9/11 victims deserved their fate

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
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.

You contribute and benefit from this society. That makes you a part of it. As a part of society you share responsibility. Clinton and Bush followed in a tradition of Imperialism. You and I know the history of this country, and the kind of actions that it takes, yet we continue to contribute to it and benefit from it.

[Agathon]

He doesn't even have to do that. The fact that there must be a judicial authority even in a Libertarian society and that the only option in such a society is to elect said officials, means that Libertarians must acknowledge there is such a thing as collective responsibility.

har har har.

[Berzerker]

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

When have libertarians ever argued that invading foreign lands to kill people because we like oil is an act of freedom? I'm a libertarian and I've consistently argued that our freedom is constrained by its definition, the absence of coercion or constraint limits what we can do in the name of freedom. Its the left wingers here who can't admit what the word means because they believe in all sorts of infringements upon our freedom in the name of their "social contract". Telling me I won't admit what I've said all along in these debates is ironic...

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.

But libertarians are not advocates of "democracy". So what is the "function" of a libertarian government? To preserve our rights and those rights are based on the definition of freedom. When someone rejects the libertarian government, so what? That isn't a problem for us, the problem is when their rejection of that government takes the form of violating other people's rights. Unlike "democracy" where people have a "social contract" to do as told and consequently become guilty, a libertarian government could care less if you don't want to participate.

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.

Why does a constitution absolve us of guilt? And if this is the standard, is the US behaving in accordance with its Constitution? If not, why are the people who insist it act accordingly responsible for those who want the government to ignore that constitution?

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.

Libertarians don't believe you are responsible for the actions of wrong-doers. If the government illegally takes your property then the politicians and bureaucrats who did this are responsible. You can see why they don't care for this libertarian principle, it would severly limit their power to mess with us.

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.

Vote against politicians and we are guilty, don't vote and we are guilty. So what is Churchill's point, to tell us he is guilty for what the government does?

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.

Why? Didn't "we" elect that government? The government is already committing massive immorality, so why are the opponents of that government responsible? It seems you've created a loophole to get out of this guilt but who gets to use it? Only the majority who come to despise this massive immorality? Why doesn't the minority get to use it when the majority is still asleep to the evil?

[Berzerker]

Aggie

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

You are according to Churchill, not voting isn't enough even according to you. His argument requires that you risk, even sacrifice your life to stop the evil. Is he responsible for the crimes of Saddam? Are you?

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.

I have no choice and that makes me responsible for those who do have the choice?

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.

You said not voting constitutes guilt, and I didn't "agree". I vote libertarian knowing full well they won't win, so this notion that I am trading my innocence for the chance to "win" is fallacious. Furthermore, Jesus said "render unto Caesar". Was he telling his followers to be guilty for the crimes of the Roman government?

The fact that there must be a judicial authority even in a Libertarian society and that the only option in such a society is to elect said officials, means that Libertarians must acknowledge there is such a thing as collective responsibility.

har har har.

Why? You keep saying that but offer only this "social contract" nonsense as proof.

Kid

You contribute and benefit from this society. That makes you a part of it. As a part of society you share responsibility. Clinton and Bush followed in a tradition of Imperialism. You and I know the history of this country, and the kind of actions that it takes, yet we continue to contribute to it and benefit from it.

So what? I opposed both of them and I oppose imperialism, how does that make me responsible for what other people do?

[Imran Siddiqui]

'Cause you are an American, Berz! Duh! You're guilty from that alone .

[Odin]

Berz shows how stupid libertarian "logic" is. Libertarians arn't for democracy? TRAITORS, ALL OF YOU!!!

[Berzerker]

Berz shows how stupid libertarian "logic" is. Libertarians arn't for democracy? TRAITORS, ALL OF YOU!!!

In a thread where left wingers are explaining why everyone in a democracy is guilty of whatever the government does, that gem sure brought a smile to my face...

Odin = the left wing Fez

[Agathon]

First, you can't not be for democracy if you want a functional judiciary. In what other manner will such officials be appointed that wouldn't create obvious problems? I suppose one could call for volunteers, or decide by lot among volunteers, but that would seem to me to be about the most idiotic way of choosing a judiciary.

Libertarians don't believe you are responsible for the actions of wrong-doers. If the government illegally takes your property then the politicians and bureaucrats who did this are responsible.

That's not my point. When you vote these people in, they become the agents of the state; a minimalist state, but a state nonetheless - and that means that they act in your, and everyone else's stead. If you do not accept this, then you deny that the state has the power to compel people to make restitution when they violate others' rights. That is the whole point of a judicial system, and you cannot have one unless certain people in a society are granted this power.

Now, as it happens, there is no such thing as an infallible judiciary. Wrongful convictions will occur both through (a) corruption and through (b) honest mistakes which are no-ones fault. In both these cases restitution will have to be made to the victims.

In the case of (a) it is doubtful that those who were corrupt have sufficient means to make such restitution. Who's going to pay? Should it not be the people who elected them in recognition of their poor judgement? And that has to be every citizen, since every citizen consents to the result of the election by participating in it with the expectation that their vote will be counted.

In the case of (b) it is even clear: if the state does wrong unintentionally, then it is up to the state to make restitution. But the state officials are just representatives of the people, carrying out the public will. If you want judges to pay out of their own pocket for their honest mistakes, no-one will want to be a judge. If you want judges, you will have to foot the bill for their mistakes.

More to the point, everyone will have to foot the bill for judicial mistakes as a voluntary scheme will simply not work (people will free ride).

In any case, you have simply not shown how you are not responsible for the acts of the elected government, since your participation in the election and your willingness to appeal to the state for justice show that you consent to the result of either process as long as it is arrived at fairly. It is similar to how the owners of a corporation are liable for the mistakes of their employees, because the employees are not acting as individuals, but as agents of the corporation. In the case of society, a Libertarian state is a corporation owned by everyone, created in order to secure certain goods for each member (the ability to seek justice and protection) and the agents of this company are employees and act on your behalf.

As for the social contract, it is the only justification for a state available to Libertarians. In order to secure the practical ability to hold others liable for violating our rights, we give the same ability to all others, and the only way to do this is to voluntarily give to some selected set of people the power to coerce and punish wrongdoers.

I don't think you really understand Libertarianism at all.

[BeBMan]

I stopped feeling guilty for things Germany has done long ago. It is stupid, it helps noone, it only makes you feel bad. Now accepting responsibility is another thing. Sure I do this. But I have luck, the outside world seems to agree that responsibility of Germans doesn't justify a bombardment of my country with airliners.

[Last Conformist]

Explain to me again why only a democracy could have a working judiciary? It seems to me plenty of non-democratic regimes have had working ones.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid

So what? I opposed both of them and I oppose imperialism, how does that make me responsible for what other people do?

I can say I'm opposed to jerking off all I want, but if I do it then I'm responsible.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I should have said I'm guilty for the my actions, just as they are guilty for their actions. SuperCitizen was not at the World Trade Center on that day.

Oh goody.

Even Bertrand Russell and Jean Pual Sartre could convene a war crimes tribunal during the Viet Nam War, rather than assume that all Americans are guilty by virtue of being Americans, or that anyone who chooses to work in America is de facto 'guilty' of something.


Tell me seriously- had you known anyone who worked in the buildings attacked or been related to anyone who was killed, would you feel so adamant about their guilt ?

Because what you're suggesting is in line with some of the thinking I heard from other (right wing) Americans to justify non-combatant and civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Hilariously, they suggested that civilians were 'guilty' of not rebelling against the Taleban government and Saddam Hussein's regime, and that therefore their deaths in bombing raids or because of a shortage of medical supplies or food were justifiable.

In my world everyone gets a hearing and the right to defend themselves. However unjust it may seem, the rich and the odious deserve a trial as much as the political prisoner and the wretched of the earth.

Otherwise all you have left is chaos and the lex talionis.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Berzerker

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

Yes, but where is the tribal slaughter bit ? Besides which, the Sandinista-Miskito conflict isn't really germane, and is rightfully a subject for a different thread.

In any case, for Repugs to justify arming and aiding Contra terrorists to combat social injustice is rather ironic, don't you think?

If that stance is taken, then I can think of several ethnic groupings on different continents who should be sending arms and money to Al Qaeda, to pay back the United States for past bad conduct.

And we know where that kind of thinking leads, don't we?

[PeteH]

Because what you're suggesting is in line with some of the thinking I heard from other (right wing) Americans to justify non-combatant and civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is defintely true. So why is it a surprise when we have been casually ignoring 'collateral damage' for years, that some of those people who saw those deaths not as collateral but as loved ones might be a bit upset, perhaps to the point of wishing to avenge those deaths?

I do not view an American life as inherantly better than an Iraqi of Afgani life. However, I have heard many right wing commentators make comments like 'we should nuke the whole place (didnt really matter what place was being discussed, as long as Arabs lived there) rather than risk 1 American soldier.

Even headlines after the tsunami here were "At least 80,000 dead, 8 Americans missing" (Apparently 10000/1 is the current exchange rate for Indonesians)

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by PeteH


This is defintely true. So why is it a surprise when we have been casually ignoring 'collateral damage' for years, that some of those people who saw those deaths not as collateral but as loved ones might be a bit upset, perhaps to the point of wishing to avenge those deaths?

So being upset about something one sees as wrong justifies own wrong-doings?

I do not view an American life as inherantly better than an Iraqi of Afgani life. However, I have heard many right wing commentators make comments like 'we should nuke the whole place (didnt really matter what place was being discussed, as long as Arabs lived there) rather than risk 1 American soldier.

Sure those comments exist. But the nuking isn't done.

Even headlines after the tsunami here were "At least 80,000 dead, 8 Americans missing" (Apparently 10000/1 is the current exchange rate for Indonesians)

Oh come on - every country does this. It isn't a judgement about the value of those who died. Of course people want to know if their relatives abroad could be affected....