Modern day pillage

[Darth Wong]

I'll actually just quote my own quote here, being excessively vain:

...of men we know, that by a necessary law of their nature they rule wherever they can. And it is not as if we were the first to make this law, or to act upon it when made: we found it existing before us, and shall leave it to exist for ever after us; all we do is to make use of it, knowing that you and everybody else, having the same power as we have, would do the same as we do. - The Melian Dialogue of Thucydides.

It's just as true today, you know, as it was then--for nothing about the nature of humanity has changed; and nothing will ever change, to make it untrue, short it be a change so great that it makes something that is inhuman. We can make no greater apologies for war or for love than we can for breathing.

So because the strong are capable of bullying the weak, they need not apologize for doing so? That would ordinarily make no sense at all, but you supported it by quoting some dead person with a Greek name, so it must be true

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You know, that line sounds more erudite than "we've got the nukes, we've got the guns, everybody else in the world can go fuck themselves", but the meaning is pretty much identical.

Yes, because it's true and nothing will change it. Certainly not democracy--the rule of the mob? All the more inclined to vain and swift hatreds than even a single man or a few rulers who own much, and have much to lose, let alone the technocracy we may occasionally desire. Nations go to war for their own aims and the moral considerations are damned, short of the gain and the glory that might be found in their own countries. Organized society has brought organized violence and the two are inextricably linked; for we harness that power within us for the aim of the State as we do all others in society.

There's nothing you can do to stop war which you might consider immoral. International law is like chaff unto the wind--it is the merest convention of which nations shall toss away to gain a convenience of action, and this was true even in the age of Clausewitz. There is only the internal restraint of States, and let me assure you that no country has ever held been held back by its own populace; least of all a democracy. A huge number of Americans think that Saddam had a hand in 9/11; with that sort of belief, what level of things can be done? What sort of irrational rage can drive onwards the fight?

Democracy is not the sort of thing which makes people shirke from war because they wish to protect their gains--it brings out the rule of the irrational mob and they are good and ready for a fight. Even the majority of the people wanted to continue the conflict in Vietnam; and the effort was only hijacked by a minority, and a President who was willing to use massive and brutal bombing efforts to bring about a favourable end, saw his effort supported, but hijacked by a hostile congress--and the whole thing went down in the end to the tune of beatings and riots against the peace-protestors. The dead were in the tens of thousands but the mob was still spoiling for blood!

You can't really expect better, can you? Look at the ignorance in society and do you seriously expect that giving the common people power will lead to the enlightened exercise of that power? That is Kant's biggest mistake--he never saw a mob in action, I think. Democracy brings many things but it will never bring peace and in this case we shall simply see the war waged on as it always has been.

And there's really nothing to forgive or defend. Because that's simply the way it is and it could be a lot worse. Some other army of the poor and the destitute really could have pillaged and raped its way through Baghdad; or we really could be there to stay and colonize the country and pump the oil out for our profit. But the rational know our intent is--for success or failure, better or worse--to simply make them like us, as part of a scheme to reform the region and thus end the threat of the Islamists, which may or may not work. And the people support it because they've been wounded and they're angry about it--whether or not the fight is directly relevant, it sufficiently appears so for quite a lot of endurance to be in that opinion.

Long Live the Republic!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So because the strong are capable of bullying the weak, they need not apologize for doing so? That would ordinarily make no sense at all, but you supported it by quoting some dead person with a Greek name, so it must be true

I'm saying it's what's always happened and nothing will change it, because the circumstances and the conditions of human nature which cause it will always remain the same. It doesn't make it right or wrong, it simply Is. Thucydides was a very astute observer of the human condition and really nothing at all has changed in how we act since then; we're a bit more civilized in some ways and a bit less in others then the Hellenics and we still kill each other just as joyfully on the field of Mars.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

After your diatribe above, Marina, I often wonder at what point you stopped thinking for yourself and blindly followed someones propaganda instead.
So what if Iraq was socialist thats their choice, not America's.

It was the choice of the Ba'athist Party Dictatorship, you dumbfuck.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Say you are walking along the street one day. Suddenly, I jump out of a convenient alley, and by virtue of being much stronger than you and also by the element of suprise, I knock your ass down and take your purse. Then I disappear back down where I came from and you never see or hear from me again. I just exercised power over you, by virtue of my superior strength and suprise, physically assaulted you, and then robbed you. I didn't get caught. Does that mean I have nothing to apologise for?

No, because you committed your act within the realm of civil society; the boundaries of which are defined by the State. By necessity we need a State apparatus to prevent such occurances as you postulate; we need a balance of power, between the government and the people, to limit the particular excesses in each possible direction. And we need laws in particular to regulate intercourse of individuals and groups within the civil society.

But the State defines the civil society. Outside of the State there is nothing--nothing at all. Simply other States; other caps on their respective social structures. Imagine each State as an individual, and the whole world as an anarchy of States. Within each State--order for the individual humans living within them. For the personhood of States? Anarchy, but absolute freedom of action.

The problem is that the State as a particular entity--the problem in preventing the establishment of a true and regular intercourse which would prevent power from prevailing as the only real state of interaction outside of the State--is that they are all broadly equal in theory. If none came overcome the other then the regulation of laws between them is pointless because none can enforce these laws and they can be ignored on whim. In practice, certain States can overcome others; but never enough that the whole of the world comes under one peculiar system of laws.

One might argue that this state of affairs would be greatly desireable for humanity, but it appears that certain principles in the balancing of the interaction of power prevent it from taking place, in an absolute sense. So we see that this allows for a system wherein law is supreme within the State--and the State is functionally a whole and singular entity--but outside of the State there is nothing, but the pitted power of the various States interacting. One might overcome another and assert itself in its demands but hegemonies rarely last and one has never led to the whole world seeing itself under a single law, and thus under such an ordered state of affairs without this anarchy of the States prevailing.

So, certainly, world peace is possible--perhaps even desireable--but only through world conquest. Until then we ultimately have a system where law is only really possible where power can be exercised freely, within an established structure. If one State tries to impose its authority over another; the clash is obvious: The power of two governments, their laws and their authories, cannot overlap, and so their must be a contest of some sort or another for the victor.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

As for 'We conquered it, we'll do as we damn well please', that sets an unpleasant precedent. Besides, I thought Americans despised making empires.

Yes, we do, which is why we won't turn it into a colony--but I absolutely loathe the idea of setting Iraq adrift before they're ready to be set adrift, or letting in the U.N. to help.

[Gil Hamilton]

No, because you committed your act within the realm of civil society; the boundaries of which are defined by the State. By necessity we need a State apparatus to prevent such occurances as you postulate; we need a balance of power, between the government and the people, to limit the particular excesses in each possible direction. And we need laws in particular to regulate intercourse of individuals and groups within the civil society.

Just because the state passes laws doesn't mean that people are incapable of disobeying them. I didn't commit armed robbery within the realm of civil society, because there was nothing civil about it. It was the free exercise of power you were talking about. I had the power to assault you and then rob you. You could not stop me and even if you reported it, the police would be unlikely to do anything about it except by a major accident of serendipity. Therefore, the laws of the state provided no boundary to me at all. So it boils down to your comment before, I did nothing wrong. I was just exercising my power over you, with no negative consquences to myself except for the minor pangs of guilt I'll be squelching as I spent the contents of your purse. Going by your earlier comment, I'm the freakin' man.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Just because the state passes laws doesn't mean that people are incapable of disobeying them.

No, but it does mean there is this power structure which can compel obedience of the individual. The cops come for you.

I didn't commit armed robbery within the realm of civil society, because there was nothing civil about it.

That's your typical irrelevant sophistry.

It was the free exercise of power you were talking about. I had the power to assault you and then rob you. You could not stop me and even if you reported it, the police would be unlikely to do anything about it except by a major accident of serendipity.

Maybe in the 70s. These days there is a very high chance that, if I lived in a concealed carry state, you would be shot; and if not, or if I did and you were not, you would end up in jail. Or you would end up in jail either way.

Therefore, the laws of the state provided no boundary to me at all. So it boils down to your comment before, I did nothing wrong. I was just exercising my power over you, with no negative consquences to myself except for the minor pangs of guilt I'll be squelching as I spent the contents of your purse. Going by your earlier comment, I'm the freakin' man.

You're ignoring what I was saying: That the State can enforce its laws against you; and that the State's power to create laws and the organizational structure of the State creates an ordered and ethical society which discourages this behaviour in the first place, and supports the exercise of the State power against those who would test their individual ability (against its preponderence). State Vs. State is simply two individuals, fighting each other, without an overarching force to restrain them, and without an ethical fabric to support any international law that might hold back their action.

[Patrick Degan]

Ever the Apologist, aren't you, Duchess?

There is nothing to apologize for in the exercise of power.

Funny, I think the Nazis used to say the same thing...

[Stuart Mackey]

After your diatribe above, Marina, I often wonder at what point you stopped thinking for yourself and blindly followed someones propaganda instead.
So what if Iraq was socialist thats their choice, not America's.

It was the choice of the Ba'athist Party Dictatorship, you dumbfuck.

He was/is, for better or worse, an Iraqi, grew up in a time when the British had defacto rule in Iraq. the Ba'athist was Iraqi..to paraphrase Ghandi 'better Iraqi missrule than American rule'.
The point is, who the fuck does your nation think it is to decide another nations future? If they wish to be sociallist {allthough what you think is sociallist has a different contextual meaning outside of America.} thats their choice and your nation seems quite happy to take that from them.

And you post more unreasoning garbage like this as if the human condition was something written in stone..

I'm saying it's what's always happened and nothing will change it, because the circumstances and the conditions of human nature which cause it will always remain the same. It doesn't make it right or wrong, it simply Is. Thucydides was a very astute observer of the human condition and really nothing at all has changed in how we act since then; we're a bit more civilized in some ways and a bit less in others then the Hellenics and we still kill each other just as joyfully on the field of Mars.

What a load of shit. You are as arrogant as you are unthinking.

[Knife]

Just because the state passes laws doesn't mean that people are incapable of disobeying them. I didn't commit armed robbery within the realm of civil society, because there was nothing civil about it. It was the free exercise of power you were talking about. I had the power to assault you and then rob you. You could not stop me and even if you reported it, the police would be unlikely to do anything about it except by a major accident of serendipity. Therefore, the laws of the state provided no boundary to me at all. So it boils down to your comment before, I did nothing wrong. I was just exercising my power over you, with no negative consquences to myself except for the minor pangs of guilt I'll be squelching as I spent the contents of your purse. Going by your earlier comment, I'm the freakin' man.

She's saying that there is a power structure in a state. Goverment both national and local that create and enforce rules. When you get to the state v state level, there is no supervising authority, unless you actualy believe the UN has some sort of power over other states.

If you commit a crime (as an example) in a state, you are subject to the rules and laws of that state. If a state commits a crime, there is no authority over it to punish it. There is peer preasure from other states, but it is not the same thing as having controling authority over it.

[Vympel]

It doesn't matter if there are no enforceable laws at the state vs state level. That still doesn't justify saying that "there is nothing to apologise for in the exercise of power".

[Gil Hamilton]

No, but it does mean there is this power structure which can compel obedience of the individual. The cops come for you.

So it's only wrong because the State can arrest me if they catch me, and if they do catch me, my actions retroactively become immoral? In other word, morality comes from whatever law the state decides is right? Hell, the state would never be able to catch me in that situation (in all reality, the police probably would only give a token effort because of the unlikelihood that they'll ever catch me), therefore the state has no authority over me. Therefore, my actions, going by your earlier comment, were completely fine as I was just exercising my superior power over someone who's much weaker than me and couldn't defend herself.

That's your typical irrelevant sophistry.

Nope, it's the stone cold truth. My action wasn't commited "within the realm of civil society". You said yourself, civil society has rules against what I did. Therefore, what I did was outside the realm of civilized society.

Maybe in the 70s. These days there is a very high chance that, if I lived in a concealed carry state, you would be shot; and if not, or if I did and you were not, you would end up in jail. Or you would end up in jail either way.

Bullshit. I took you by suprise, knocked you down, and taken your purse. That means I've got your gun as well. Besides, all of this happened in the course of two, maybe three, second. You'd be too busy wondering what hit you to think. And the police as statistically unlikely to catch me, since you saw me for exactly three seconds and police don't tend to bother with minor assaults because they know that they have no real way of catching the guy except for massive amounts of luck. I'm not going to jail, just to stores to spend your money.

You're ignoring what I was saying: That the State can enforce its laws against you; and that the State's power to create laws and the organizational structure of the State creates an ordered and ethical society which discourages this behaviour in the first place, and supports the exercise of the State power against those who would test their individual ability (against its preponderence). State Vs. State is simply two individuals, fighting each other, without an overarching force to restrain them, and without an ethical fabric to support any international law that might hold back their action.

How can the police enforce their laws against me if they can't catch me? The state can't use any of it's power if I'm never identified. Ergo, the State is useless in protecting you against my superior strength and the State is useless in helping catch me. And I've got a shit eating grin on my face, because I know that there is nothing you can do about it. Ain't I a stinker?

Besides, under your logic, anything the State does to the people within it is perfectly fine. Uday and Qusay of the Huessien's breaking into weddings, shooting the husband, and raping the wife is completely moral because the State approved of such practices.

As you can see, your argument that the only moral authority that exists is the power to exercise ones will on another doesn't work, now does it, unless you consider armed robbery to be moral. I'm certain that we've had this precise discussion before too, and you couldn't defend the Might Makes Right position then either.

[Gil Hamilton]

She's saying that there is a power structure in a state. Goverment both national and local that create and enforce rules. When you get to the state v state level, there is no supervising authority, unless you actualy believe the UN has some sort of power over other states.

I know perfectly well what she's saying, and I'm saying since the state will never identify me, much less catch me, it has no authority over me. Therefore, since there is no authority to stop me, under her argument that might makes right, I'm not committing some act of immorality, I'm just a businessman making some making a non-taxable, 100% profit deal with her when I cold cock her and run off with her purse.

If you commit a crime (as an example) in a state, you are subject to the rules and laws of that state. If a state commits a crime, there is no authority over it to punish it. There is peer preasure from other states, but it is not the same thing as having controling authority over it.

But that means that everything the Iraqi government did was moral while it was the supreme authority in Iraq. Same with Hitler and Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot, all of them. If we hold to the idea that might makes right, everything they did was very right.

[Knife]

It doesn't matter if there are no enforceable laws at the state vs state level. That still doesn't justify saying that "there is nothing to apologise for in the exercise of power".

Meh, its debatable I suppose. Situation dictates and all. I was more responding to the lopesided example Gil expressed.

[Andrew J.]

But the State defines the civil society. Outside of the State there is nothing--nothing at all. Simply other States; other caps on their respective social structures. Imagine each State as an individual, and the whole world as an anarchy of States. Within each State--order for the individual humans living within them. For the personhood of States? Anarchy, but absolute freedom of action.

Outside of the State are the Concepts of Right and Wrong. They vary from individual to individual, and they probably will not match exactly the laws of the State, but they are responsible for how a person behaves and how that person thinks others should behave. What the State does may not be illegal, but it can certainly be wrong in a moral sense, from somebody's point of view.

Or, to summarize: What is Right and what is Legal don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.

[jinx]

I apologize if I missed something in this discussion, but did I hear duchess claim that there was no state-governing body? Doesn’t the UN count?

It's just as true today, you know, as it was then--for nothing about the nature of humanity has changed; and nothing will ever change, to make it untrue, short it be a change so great that it makes something that is inhuman. We can make no greater apologies for war or for love than we can for breathing.

Oh yes, human beings have never overcome their nature in the name of civility before.

[Wicked Pilot]

Well, this thread seems long on critisms and short on recommendations. Not that critisms are invalid, but they are only part of the equation and will not by themselves provide for a solution. Therefore I ask to all of you, what would you do if in charge of the situation? And please don't give any bullshit about not going to war in the first place, because as we all know time machines do not exist.

[Joe]

I apologize if I missed something in this discussion, but did I hear duchess claim that there was no state-governing body? Doesn?t the UN count?

The UN obviously can't govern the US.

[Wicked Pilot]

The UN obviously can't govern the US.

You ought to read some of the literature found at gun shows. Supposidly we have already been invaded and yet most people don't even know about it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Outside of the State are the Concepts of Right and Wrong. They vary from individual to individual, and they probably will not match exactly the laws of the State, but they are responsible for how a person behaves and how that person thinks others should behave. What the State does may not be illegal, but it can certainly be wrong in a moral sense, from somebody's point of view.

Or, to summarize: What is Right and what is Legal don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.

I'm not trying to make a moral judgement. My defence of the action is merely that is a totally typical practice for a State to engage in throughout the history of organized society. Where there are two or more organized States, there is organized conflict. The historical record proves this beyond argument. The reason I say the action of the U.S. need not be defended is because it is a totally average action; nothing has yet marked it as abnormal within the history of the operations of organized States.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Same with Hitler and Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot, all of them. If we hold to the idea that might makes right, everything they did was very right.

That's incorrect--I never said that might makes right as such; I just said it's impossible for any other system except might makes right to be operative outside of an organized State. You cannot compare the interactions of States with the interactions inside States; one is a case of anarchy (at the level of the Nation-State as individual), while the other is a case of a clearly organized social system in which ethical precepts can be applied.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

< snip >

I was never arguing that, and your repeated sophistry makes it pointless to debate with you. As usual you refuse to accept what the other person says and stick to discredited opinions regardless of how the other person explains them incorrect; preferring cheap word tricks to any real debate.

To summarize: Civil Society is the interaction of the individual's will with the unity of the whole; a sort of interaction between the natural impulses of each individual and the general trends of the whole people; that is, bound up within the totality of the State. The interaction between the individual and the universal produces the effect--a general result--that we see in the basic organization of the capitalist society.

I may emphasize that Civil Society is particularly an element of the modern capitalist society.

So the ethical force which is being violated by an action outside of the confines of the law, is that of the whole of society--one harms everyone by breaking the law, not just the particular victim--because the laws established are a reflection of the interests and trends of the civil society that exists in that State. Naturally, of course, that means the laws--and the ethical constraints thus violated in turn--of a State can change; but their change reflects broad trends changing the whole outlook of a society. I have spoken on this before.

An example of law, enacted, but not reflecting the general ethics of the Civil Society, is law which is widely violated. This could be improperly enacted law--like Prohibition--or a law which was previously enacted but has passed its usefulness.

[Andrew J.]

The reason I say the action of the U.S. need not be defended is because it is a totally average action; nothing has yet marked it as abnormal within the history of the operations of organized States.

It's normal for others, perhaps. Don't you think our country, called by so many the greatest in history, should be held to a higher standard, above average?

[SirNitram]

It is a totally average action because no one ever defends it(Thus having to question it, etc). It is not defended because it's considered totally average. And the spiral rages downwards...