9/11 victims deserved their fate

[Agathon]

There's not much to argue.

Ethical principles apply to war. Attacking civilians directly cannot be justified unless there are extreme circumstances (and I can't think of that many).

On the other hand, if a democratic country persists in doing that very thing, or in waging immoral wars or other immoral activity, the people who fail to remove such governments are responsible for it. If not them, then who else? In a democracy, the voters are in the end responsible, that's the whole point of democracy after all.

And that is why Americans who call Al Qaeda murderers should not be so quick to cast the first stone. Just because the attack on the WTC was wrong, does not mean that the "enemies" might not have a just cause. After all, the fact that the firebombing of Dresden was a criminal act in no way diminishes the allies' cause and in no way absolves the Nazis from being in the wrong.

[Kuciwalker]

That's a long way from the thread title, Agathon.

[Agathon]

Yeah, but the truth is rarely so clear cut.

I like to compare 9/11 with the Columbine shootings. Of course the students who died there did not deserve to die, but some of them, and more importantly, the school staff and the parents of those kids share some of the blame. From what I hear, those kids were bullied mercilessly and the school did nothing about it. I imagine that contributed to the awful events that followed.

[Berzerker]

Given that in a democracy, we all agree to allow the representatives of the majority to represent all of us, we cannot pretend that we do not have some, albeit diminished, responsibility for what our governments do.

It's not sufficient to say, "I didn't vote for Bush", because the essence of democracy requires that the losers agree to let the winners make policy.

We don't agree, we just don't want to be killed or move away from family and friends only to discover the one form of government we can live under to avoid this guilt is a dictatorship.

I believe you're referring to the Sandinista-Miskito conflict in and around Bluefields on the Caribbean coast .

If you believe in this 'tribal wholesale slaughter', then I'm sure you must have some reason for doing so, and would be able to produce some references to it.

That name sounds familiar and I've heard repeated references to it from various supporters of the GOP and/or the Contra war. References:

"Following the 1979 Sandanista revolution in Nicaragua, the Honduran Miskitos' isolation dissipated. After Sandanistas destroyed many Miskito villages on the Nicaraguan side of the Rio Coco, over 10,000 Nicaraguan Miskito Indians fled."

https://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=9102

That was from the first link at Google under miskito sandinasta

[Agathon]

We don't agree, we just don't want to be killed or move away from family and friends only to discover the one form of government we can live under to avoid this guilt is a dictatorship.

Unfortunately, if you want to have an effective government, you have to agree. The social contract is an artificial device, but its implications are clear.

Even an elected Libertarian minimalist government is in the same boat.

[Berzerker]

In a democracy, the voters are in the end responsible, that's the whole point of democracy after all.

That relies on collective guilt, if the voters who continue supporting politicians who commit evil are responsible, how can the voters who oppose those politicians also be responsible? Is collective guilt the whole point of democracy?

[Kidlicious]

Point is Berzerker, that even if you didn't vote for Bush, you are no Jesus. If society is guilty, then there are no individuals who are not guilty.

[Agathon]

That relies on collective guilt, if the voters who continue supporting politicians who commit evil are responsible, how can the voters who oppose those politicians also be responsible? Is collective guilt the whole point of democracy?

In a nutshell, yes.

It's no different from collective responsibility among the executives in a corporation. Everyone is allowed their say with the proviso that everyone accepts the majority verdict as the expression of their individual will. That is what "government by consent" means. It is also why conducting a rebellion against a democratically elected government is not justified simply because you don't like it.

This is the basis of social contract theory.

[Agathon]

That relies on collective guilt

Which isn't the absurd notion that some people paint it as being. The board of a corporation can all be guilty even though a bare majority of its members supported the wrongful action.

[Berzerker]

Unfortunately, if you want to have an effective government, you have to agree. The social contract is an artificial device, but its implications are clear.

Even an elected Libertarian minimalist government is in the same boat.

A Libertarian government wouldn't be screwing around in the ME, but since we have to agree, how can we be guilty? We have to agree to support an immoral government and that makes us guilty? Seems to me the perpetraters of this "social contract" are not only guilty for the actions of their government abroad, but the guilt they force others to "share" at home.

[Agathon]

Berz.

Imagine in a Libertarian society that there are periodic elections to determine the makeup of the small government that is responsible for the judicial system. If the people who don't vote for the winners just deny the legitimacy of the elected government, then the government cannot fulfil its function.

Hence everyone agrees, by participating in the election, that they will abide by the choices of the majority and, as long as the resultant government acts constitutionally, that they are responsible for the conduct of said government. By agreeing to the voting process, they have legitimized its outcome and thus take their share of responsibility for what the government does. For example, if the government wrongs a person by illegally taking their property, everyone has to pay to recompense that individual. Similarly, if the government makes a legal contract with another individual or government, everyone is on the hook if it breaks that contract. That is collective guilt in a Libertarian society. And if you are sensible and realize that not even a Libertarian society can function without elected officials, you must admit this.

Moreover, you cannot simply not vote and expect to be absolved. If you wish for the protection of the law, you must take on the responsibility as well. You cannot have one without the other - that's freeloading.

Now if a government goes off the deep end and begins committing massive immoralities against the wishes of the citizenry, then all bets are off. But that is an extreme case.

[Agathon]

What this shows is that the "freedom" that Libertarians talk about is much more constrained than they commonly admit.

[Berzerker]

Point is Berzerker, that even if you didn't vote for Bush, you are no Jesus. If society is guilty, then there are no individuals who are not guilty.

You've just argued that we are collectively guilty because society - the collective - is guilty. Saying we are guilty because we are guilty doesn't tell me anything. Explain to me why the people who oppose Bush are guilty for his actions (I assume this group includes Churchill). Btw, Bush isn't responsible for the decades leading up to 9/11, he just happened to be in office at the time. Clinton and Bush I are largely why 9/11 happened, i.e., why people pushed back to use Churchill's words.

In a nutshell, yes.

It's no different from collective responsibility among the executives in a corporation. Everyone is allowed their say with the proviso that everyone accepts the majority verdict as the expression of their individual will. That is what "government by consent" means. It is also why conducting a rebellion against a democratically elected government is not justified simply because you don't like it.

This is the basis of social contract theory.

As someone said, in a democracy we are required to agree therefore those who force us to agree are responsible. As for a corporation, that is joined willingly whereas being born in the USA is an accident of birth.

[Agathon]

As someone said, in a democracy we are required to agree therefore those who force us to agree are responsible. As for a corporation, that is joined willingly whereas being born in the USA is an accident of birth.

It's no different in the sense that you have no choice but to be responsible for things that you didn't agree with, if you are able to vote.

It's been explained to you how you are responsible (in a diminished capacity) for Bush's actions. You live in the USA and you participated in a fair vote with the expectation that if your side won, your opponents would have to accept the outcome as the legitimate government of all of you. You cannot go back on that just because your side lost.

You are an American of voting age, ergo you are responsible for the actions of your government because you freely participated in choosing it and agreed to abide by the outcome of the election.

[Agathon]

And since I cannot vote in either Canada, New Zealand or the UK, I am not responsible for anything.