20 votes

The principle for going to war

Ed Hudgins, The Atlas Society, on when we should to go to war. Part 1 (
Part 2 here).


http://youtu.be/RekF1ViavVY




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Love your work, Jan, but must dissagree on this one.

Yes we have principles, but principles are not rules. They are not one size fits all fixed programing, and we are not automatons. Neither are we discussing logic exercises in sophomore philosophy class, we are discussing war and the taking of human life in the real world. Principles must be applied to real world situations.

I believe in the the Principle of nonviolence. Thou shalt not kill.

But I also own weapons. I also believe in the principle of self defense, and the principle of resisting tyranny.

If principles were black or white responses to all situations then nonviolence and the sanctity of life would be mutually exclusive to resisting tyranny and self defense. Therefore if you believe in nonviolence you should not defend the 2nd amendment and turn in all your guns, knives, or any potential weapon.

Should I stand back and discuss the application of nonviolence with the cossacks who are murdering and raping my wife and daughters while they steal the grain that will sustain my other children through the winter, or should I just take up arms and kill them?

His Uruguay example was very pertinent.

Principles are guidelines that must be counterbalanced against other principles in light of the real world circumstances we are confronting. That is the conflict that makes being a man of principle so difficult. Applying our principles to the real world is the basis of the study of philosophy, theology, and logic. It's like baseball - if it was easy everyone would do it.

Jan Helfeld's picture

It is Not about non violence it is about self defence

It is Not about non violence it is about self defence. Principles ARE rules, include whatever caveat or exception in the rule but it must be stated to work. No rule, no guidance, because it does not tell you what to do.

Jan Helfeld

I generally agree with the

I generally agree with the principle of non-violence, but sometimes violence is necessary and appropriate. I prefer the term 'non-aggression.' It also helps to know that the Sixth Commandment in the bible states "thou shall not murder", not "thou shall not kill", implying that sometimes killing is justified. And of course there are many examples in the bible where killing is not only justified but necessary or required, as in punishment for severe crimes or in self-defense or in defense of one's family or community.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Then you might be interested in a project from the good folks @

Downsize DC. They have been promoting the Zero Aggression Principle at a new website called the Zero Aggression Project. You can see their efforts and join them at:

www.zeroaggressionproject.org

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Well-said. Jan does not come

Well-said.

Jan does not come off very well to me. He insists on a simple principle for no reason other than there must be a simple principle. He appears to refuse the idea that a principle can be complex, by saying that it is not a principle at all.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

There is a difference between

There is a difference between complexity and abstraction. The problem with Mr. Hudgins is that he is not aware of his principles because he is hung up with a bunch of abstractions. Whether to go to war or not is a complex principle or set of principles, but these rules are like guidelines and if you do not understand your own principles how can you make the right decision to go to war? Defense is a simple principle. Defense implies that the other country attacked you first. I would say this is not enough so I will add another. Imminence. Another simple principle that means that if an attack is going to happen or in the process of happening. This could be put under defense as a subcategory. The principles by Mr. Hudgins was that another country has the potential, the will, the desire, to carry out an attack. So this is a looser principle than imminence and more subjective because you do cannot obtain any evidence regarding will and desire and even potential is difficult to ascertain. There is a lot of room for error with this principle, and hence the Iraq war.

So, for example...do you

So, for example...do you think we were right to attack Japan? After all, they attacked us first.

However, they could make the case that while we did not attack them militarily, we attacked them economically and politically, first. Are you going to stand your ground and say that only physical force matters?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Yes regarding Japan since

Yes regarding Japan since they attacked us. Once a war starts the same principles (fundamentally) are in play, such as, if that other country surrenders then we should stop attacking them. Only while they are carrying out plots against us should we attack them. Regarding economics and politics I do think the same fundamental principle applies in that we should not initiate sanctions nor verbally abuse those and even once those countries do politically attack us our language should only be defensive. I believe this is the best principle to deescalate an ongoing situation and is the right thing to do.

Jan Helfeld's picture

No rule, no guidance

Principles ARE rules, include whatever caveat or exception in the rule but it must be stated to work. No rule, no guidance, because it does not tell you what to do.

Jan Helfeld

I think he had those rules,

I think he had those rules, but they were too long and too complicated to list, and you just cut him off and didn't let him answer.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Jan Helfeld's picture

Principles ARE rules

Principles ARE rules, include whatever caveat or exception in the rule but it must be stated to work. No rule, no guidance, because it does not tell you what to do.

Jan Helfeld

I think his principle is,

I think his principle is, does "it" pose a threat to the US or its citizens?

"it" being the situation...

Furthermore, his point is that answering that question is a very difficult one. And I would say that by looking at historical precedents, he is correct. It is always a tough decision to go to war, and there are always reasons to say that the country does not pose a threat to the US.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Jan Helfeld's picture

NO PRINCIPLE

many principles with no principle to sort them out = NO PRINCIPLE.

Jan Helfeld

Jan Helfeld's picture

many principles with no principle to sort them out

If you have many principles with no principle to sort them out, can you say you have a principle?

Jan Helfeld

Jan Helfeld's picture

Hudgins says there is no magic formula

Hudgins says there is no magic formula ,i.e, no principle.

Jan Helfeld