ReadyontheRight
Member
I don't think the original poster is asking about Japanese put into camps in the US during WW2, but about bombing and occupying non-military Japanese citizens in Japan.
Collective vs. Individual
- Thread starter Fletchette
- Start date
- Status
Cellar Dweller
Member
Well, it's a stretch...
Torch took place on 11/8/42, Watchtower had been going on for 3 months already. Torch landed on Vichy French possessions, although we were never officially at war with that government. The Solomons were "British" posessions without a formal government in place.
Either Guadalcanal was the first invasion of a "foreign" country, or North Africa only starts counting after the Allies enter Libya (since there was a formal government and a declared war going on with the Italians)...
Torch took place on 11/8/42, Watchtower had been going on for 3 months already. Torch landed on Vichy French possessions, although we were never officially at war with that government. The Solomons were "British" posessions without a formal government in place.
Either Guadalcanal was the first invasion of a "foreign" country, or North Africa only starts counting after the Allies enter Libya (since there was a formal government and a declared war going on with the Italians)...
Cellar Dweller
Member
Another stretch...
Bush the 41st = Charles Martel?
This calls for a Photochop by someone with skill! Use a Fisher-Price children's hammer though...
Bush the 41st = Charles Martel?
This calls for a Photochop by someone with skill! Use a Fisher-Price children's hammer though... All rights are rooted in individual rights. A group of individuals form a collective by ceding certain rights to the collective for the purpose of safeguarding their remaining rights and obtaining a better overall lifestyle. The collective does not have any rights that didn't belong to the individual first. Things like possession of weapons of mass destruction are just extentions of our RKBA on the national level.
If you are part of a collective, and the collective attacks another one, it only makes sense that you are held responsible with the whole even if you were against the original decision.
Just my $0.02.
If you are part of a collective, and the collective attacks another one, it only makes sense that you are held responsible with the whole even if you were against the original decision.
Just my $0.02.
Fletchette
Member
So carpet bombing of Fallujah would be just?
Fletchette
Member
I am going to ping this thread just to get it running again.
I think that the question I posed (when is it ok to treat people as a collective rather than individuals?) is important not only for justifying actions of war but also in retaining our Second Amendment rights.
How can one argue that a wacko criminal that kills a bunch of people with his AR-15 should be charged with the crime, but other AR-15 owners should not (individual responsibility theory) and then argue that we should invade an entire country for the actions of a few of that countrie's citizens (collective responsibility theory)?
Clearly both theories are valid at some point, but where (and how) do you draw the line for when to apply them?
I think that the question I posed (when is it ok to treat people as a collective rather than individuals?) is important not only for justifying actions of war but also in retaining our Second Amendment rights.
How can one argue that a wacko criminal that kills a bunch of people with his AR-15 should be charged with the crime, but other AR-15 owners should not (individual responsibility theory) and then argue that we should invade an entire country for the actions of a few of that countrie's citizens (collective responsibility theory)?
Clearly both theories are valid at some point, but where (and how) do you draw the line for when to apply them?
ctdonath
Member
The act clearly was perpetrated by an individual, and government has an obligation to identify that individual.
Those owners are clearly uninvolved. That they happen to have the same kind of inanimate object as the criminal is irrelevant. There is no discernable connection between the criminal and other uninvolved owners.
Expediency for survival. When some individuals are attacking you, you're gonna suffer grave harm unless you "take 'em out" - which may mean "taking out" some uninvolved parties in the process; acting to minimize harm to innocents may greatly increase your chances of prompt death. Morally, one is obligated to minimize harm to others ... but when that act unduly puts oneself at grave risk, others do not have the right to criticize one's subsequend prioritization.
If someone is actively trying to kill you at a crowded shopping mall, a proper jury will not convict you for doing an appropriate job of shooting to stop that assailant - even if others get harmed in the process. In a war, soldiers have a duty to do everything reasonably neccessary to terminate their opponents - even if others get killed. When "total war" was introduced in WWII by the aggressors, the defenders were justified in firebombing whole cities - tragic, yes, but the only reasonable option to end hostilities with, relatively speaking, minimal losses. It's called "collateral damage".
One certainly should refrain from unnecessary violence, limiting dished-out harm to those individuals who will only stop, or be properly punished, by appropriate force. The AR15 owners in your example had nothing to do with the crime committed; acting against them involves seeking them out and making them involved when they were absolutely not involved. In war, law has broken down and the only imperative is to stop the aggressor through overwhelming but not excessive force; if my wartime opponent is trying to kill me _right_now_ and the most appropriately expedient solution is to level the building he's hiding in (say, sniper on the top floor, and I have no suitable cover), fine - but it is NOT fine to deliberately act to level the building next to it if doing so is reasonably avoidable and the desired outcome can be achieved without doing so.
The confusion in your mind likely comes from a misunderstanding of accuracy under fire (whatever the weapons involved), and of the timespans involved. "Detatched reflection is not required in the presence of an upraised knife." That a third party is harmed is NOT BY CHOICE, but by statistical likelyhoods while pursuing a high-priority goal.
Yes, there are innocents present in wars. We have no interest in harming them, and - when possible - will act to not harm them. However, the priority in war (like any form of self-defense) is STOP YOUR OPPONENT FROM HARMING YOU. Sometimes the choice becomes: risk harm to innocents, or risk harm to yourself - one or the other, no third option. Much as we try to focus our efforts on the individual in question, sometimes we can't avoid others and the issue becomes a straightforward matter of priorities: you, him, or bystanders.
The problem with, in your example, disarming AR15 owners is that they are not part of the situation. Gun-grabbers erroniously think they are, but are uninformed/ignorant/deluded/bigoted. Shooting at someone shooting at you is reasonable; risking the unintentional shooting of those behind him is prioritization; turning around and shooting the clearly & completely uninvolved person behind you is wrong.
As for invading a whole country: there is a system in place which, for reasons of defense, must be stopped, controlled, and/or replaced. Government is pervasive throughout a nation. Taking out Saddam did not completely remove the threat involved, the entire control network had to be shut down (much of it by force), removed, and a new system put in place (lest we leave anarchy behind, which is immoral); not invading, removing the opposition, and establishing a new government was not a moral option. Those resisting must be dealt with, and sometimes at the expense of innocent bystanders, lest the final new system collapse into greater death and despair. The above applies in light of the appropriate central goal; removing Saddam from power is far harder done than said.
Get it?
griz
Member
How did I miss this last week?!?
After 9-11 I believed the same thing. But my views over the last couple years have been changed. A better analogy would be that a criminal is hiding in a neighborhood. The police know that he hides out in more than one house, but they also know that many homeowners want the bad guy taken out. I’ll call those homeowners the neighborhood watch. They are on the side of the police. So “restructuring” the whole neighborhood, while it is the most efficient way to get the guy, also leads to turning the neighborhood watch against the police. Sounds like a no win situation, and that’s what I think we face in the “war on terror”. We don’t really want to declare war on one fourth of the people of the world, and winning a guerilla war is close to impossible. I wish it was as simple as holding a single country responsible for a group of people hiding in that country, but I don’t think it is. Sure wish I knew the answer.
Let me try another analogy to see if it makes more sense. In the US, a hypothetical group of people from ABC fraternity from XYZ College turns into radical haters of Russia. (please bear with me) They form a loose coalition and start doing bombings and shootings in Russia and at Russian embassies around the world. Of course Russia wants them stopped. Who does Russia hold responsible? Is it the ABC fraternity, the state that XYZ College is in, or maybe XYZ? Not even half of the fraternity members are guilty. The radicals share many beliefs with the population of the country, live all over the country, have friends and family all over, and there is no one characteristic that makes them stand out. See how tough it is?
After 9-11 I believed the same thing. But my views over the last couple years have been changed. A better analogy would be that a criminal is hiding in a neighborhood. The police know that he hides out in more than one house, but they also know that many homeowners want the bad guy taken out. I’ll call those homeowners the neighborhood watch. They are on the side of the police. So “restructuring” the whole neighborhood, while it is the most efficient way to get the guy, also leads to turning the neighborhood watch against the police. Sounds like a no win situation, and that’s what I think we face in the “war on terror”. We don’t really want to declare war on one fourth of the people of the world, and winning a guerilla war is close to impossible. I wish it was as simple as holding a single country responsible for a group of people hiding in that country, but I don’t think it is. Sure wish I knew the answer.
Let me try another analogy to see if it makes more sense. In the US, a hypothetical group of people from ABC fraternity from XYZ College turns into radical haters of Russia. (please bear with me) They form a loose coalition and start doing bombings and shootings in Russia and at Russian embassies around the world. Of course Russia wants them stopped. Who does Russia hold responsible? Is it the ABC fraternity, the state that XYZ College is in, or maybe XYZ? Not even half of the fraternity members are guilty. The radicals share many beliefs with the population of the country, live all over the country, have friends and family all over, and there is no one characteristic that makes them stand out. See how tough it is?
Fletchette
Member
griz,
Your example is exactly the point I was trying to make - where should we draw the line between treating hostile people as individuals vs collective.
It is realtively easy to see WWII as a classic example of the need to respond collectively.
It is also relatively easy (except for liberals) to see that a criminal that uses a gun should be punished as an individual and other gun owners should be left alone.
It gets very murky when you address terrorists. Most of the 911 highjackers were Saudi, and further investigation revealed some in the Saudi government funded groups who eventually funded Al Queda. This isn't as clear as Japanese Zeros bombing Pearl Harbour, but it is also not as clear as a lone psycho either.
To make matters even more difficult, we ended up invading Iraq and not Saudi Arabia. I am not necessarily against the war in Iraq, but I think invading Saudi Arabia was probably more justified.
Your example is exactly the point I was trying to make - where should we draw the line between treating hostile people as individuals vs collective.
It is realtively easy to see WWII as a classic example of the need to respond collectively.
It is also relatively easy (except for liberals) to see that a criminal that uses a gun should be punished as an individual and other gun owners should be left alone.
It gets very murky when you address terrorists. Most of the 911 highjackers were Saudi, and further investigation revealed some in the Saudi government funded groups who eventually funded Al Queda. This isn't as clear as Japanese Zeros bombing Pearl Harbour, but it is also not as clear as a lone psycho either.
To make matters even more difficult, we ended up invading Iraq and not Saudi Arabia. I am not necessarily against the war in Iraq, but I think invading Saudi Arabia was probably more justified.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
