Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 140

Thread: Appeasement: Right or Wrong?

  1. #1
    David Floyd
    Emperor
    Join Date
    31 Dec 1969
    Location
    The bottom of a large bottle of beer
    Posts
    3,130
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    16:02

    Appeasement: Right or Wrong?

    I hear a lot of people these days ridiculing those who oppose war with Iraq (and war in general) as "Chamberlain's" or "appeasers", with the implication being that the current situation is as bad as appeasing Hitler at Munich.

    I guess my question is, is and was appeasement actually wrong?

    I would say absolutely not.

    Although Germany had certainly violated the Versailles Treaty in several different ways, the Versailles Treaty was not actually fair to Germany. Germany was not the only one responsible for WW1, nor did they commit actions that were any worse than those committed by all the other participants (the worst being, in my opinion, conscription and shooting deserters, which all sides did).

    Sure, Germany had united with Austria, and seized the Sudetenland, and reoccupied the Rhineland, but these were not actions that were any of France's or Britain's business. You might argue from a hindsight perspective that the ultimate goal was to take down France (which might or might not be true), but that is hindsight talking. Chamberlain and the rest couldn't have known this - unless they were psychic, that is.

    So, in reality, the appeasement of Germany was nothing more than the major powers of Europe disengaging themselves in a matter that was really none of their business, and making every possible effort to maintain the peace.

    If, instead, had British and French troops had attacked Germany, they would have been just as much in the wrong as Germany (Germany in the wrong for occupying the Sudetenland and their internal policies, Britain and France being in the wrong for invading Germany). Using force in a manner other than outright self defense, in relations between nations, is never, ever justified, and it would not have been in this case, either.
    Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
    Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

  2. #2
    Felch
    Emperor Felch's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Sep 2001
    Location
    Germantown, Maryland
    Posts
    8,268
    Country
    This is Felch's Country Flag
    Thanks
    94
    Thanked 197 Times in 137 Posts
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    12:02
    Floyd, free nations are like free people.

    Imagine it this way. What if you had an agreement with your neighbor that you would defend each other if the government tried to trample your rights. One day, the government contacts you, knowing that with you out of the picture it can easily violate your neighbor's property rights and maybe even take away his firearms. You discuss the matter with the government, and instead of standing by your neighbor, you agree to let them take your neighbor's freedom, so long as they don't take anybody else's.

    That's essentially what happened. France was committed by treaty to defend many of Germany's neighbors. At Munich, it, along with the UK, abandoned its allies, and allowed to Germans to violate Czechoslovakia's property rights.

    It's retarded to appease any organization that is committed to extending its domination over others. Just as we know that we should prevent our own government from violating our neighbors liberties, so do we know that we should keep hostile powers from violating the rights of friendly powers.
    Do not take anything I say seriously. It's just the Internet. It's not real life.

  3. #3
    Drake Tungsten
    Deity Drake Tungsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Oct 2001
    Location
    In the closet...
    Posts
    10,604
    Country
    This is Drake Tungsten's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    11:02
    Appeasement wasn't wrong, merely monstrously stupid.
    KH FOR OWNER!
    ASHER FOR CEO!!
    GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!

  4. #4
    David Floyd
    Emperor
    Join Date
    31 Dec 1969
    Location
    The bottom of a large bottle of beer
    Posts
    3,130
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    16:02
    Floyd, free nations are like free people.
    I fail to see how a nation and an individual are the same thing.

    Imagine it this way. What if you had an agreement with your neighbor that you would defend each other if the government tried to trample your rights. One day, the government contacts you, knowing that with you out of the picture it can easily violate your neighbor's property rights and maybe even take away his firearms. You discuss the matter with the government, and instead of standing by your neighbor, you agree to let them take your neighbor's freedom, so long as they don't take anybody else's.
    Your argument here fails for two reasons. Number one, there is no moral problem with defending your neighbor, because you are voluntarily placing yourself in danger, and no one else, whereas in the case of an alliance, you are placing millions of people in danger without giving them a choice in the matter.
    Secondly, a government violating the rights of an individual is not anything like one nation invading another nation. You are trying to liken Nazi Germany to an overriding government. That is not a good analogy.

    That's essentially what happened. France was committed by treaty to defend many of Germany's neighbors. At Munich, it, along with the UK, abandoned its allies, and allowed to Germans to violate Czechoslovakia's property rights.
    But defending Czechoslovakia (and in the Sudetenland, many of the native Germans wanted to be part of Germany, anyway), Britain and France would have put a hundred million Brits and Frenchmen in jeopardy, and would have sent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to their death, over an issue that had nothing to do with them.
    Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
    Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

  5. #5
    Kepler
    Settler Kepler's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Jul 2002
    Location
    Lovely Oregon
    Posts
    5
    Country
    This is Kepler's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    08:02
    Appeasement is not a good international strategy unless you're too weak to do anything about it.

    But opposition to the resolution (and a subsequent US attack) is not appeasement. Appeasement means your neighbor steals your bike and you do nothing about it (so then he steals your car). Opposing the first Gulf War would have been appeasement, since Iraq had stolen Kuwait.

    This is preemption, a whole different thing. Now once the US attacks, if the international community lets us get away with it, that will be appeasement. So let's hope they really are as spineless as we say they are.
    It is much easier to be critical than to be correct. Benjamin Disraeli

  6. #6
    Drake Tungsten
    Deity Drake Tungsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Oct 2001
    Location
    In the closet...
    Posts
    10,604
    Country
    This is Drake Tungsten's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    11:02
    You could argue that allowing Iraq to break the agreements that it signed at the end of the Gulf War is appeasement. Would invading Germany after Hitler has reoccupied the Rhineland have been preemption?
    KH FOR OWNER!
    ASHER FOR CEO!!
    GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!

  7. #7
    Felch
    Emperor Felch's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Sep 2001
    Location
    Germantown, Maryland
    Posts
    8,268
    Country
    This is Felch's Country Flag
    Thanks
    94
    Thanked 197 Times in 137 Posts
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    12:02
    Originally posted by David Floyd
    I fail to see how a nation and an individual are the same thing.
    I fail to see how an educated man cannot understand basic literary devices such as similes.


    Your argument here fails for two reasons. Number one, there is no moral problem with defending your neighbor, because you are voluntarily placing yourself in danger, and no one else, whereas in the case of an alliance, you are placing millions of people in danger without giving them a choice in the matter.


    In a democratic state, such as the UK, and the Third Republic, people do have a choice because they invest foreign policy powers in elected representatives. It's one thing to hate governments overstepping bounds, David, but in this case they were simply doing their jobs.


    Secondly, a government violating the rights of an individual is not anything like one nation invading another nation. You are trying to liken Nazi Germany to an overriding government. That is not a good analogy.


    I'm trying to liken Nazi Germany to an overriding government? Oh, wow, how could an educated person ever think of such a thing. Why, whenever David Floyd thinks of the ideal Libertarian utopia, Nazi Germany immediately springs to mind. In Nazi Germany, the government was never overriding, and always respected the rights of the people. . .

    Seriously, one nation invading another nation is a government violating the rights of many many individuals. How is it not?

    But defending Czechoslovakia (and in the Sudetenland, many of the native Germans wanted to be part of Germany, anyway), Britain and France would have put a hundred million Brits and Frenchmen in jeopardy, and would have sent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to their death, over an issue that had nothing to do with them.
    The French people had already agreed to defend Czechoslovakia. That's what it means when a democratically elected republic makes an alliance. It's the people of France agreeing to defend the people of Czechoslovakia, and vice versa. How this is difficult for you to understand, I'll never know.

    Clearly the defence of Czechoslovakia had a great deal to do with the defence of France. That's why I had the neighbors analogy. Germany was intent on spreading its influence. The Czechs had a very modern weapons industry that Hitler wanted to use to bolster his own forces. Simply because you refuse to recognize historical reality, doesn't mean that people who oppose authoritarianism are evil.

    Floyd, I don't think I'll ever understand you. You love liberty, I know that. But you don't seem to realize that the price of liberty is beating the living hell out of anybody who wants to take it away. Nazi Germany wanted to take it away. Don't claim we couldn't read Hitler's mind, we didn't have to - he was nice enough to write Mein Kampf.
    Do not take anything I say seriously. It's just the Internet. It's not real life.

  8. #8
    David Floyd
    Emperor
    Join Date
    31 Dec 1969
    Location
    The bottom of a large bottle of beer
    Posts
    3,130
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    16:02
    Kepler,

    But opposition to the resolution (and a subsequent US attack) is not appeasement. Appeasement means your neighbor steals your bike and you do nothing about it (so then he steals your car). Opposing the first Gulf War would have been appeasement, since Iraq had stolen Kuwait.
    Except for the minor fact that Kuwait didn't belong to the US

    Felch,

    I fail to see how an educated man cannot understand basic literary devices such as similes.
    I understand similies, but I fail to see how the similie had anything to do with reality.

    In a democratic state, such as the UK, and the Third Republic, people do have a choice because they invest foreign policy powers in elected representatives.
    Well, fine, then by that argument, appeasement was exercising the will of the voters, because the voters elected leftist governments (especially in France).

    It's one thing to hate governments overstepping bounds, David, but in this case they were simply doing their jobs.
    Just because a majority of people voted for a certain government doesn't mean the government is above right and wrong. Doing what the people want does not necessarily equate to doing the right thing, which is what governments should primarily look at.

    Further, just because the majority of people want something doesn't give them license to violate the rights of the minority. As an example, even though the majority of Americans favored war with Japan after Pearl Harbor, doesn't mean those who opposed war should have had to fight.

    Seriously, one nation invading another nation is a government violating the rights of many many individuals. How is it not?
    That's another flawed analogy. One nation invading another is either many individual violating the rights of many other individuals, or a government violating the rights of another government. You're using different definitions to define the same thing.

    What I also fail to understand, still, is how what happens to Czechoslovakia any business of France or Britain, and more importantly, how is it worth the lives of Frenchmen or Britons who probably don't care about the issue or want to be dying for it anyway.

    The French people had already agreed to defend Czechoslovakia. That's what it means when a democratically elected republic makes an alliance. It's the people of France agreeing to defend the people of Czechoslovakia, and vice versa. How this is difficult for you to understand, I'll never know.
    So, anytime a country undertakes an action, they are following the will of not only the people in general, but 100% of the people? This argument won't work with me, remember, because I don't believe that any supermajority, no matter how big, can overturn the rights of a single person. 1 billion other people should not be able to make one other person go fight a war.

    But you don't seem to realize that the price of liberty is beating the living hell out of anybody who wants to take it away. Nazi Germany wanted to take it away.
    You're almost right. The price of liberty means beating the hell out of anybody who wants to take it away from YOU.

    Forcing you to go defend the liberty of another has nothing to do with liberty, and everything do to with authoritarianism.
    Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
    Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

  9. #9
    Felch
    Emperor Felch's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Sep 2001
    Location
    Germantown, Maryland
    Posts
    8,268
    Country
    This is Felch's Country Flag
    Thanks
    94
    Thanked 197 Times in 137 Posts
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    12:02
    Originally posted by David Floyd
    Well, fine, then by that argument, appeasement was exercising the will of the voters, because the voters elected leftist governments (especially in France).
    Right. It was expressing the will of the voters. However, that wasn't what you were asking.


    Further, just because the majority of people want something doesn't give them license to violate the rights of the minority. As an example, even though the majority of Americans favored war with Japan after Pearl Harbor, doesn't mean those who opposed war should have had to fight.


    If you live in a society where the laws require you to fight for that society under certain extreme situations, then yes, you do have to fight if they make you. If you think that's too high a price to pay for mutual security, feel free to leave the United States and live someplace where you aren't compelled to fight. Nobody forces you to live in this country David, you are an adult, and are free to leave if you think the price to live here is too steep.


    That's another flawed analogy. One nation invading another is either many individual violating the rights of many other individuals, or a government violating the rights of another government. You're using different definitions to define the same thing.


    It's an analogy. Get over it.


    What I also fail to understand, still, is how what happens to Czechoslovakia any business of France or Britain, and more importantly, how is it worth the lives of Frenchmen or Britons who probably don't care about the issue or want to be dying for it anyway.


    I tried to explain it, but you're stubborn. It basically has to do with people not being self-centered jackasses, and thinking beyond their own petty lives for once.


    So, anytime a country undertakes an action, they are following the will of not only the people in general, but 100% of the people? This argument won't work with me, remember, because I don't believe that any supermajority, no matter how big, can overturn the rights of a single person. 1 billion other people should not be able to make one other person go fight a war.


    Out of curiosity, would you object to an all-volunteer army fighting?

    You're almost right. The price of liberty means beating the hell out of anybody who wants to take it away from YOU.

    Forcing you to go defend the liberty of another has nothing to do with liberty, and everything do to with authoritarianism.
    David, people fighting for liberty are going to be more successful if they cooperate. The ends of guaranteeing that the light of liberty isn't extinguished from the earth is worth the price of temporary authoritarianism. In this case it's about thinking in the long term.

    Following your method, the eventual result could very possibly have been victory by the totalitarian powers. Would it have been worth not conscripting people?
    Do not take anything I say seriously. It's just the Internet. It's not real life.

  10. #10
    Imran Siddiqui
    Sports Forum Moderator Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
    Join Date
    31 Dec 1969
    Location
    on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
    Posts
    37,769
    Country
    This is Imran Siddiqui's Country Flag
    Thanks
    106
    Thanked 136 Times in 120 Posts
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    12:02
    Felch, you are talking to David.

    Let me explain this to you with smilies.

    Arguing with David -
    Ignoring David's silly rants -
    “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
    - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

  11. #11
    David Floyd
    Emperor
    Join Date
    31 Dec 1969
    Location
    The bottom of a large bottle of beer
    Posts
    3,130
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    16:02
    Right. It was expressing the will of the voters. However, that wasn't what you were asking.
    Right, I asked if appeasement was right or wrong. And this way, by either one of our arguments, it was right.

    If you live in a society where the laws require you to fight for that society under certain extreme situations, then yes, you do have to fight if they make you.
    Not morally. No power has the moral right to force me to fight, kill, and die.

    If you think that's too high a price to pay for mutual security, feel free to leave the United States and live someplace where you aren't compelled to fight. Nobody forces you to live in this country David, you are an adult, and are free to leave if you think the price to live here is too steep.
    Stupid argument for two reasons. First, there's nowhere I could go that respects individual rights to a significant degree. Second, the point I'm making is that the law is wrong - it is wrong whether or not I live here.

    It's an analogy. Get over it.
    Again, use analogies that make sense.

    It basically has to do with people not being self-centered jackasses, and thinking beyond their own petty lives for once.
    So now the lives of Frenchmen and Britons are "petty" in comparison to the fate of a chunk of territory containing a large number of people who probably prefer to live under German rule anyway?

    Out of curiosity, would you object to an all-volunteer army fighting?
    No, but I would object those who don't volunteer being forced to pay for the actions of the all volunteer army in many cases.

    The ends of guaranteeing that the light of liberty isn't extinguished from the earth is worth the price of temporary authoritarianism.
    I think we all know what Benjamin Franklin said about security vs. liberty.

    Following your method, the eventual result could very possibly have been victory by the totalitarian powers.
    Not really. The German wartime economy was, by all accounts, not very well suited to peacetime, and in any case, there were many attempts to assassinate Hitler. A government such as that of Nazi Germany will collapse on itself because of internal problems, eventually.

    In any case, I don't know what you mean by "final victory". Do you mean conquering Europe? Conquering Russia? Conquering England? Conquering the United States? Conquering the world? The first two would have been possible, the third less so, and the final two absolutely impossible.

    Would it have been worth not conscripting people?
    No, it wouldn't have been.
    Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
    Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

  12. #12
    David Floyd
    Emperor
    Join Date
    31 Dec 1969
    Location
    The bottom of a large bottle of beer
    Posts
    3,130
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    16:02
    Felch, you are talking to David.

    Let me explain this to you with smilies.
    Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
    Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

  13. #13
    Felch
    Emperor Felch's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Sep 2001
    Location
    Germantown, Maryland
    Posts
    8,268
    Country
    This is Felch's Country Flag
    Thanks
    94
    Thanked 197 Times in 137 Posts
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    12:02
    I know. I'm just hoping that as a fellow lib I can help him see the light. Nazis = Very Bad. Fighting Nazis < Very Bad.
    Do not take anything I say seriously. It's just the Internet. It's not real life.

  14. #14
    Ogie Oglethorpe
    Emperor Ogie Oglethorpe's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Dec 1999
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    6,095
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 18 Times in 16 Posts
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    16:02
    Originally posted by Felch X



    David, people fighting for liberty are going to be more successful if they cooperate. The ends of guaranteeing that the light of liberty isn't extinguished from the earth is worth the price of temporary authoritarianism. In this case it's about thinking in the long term.
    Folowing this to its natural conclusion, If one does not surrender his rights as an individual one can never even form an armed force in the first place to fight. Since the first precept of any organized armed force is to obey orders, a group of individuals can never form a cohesive force if the individuals rights are first and foremost (even in a strictly volunteer force).

    Individual rights are a wonderful concept to attempt to achieve, but ultimately in order to effect any force in the world it has to be the combined efforts and will of groups of individuals. As a consequence the rights of the individual have to be second to the group will in democracy else chaos and stagnation.

    LOL at Imran.
    "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

    “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

  15. #15
    David Floyd
    Emperor
    Join Date
    31 Dec 1969
    Location
    The bottom of a large bottle of beer
    Posts
    3,130
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    16:02
    Nazis = Very Bad. Fighting Nazis < Very Bad.
    Fighting the Nazis is OK, once they do something to you - then it becomes self defense. But at that point, fighting them is OK only if you are not forcing others to do so as well.

    Same as any other situation.

    Also, I fail to see how, as a libertarian, you support conscription in any situation.
    Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
    Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

  16. #16
    David Floyd
    Emperor
    Join Date
    31 Dec 1969
    Location
    The bottom of a large bottle of beer
    Posts
    3,130
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    16:02
    Folowing this to its natural conclusion, If one does not surrender his rights as an individual one can never even form an armed force in the first place to fight.
    Possibly true, but the surrender of these rights is contingent upon voluntary action. I can VOLUNTEER to surrender my right to sit on my ass by joining the army and going to fight, but it is wrong to force me to join.

    Since the first precept of any organized armed force is to obey orders, a group of individuals can never form a cohesive force if the individuals rights are first and foremost (even in a strictly volunteer force).
    OK, but even if I concede this, the individuals are not part of a cohesive fighting force before they are drafted. They retain their individual rights until they give them up by volunteering, and even then they retain a good deal of them - they still can't be forced to march off a cliff, for example.

    Individual rights are a wonderful concept to attempt to achieve, but ultimately in order to effect any force in the world it has to be the combined efforts and will of groups of individuals. As a consequence the rights of the individual have to be second to the group will in democracy else chaos and stagnation.
    OK, but democracy is not a good ideal - it is simply the majority lording it over the minority.
    Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
    Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

  17. #17
    Ogie Oglethorpe
    Emperor Ogie Oglethorpe's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Dec 1999
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    6,095
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 18 Times in 16 Posts
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    16:02
    Originally posted by David Floyd


    1) Possibly true, but the surrender of these rights is contingent upon voluntary action. I can VOLUNTEER to surrender my right to sit on my ass by joining the army and going to fight, but it is wrong to force me to join.



    2) OK, but even if I concede this, the individuals are not part of a cohesive fighting force before they are drafted. They retain their individual rights until they give them up by volunteering, and even then they retain a good deal of them - they still can't be forced to march off a cliff, for example.



    3) OK, but democracy is not a good ideal - it is simply the majority lording it over the minority.
    Point 1 - No issue with your points
    Point 2 - But they can be asked to particpate in a military action up to the point of surrendering their life for an action that they may not even support (based upon their moral and political views) Once they have entered into that long term contract with the government much of their individual rights are suspended for the period of that contract.
    Point 3 - True but it seems to be best form of government that we flawed humans can come up with and still manage largish complex social structures.
    "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

    “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

  18. #18
    Capt Dizle
    King
    Join Date
    17 Sep 1999
    Posts
    1,657
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    11:02
    David Floyd's political views make me look like a moderate Miss Daisy.

  19. #19
    Felch
    Emperor Felch's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Sep 2001
    Location
    Germantown, Maryland
    Posts
    8,268
    Country
    This is Felch's Country Flag
    Thanks
    94
    Thanked 197 Times in 137 Posts
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    12:02
    Originally posted by David Floyd
    Right, I asked if appeasement was right or wrong. And this way, by either one of our arguments, it was right.

    Not morally. No power has the moral right to force me to fight, kill, and die.
    So far, so good. I'm not going to argue those points.


    Stupid argument for two reasons. First, there's nowhere I could go that respects individual rights to a significant degree. Second, the point I'm making is that the law is wrong - it is wrong whether or not I live here.


    Antarctica has no government. There, a whole continent for you to enjoy.

    You're right on the second part. The real point of what I was saying you caught on to - there's no country that gives you the option of not fighting in case of war. Now as soon as you figure out why . . .


    Again, use analogies that make sense.


    Made perfect sense to me.


    So now the lives of Frenchmen and Britons are "petty" in comparison to the fate of a chunk of territory containing a large number of people who probably prefer to live under German rule anyway?


    The chunk of territory was a major defensive bulwark for Czechoslovakia. It's annexation by Germany meant that the Czechs (and Slovaks) didn't have any chance at all to resist an invasion. Self-determination is as much a right of the Czechs and Slovaks as it is the Sudetenlanders.

    And quite frankly you're overstating the losses France and Britain would have incurred. There's significant historical evidence that Hitler would have been forced by his general staff to back off of an invasion of Czechoslovakia, if the west threatened the use of force.

    The use of petty was trollish, so you're right, their lives weren't petty.


    No, but I would object those who don't volunteer being forced to pay for the actions of the all volunteer army in many cases.


    Antarctica's taxes are as low as they get.


    I think we all know what Benjamin Franklin said about security vs. liberty.


    Actions speak louder than words. The actions of the founding fathers clearly demonstrate that they were willing to coerce people in order to get their liberty. You're applying your notions of liberty to Franklin, who had far more respect for society than you do.


    Not really. The German wartime economy was, by all accounts, not very well suited to peacetime, and in any case, there were many attempts to assassinate Hitler. A government such as that of Nazi Germany will collapse on itself because of internal problems, eventually.

    In any case, I don't know what you mean by "final victory". Do you mean conquering Europe? Conquering Russia? Conquering England? Conquering the United States? Conquering the world? The first two would have been possible, the third less so, and the final two absolutely impossible.


    I'm aware of the weaknesses of the Third Reich. However, do you honestly think it would have been overcome if the Allied powers said, "Feel free to not pay taxes if you oppose the war. Don't feel compelled to join the army either. Oh, and if at any time you feel a bit Nazish, feel free to go ahead and give them whatever aid you want."

    Allied victory was made possible because we did tax the **** out of ourselves, and because government did violate the rights that you hold sacred. Allied authoritarianism destroyed Nazism, not liberal values.
    Do not take anything I say seriously. It's just the Internet. It's not real life.

  20. #20
    Felch
    Emperor Felch's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Sep 2001
    Location
    Germantown, Maryland
    Posts
    8,268
    Country
    This is Felch's Country Flag
    Thanks
    94
    Thanked 197 Times in 137 Posts
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    12:02
    Originally posted by David Floyd
    Also, I fail to see how, as a libertarian, you support conscription in any situation.
    I accept that under extreme circumstances, such as total war, temporary measures have to be taken to ensure liberal values endure. I certainly don't support it in the event of limited wars, but when the existence of the country is at stake I think it's acceptable.
    Do not take anything I say seriously. It's just the Internet. It's not real life.

  21. #21
    David Floyd
    Emperor
    Join Date
    31 Dec 1969
    Location
    The bottom of a large bottle of beer
    Posts
    3,130
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    16:02
    Point 2 - But they can be asked to particpate in a military action up to the point of surrendering their life for an action that they may not even support (based upon their moral and political views) Once they have entered into that long term contract with the government much of their individual rights are suspended for the period of that contract.
    In some cases you are correct, but they still can't be ordered to march over a cliff, for example, or murder civilians. Every order does not have to be obeyed, in other words.

    Further, you are about (I think) to draw the parallel that volunteering for the military is the same as "volunteering" to live in society. Before you or anyone else brings this up, in the words of Samuel L. Jackson, allow me to retort (Pulp Fiction was such a great movie ):
    Societies, and thus governments, are formed for protection against coercion. Thus, the only legitimate action of a government is to protect an individual from coercion. Logically, a government can't coerce the very people it is supposed to be protecting from coercion. Conscription, as I'm sure anyone will agree, is a type of coercion. Therefore, a government or society can not morally conscript the people within that society.

    A second point is that I did not agree to society. I was born into it, and in this day and age I have no reasonable method of getting out of it or forming my own society, even if a large number of other people want to as well. The US Civil War proved that that type of self-determination is largely dead. The only way for this to work is if a majority of people agree with me, but if a majority of people agree with me, there would be no problem, from my point of view, in the first place.

    Point 3 - True but it seems to be best form of government that we flawed humans can come up with and still manage largish complex social structures.
    I disagree. The best form of government humans can come up with, in my opinion, is one similar to that originally formed by the United States (with the Constitution, protection of individual rights, checks upon government, etc., but without things such as slavery).

    In any case, I fail to see how democracy is ultimately any better than authoritarianism, because if I disagree I'm still getting screwed.
    Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
    Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

  22. #22
    Felch
    Emperor Felch's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Sep 2001
    Location
    Germantown, Maryland
    Posts
    8,268
    Country
    This is Felch's Country Flag
    Thanks
    94
    Thanked 197 Times in 137 Posts
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    12:02
    Originally posted by David Floyd
    In any case, I fail to see how democracy is ultimately any better than authoritarianism, because if I disagree I'm still getting screwed.
    You're free to disagree. And the NKVD won't hunt you down either.

    EDIT: Really you are right. Rule of law is better than majority rule. It's why America isn't a fascist country like Greece, where the government can prohibit people from playing video games.
    Do not take anything I say seriously. It's just the Internet. It's not real life.

  23. #23
    David Floyd
    Emperor
    Join Date
    31 Dec 1969
    Location
    The bottom of a large bottle of beer
    Posts
    3,130
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    16:02
    Antarctica has no government. There, a whole continent for you to enjoy.
    Actually, as far as I'm aware, Antartica is governed by several UN treaties

    You're right on the second part. The real point of what I was saying you caught on to - there's no country that gives you the option of not fighting in case of war. Now as soon as you figure out why . . .
    I would suppose the reason is none of the societies value individual rights to any great degree.

    The chunk of territory was a major defensive bulwark for Czechoslovakia. It's annexation by Germany meant that the Czechs (and Slovaks) didn't have any chance at all to resist an invasion. Self-determination is as much a right of the Czechs and Slovaks as it is the Sudetenlanders.
    Oh, well then, Israel shouldn't have to give back the Golan Heights, should it? At least it shouldn't using the same logic, right?

    And quite frankly you're overstating the losses France and Britain would have incurred. There's significant historical evidence that Hitler would have been forced by his general staff to back off of an invasion of Czechoslovakia, if the west threatened the use of force.
    Actually, you are referring more to the remilitarization of the Rhineland, although at the time of Munich, the British and French were probably still militarily superior to the Germans.

    What with the French mobilization schedule, relative lack of a British army, the fact that by this time the Luftwaffe was bigger than the RAF, etc., I doubt a simple walkover would have occurred. But whatever - substitute a few thousand for a few hundred thousand, my point is still gonna be the same.

    Actions speak louder than words. The actions of the founding fathers clearly demonstrate that they were willing to coerce people in order to get their liberty. You're applying your notions of liberty to Franklin, who had far more respect for society than you do.
    Actually I'm more concerned with what he said. I agree with his quote more than I agree with everything he did.

    I'm aware of the weaknesses of the Third Reich. However, do you honestly think it would have been overcome if the Allied powers said, "Feel free to not pay taxes if you oppose the war. Don't feel compelled to join the army either. Oh, and if at any time you feel a bit Nazish, feel free to go ahead and give them whatever aid you want."
    As I stated earlier, I think that any nation as authoritarian as Hitler's Germany will eventually collapse on itself. Further, if someone does not feel strongly enough about his or her nation to defend it against a threat, then I fail to see why a nation can force a person to anyway.

    Allied victory was made possible because we did tax the **** out of ourselves, and because government did violate the rights that you hold sacred. Allied authoritarianism destroyed Nazism, not liberal values.
    In our history, that is correct. Authoritarianism destroyed authoritarianism. That does not make one type of authoritarianism "good", it just makes it "less bad" in certain ways. Conscription, though, was just as wrong for the US as it was for Germany or the Soviet Union.

    I accept that under extreme circumstances, such as total war, temporary measures have to be taken to ensure liberal values endure. I certainly don't support it in the event of limited wars, but when the existence of the country is at stake I think it's acceptable.
    The US has never fought a total war nor has it had its existence threatened - certainly not in World War 2, which you seem to consider an extreme circumstance. I consider WW2 to be a war on a large scale, and nothing more. Japan and Germany were by no means a threat to invade the US, nor would they ever have been.
    Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
    Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

  24. #24
    David Floyd
    Emperor
    Join Date
    31 Dec 1969
    Location
    The bottom of a large bottle of beer
    Posts
    3,130
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    16:02
    You're free to disagree. And the NKVD won't hunt you down either.
    No, but the FBI would hunt me down if I failed to report for a hypothetical draft. The IRS would hunt me down if I fail to pay taxes.

    EDIT: Really you are right. Rule of law is better than majority rule. It's why America isn't a fascist country like Greece, where the government can prohibit people from playing video games.
    Then again, some places in America prevent you from having sex with the person of your choice, so I wouldn't be so sure about the US being that much more free than everywhere else.
    Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
    Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

  25. #25
    Capt Dizle
    King
    Join Date
    17 Sep 1999
    Posts
    1,657
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    11:02
    Originally posted by David Floyd


    Then again, some places in America prevent you from having sex with the person of your choice, so I wouldn't be so sure about the US being that much more free than everywhere else.
    Yeah David, those laws against prostitution just go to far man.


  26. #26
    Jon Miller
    OTF Moderator Jon Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 May 1999
    Posts
    17,402
    Thanks
    75
    Thanked 14 Times in 12 Posts
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    10:02
    David

    this is reality calling

    come back, come back David

    Jon Miller
    Jon Miller-
    I AM.CANADIAN
    GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

  27. #27
    Boris Godunov
    Emperor Boris Godunov's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Aug 2001
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    6,158
    Country
    This is Boris Godunov's Country Flag
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    09:02
    I don't know about appeasement then, but I think it's pretty easy to show that those who equate the current situation to 1930s Europe are being ridiculous. Hussein is no Hitler, as he poses significantly less of a threat. Not invading Iraq isn't appeasement--it's simply not invading another country without just cause. People who equate the two are guilty of hyperbole and a bit of intellectual dishonesty.
    Tutto nel mondo è burla

  28. #28
    Capt Dizle
    King
    Join Date
    17 Sep 1999
    Posts
    1,657
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    11:02
    Originally posted by Boris Godunov
    I don't know about appeasement then, but I think it's pretty easy to show that those who equate the current situation to 1930s Europe are being ridiculous. Hussein is no Hitler, as he poses significantly less of a threat. Not invading Iraq isn't appeasement--it's simply not invading another country without just cause. People who equate the two are guilty of hyperbole and a bit of intellectual dishonesty.
    Well Boris. It would be fair to say that few saw Hitler as being as serious a threat in the 30s as he turned out to be.

    There is no way to predict the future. It is possible that a strongman may someday unite a number of Arab states. That might indeed be a frightful threat.

    Nassar I think bundled Egypt and Syria for a bit. What was that called? The United Arab something or another.

    Anyway, anyone who says that there is no just cause to effect regime change in Iraq is being intellectually dishonest IMHO.

    Of course if Saddam would just disarm as he agreed to do in the cease fire agreement when Iraq lost the Gulf War no additional action would be warranted.

  29. #29
    Bosh
    King Bosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    31 Dec 1969
    Location
    Hiding from the deadly fans
    Posts
    2,281
    Country
    This is Bosh's Country Flag
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
    Local Date
    July 24, 2014
    Local Time
    01:02
    Well you've got to admire DF for consistency, just hope that he'll eventually figure out that no matter how important voluntarism is its not the only important thing...
    Stop Quoting Ben

  30. #30
    Drake Tungsten
    Deity Drake Tungsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Oct 2001
    Location
    In the closet...
    Posts
    10,604
    Country
    This is Drake Tungsten's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    July 23, 2014
    Local Time
    11:02
    it's simply not invading another country without just cause.


    I still fail to see how Iraq's complete disregard for the agreements that ended the Gulf War do not translate into a "just cause". Seems like willful blindness on the part of the anti-war crowd. If you think an invasion of Iraq is a mistake, then say so. It's certainly a justifiable view. But don't bullshit people by claiming that the US is morally wrong in this case. Talk about intellectual dishonesty...
    KH FOR OWNER!
    ASHER FOR CEO!!
    GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Psychology of Appeasement
    By Zeiter in forum ACDG3 Spartans
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: March 22, 2006, 11:51
  2. Appeasement and Agression Released!
    By Case in forum Civilization I and Civilization II
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: January 10, 2006, 10:20
  3. Appeasement
    By KingAl in forum Civilization IV General
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 1, 2005, 18:51
  4. Appeasement: Thoughts on my current game.
    By Artifex in forum Civ3-General-Archive
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: August 11, 2002, 06:52

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions