Two Americas
01-15-2007, 01:44 AM
I stumbled into a revealing exchange at the Kucinich board. I'll post it all here to save people from wrestling with their awful Drupal program there.
Given: We want 'Peace'
So the question remains, what KIND of peace.
Slave owners in the South had a very peaceful and prosperous society.
Kim Jong Il keeps the 'peace' in North Korea.
We build more and more prisons in the name of quelling crime to keep the streets 'peaceful'.
In short, I'd like us to agree on exactly what we mean by 'peace'. And then let's figure out how to get there from here!
excellent post
Justice is the path to peace.
The opposite of war is not peace, it is slavery. In every war both sides believe, and usually at least one side in the conflict is correct in believing that they are resisting tyranny, domination and injustice. Preventing war means tackling injustice.
Why do we have war? Patrick Henry expressed it well - "give me liberty or give me death."
Justice and liberty are more important to people than peace, and that is a good thing.
Not where I was going
Mike I can't agree with any of your formulations. I'd love to believe that Justice leads to peace but that works out better in poetry than history. I can't think of anything that makes either side right in a war. And Patrick H. was talking about one war, not all of them. And I don't think there's much history to support Justice and liberty being more important to people than peace.
really?
Do people have no right to defend themselves?
Of course, it's all so clear now
Yes and no. Sometimes it's a maybe.
re-phrasing that
Do people not have an unqualified right to self-defense? If not, then when do they and when do they not, and who decides that and upon what basis?
If, as you say, Patrick Henry was only talking about one war, who decides, and upon what basis, which wars are just and which are not?
No, people do not have an unqualified right to self defense.
That's rather my point. You know, the one in the excellent post above.
Everyone says they want "peace". Unless we define what exactly that means then we might be surprised at what we get.
A "just war". Fascinating concept.
what circumstances
Under what circumstances do people not have a right to defend themselves?
The Romans resisted by force of arms the invasion of the Carthaginians, whose goal was pillage and destruction, to protect their homes and farms and families. That resulted in a war - two armies in armed conflict. Were the Romans acting unjustly? If not, then they waged a just war.
Obviously
No one has the right to defend their themselves at the expense of an innocent.
But of course self defense only applied to individuals, not nations.
Did the US have the right to "defend itself" from the Japanese after Pearl Harbor? Obviously we were attacked. Did that make it a "just" war? We were actively engaged in an economic war with Japan at the time working to limit their steel and oil imports. This would have cut their throats and prevented them from aiding Germany with whom we WERE NOT AT WAR.
So, now who had the "just" war and when the fireboming of Nanjing and the rape of Beijing began, who cared?
ok
All other things being equal, under what circumstances does a person, or a group of people, or a nation, not have the right to self-defense?
Obviously, no one has the right to harm innocents, no matter what they are doing so that isn't really an answer.
Upon what moral basis do only individuals have the right to self-defense? Why can a group not defend itself? Or a family?
Asked and answered
The fact that you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's not the answer.
Moral basis? No right is based on a moral basis. Legal and ethical but nor moral.
There's no "self" to a group. It's a collection.
no
Regardless of whether or not I like your answers, they are still not responsive to my questions.
I asked under what circumstances a person lost the right to defend themselves. You said “if they hurt an innocent person.” I pointed out that hurting an innocent person would be wrong whether or not a person was defending themselves. For example, clearly the right to freedom of speech does not absolve one of a murder committed while exercising the right to free speech. The right to free speech itself is not lost in the process.
I then asked whether or not the same moral principle extended to families, groups or nations. You said no, because they were not “selfs” - which again is not responsive to my question.
You then claim that there is no moral basis for rights. Upon what basis, if not morality, can concepts like rights be discussed? Upon what basis do we then advocate for peace? If war is not wrong, and if morality does not apply, then why be against it? Ir are you saying we can call things right and wrong, yet claim to not be discussing morality?
http://kucinich.us/?q=node/1507
Given: We want 'Peace'
So the question remains, what KIND of peace.
Slave owners in the South had a very peaceful and prosperous society.
Kim Jong Il keeps the 'peace' in North Korea.
We build more and more prisons in the name of quelling crime to keep the streets 'peaceful'.
In short, I'd like us to agree on exactly what we mean by 'peace'. And then let's figure out how to get there from here!
excellent post
Justice is the path to peace.
The opposite of war is not peace, it is slavery. In every war both sides believe, and usually at least one side in the conflict is correct in believing that they are resisting tyranny, domination and injustice. Preventing war means tackling injustice.
Why do we have war? Patrick Henry expressed it well - "give me liberty or give me death."
Justice and liberty are more important to people than peace, and that is a good thing.
Not where I was going
Mike I can't agree with any of your formulations. I'd love to believe that Justice leads to peace but that works out better in poetry than history. I can't think of anything that makes either side right in a war. And Patrick H. was talking about one war, not all of them. And I don't think there's much history to support Justice and liberty being more important to people than peace.
really?
Do people have no right to defend themselves?
Of course, it's all so clear now
Yes and no. Sometimes it's a maybe.
re-phrasing that
Do people not have an unqualified right to self-defense? If not, then when do they and when do they not, and who decides that and upon what basis?
If, as you say, Patrick Henry was only talking about one war, who decides, and upon what basis, which wars are just and which are not?
No, people do not have an unqualified right to self defense.
That's rather my point. You know, the one in the excellent post above.
Everyone says they want "peace". Unless we define what exactly that means then we might be surprised at what we get.
A "just war". Fascinating concept.
what circumstances
Under what circumstances do people not have a right to defend themselves?
The Romans resisted by force of arms the invasion of the Carthaginians, whose goal was pillage and destruction, to protect their homes and farms and families. That resulted in a war - two armies in armed conflict. Were the Romans acting unjustly? If not, then they waged a just war.
Obviously
No one has the right to defend their themselves at the expense of an innocent.
But of course self defense only applied to individuals, not nations.
Did the US have the right to "defend itself" from the Japanese after Pearl Harbor? Obviously we were attacked. Did that make it a "just" war? We were actively engaged in an economic war with Japan at the time working to limit their steel and oil imports. This would have cut their throats and prevented them from aiding Germany with whom we WERE NOT AT WAR.
So, now who had the "just" war and when the fireboming of Nanjing and the rape of Beijing began, who cared?
ok
All other things being equal, under what circumstances does a person, or a group of people, or a nation, not have the right to self-defense?
Obviously, no one has the right to harm innocents, no matter what they are doing so that isn't really an answer.
Upon what moral basis do only individuals have the right to self-defense? Why can a group not defend itself? Or a family?
Asked and answered
The fact that you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's not the answer.
Moral basis? No right is based on a moral basis. Legal and ethical but nor moral.
There's no "self" to a group. It's a collection.
no
Regardless of whether or not I like your answers, they are still not responsive to my questions.
I asked under what circumstances a person lost the right to defend themselves. You said “if they hurt an innocent person.” I pointed out that hurting an innocent person would be wrong whether or not a person was defending themselves. For example, clearly the right to freedom of speech does not absolve one of a murder committed while exercising the right to free speech. The right to free speech itself is not lost in the process.
I then asked whether or not the same moral principle extended to families, groups or nations. You said no, because they were not “selfs” - which again is not responsive to my question.
You then claim that there is no moral basis for rights. Upon what basis, if not morality, can concepts like rights be discussed? Upon what basis do we then advocate for peace? If war is not wrong, and if morality does not apply, then why be against it? Ir are you saying we can call things right and wrong, yet claim to not be discussing morality?
http://kucinich.us/?q=node/1507