naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
29363 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
This is also the view of OBL. American civilians voted for the government that had soldiers in Saudi Arabia. For that reason, OBL thought it allowable to kill
American civilians.
You're missing a key difference, under Rand's view voting has nothing to do with it. Merely choosing to live under a wicked government is sufficient consent to sign your death warrant. One must martyr oneself for freedom, one revolts and wins or dies; if you do not revolt you do not deserve mercy or consideration.
Hm. I'd be curious what you think Rand's view toward e.g. Native Americans vs the USA would be (or if you know if she ever wrote on that). Were Native American raids on soft targets justified? The USA circa 1800 was very plausibly less free on net than Native American societies; when they scalped and murdered unarmed American citizens, was that just giving what was due to them, as a people upholding an expansionary state with a particularly brutal form of slavery?
There could certainly be a back and forth about which society was worse, but I guess that gets at my objections to Rand's point: it can be deployed by anyone against anyone. If your enemy is worse than you, you can justify anything against anyone governed by them. Indeed, that's the justification for the Hamas attacks: the people they murdered de facto supported the existence of the state of Israel, denying their responsibility to install a just Islamic state from river to sea.
That said, Author Bloom's summary of Rand's position during the Donahue interview isn't very accurate. See here for a transcript, where behind the ellipsis we instead see :
No. I don’t resort to terrorism. I don’t go around murdering my opponents, innocent women and children. That is what I have against the Arabs. That takes the conflict out of the sphere of civilized conflict, and makes it murderous. And anyone, private citizens, who resort to force is a monster. And, that’s what makes me condemn and despise them.
I don't think she ever wrote specifically on the exact bounds of "civilized conflict", but a few of her books touched on her conflicts with 'just war' theory. Most interpretations become... idiosyncratic, to say the least, but I don't think Bloom's "no reason to distinguish between innocent civilians from military targets" is an honest read.
There could certainly be a back and forth about which society was worse, but I guess that gets at my objections to Rand's point: it can be deployed by anyone against anyone. If your enemy is worse than you, you can justify anything against anyone governed by them.
Yep, the justification for war and murder of civilians because they are more technologically 'progressed' as well is frankly ridiculous, IMO. Especially given as you say many less technologically powerful societies on the surface level have had much higher quality of life and were better among many axes.
Hell, if we didn't wipe out 95% of the Native American population with smallpox, they likely would've been able to fend of the Europeans indefinitely.
The philosophy of a long dead, Jewish Russian author whose objectivism is a minority within the broader ancap/libertarian US political movement that itself is a minority within the American rightwing coalition influences your level of sympathy for issues with the US?
No, I meant if terrorists abroad are going to consider me, someone that was a teenager on 9/11, morally culpable for what the US government does and a valid target, that makes me much more war hawkish in general.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This is also the view of OBL. American civilians voted for the government that had soldiers in Saudi Arabia. For that reason, OBL thought it allowable to kill American civilians.
You're missing a key difference, under Rand's view voting has nothing to do with it. Merely choosing to live under a wicked government is sufficient consent to sign your death warrant. One must martyr oneself for freedom, one revolts and wins or dies; if you do not revolt you do not deserve mercy or consideration.
Hm. I'd be curious what you think Rand's view toward e.g. Native Americans vs the USA would be (or if you know if she ever wrote on that). Were Native American raids on soft targets justified? The USA circa 1800 was very plausibly less free on net than Native American societies; when they scalped and murdered unarmed American citizens, was that just giving what was due to them, as a people upholding an expansionary state with a particularly brutal form of slavery?
There could certainly be a back and forth about which society was worse, but I guess that gets at my objections to Rand's point: it can be deployed by anyone against anyone. If your enemy is worse than you, you can justify anything against anyone governed by them. Indeed, that's the justification for the Hamas attacks: the people they murdered de facto supported the existence of the state of Israel, denying their responsibility to install a just Islamic state from river to sea.
Rand's view on Native Americans was... not great: like a lot of pre-1970s Americans she largely saw them as primitive and nomadic tribal groups that hadn't really developed a concept of properties rights or technological advancement. The modern Objectivist analysis holds that some of this falls from often-bad scholarship of the time, which obscured a lot of Native American social technologies, but I'd expect she'd still find them to have failed her techno-utopian vision.
That said, Author Bloom's summary of Rand's position during the Donahue interview isn't very accurate. See here for a transcript, where behind the ellipsis we instead see :
I don't think she ever wrote specifically on the exact bounds of "civilized conflict", but a few of her books touched on her conflicts with 'just war' theory. Most interpretations become... idiosyncratic, to say the least, but I don't think Bloom's "no reason to distinguish between innocent civilians from military targets" is an honest read.
More options
Context Copy link
Yep, the justification for war and murder of civilians because they are more technologically 'progressed' as well is frankly ridiculous, IMO. Especially given as you say many less technologically powerful societies on the surface level have had much higher quality of life and were better among many axes.
Hell, if we didn't wipe out 95% of the Native American population with smallpox, they likely would've been able to fend of the Europeans indefinitely.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Perhaps this is obvious, but that view actually makes me much less sympathetic to any grievances someone may have against the US.
The philosophy of a long dead, Jewish Russian author whose objectivism is a minority within the broader ancap/libertarian US political movement that itself is a minority within the American rightwing coalition influences your level of sympathy for issues with the US?
No, I meant if terrorists abroad are going to consider me, someone that was a teenager on 9/11, morally culpable for what the US government does and a valid target, that makes me much more war hawkish in general.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link