.
They are less dominated by the left than a lot of private business enterprises are – let alone the universities and the mainstream media (both, supposedly at least, mostly independent).
So who do Rothbardians go out of their way to piss on?
The “cops” and the armed forces.
The very people who have resisted leftist culture more than anyone else – and the people who most Americans hold in high regard.
Hold in high regard because they RISK THEIR LIVES, every freaking day.
I repeat Robert Higgs is a great man, Ron Paul is also a great man (he attacked the Federal Reserve long before it was fashionable to do so).
But get some common sense – you just do not seem to feel the same way as normal people. And NO I do not mean you have to jump up and down (or get a marching band – as Glenn did) when Bin Laden was finally hunted down.
But you should be quietly pleased – and proud of and greatful to the military people who achiveved this .
Now you see why even people who support libertarianism often can not support libertarian candidates – the reason is stuff like this.
By the way it is not a straight anarchist thing.
Ron Paul is not an anarchist.
And I have known anarchists who have real feelings (feelings of respect) when they see a miltary or police funernal – and think what these men and women have to face (face FOR THEM) every day.
It is a matter of common sense – and of basic feeling.
Mr. de Havilland:
“I am not pacifist but will form militias with my equally armed neighbours to defend our town” as if that would actually work against a global enemy with aircraft and missiles or a non-state enemy with suicide bombers in the context of a globalised free trading world
This is the exact kind of thinking that led to our current state of affairs: a pack of oligarchs working with a centralized, socialistic government to steadily erode economic and personal freedom. The United States- and for that matter, England- would be safe even without any military at all. Very few nations have the ability to threaten you in any meaningful way, and those that do use nuclear weapons. In the era of the Internet, people should be able to indicate to their governments how much money they want to put into the military, or the NHS, or Medicare, or anything.
If you have a primitive system of majority rule, you can’t be surprised when someone like Obama or Palin is the result.
Most people with brains in their heads agree that Robert Higgs is a pomo jackass, but anyone who thinks we can have libertarian government AND ludicrous military spending is kidding only themselves.
At times like this I am reminded of something that Paul Marks said at the time of the death of Pinochet. You can’t kill someone who’s your prisoner.
They could have captured Bin Laden and they could have put him on trial or at least sent him to Guantanamo. And they should have done so.
I find this line about a “charade” of a trial rather worrying. It’s almost as if Obama (lawyer) and Clinton (lawyer) are saying “the judicial system we have spent the last 30 years creating is rubbish so we’ll shoot people instead.”
In related news, Osama has just met the first of the 72 virgins. That said, I’m more or less with Sunfish on this.
“I do not mean you have to jump up and down (or get a marching band – as Glenn did) when Bin Laden was finally hunted down. But you should be quietly pleased – and proud of and greatful to the military people who achiveved this.”
Which, I think, was precisely the point Higgs was trying to make. Perhaps I am simply misreading him, JP, or being overly generous, but it seems to me that what Higgs “deeply regretted” was not the killing of OBL per se but rather the necessity of doing so. Rather like pumping out the ceptic tank on a hot day: it’s an unpleasant but necessary task, and one can properly take satisfaction in a job well done, but it’s no cause for celebration.
Ah crap, here’s the virgin.
Quietly pleased, my arse. I danced a jig, went to Mass, cracked open some Champagne and took my family out for lunch, and I’ve barely stopped smiling since.
I think how you responded to this depends not on whether you are American or not, but simply on how closely you were affected by this monstrous man’s actions. I’ve taken his efforts to kill me quite personally since he killed a close colleague of mine. It reminds me a little of the exchange in Catch-22 (from memory):
“They’re trying to kill me”
“Yes, but they’re trying to kill everyone”.
“What difference does that make?”
It strikes me as the ultimate luxury to not only be able to benefit from others’ bravery, but then to be high-mindedly critical about it once it is safe to do so.
A couple of thoughts. I was personally rather bothered by the celebrations, it just seemed tasteless. However, I find some of the arguments here compelling. Nonetheless, it just seems to me that “grim satisfaction” is the appropriate response, hooping and hollering seem just out of place. I’d feel the same way as I walked out the guilty verdict of the trial of someone who killed a loved one. No fireworks or champagne party for me.
On a more political point I find the press coverage of this even more la-la than the usual press coverage of Obama. His decision to send in the SEALs, we are told was “gutsy.” Really? Why? What is brave or gusty about sending a bunch of guys in to risk their lives? He had the guts to risk a tiny drop in his poll numbers? Well break out the medal of honor for that gutsy call! There was nothing gutsy about it, all it was was slighty less wimpy and “Hide under the bed” than Obama’s usual “wet your panties”, “fire a missile from ten miles away” style.
I think in face of the true, skill, spectacular bravery, and just plain balls of the guys who carried out the mission, anyone who would allow himself to be lauded and called gutsy in light of that is just a rather pathetic weenie. And to think that Obama and his team have done everything they possibly can to dismantle the apparatus that made this success possible, and then to see him jump in front of the parade really gives me a sick twisted feeling in my stomach.
I generally agree with Fraser Orr. And I too am getting sick of the ‘gutsy’ message that’s desperately being spun by Democrat operatives and various media talking heads. The decision Obama made to go in wasn’t the slightest bit gutsy. If the mission had’ve gone tits-up and knowledge of this became public – which it probably wouldn’t, but just for argument’s sake – what would the consequences for Obama have been? Negligible, I’d argue. Just more US casualties in that region. A gutsy decision is one whereby the person making it stands to lose big if it doesn’t come off as planned. Carter’s decision to send in special forces to end the Iran hostage crisis could be described as gutsy. Obama’s decision to get Bin Laden wasn’t.
Patrick-
Arresting someone who won’t be arrested is not a trivial exercise. People can die, even subsequent to the use of less-lethal means. And even if the SEALS were so equipped (a point on which I refuse to speculate), at least one account had OBL reaching for a gun after trying to hide behind a woman.
Stingballs and super socks are not, IMHO, an acceptable response to deadly force threats. To demand otherwise is to demand that soldiers or cops choose between constant retreat and a suicide mission.
Paul-
As far as military and police attitudes towards leftism or statism, it’s nuanced and messy (human beings often are) but you’ve caught on to something important. A pity that this UI I’m stuck with doesn’t lend itself to long, complex posts.
Rob, you say that Ron Paul is a man of principle. Some might beg to differ(Link), or at least ask how coherent his brand of paleo-libertarianism actually is.
“A nation that can not take pride in its defenders (such as the Navy SEALs) is a nation that is doomed,” writes Paul, entirely reasonably. Then Rob writes: “Utter crap. Is that regardless of their actions?”
Why it is “utter crap” to take pride in a defender, Rob? And Paul is not defending them regardless; he is defending people who defend. And taking out terrorist masterminds, like OBL, is arguably a part of that process.
I notice you did not reply to my point about it being legitimate, even for the most pristine libertarian polity, to take out declared enemies who have inflicted harm.
“The caretakers who comfort the sick and dying are often great. The priests and friends who revive th…”
I knew something was amiss simply by reading the opening lines. The over-elaborate introduction reeks of the classic pseudo-philosophical Marxist quasi-arguments I’ve had to endure.
Using clever words like “regretted” “taking-delight”, in a vain attempt at ideological chest-beating.
F@$# you Mr. Higgs. Spend a day with some of the people who lost loved ones and friends on 911, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack. Do that before waxing all sanctimonious about some college-kids partying in the street.
Who appointed you to gauge the greatness of a human? I value these men and their contribution to humanity.
Mr. Higgs, your petty brand of “pacifism” makes me sick. You’ve lived in relativistic academic fog for so long, you don’t even feel relief over the fact that a great danger to society has been removed. The real savage here, devoid of compassion to victims and wronged-folk, is you.
I’d feel the same way as I walked out the guilty verdict of the trial of someone who killed a loved one. No fireworks or champagne party for me.
Even if your loved one died a frightening, drawn-out and painful death live on TV? Even if you watched people cheering that death, and then finding dozens of unrelated justifications for it? Even if that person had spent the intervening time issuing videos to mock you? Even if that murderer seemed for nearly 10 years to be beyond reach, and then out of the blue came to justice, when you happened to be out late at night after a few beers?
I’m sorry, I don’t believe you.
JP
We clearly differ on Ron Paul. I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says but I think he does say what he thinks regardless of the electoral consequenses, which I think in a politician should be respected.
With regard to the military/police respect thing.
Many of my family and friends are in both the military/police force and I have immense respect for what they do. Not because of the institution they belong to or the state suplied uniform they wear but becasue of who they are and what they do. Many also despise the leadership of their organisations. Granted they are institutions that have resisted the inflitration of lieftist creeds the longest but they are still moving in that direction and will always be right wing in the authoritarian sense that Stalin’s army was right wing.
I think Paul has rose tinted spectacles about what even members of the military think of the military. They fight for each other and consider themselves professionals, it’s not all crying at the national anthem.
Your point about it being legitimate to kill people like Bin Laden; I agree entirely. I just wouldn’t celebrate the fact. Maybe grim satisfaction or relief is better. Celebrations are best left for joyous occations than grim necessities.
manuel 11 paleologos, I don’t believe that commenter either.
It occurs to me that there is a clear distinction to be made between one’s own conduct and the judgement of the conduct of others. Personally, I don’t think you would ever find me among those celebrating in the streets the death of anyone, no matter how evil (although I could be wrong, and circumstances may change in the future that may change the way I feel about this – those would be very grim circumstances, though). But, at the same time, I really don’t think that it is my place to pass judgement on people who choose to do so. This is what Higgs does, and frankly I too find it offensive, even while I tend agree with his personal take on the issue.
Rob, on Ron Paul:
I’ll respect a politician who seems to be honestly engaging with the facts and holds views sincerely; but remember, as the late Milton Friedman once said, that sincerity is a much over-rated value. You can be sincerely wrong about certain views, and sincerely hold views that others regard as abhorrent.
On certain issues, such as the role of the state and the Fed, RP is correct. Heck, I even think he is right that the US should pull out of many military endeavours.
I think a lot of this stuff about what Higgs says comes down to issues of taste. I find the sniffy response of some to the expressions of grim celebration of OBL’s death to be, well, a bit precious, frankly. Give those who yelled after news of his death came out a bit of slack.
I really don’t understand how there’s this much debate over cheering a just reward for an evil man. You can wish he’d have been captured to be a national scorn for decades, but I’m not broken up that he was killed.
Just watching the situation be “cloudy” weeks after the fact is one more reason government can’t be trusted with the simplest things, though. Ron Paul is a joke if he thinks he can turn the system around through a broken method like voting.
Well that is the world as it exists and in which some future libertopia will have to survive.
To rejoice in the killing of evil is great.
The festivities about the death of Bin laden were Great. means there is still hope for Western Civilization.
The killing of Bin Laden was great. It should be commemorated as triumph of Civilization.
It is people that don’t understand that Civilization
includes Killing and War and that both when done rightful makes Civilization to continue. That should be celebrated. The Civilization wants to continue to breath.
But it seems for many Civilization is just an aesthetic pleasure… Vanity. Narcisists.
I guess I’m surprised that in ~50 comments, no one mentioned Bin Laden’s value as an intelligence asset as opposed to a corpse. I did try to read them all, but did I overlook something in the comments?
Our domestic police carry stun guns as a non-lethal option when they’re dealing with someone they want to take alive. The SEALs can’t at least -attempt- to do the same when the knowledge that man had in his head would have been of inestimable value?
No flash-bang grenades? No debilitating tear gas? I’ll be the first to admit that I’m playing Monday morning quarterback here, but I must say that I’m rather frustrated that so little effort seems to have been undertaken to capture BL alive. Compare and contrast this with the efforts made to ship relatively small fry halfway around the world to places like Syria in an effort to extract information from them (information they might not even possess). Yet when it comes to Bin Laden, (the Head Honcho) apparently, it’s: pop a cap in him and….we’re done.
That’s some serious one-dimensional thinking there, IMHO. Not to mention the fact that he was executed right in front of his 12-year-old daughter, who was then left behind. I wonder what cause that young girl, who had her father murdered before her very eyes, will be dedicating the rest of her life to?
If Bin Laden hated the US enough to do what he (purportedly) did, despite suffering mostly in abstract terms, I shudder to think of what’s going through that kid’s mind right now, and what her -own- ideas might be concerning an emotional outlet for the death of her dad. After all, with her father now dead, what does she have to lose?
My own take on the execution (let’s call a spade a spade, eh?) is that Bin Laden would have proven an embarrassment to the US if put on trial, hence his killing rather than his being taken alive, the latter being a far more sensible action if the Americans are actually serious about winning the War on Terror (as opposed to it merely being a canard for a never-ending lottery for the Military-Industrial Complex that Ike warned us about).
At the very least, I’d find a great deal more to celebrate if I knew that, as a result, the budget of, say, the DHS was going to be cut in half ASAP and grandmothers were no longer going to be groped/irradiated (their choice!) at airports. No sign of that, however, and we are instead told that we now ought to be “extra vigilant” as Al Quaida plans their revenge.
Which raises the question: at what point, exactly, will the War on Terror be considered over? Just asking.
I could see something to celebrate if BL’s death were more than a mere emotional catharsis (as the majority of posts here seem to reflect). Other than assisting in the release of some long pent-up feelings, however, I am unclear as to what, exactly, BL’s death has accomplished in “big picture” terms.
Laidback: You might be interested in this link(Link) about the legality of dealing with OBL.
The focus of the article was on the supposed crassness of people looking or sounding pleased at his death, not about the possible intelligence gathering potential of keeping OBL alive. In reality, the only way this man would have squealed would be by torturing him, or somesuch. I cannot see him giving out information freely.
Putting him on trial would have been a circus of no value to the US or anyone else, apart from the usual lawyers.
I dispute the value to the US in winning the war on terror by keeping this man alive. You seem to overlook the fact that millions of muslims, although shy of admitting it, are delighted that he is gone, and are disgusted by the brutality, and narcissim, of OBL and his organisation.
Agreed: OBL’s “value as an intelligence asset” is far off-topic for this particular thread (which is already quite long enough).
And also agreed that it’s unlikely that he would have provided any particularly useful information beyond that which will be obtained from all those hard drives and computers we allegedly seized.* After all, the purpose of pursuing all those “small fry” was precisely to locate OBL. To what bigger fish could he possibly have lead us?
No, the only real advantage I could see to capturing him alive is so that he could be publicly executed, so we would all know for certain that he truly is dead. Polluting the ocean with his body and withholding confirmatory photos doesn’t exactly help that cause. We are thus forced into the position of having to take Obama at his unsupported word on this, something which is very difficult for a lot of us. We want to believe him about this, which just might make it easier for us to believe him about other things in the future. Perhaps that’s the real deep game being played here. Whether or not OBL is dead.
I’m just sayin’.
* Assuming, of course, that in truth there actually were computers seized or, for that matter, that OBL was actually killed, but let’s not indulge in that particular level of paranoia just now.
Was not the death of communism itself (sorry, maybe future tense for certainty) more important than the deaths of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Tito, Hoxha and the rest?
Likewise OBL and his medieval fundamentalist objection to the modern (though not totally Westernised) world.
Kill a man (even men/people) and more will spring into line and march on. Kill the idea and they will all (or most) find something else to do (or to worry/weasel about).
Has the idea been killed?
Best regards
Nigel, none of the men you listed were killed (except for Trotsky, but he was sort-of killed by his own, so that doesn’t count) – they all died natural death. Unlike, say, Hitler. Big difference. I am not saying that the killing of the leader a victory makes, but it does make for an important stepping stone on the way to it.
That said, I have not yet completely made up my mind about the killing being a better option that capture while alive. I also think that Laidback does make some good points (although his use of the word ‘purportedly’ as it applies to OBL’s deeds makes it a bit difficult to take him entirely seriously).
I appreciate the link, and yes, I did read it. However, I think it’s worth pointing out that the article you linked to was written by Harold Hongju Koh, who, apparently, is the/a “Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State.”
IOW: He’s in the employ of the same government that carried out the Bin Laden raid. Do you really suppose he’d find the actions of the people who are paying him to be illegal? Not if he wants to continue to get paid.
I especially liked this bit he had to say:
Our procedures and practices for identifying lawful targets are extremely robust, and advanced technologies have helped to make our targeting even more precise.
If you’ll excuse my cynicism (which is not directed at you, personally) I think the above is the PR version of how the US conducts the War on Terror. If the above reflected reality, I don’t think the Pakistanis would be half as incensed as they are about drone strikes.
Frankly, I’d give a good deal to know just what those “procedures and practices” are for identifying targets (“lawful” or otherwise). I notice that Mr. Koh doesn’t elaborate on what they are, exactly, so we’re left having to guess if they are, in fact, “extremely robust” or not.
At any rate, my initial post wasn’t quibbling over the legality/illegality of the raid. So while I appreciate the link, (really, I do) the “rules” and the legality of the actions of the State (any state) are, let’s face it, whatever they say they are. The role of folks like Mr. Koh is to rationalize it all afterward (that is, if they want the checks to keep coming in).
That, of course, is the primary advantage of being a State: you get to decide what laws (domestic, international, or otherwise) do and don’t apply to you, right? 🙂
Yes, I understood that. My point was that, in my own view, folks were wildly celebrating a military operation with a sub-optimum outcome. As I intimated, killing Bin Laden was great for “relieving the feelings,” so to speak, but it had little (if any) effect on the purported War on Terror of which it was (presumably) a part.
Unfortunately, we have no idea how resilient he would or would not have been under questioning. He’s stone dead, so how tough or wimpy he would have been is now anyone’s guess.
As I mentioned earlier, the US shows little (okay, absolutely no) compunction about shipping folks off to Syria to be tortured if the US Government is convinced that doing so will yield something in the way of useful intelligence. Whether or not someone will reveal information “freely” isn’t as much a concern as is the fact that they might have information in their heads that might “save lives” (to name one rationale for torturing people).
Yet, when we capture the Big Cheese himself, we can’t seem to be bothered with trying to snag him in one piece. I guess what I’m trying to say here is that if Bin Laden was so important a figure in the War on Terror, why weren’t more strenuous efforts made to capture him alive?
Well, again, we now have no way of knowing what a trial would have been like: the SEALs popped a cap in him, then the Navy dumped the body into the ocean (which, incidentally, is a serious no-no for Muslims, if I understand correctly).
I think it is safe to say, however, that a trial would have gone a long way toward convincing people (both inside and outside the US) that we are, in fact, a nation of laws, rather than the sort of nation that goes around capping people, then dumping their bodies into the ocean in the same way mobsters do.
Fair enough. On my own part, I dispute the value of blowing away such a (purportedly) important figure without first making every effort to capture him alive and extract whatever information he might have.
Well, if he was a problem for “millions of muslims,” as you say, why did they not sort him out in the decade it took the US to find him?
Frankly, I’m not concerned about the impression that OBL did or didn’t make in the Muslim world: the Muslim world is for Muslims to sort out. I’m concerned about the impression the US made by capping an unarmed man like that.
For a nation that’s supposedly bound by laws, (as Mr. Koh would have us believe) we certainly seem to have shown quite a bit of brutality and narcissism ourselves during the decade we spent looking for OBL. We reduced Iraq to rubble and Afghanistan isn’t in the best of shape, either, right now. So as much as I would like to think that OBL (now deceased) and his bunch have a lock when it comes to acting in a brutal and narcissistic manner, I’m not sure I’d want to do a Gallup poll on the standing of the US in the Muslim world just now.
Anyway, I guess my own exasperation with all the celebration that took place has to do with the ratio of jumping up and down and yelling to the amount of introspection that took place (i.e., people asking themselves why they were doing what they were doing). As far as I can tell, his death has changed nothing in practical terms, which makes me wonder just what all the cheering was about.
(I guess I’m always reminded of the old saw, “The larger the crowd, the lower the average intelligence” whenever I see a crowd gathering.)
Alisa:
Indeed I cannot disagree with all of that. But I chose them for death personal (a plurality even) before the death of their philosophy, and wrote just that.
I’m sorry my argument missed its target: that the political philosophy is often more important than its political leaders.
Best regards
‘Often’ is an important qualifier here, but it may be an overstatement. The ideologies we are discussing here are all fundamentally collectivist, and as such, a leader has an importance far beyond that of a non-collectivist political movement (of which there have been very few, if any in modern history).
Put me in the column that can’t really understand the jubilation. For the following (admittedly standard) reasons:
(1) Everything is worth a cost-benefit analysis. I have no compunctions about killing Bin Laden – either moral or legal – but I’m not sure it was worth the price tag.
(2) Bin Laden was a mediocre man, a run-of-the-mill Islamofascist, and there’s something unseemly about getting that emotionally invested in him. He’s merely the man who showed it could be done – but every western intelligence agency already knew it could be done. The problem is still out there, as it ever was. I doubt killing Bin Laden will have set anything back much.
I’ll second what Laidback says here: “Anyway, I guess my own exasperation with all the celebration that took place has to do with the ratio of jumping up and down and yelling to the amount of introspection that took place.” Right.
“hired killers” people, “hired killers”.
Someone whose attitude to people who risk their lives for America (such as the Navy SEALs) is the above……
That is why Rothbardians are wrong.
Their basic hostility to people who put their lives on the line to defend them.
They go from the CORRECT understanding that war is expensive (NOT an economic benefit) to the attitude that “America is always wrong”.
And it is not just a matter of the present wars – I happen to oppose those also.
It is Korea and World War II also – to the Rothbardians.
To the Rothbardians – America is always wrong, and those names on the war memorials are contemptable “hired killers”.
Higgs seems typical of a certain type of decadent semi-intellectual who is very full of himself, so much so that the real world and all its messiness just doesn’t suit him.
It is unfortuinate, certainly not cause for rejoicing, but some people need killing. Which means that society needs people who are willing and able to do that on their behalf. And while we may regret the need for the killing, we should be thankful to those who do what society needs done.
Government is, indeed, too often arrogant and power-grasping. But sometimes, despite it all, there are things that the government has to do on behalf of its people.
It seems to me that the U.S. is again being schizophrenic, wanting both the moral high-ground while denying we are a people just like everyone else on the globe; and at 230 some odd years old still an adolescent compared with older nations such as Britain, which in some form or another has been a nation for over 1000 years. Leaving out for the moment that the CIA helped create Bin Laden during “Charlie Wilson’s War” in Afghanistan: Hiroshima/Nagasaki was — revenge. So was the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
No Higgs is not a semi intellectual – he really is a true scholar.
And so was Murry Rothbard.
The problem is a fundemental one – not a lack of study.
The problem is that they just do not share (or understand) the mind and soul of ordinary people.
A ordinary person is proud (not disgusted) by what Higgs (like Rothbard) thinks of as “hired killers”.
The need for them is not understood (Ludwig Von Mises tried to explain that to Rothbard – but his efforts just broke on Rothbards they-are-part-of-the-government-so-they-should-be-got-rid-of first principles way of thinking), and the pride and faith in them (the spirit so vital to a nation) is understood even less.
It is dismissed as a false state of mind – produced by government propaganda.
To Rothbard (and to his followers – such as Higgs) a military funeral is (at best) just “some poor dupe – led to his death by the state” (and that is, I repeat, at best – often we get “hired killers” and other insults).
They feel nothing when they see the flag and hear the music.
So they can not understand people who do feel pride and loyalty – i.e. they can not understand the very people (civilian as well as military) on whom actually depends.
This must change in the libertarian movement is going to achieve what it might achieve – no less than saving our civilization.
New people who do NOT support wars for “nation building” BUT do have empathy for the military and for the ordinary citizen, these are the people who must take the lead now.
I hope there are enough of such people.
I don’t think anyone actually was happy about the killing of bin Laden per se. What people were celebrating, and still celebrate, is what they see as an act of justice. And a healthy spirit rejoices at an act of justice. Nobody wanted the death of bin Laden in itself–they would have much preferred that he not murder 3,000 people on Sep. 11, and do the other things, and that he not be killed in turn. But once he committed those injustices, people celebrated what they saw as a just retribution. To think that people were just relishing the spilling of bin Laden’s blood is as superficial and unfair and childish as it would be to say that what we celebrate on Memorial Day or Independence Day or Veterans Day or V-E Day is death and destruction–when what we celebrate is justice, peace, victory, and freedom.