Subject:
|
Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jul 2004 20:25:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1245 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> These are MLF answers mind you, not my personal view which is a bit muddier
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> > > The Macho Libertarian Flash(tm) answer is that there is NO justification, short
> > > of actually being invaded by another sovereignty and needing to repel the
> > > attack, that justifies attack on another sovereign country.
> > >
> > > Nor is there any justification for preventing citizens from *volunteering* to
> > > fight on their own recognizance (with the proviso that they're on their own and
> > > no rescue will be forthcoming if they get captured) for or against a foreign
> > > power, or raising funds for causes they believe in.
> > >
> > > In that ideal answer there is no problem such as you pose, the answer is always
> > > no, you're not justified.
> > >
> > > The problem is, while it's a goal to be strived for, it's not a practical answer
> > > in all cases.
> >
> > Well, let's talk about this, then, and keep it entirely in the realm of
> > hypothetical.
>
> I suspect you're not going to do that but OK, I'll play along.
>
> > Country A is oppressive.
>
> Check.
>
> > A majority of citizens of Country A decide to have a 'revolt' to shake off the
> > tyrannical oppressive gov't.
>
> Check.
>
> > Can the citizens get aid from other countries?
>
> Not legitimately directly from other countries. Only from privateers who choose
> to aid them of their own free will.
>
> > Can they call on Country B to
> > assist them in the overthrow?
>
> They can call all they want but Country B can't legitimately actually aid them.
> Only its citizens, acting independently, can.
>
> Therefore... (wait for it)
>
> in the MLF view of the world, the American Revolution would have failed because
> France was illegitimately interfering!
>
> See... I SAID it wasn't a completely practical viewpoint.
>
> Er, did I take your counterargument away by beating you to it? Sorry bout that!
Nope, I was genuinely intersted to see where the debate would go--I don't have a
solid opinion on the matter, and this particular hypothetical scenario doesn't
pertain to the current Iraqi situation. I did think about the American
revolution, but I wasn't about to pounce and say, "Aha!". Let the debate flow,
I say.
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
120 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
