Heh. That reminds me, a while back I caught some program on the History Channel (I know…) that insisted that the CSA lost the war mostly because they were, essentially, too Austrian. They didn’t use that term, of course, but ‘too much respect for property rights’ (specifically in reference to the land-grabs necessary to build large railroads) was stated explicitly and tight money policy was implied). It’s not just pro-Confederates who put too much stock in the likes of Woods and DiLorenzo, apparently.
]]>That’s also why I’ve always disliked “blowback” narratives about terrorism. Those narratives are true of course, as far as they go. The problem is how far they go. Al Qaeda was just as “responsible” for America’s wars against Iraq and Afghanistan as US policy was “responsible” for 9/11.
]]>Bad news: this guy’s birthday is the reason.
True story.
]]>Well, O.K., but in what salient respect is it different?
I can think of some specific acts of aggression that Caesar was committing habitually, and which he planned to continue committing in the future. He wasn’t committing those acts of aggression anymore after he was dead.
]]>By definition murder is not self-defense, or any other kind of defense. But my argument is that killing an active tyrant, in order to prevent him from continuing to inflict the mass murder and enslavement that tyrants inflict, is not an act of murder. It is an act of defense on behalf of the lives and liberties of those who would be murdered or enslaved as the tyrant continued his reign.
Do you disagree? If so, why? Do you disagree that people have the right to use force to defend themselves or others against an imminent threat of violence against their person or liberties? Or do you disagree that tyrants do pose an imminent threat of violence against the persons or liberties of their victims? Or do you think that there is a right to use force in defense against tyrants, but not a right to kill them specifically? (If the last, do you apply the same standards to common criminals who would murder, abduct, rape, or enslave their victims? Or do you think that it’s OK to kill the freelancers in defense of the innocent, but not OK to kill those who do so under the color of usurped authority? If you do make such a distinction, why do you make it? If you don’t make such a distinction, why don’t you believe that the force is justified by its defensive purpose?)
Argument will get you a lot further here than assertion. Or at the least some bare mention of what premises you’re using to get to the conclusion you want to assert.
]]>