No Country Has A "Right to Exist"
Posted by freedomforall 6 months ago to Politics
Excerpt:
"While definitions vary, Murray Rothbard best distilled the state in his classic long essay, “Anatomy of the State.” Rothbard wrote: “The state is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area.”
Whether the associated flag of the state in question has a Star of David, stars and stripes, or a hammer and sickle, the suggestion that it’s immoral to propose that such a monopoly be rearranged or replaced is preposterous on its face. Over the broad sweep of history, the norm is not states existing in perpetuity. Rather, history is the story of never-ending rearrangements of these many monopolies on the use of force and violence.
Did the Soviet Union have a “right to exist”? What about Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia or the Ottoman Empire? Are we all culpably-silent bystanders to some kind of ongoing injustice as long as those bygone states are not reconstituted?"
"While definitions vary, Murray Rothbard best distilled the state in his classic long essay, “Anatomy of the State.” Rothbard wrote: “The state is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area.”
Whether the associated flag of the state in question has a Star of David, stars and stripes, or a hammer and sickle, the suggestion that it’s immoral to propose that such a monopoly be rearranged or replaced is preposterous on its face. Over the broad sweep of history, the norm is not states existing in perpetuity. Rather, history is the story of never-ending rearrangements of these many monopolies on the use of force and violence.
Did the Soviet Union have a “right to exist”? What about Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia or the Ottoman Empire? Are we all culpably-silent bystanders to some kind of ongoing injustice as long as those bygone states are not reconstituted?"
I refuse to be treated as a “raw material” for some government agenda.
Countries, nations, states, and empires come and go.
Human constructs can have no more rights than the humans doing the supporting.
That said, I and others can have preferences for what shall stay and what shall go, such preferences again have no rights eg no majority vote.
If it were up to me, my preference is to see the end of the Gaza entity, by whatever means it takes, as no signs of the will for peaceful co-existence can be detected.
That criterion is obviously not popular, the majority favor power, and power expressed with thoughtless violence and cruelty.
Include me out.
But in reality, it's up to the majority of people in said country, nation, state or empire.
That's my take and I'm stickin to it!
And more to the point: Why is a comment having nothing to do with the actual person who posted the lead article, but which rather is a relevant and important point on the content of that post, being soft-censored? This is not the actions of people dedicated to the philosophy of objectivism, methinks.
.
Currently the Israeli Government is the Government, of that area of the world, "From the river to the sea," and as long as those people consent to that institution existing, then it has a Right to exist. If the people decided to make a change, and in time this is inevitable for every government, then it will change.
With this said I do not believe that America should be involved in conflicts in other nations, unless said conflict has a likelihood of spreading to/ affecting America. (Yes, I realize that we could then justify being involved in literally every conflict ever) Additionally, do not I support Palestine. My reasoning for not supporting Palestine is that Hamas’s stated goal of waging Holy war against Israel would mean that no Jews would be left. One cannot negotiate with someone who denies your right to live; therefore, I support Israel (Jews) defending themselves with as much force as they deem necessary. The Muslims started it and I would not blink an eye if the Jews ended it.
He leads off in naming a generic truism: that a demand for the obliteration of Israel is not, in itself, evidence of antisemitism.
Ok, nice observation. But on the basis of that contextless proclamation he begins regurgitating what's essentially the tired old pro-anarchist argument against the legitimacy of any and all government, via some truly jaw-dropping equivocations on terminology. Like trying to parse a distinction between open, unabashed demands for the destruction of Israel - or "obliterat[ion]," as the Charter of Hamas's wording goes - versus a mere "dissolution," a kid-gloves term McGlinchey chooses to substitute for the actual ones. Like blithely - and amorally - renaming the butchery of Hamas (and the countless similar atrocities comitted against Israel and Israelis in the past,) as merely to "propose" that a given state "be rearranged or replaced." His intellectual sleight-of-hand reminds me of that old Far Side cartoon panel where Larsen transforms the Mafia trope of "rearrange your face" into the comedy of "rearrange your furniture." Only McGlinchey's version is not funny.
Meanwhile, he utterly ignores what is absolutely crucial: The self-stated moral (immoral, in "Hamas'" case) precepts upon which nations - in this case Israel vs its attackers - are based, and more importantly the actions these respective groups of individuals have taken, in both directions, on the basis of those precepts. I refer you to Mr. Steven Schub's piece, which I've posted at GGO previously, for details:
https://themostendangeredspecies.subs...
Utterly ignoring the fact that the chronic Hamas / Hezbollah brutalities against Israel and its citizens over a period of decades is a de facto guerrilla war - one in which the animals of those two groups routinely use noncombantants and their neighborhoods and homes as "human shields" - McGlinchey, whether knowingly or not, plops right smack into the propagandist role that Hamas' / Hezbollah's tactics are calculated to create: A boneheaded Western commentator blithely accusing Israel of consequences of: retaliation which is 100% necessitated by the attacker - i.e., not by the defender.
In McGlinchey's warped view it is Demon Israel, in using purely retaliatory force against combatants intentionally hiding among civilian populations, that is the guilty party. McGlinchey's premises here are not just factually wrong, they're morally despicable.
My go-to references on this vital issue - the just assignment of moral culpability in war - are two, though there are doubtlessly many worthy others. The first is an article Patrick Stephens published in the immediate aftermath of the attacks that Hamas' blood-brothers (emphasis on: blood,) committed on September 11, 2001, titled "The Justice of War":
https://www.atlassociety.org/post/the...
Key points: "...the initial aggressor shoulders the full moral responsibility for the war. That is, he is morally responsible not only for his own actions, but also for the consequences of his victim's defense and retaliation..." and "...To the extent that an aggressor hides the guilty among the innocent, and to the extent that an aggressor exploits civilians in the pursuit of his aggression, innocent and harmless civilians become threats to the retaliating force. They may be innocent, but they have been placed at risk by the aggressor's actions—not by the nation attempting to retaliate."
Cont'd below -
McGlinchey's unspoken implication that Israel is intentionally blowing up hospitals and schools defies all rational plausibility, to say nothing of fact. Even ignoring the ethical evil such action would presuppose, for what possible purpose would Israel saddle itself with that kind of worldwide blowback? It makes no sense - except in context of McGlinchey's shabby attempt to construct a moral equivalency between the only civilized society in the Mideast and one of the most barbaric terrorist tribes in the Mideast. I needn't reiterate the moral status of McGlinchey's conscious choice to do so.
The second is Alan Dershowitz's short, unflinching analysis of this atrocious tactic:
https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/20...
He doesn't go into the issue of Western commentators latching onto that atrocity and aiding and abetting its strategy - as does Mr. McGlinchey - but I've covered that here.
The most unequivocal statement McGlinchey makes in his piece is that he does not consider any country to be legitimate - ethics and its necessary contextual application be damned. That thrice-refuted pro-anarchist critique of government is an entirely tangential issue but as his title tells us, that's McGlinchey's purpose here. His seizing upon an attempted moral equivocation on the Hamas - Israel conflict as his means of regurgitating it, is jaw-dropping amorality on parade. On the secondary issue of anarchism I have neither the time, need or frankly the ability to attempt restating the excellent work that Robert Bidinotto did on the subject back in the mid-'90s. I'll refer interested parties to his recent re-posting of that work:
https://bidinotto.blogspot.com/p/cont...
Finally, McGlinchey's attempt to apply our own Declaration of Independence to the cause of the Hamas butchers is beneath contempt. The man's moral compass - and even a sense of public decency - are irretrievably destroyed in this man, apparently.
.
"And Rothbard is wrong. This quote does not differentiate retaliatory force from the initiation of force. To fail to do so can only lead to disaster, such as the title of this post."
Q.: Why is a website dedicated to the philosophy of Ayn Rand, a philosophy explicitly dedicated to reason, allowing a mechanism for "hiding" posts?
Asking for a friend. 8^[]
.
Didn't the author ever hear of John Locke, the Declaration of Independence, the U S Constitution, or the Bill of Rights imbedded therein?
The main problem between Israel and the Islamists is that is that they base governance on Emotions and Faith. Neither has a written constitution. Many Israelis consider the Torah as being a Constitution and all Islamists consider their holy books as rules for governance. "There are a number of holy and important religious books in Islam. In addition to the Qur'an, Muslims are also taught to believe and have faith in three other great books sent by Allah to His Prophets Musa (Moses - the Torah or Old Testament), Daud(David - the Zaboor or the Books of Psalms), and Isa (Jesus - The Injil or The New Testament) before the coming of Muhammad as His last prophet."
https://www.answers.com/Q/Why_are_the...
Disagreements between foes based on Religious Faith do not end well unless huge changes take place. In the case of Israel and Humas, these changes do not seem to be forthcoming.
This is one of the few major weaknesses of Objectivism. I know that this is an Ayn Rand site, so I expect to be downvoted and criticized. Our "rights" are not really rights at all in an Objectivist universe. They can be acknowledged or not acknowledged by the Floyd Ferrises of the world. Usually such Floyd Ferrises, partly because their gods are themselves, do not acknowledge such rights. Consequently, a society of any meaningful size (i.e. larger than Galt's Gulch) is inherently unstable.
To quote C. Bradley Thompson in his book America’s Revolutionary Mind, Chapter 3 “…The fundamental laws to which the Americans appealed were not local laws derived from custom or history, now were they derived from holy scripture or declared by saintly prophets. “Our Revolution commenced on more favorable ground, “Thomas Jefferson told the English radical Whig John Cartwright in 1824. Rather than searching into “musty records,” hunting up “royal parchments”, or investigating “the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry,” the Americans appealed to the great principles “of nature, and found them engraved on our hearts.” The Revolution, according to Jefferson, presented the Americans with “an album on which we were free to write what we pleased.”1 Unlike the lawgivers of classical antiquity, American constitution makers did not claim, as John Adams noted, to have interviewed “with the gods,” nor were they “in any degree under the inspiration of Heaven.” Instead, these New World Solons and Lycurguses built their new governments on “the simple principles of nature” as determined “by the use of reason and the senses”2"
Objectivism's main premises are that a) there is no Creator, and that b) men should not be allowed to use force against other men. Without a Creator that all acknowledge and fear, there is not an adequate enforcement mechanism to prevent men from using force against other men.
Earlier you quoted John Adams. Adams says all of the following:
“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.” “But I must submit all my Hopes and Fears, to an overruling Providence, in which, unfashionable as the Faith may be, I firmly believe.”
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Adams realized that the Declaration and the Constitution were based on the premise of a religious people, and the potential weakness that presented.
Really? How many wars and persecutions have been fought over religious differences? Which group uses fear to crush their opponents, believers or atheists? Religion is an enforcement mechanism all right, one that is primarily used to control others by force.
"Which group uses fear to crush their opponents, believers or atheists?" Both. As j_IR1776wg pointed out earlier in the thread, this is an example of bifurcation.
Objectivism's biggest flaw is the premise that non-Objectivists should not be allowed to use force to get their own way.
Among the pillars of Objectivism are objective reality, absolute reason, self-interest, laissez-faire capitalism, the non-aggression principle, and that there can be no contradictions. There is a contradiction here, however. Non-Objectivists consistently violate the non-aggression principle to pursue their self-interest at the expense of our self-interests.
Let us consider an alternate scenario to what happened in Atlas Shrugged. Would Francisco or Hank been "criminal" had they not given up so easily in their pursuit of Dagny? Such a competition would have been entirely realistic and would not violate Objectivist morality, let alone non-Objectivist morality. One definition of a contradiction is "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another". My scenario would have been a case where everyone acts in their self-interest and yet are opposed to one another.
Objectivism is entirely compatible with cases in which “everyone acts in their self-interest and yet are opposed to one another.” That statement applies to competition of any kind. Objectivist morality simply prohibits the use of force by anyone who doesn’t like the outcome of the competition. A better example would be John Galt’s efforts to hasten the economy’s collapse vs. Dagny’s attempts to save it from collapsing. Both were acting in their self-interest as they saw it. Neither of them was violating Objectivist morality.
Yes, you are right about the better example. My biggest problem personally is that I have a Dagny-like personality and (probably incorrectly) think that I have too much worth saving.
Perhaps my biggest problem with Atlas Shrugged was how little argument there was between what are clearly Type A personalities. Can you imagine Rockefeller, Carnegie, and JP Morgan resolving their differences as easily as the main characters in AS? And yet Rockefeller et al. did manage to figure a way to work together to elect McKinley in 1896, before fighting a little bit more after that and eventually Carnegie and Rockefeller becoming philanthropists.
(This question doesn't address the need for a will, however. It's a red herring.)
I think this is where people play mental gymnastics and work themselves into a froth over nothing. Many people use "creation" in this sense to violate the laws of conservation of energy/matter by asserting that such can be suddenly instantiated from nothingness. I don't believe in any such definition of creation. Creation in my book is the organization of the existing into something of a higher state. Changes the entire dynamic of the question.
For example, time only matters to this universe: our minds can't wrap around the idea of a universe without it. We can't really posit the nature of eternity - it is beyond us. I think that there is also the notion that the physical - what we can see and touch - is all there is. Once one accepts that time didn't exist until it was created and the universe we see didn't exist until it was spread (Big Bang?), one can realize that we know a lot less about "existence" than we think we do.
The other metaphysical problem you bring up is: how does one derive consciousness from unconsciousness? It's the same question but implicates us as well by derivation. If we consider ourselves "conscious," we either have to accept the notion that consciousness can pop out of nowhere (spontaneous generation) or we have to accept the notion that consciousness must be a byproduct of other consciousness. We can work ourselves into a tizzy about these things and drive ourselves mad (Sartre and others) or we can accept the fact that there are some things it will be impossible for us to know in this life without help.
Here's how I look at it.
1) Higher states of organization require two things: will and impetus/action.
2) We see higher states of organization present, therefore will and impetus/action exist.
Simple proof:
?A->B
!B:!A
B
B:A
A->B
Since Conclusion 2 follows from Premise 1, it is also false (or at least does not follow from Premise 1).
That being said, I'll see if I can squeeze in a quick look at the references. Thanks for including them in our discussion!
That being said, spontaneous self-organization does not result in consciousness, let alone an act of will. An act of thought consumes energy and will not happen spontaneously.
Implication- Will / Intention does not exist without consciousness.
I do not understand so do not follow or accept the proposition.
A storm does not have will, it blows and causes damage due to causes outside itself. A volcano does not choose to blow.
As you state- Nature has no consciousness and no will.
At the same time a living human is part of nature and has no choice but to obey nature's laws. The argument could proceed that humans do not have will. Dead end.
So, free will in humans must be assumed. So, human consciousness exists, so, many reasons and purposes for that will, so, special creators, let alone dieties, are not shown to necessary tho' are neither dis-proven.
Agreed, nature has no rights. Only conscious thinkers have rights, given to them by nature without will / intention.
If nature gives us nothing, then nature cannot be in a position to guarantee inalienable rights. The argument I have made throughout this thread is that if one rejects the notion of a creator, then all rights are alienable (i.e. They can be taken away by other humans.). Moreover, if a right can be taken away, then it is not a right, but a privilege.
Humans can escape hunger and bad weather by using materials that exist and can be fabricated - again using nature's laws.
Yes, Nature gives nothing. It has no volition, it offers resistance to taking only to extent of pre-existing natural laws.
Yes, nature neither gives nor takes rights. (But what are these rights?). The US Constitution (and Supreme Court) are wrong - there are no natural rights. Benign deities are from human wish thinking. Rights, surely, are claims, I demand your money, do not take mine, my right to life.. These are achievable only by defense, strength, conquest or cooperation with other humans and the understanding of nature. No rights can be or will ever be got from giving way to subservient hallucinations. It has been tried for long enough, throw that stuff out. That is where Objectivism is a guide - life as a heroic venture, rights can be defined and agreed, the logical way is to propose rights as 2-way, the same for all, that is the only way to get agreement, long term, and appealing to (enlightened) self-interest. Agreements only last as long as one individual or group is motivated not to gain power and overcome the others. There is no other way, there is no authority for appeal.
JB, elsewhere you say that
-without a Creator, rights are alienable. Agreed, thus the need for eternal vigilance.
- some humans are evil (put aside definitions). Yes. So, agreements with others, human laws, must allow for that.
Yes, even to cooperate with Hamas, it may be necessary, we may need people with such narrow minded dedication.
The test. When humans come into contact with creatures of superior intelligence, and they may be our own creation, it may be soon.
(If I had more time I would have made all that shorter, as well as sensible!)
Our rights are inherent in our nature, with or without an alleged creator. The ability to exercise these rights can be taken away (including by religious authorities), whether one believes in a creator or not. A creator is not necessary or sufficient to explain rights, any more than he/she/it is necessary or sufficient to explain the universe or anything in it.
If a right can be taken away, one should reasonably ask whether it is a right at all; certainly an "inherent right" cannot be taken away. Otherwise, it would not be inherent, by definition.
Nature has no stars or planets either, but both arise from nature acting through its laws (in this case, the laws of physics). Consciousness and will can likewise arise from nature. There is no need for them to be ascribed to some alleged supernatural being.
Assuming the existence of a creator does not prove the existence of that creator. The Christian creator is based on Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover" as expressed in his Physics and Metaphysics.
Ayn Rand wrote that "Existence exists". By that expression, she meant Nature as defined by our Reason, senses, and logic, that existence preceded consciousness.
Most of the founding fathers were Diests. They believed that the universe was created by an entity similar to Aristotle's Unmoved Mover. That was the first and last act of the UM. Men were then left alone to be responsible for their own actions. Adam's reference to a "moral people" was drawn from Locke's works mentioned elsewhere in this post.
It doesn't disprove it either. It's up to each individual person to pursue for themselves a description of and existence of a creator. But the metaphysics of morality without enforcement by an intelligent and active will falls apart.
"Ayn Rand wrote that "Existence exists". By that expression, she meant Nature as defined by our Reason, senses, and logic, that existence preceded consciousness."
Sure, but see above: it doesn't disprove the necessity of a Creator, neither does it disprove the existence of such a being. Usually the first step - and the hardest - is defining "god." Every religion seems to do it differently. Weeding out the choices one by one is a difficult task...
"Most of the founding fathers were Diests."
Some were deists, sure. Most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, they just came from a variety of faiths. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-...) Some believed in God yet refused to join themselves to any of the faiths of the time. But they all believed in the Judeo-Christian version of God along with the morality of that belief system. What is remarkable is that rather than setting forth any particular "state" religion, they reserved the right to worship to the individual to select - in stark contrast to Europe at the time where every nation had it's own national religion.
Hence, to assume, as you do, that individual rights "without a Creator whom all acknowledge and respect, that rights are alienable." is to erect a structure upon the shifting sands of Faith.
Individual Rights can only be derived from Nature employing Reason, Logic, and Science as John Locke did. That is, Human Nature as sentient beings.
I am NOT saying to erect individual rights on Faith. What I am say is that America, having done so, built its foundation on shifting sands.
No, neither Israel nor any Islamic nation is built upon a Constitution like that found in the United States. Israel has a parliamentary form of government similar to Britain while the Islamic nations are either military hegemonies (think Iraq under Saddam Hussein), religious caliphates (think Iran), or monarchies (Saudi Arabia).
"The main problem between Israel and the Islamists is that is that they base governance on Emotions and Faith."
If what you mean by "emotions and faith" is religion, then yes. And I hate to break it to you but so did America when it was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic. We based many of our laws on the same principles and even have a monument to the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court building. The only nations founded on "atheism" ended up slaughtering tens of millions of their own people to repress religion, so I'm not sure an argument against "religion" in general holds any water whatsoever.
"Disagreements between foes based on Religious Faith do not end well..."
Is there any other kind? Is not socialism a religion? Wokeism? Atheism is a religion - as acknowledged by the US Supreme Court. Conflict is very real and it ultimately comes down to a conflict of ideas. And until all of humanity agrees on a single set of ideas with which to run themselves, we're going to have conflict. The real question is simply which set of moral ideals is the best for humanity. That's been a debate since the dawn of time. But to think that logic and reason alone are going to mitigate this most fundamental of human decisions is a stretch to say the least.
No nation was ever founded on the basis of atheism. They all had some set of principles, religious or non-religious. Atheism was sometimes a by-product.
"Atheism is a religion - as acknowledged by the US Supreme Court."
The Supreme Court is an arbiter of law, not of reality. A religion is a set of beliefs. Atheism, by definition, is a lack of belief. "A-theism". Just as amorality is a lack of morality, not a moral code itself.
"Atheism, by definition, is a lack of belief. "A-theism". Just as amorality is a lack of morality, not a moral code itself."
It is impossible to live without a moral code. One can choose moral relativism - where one is making it up as one goes along - or moral universalism - where one believes in a common set of values which apply to everyone. In the case of moral relativism, one simply places themselves and their hedonism in the place of any other god. Moral relativism is self-worship: a belief in one's self - foolish as though that may be.
For moral universalists, one has to profess some standard higher than one's self - more "perfect" or "divine" than one's self to aim at. That standard may be embodied in an exemplary being such as in many formal religions (Christianity, Jewry, Islam, etc.) or simply an idea (Buddhism, Objectivism, etc.). But the belief in an standard external to one's self is a belief in something. One can not believe in nothing: nihilism is literally a dead end.
To examine things in another light, let's look at basic economics. Economics only exists when we perceive self-interest. Self-interest hinges entirely on the perception that an action will lead us to a better state than the one we presently occupy. But the inherent "better" in such an evaluation automatically presupposes some external to which a comparison is being made, that external being either a universal standard or an imagined one, in other words a "belief."
So to me, I just simply don't buy the notion of complete unbelief in anything. In my mind, it's self-deception. Observation of life and recognition of self-interest tell me that human beings automatically gravitate toward something different than what they have and the mere fact that self-interest exists tells me that it is not a choice to not believe in anything, but a choice of what something to believe in and pursue.
One can believe in what one can see, hear, feel etc. and still be an atheist. Atheism simply entails the refusal to ascribe the universe that we experience to an alleged "higher being" or supernatural entity.
"I would lump in the former Soviet Union under Lenin/Stalin and Communist China under Mao as atheistic dictatorships."
They were dictatorships that happened to be atheistic. They attempted to impose the totality of their beliefs on their subject populations, not simply their atheism. In essence, such dictatorships were no different in kind from dictatorships that imposed their worldview, including their religion, on subject populations that had different religious beliefs.
So a more accurate term then is anti-theist rather than atheist. I can get behind that.
"They were dictatorships that happened to be atheistic."
Distinction without a difference. They enforced their belief system which included their "anti-theism." My point is that anti-theists have no moral pedestal from which to perch and lobby theists. Better for all of us to examine the individual belief sets be allowed to worship what we will. Better yet if we choose one which allows for freedom and tolerance of others. :)
And again-
An absence of something is not the same as the something, as absence of something is not a type of that something.
I disagree. See my reply to jbrenner above concerning a creator.
I guess that’s why so many of them owned slaves.
America did not invent slavery. It did end it in America. Slavery continues worldwide.
You need to evaluate the founder's political philosophy on its own merits.
"America did not invent slavery" is not an excuse. Nazis did not invent antisemitism, but in no way does this excuse what they did.
Since a "Country" is a group. This is true.
But the concept isn't existing... It's free association. Does any group of people have a right to freely associate? They should. Because they do it individually where rights exist.
Now, does a country have "rights". I can only see abuse from saying yes.
Can or should a country protect their borders?
YES. Is it a right? (yes, but of the citizens, IMO, not of the country itself). It's more like an obligation of a country... Otherwise... it's not a country.
Indeed you have to use context or queries to understand the meaning sometimes.
For example humans inherently have two hands, two eyes and a heart. However, I’d just you’d argue that removing a hand means it didn’t exist or that you aren’t human anymore. We have heart transplants and artificial hearts as well as external cardio circulatory machines. Again, the heart has been removed, thus violating the definition you choose for inherent.
By your definition choice there is nothing inherently human. Thus I find the application of that definition universally as you indicate is entirely devoid of use as it essentially eradicated the word.
Finally, I didn't say that rights were endowed by a creator. Those who wrote the Declaration of Independence did, and all throughout this thread, I have argued that the premise of a creator made the inalienability of rights into the Declaration's biggest weakness.