Appeasement: Right or Wrong?

[David Floyd]

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.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

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.

[Capt Dizle]

David Floyd's political views make me look like a moderate Miss Daisy.

[Felch]

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.

[Felch]

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.

[David Floyd]

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.

[Felch]

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.

[David Floyd]

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.

[David Floyd]

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.

[Capt Dizle]

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.

[Jon Miller]

David

this is reality calling

come back, come back David

Jon Miller

[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.

[Capt Dizle]

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.

[Bosh]

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...

[Drake Tungsten]

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 bull**** people by claiming that the US is morally wrong in this case. Talk about intellectual dishonesty...