RoR: Forum

Post 0

Sunday, February 10 - 7:48am

Link

Edit

The year is 2083, and Atlantis exists.

In the decades preceding this, a peaceful revolution had taken place. It began with an inspirational leader who encouraged his citizenry to read Atlas Shrugged. He asked the voters if they felt Galt’s Gulch was possible, and if they would want to live in such a place. First, there were only a few who embraced the possibility. Then there were many. The culture changed gradually, slowly embracing ideas of individual freedom and laissez-faire capitalism. And by the year 2083, Australia, having fully embraced these ideals, had become the freest, most prosperous and powerful nation on the earth.

The United States, on the other hand, had stagnated, staying pretty much the way it was in 2008. Sure, there were some new inventions (mostly coming out of Australia) and new medicines; fashions and tastes changed somewhat, but the political scene hadn’t changed in any fundamental way. Economically, it was still a mixed economy.

Australia’s Commander-in-Chief comes before his people to deliver the following address:

“Fellow Freedom-loving Australians. The time has come for us as a nation to discuss and contemplate a very serious plan of action involving the United States of America. As many of you know, the American government forces their own citizens to pay taxes. This is just one of many instances in which this government has initiated force against its own people, essentially enslaving them. Property is stolen from individuals to whom it justly belongs, and handed over to others. Women who choose to sell sexual services are thrown in jail. Entrepreneurs who wish to grow and sell marijuana are given harsh sentences. The list goes on. Suffice it to say, given these transgressions against humanity, the United States of America is an outlaw country .

We Australians, as a Truly Free People, have the right (though not the obligation) to free the American people from the tyranny under which they live.”

He goes on to explain that both in terms of national security and economic growth, it would be in the self-interest of Australia to overthrow the United States. He asks for voluntary donations in order to fund this war. Vast amounts of money come pouring in.

The Australians are divided on whether or not this is a good idea. While they nearly all agree that it is morally permissible, some don’t think it’s prudent or truly in their own self-interest. The majority, however, support it for a combination of reasons, including the idea of acting on behalf of the American people.

Those silly Americans, though! Before Australia uses physical force to overthrow the government, the American people are asked if they want to discard their current system and adopt the complete laissez-faire capitalist system of Australia. There is overwhelming opposition to this.

Questions:
1. Should the Australians pursue this military proposal? If so, why? If not, why not?
2. Should the opinions of American citizens have a bearing on that decision?
3. Is it, as the Australians feel, morally permissible for them to attack and overthrow the U.S. Government?

Post 1

Sunday, February 10 - 8:06am

Link

Edit

Eric Rockwell wrote:

He goes on to explain that both in terms of national security and economic growth, it would be in the self-interest of Australia to overthrow the United States. He asks for voluntary donations in order to fund this war. Vast amounts of money come pouring in.

Bob Kolker replies:

If the Australian people were to be so foolish as to go along with this proposal and attack the U.S.A. Australia would be bombed to rubble the following day. For a good idea of Australia's fate see the photographs of German and Japanese cities taken toward the end of WW2.

I do not believe for two pico seconds that the sensible folk of Australia would ever consent to such madness.

In some cases Might Makes Right, and in all cases Might Produces Results.

Bob Kolker

Post 2

Sunday, February 10 - 9:25am

Link

Edit

Sanctioned Eric's post for the excellent use of imagination.

Unfortunately, there is simply no comparison between this fantasy and anything resembling actual U.S. foreign policy.

Post 3

Sunday, February 10 - 9:28am

Link

Edit

Bob,

I think Eric is assuming that Australia is, like the United States today, the most powerful nation on earth, and could easily defeat the U.S. with little risk to its own people. But that it is a very dubious assumption. If Australia were to launch an attack against the U.S., even with a more powerful military, both countries would suffer devastating losses.

But that is only one reason why it would be wrong -- the more accurate word is "stupid" -- for Australia to attack the United States. There is no more justification for attacking a semi-free country, like the United States than there is for the United States to attack a welfare-state democracy like Sweden, England or Germany.

The only justification for military action against another country is self-defense, since the purpose of a military is to defend a country's citizens from attack by foreign powers.

Besides, if violent revolution within the United States isn't justified, then violent intervention from outside the country isn't either. And, as Rand has pointed out, the only time violent revolution should be considered is if a country collapses into a dictatorship, with one-party rule, convictions without trial or with mock trials, nationalization of industry and government censorship. Then violent revolution becomes the only recourse, but if there is still a way to change the system through education and the democratic process, violent revolution is unwarranted. And so, for the same reason, is a "liberating" invasion from another country.

Now, a country like Iran is a dictatorship, in addition to which Iran poses a direct threat to the United States, because of the country's willingness to fund terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens. So, the U.S. would be justified in attacking Iran in order to protect its own citizens against future terrorist attacks.

But the minimum condition for attacking another country should be self-defense, not the liberation of its people from government intervention.

- Bill

Post 4

Sunday, February 10 - 9:33am

Link

Edit

Australia has developed an astounding defense system, in which all incoming missiles, aircraft, submarines, and ships can be detected and eliminated before even coming close to the mainland. The system has been proven successful, and the free people of Australia are confident that the archaic bombs possessed by the United States of Stagnation pose no threat to them.

The United States has no such defense system, though they would like to develop one.

Australia's concern with national security has to do with their one and only ally in the western hemisphere, which is the tiny but wildly successful capitalist country of New Hampshire. Formerly part of the United States, it became an independent nation in 2042. Though it won its independence, the United States is still hostile towards it, and small but violent militias from the states have on more than one occasion attacked New Hampshire. These small groups call themselves "patriots" and, while the U.S. government says they disavow such groups, they nevertheless allow them to exist.

"Fellow Australians! We must protect the small but noble fledging free-market capitalistic country of New Hampshire from the United States! We all know the huge stockpile of ancient weaponry the U.S. government possesses: And we know they could and would slip that weaponry into the hands of the so-called "patriots." Do we sit back and do nothing in defense of our ally?"

(Edited by Eric Rockwell on 2/10, 9:56am)

Post 5

Sunday, February 10 - 10:06am

Link

Edit

Rockwell:

Australia has developed an astounding defense system, in which all incoming missiles, aircraft, submarines, and ships can be detected and eliminated before even coming close to the mainland. The system has been proven successful, and the free people of Australia are confident that the archaic bombs possessed by the United States of Stagnation pose no threat to them.

Kolker:

Defense against ICBM's and IRBM's augmented by launches of dummy warheads to diffuse and defuse the defense makes missile attack unstoppable. You are entertaining a "wet dream". We have over ten thousand nuclear warheads in our arsenal. No nation, including Australia can defend itself sufficiently.

The reason why the late cold war with the Soviet Union went to impasse was -mutually assured destruction- or a belief in mutually assured destruction. At this juncture and for the foreseeable future, Australian cannot threaten physical destruction upon the U.S. so it is a one-sided matter. We can reduce Australia to rubble, but the reverse is not so.

For better for for worse Australia has not spent nearly enough to be a credible military threat to the U.S. nor can it defend itself against an attack by the U.S.

There is nothing archaic about our weapons. They cannot be stopped. And they are constantly upgraded and replaced. That is why the U.S. is a Superpower and Australia is not.

The U.S. is capable of destroying any nation in the world and still survive in working order. Since the Soviet Union went out of business no nation can destroy us. In the future the Chinese may be able to, and it is back to mutually assured destruction.

Bob Kolker

(Edited by Robert J. Kolker on 2/10, 10:07am)

(Edited by Robert J. Kolker on 2/10, 10:16am)

Post 6

Sunday, February 10 - 3:10pm

Link

Edit

It would have been impossible for folks back at the beginning of the twenty-first century to imagine that the balance of power would have shifted so violently. But it did.

You have to keep in mind the horrific economic collapse of 2013, followed by the grueling Fifteen Year Depression. There were the devastating terror attacks in that period as well. And don't forget the War of 2052, which depleted vast amounts of weaponry. And there was the Anderson Administration, which engaged in full scale disarmament in an attempt to lead the world towards peace. (It didn't work.)

All this and more left the total 49 states severely weakened. There was simply not enough wealth available to maintain and rebuild a competitive war machine.

Meanwhile, you will all remember the famous Australian physicist Nigel Barrett, who was born in 2015. He opened up branches of physics undreamed of until then. His breakthroughs led to a superior defense system, possessed exclusively by the Australian government. I'd love to explain the science behind this magnificent achievement, but I'm not smart enough to understand how it works. (I'm just an Objectivist.)

Post 7

Sunday, February 10 - 3:41pm

Link

Edit

Eric,

I hate to belabor a point, but apparently I have to.

The only legitimate purpose for the Australian military's attacking another country is self-defense (the defense of its own citizens), not the defense of people in other countries.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 2/10, 3:43pm)

Post 8

Sunday, February 10 - 5:45pm

Link

Edit

Rockwell:

You have to keep in mind the horrific economic collapse of 2013, followed by the grueling Fifteen Year Depression. There were the devastating terror attacks in that period as well. And don't forget the War of 2052, which depleted vast amounts of weaponry. And there was the Anderson Administration, which engaged in full scale disarmament in an attempt to lead the world towards peace. (It didn't work.)

Kolker:

I hate to break this bad news to you but the current year is 2008 of the Common Era. 2013 has not happened yet and neither you nor I know what will be that year. Even more so for 2052. Are you serious in your science fiction ravings?

Bob Kolker

(Edited by Robert J. Kolker on 2/10, 5:45pm)

Post 9

Sunday, February 10 - 5:58pm

Link

Edit

Bill Dwyer writes:

> The only legitimate purpose for the Australian military's attacking another country is self-defense
> (the defense of its own citizens), not the defense of people in other countries.

In principle, I don't disagree with you Bill, but this gets me thinking about a paradigm shift that I believe might be taking place here in the 21st Century.

Due to simple practical necessity, most political organizations throughout history have been constituted on a geographical basis. However, as technical progress continues to expand the connectivity of individuals across the world through the continuing development of wireless bandwidth channels and virtual reality models, I think there may come a time in the not-to-distant future where people begin to organize into communities based upon ideology rather than geography. I conjecture that there may be a tipping point where individuals begin, en masse, to shift their allegiance from their current governments to these communities, redirecting their wealth there as well, allowing these virtual organizations to build real infrastructure that could be used for activities such as the physical and intellectual defense of the community members. This presupposes other parallel changes in the nature of the dangers faced in this new world. For an interesting look at the possibilities of what may be coming, I recommend the science fiction book Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge which has recently been released in paperback and is set roughly 20 years in the future.

Anyway, back to the issue at hand. My point is that if a political realignment of this type were to take place, then a worldwide community of "Free-Market Individualists" might well see the scenario outlined by Eric as a direct threat to its members and could decide that retaliatory action was justified within an Objectivist philosophical framework. It is certainly something to ponder. In fact, the more I think about it, a visionary "John Galt" could begin laying the groundwork for the creation of a future Atlantis under this new paradigm and possibly make real progress towards the creation of a freer future for those ready to embrace it. That is not something I see happening under the current political realities.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 10

Sunday, February 10 - 6:02pm

Link

Edit

Dwyer:

Due to simple practical necessity, most political organizations throughout history have been constituted on a geographical basis. However, as technical progress continues to expand the connectivity of individuals across the world through the continuing development of wireless bandwidth channels and virtual reality models, I think there may come a time in the not-to-distant future where people begin to organize into communities based upon ideology rather than geography. I conjecture that there may be a tipping point where individuals begin, en masse, to shift their allegiance from their current governments to these communities, redirecting their wealth there as well, allowing these virtual organizations to build real infrastructure that could be used for activities such as the physical and intellectual defense of the community members. This presupposes other parallel changes in the nature of the dangers faced in this new world. For an interesting look at the possibilities of what may be coming, I recommend the science fiction book Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge which has recently been released in paperback and is set roughly 20 years in the future.

Kolker:

Neal Stephenson conjures with this theme in his sci fi novel, -The Diamond Age-. Have a look.

Bob Kolker

Post 11

Sunday, February 10 - 6:05pm

Link

Edit

Bob:

You are quoting me, not Bill Dwyer.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 12

Sunday, February 10 - 6:32pm

Link

Edit

oops.

Post 13

Monday, February 11 - 6:06am

Link

Edit

Bob,

You have no imagination and are completely missing Eric Rockwell's point. And it is simply utterly true that in 2083 (my centennial) the technology will blow your mind away. Computers will be able to perform 10^15 times more calculations per second. So first be quiet with your "its impossible" grandpa talk. And second compare what Eric's proposal with our relationship with the middle east.

C. Jeffery Small,

Thanks for the reference to the book Rainbow's End. I found a free online version.

Post 14

Monday, February 11 - 9:20am

Link

Edit

Bill: Thank you for making your position so clear. Just like seeing how an ideal man is embodied by Howard Roark, it’s helpful for me to understand what an ideal foreign policy is like by examining Atlantis. So, for you, Atlantis would not use military force on behalf of the American people, or on behalf of the small, fragile, Free Nation of New Hampshire. If I understand your position, Australia would only be willing to use force in defense of itself, is that right?

Jeff: In 2083, it doesn’t look exactly like what you described, though there is still a feeling of kinship between nations that share similar values. And there is the dream of so many in Atlantis to have a bastion of freedom in the western hemisphere. When New Hampshire was struggling for independence back in 2042, the Aussie’s were unequivocally in support of it, much to the chagrin of the U.S.

Dean: Interesting you thought this situation resembles conflicts in the Middle East. The particulars seem so different here, but I suppose some of the same questions arise in both instances. If you were an Australian, would you support or protest the leader’s proposal to go to war with America?

Teresa: Thanks for the sanction. You mentioned this doesn’t compare to actual U.S. Foreign Policy. Which U.S. Foreign Policy are you speaking of? Woodrow Wilson’s? George Bush’s? George Washington’s? I’m curious what you think Australia should do in this context, keeping in mind that by comparison, the U.S. is not even close in terms of Freedom. The U.S. in 2083 is a slave state compared to what has been achieved in Atlantis. And don’t forget the threat it poses for….

HOLD ON….This just in:

MASSACRE IN GROVER’S CORNERS
At 3:15 today, fifteen armed American gunman made their way into the Nation’s Capital in Grover’s Corners, New Hampshire. They opened fire, slaughtering 23 senators, aides, and legislators. The gunmen have been captured and have identified themselves as “Patriots.” In an address shortly after, the American president disavowed any U.S. involvement in the action, and requests the return of the gunmen. New Hampshire officials have refused the request. It is suspected the U.S. will launch a military attack on New Hampshire if it does not comply shortly.

Quick! Teresa, Dean, Bill, Bob, Jeff, or anyone out there listening…..what should we in Atlantis do? Do we just sit by passively and watch this unfold, or do we stand up for freedom? Do we at least send some of our superior weaponry to New Hampshire so it can protect itself?

Post 15

Monday, February 11 - 9:31am

Link

Edit

I don't have a problem with them helping, I would have moved to Atlantis a long time ago. However, it depends on a few things. For example, what about the rest of the world? Is it much freer or is it the same as now, in which case the US would still look good in comparison. Also, the supposed state of NH would matter a great deal - I would offer them defense against the US without a doubt.

Post 16

Monday, February 11 - 9:53am

Link

Edit

Dean wrote:

> Thanks for the reference to the book Rainbow's End.

Oner small point: The title does not have the apostrophe. This was surely a conscious choice. Reader's will see the reference for the title in the book, but the lack of the punctuation provides the title with an alternate interpretation of its meaning.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 17

Monday, February 11 - 10:22am

Link

Edit

Bill: Thank you for making your position so clear. Just like seeing how an ideal man is embodied by Howard Roark, it’s helpful for me to understand what an ideal foreign policy is like by examining Atlantis. So, for you, Atlantis would not use military force on behalf of the American people, or on behalf of the small, fragile, Free Nation of New Hampshire. If I understand your position, Australia would only be willing to use force in defense of itself, is that right?

Right. The function of our police force is to protect our own citizens from crime, not to protect the citizens of other countries from crime. Similarly, the function of our armed forces is to protect our own citizens from foreign aggression, not to protect the citizens of other countries from foreign aggression.

- Bill

Post 18

Monday, February 11 - 11:04am

Link

Edit

Similarly, the function of our armed forces is to protect our own citizens from foreign aggression, not to protect the citizens of other countries from foreign aggression.

The problem for so many Objectivists, it seems, is that they buy into the notion of pre-emptive war that is sold on the premise of protecting our citizens from foreign aggression. But, such wars dismayingly often turn out to be more about protecting citizens of foreign countries from their own government or foreign aggression.

Which is why I personally don't believe in pre-emptive war -- you can't trust the real motives of the politicians who instigate them. That, and because pre-emptive war has a nasty habit of violating the NIOF principle, with a side helping of rationalization about how it REALLY isn't a violation at all, it's really about national defense and not at all about seizing oil fields or freeing oppressed refugees in Darfur or ...

Post 19

Monday, February 11 - 2:31pm

Link

Edit

The decision to launch the Ship of State and go to war is a collective/group action, carried out in a collective/group context. It is not an action of individuals, but of individuals acting in concert, as a collective, in the context of that collective.

Even in Atlantis, peopled as it we assume it is with consistent philosophers, it is unlikely that there would be 100% consensus on any such decision, even if it was perfectly presently without flaws, using perfect intelligence and with 0.000000000000 uncertainty in the analyses. But, look at the analysis you've presented:

the American government forces their own citizens to pay taxes.

the 7/11 forces customers to pay before leaving with bread. Payment isn't voluntary. Are there 7/11's in Atlantis?

This is just one of many instances in which this government has initiated force against its own people, essentially enslaving them.

it is possible to live in an entire nation full of places where value is exchanged for value without being enslaved by anything more insidious then the Universe, as it is.

Property is stolen from individuals to whom it justly belongs, and handed over to others.

and indeed, used to purchase high explosives which may be projected agianst living human beings, and all kinds of things that the collective/government is empowered to do. But, read Hayek on 'the Safety Net.'

Women who choose to sell sexual services are thrown in jail. Entrepreneurs who wish to grow and sell marijuana are given harsh sentences.The list goes on. Suffice it to say, given these transgressions against humanity, the United States of America is an outlaw country .

like I said, even in Atlantis, peopled as it we assume it is with duly consistent philosophers, it is unlikely that there would be 100% consensus on any such decision, even if it was perfectly presently without flaws, using perfect intelligence and with 0.000000000000 uncertainty in the analyses.

Assume that some Atlantians agree, and some do not, with the decision to launch the Ship of State in this instance, no matter what that decision is. ( I say, in any real case, that is guaranteed.)

What are the ethical political options available to those who disagree with the collective/group action (or equally, inaction)?

I suggest they are the following:

1] Work politically to change enough minds of skins not our own to agree with our worldview until sufficient political power exists to change the current collective action.

2] Accept the decision of the collective while disagreeing with it, and remain in and continue to benefit/support the collective context.

3] Withdraw from the collective context, do not remain and do not support and do not continue to benefit from the collective context, which is increasingly not even an option. There are but so many uninhabited desert islands on which to hermit-up.

What is the remaining option?

4] Megapolitics/the politics of bruth force. Revolution and/or internal or external conquest. It is only necessary to win such a revolution/context. The contextual right/wrong of that decision is evaluated in the context of the winning combatant and those external actors so inclined to notice. Lather, rinse, repeat = history.

In the Universe, as it is, 1], 2] and 3] are ultimately subject to 4].   There is no ultimate forceless option; the only choice we ultimately ever have is, towards what ends will we ultimately consent to project force? To wit, the crux of your example.   What worldviews will we defend, and where will we defend them?

Is it possible to exist inside a context created and maintained and defended by collective action, and not benefit from it?   In the more concrete example of the USA, can we calculate the benefit to succeeding generations that have painlessly accrued to us as a result of the commitment and sacrifices of the Greatest Generation to a] leave over 400,000 of themselves wrested from a nation half our current size in a meatgrinder, b] borrow the equivalent of over $3T in today's dollars, and c] significantly help to create the free world and all the economies that we have benefited from since?   No, it defies calculation, even if the side effect was the creation of our own fascist instrument which has yet to stand down.    But, as we more or less continue to politically try to get that fascist element to stand down, it is not possible to not also benefit from the reality expensively created by that fascist element, and so we have an ethical obligation, for as long as we remain and benefit from that context, to support it.    Otherwise, we steal, by taking from that which we did not create.   If we disagree with the context, then see 1], 2], 3] and 4] above, but nowhere on that list does it say "Stay and benefit but don't pay taxes or only 'voluntarily' pay taxes."   Just as, there is no 7/11 that says "Take our bread and don't pay or voluntarily pay for it."

Now, suppose instead the issue at stake is, competing worldviews in political contexts that look at our dependence on 1], 2], and 3], and either

a] note a certain lack of magic spirits in the sky, and internally, rely on channeling for same as a leg-up proxy for political power, or
b] internally resort 1st and foremost to 4] projected internally and at its immediate neighbors; the always with us fringe insane, who forever ask the insane question: "Excuse me, is this world taken?"

In the case of a], our passive and active candidacy of secular organization is a direct threat to their internal political power, if their people are living in squalor under their paradigm while we are not, and in the case of b], if unchecked, that will expand until stopped.   When confronted with b], the free world must always vigorously answer "yes", never "no" or worse "abstain."

No matter what the form of thug, be it religious thugs securing their dark ages grip, or secular thugs securing their place in the history of the insane, it is always in the selfish self-interest of free people to cross the street when they see thugs beating the living crap out of those across the street.   Looking away, averting the eyes, and advertising one's desire to concede the issue invites only one outcome.

So, back to your hypothetical.   Has the USA taxed Canada by force? Has the USA flown taxmen into Australia to knock over skyscrapers? Has the USA expressed often and openly the belief that "The Great Satan Australia must be destroyed"--because if the suffering people of the USA ever get wind of what life is like in Australia, then they will revolt, and the poliitcal context in the USA will be overthrown.   Therefore, the political theocracy in the USA -- the worshippers of Durkheims God Totem 'Society" -- have been working overtime to paint Australia as "The Great $atan", and are working overtime to make sure that the only images that Americans see of Atlantians is of them are actual--not staged--pictures of Antlatians bleeding from the A$$ for the CNN cameras, running terror filled from falling skyscrapers, and so on.    The political structure in the USA has repealed public education, and replaced it instead with year-round indoctrination about the unseen yet all seeing magic spirit in the sky, "Society," which is spoken for by the high priests/Social Scientologists.   Their children bring home "Society Studies" biblical texts filled with "Social Scientologists believe..." and they call it science. They walk around with "Society Security" cards, and are registered acolytes, enforced worshippers of Durkheim's God token, Society.

Well, hell yes, if that's is the case, then I'd say free those poor bastards, before they succeed in overrunning Atlantis. Unless, of course, we find Atlantis an idea not worth defending from the always with us fringe insane, who forever ask the insane question, "Is this world taken?"

regards,
Fred

The Foreign Policy of Atlantis