Do you think starting a [B]WAR[/B] ever has a net positive effect on the world?

[malclave]

I would consider the American Revolution to be a net benefit.

The OP defines war for the purpose of the poll as "invading other countries", so revolutions, rebellions, and civil wars don't appear to count.

 

[YNCS]

Isn't that what taxes are? The government takes your money, by force if necessary, and uses it for the common good.

Don't get me wrong I'm not some 'abolish taxes' nut, but let's call it what it is. Taxes are legalized theft from one person for the benefit of everyone.

If paying taxes is theft, then paying for a meal in a resturant is also theft. So is paying rent, making any purchase, or even being paid by an employer. Please don't give that old, discredited anarcho-capitalist whine "taxes are theft." You cannot squat in a country/town/province/state and expect not to pay for the benefits you receive from the country/town/etc.

 

[taper]

I don't think the American Revolution really affected the Industrial Revolution. Both countries industrialized fairly rapidly, although in different ways. If American had stayed under the crown, life would be very different. For one thing European wars would have involved us, which would have changed many things.

 

[amadeus]

So theft is justified if someone benefits from it.

What strange ethics you have, rm.

It depends on who you steal from. I'd sooner trust the Three Stooges than I would the Mexican government.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

If paying taxes is theft, then paying for a meal in a resturant is also theft. So is paying rent, making any purchase, or even being paid by an employer. Please don't give that old, discredited anarcho-capitalist whine "taxes are theft." You cannot squat in a country/town/province/state and expect not to pay for the benefits you receive from the country/town/etc.

When I go to work and have money taken from my paycheck, without my permission, upon penalty of prison, I was just robbed. As a citizen I agree to this robbery, but that doesn't change what it really is by using a nice euphemism called 'taxes'.

When my money goes to someone that didn't go to work but simply sat home all day and used my money I earned to buy things for themselves, for their benefit only, then that is totally different than me voluntarily going to a restaurant and exchanging my money for goods and services that benefit me.

If all of my tax money went to things like roads, national defense, etc. then that would be different as I benefit from my money. When my money is used for no benefit to me then that is a form of involuntary theft.



P.S. - As I already said and you chose to ignore:

Don't get me wrong I'm not some 'abolish taxes' nut, but let's call it what it is.

I do not "expect not to pay for the benefits you receive from the country/town/etc." as you have accused.

 

[Atropos]

When I go to work and have money taken from my paycheck, without my permission, upon penalty of prison, I was just robbed. As a citizen I agree to this robbery, but that doesn't change what it really is by using a nice euphemism called 'taxes'.

When my money goes to someone that didn't go to work but simply sat home all day and used my money I earned to buy things for themselves, for their benefit only, then that is totally different than me voluntarily going to a restaurant and exchanging my money for goods and services that benefit me.

If all of my tax money went to things like roads, national defense, etc. then that would be different as I benefit from my money. When my money is used for no benefit to me then that is a form of involuntary theft.



P.S. - As I already said and you chose to ignore:



I do not "expect not to pay for the benefits you receive from the country/town/etc." as you have accused.

My opinion for you just went up a notch. Off course taxes are theft (money extracted under threat of force as part of an involuntary transaction). The question is: Is it a good theft or a bad theft?

 

[Kozmos]

Depends on if the target has some something of value.

 

[puglover]

In such a screwed-up world as this one, sometimes war is a necessary evil, and the only way to move the world forward.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

My opinion for you just went up a notch. Off course taxes are theft (money extracted under threat of force as part of an involuntary transaction). The question is: Is it a good theft or a bad theft?

IMHO usually 'good theft' when it's done right. I don't mind paying for a well-run government that has its citizens best interests at heart and uses the funds it receives from them to make their lives better. We just have to watch closely as the temptation to use the funds for pet projects or to buy voters with hand-outs (welfare and corporate) will always be there.

 

[Sidhe]

The decision to go to war is almost never rational. World War I was kicked off when some fool killed another fool. Events were cleverly manipulated by the Austrian foreign minister, Leopold von Berchtold, who didn't factor in the simple fact that his country lacked the power to achieve what he wanted. It didn't help that Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany was an intelligent but superficial man who didn't consider the effects of his actions. Austria-Hungry and Germany started that war. They both lost. In World War II Germany and Japan took on the entire world. It never occurred to them that the rest of the world was stronger. This was particularly true of Japan. The American Civil War was started by the Confederacy. The Confederacy lost. The Franco-Prussian war was started by France. France lost. Almost every war since the Industrial Revolution was initiated by the side which ultimately lost. Going to war is not a rational act.

War is the ultimate criminal act, an armed robbery writ large. It's always about economics, one of the few ideas that Marx had gotten right. It's always started by a nation that wants something some other nation has. The terms may be couched in terms such as Manifest Destiny or Lebenstraum or other political slogans to grab the attention and ardor of the masses, but what it comes down to is "They have it. We want it. Let's get it."

An unprovoked war is as immoral as an unprovoked murder. There is a significant difference between self-defense and murder. And I can guarantee you that a defense of "I killed him because I thought he might attack me at some unspecified time in the future" will not get you very far in your murder trial.

Well said

The decision to go to war is almost never rational. World War I was kicked off when some fool killed another fool....

I've never heard the reason for the first world war put so aptly

 

[Chieftess]

Yes and no. Typically, no in the short term, although, in the long term, empires are known to spread technology to a wide area, or assimilate technology from local tribes. Take Rome and the Incas for example, they did the same thing. The Romans got their architecture tech from the Etruscians or whomever, as well as assimilating other technologies from other tribes. The Inca did something similar, such as asorbing road building technologies, and other technologies from empires. In turn, when that empire falls, the existing, and surrounding tribes now have that level of technology, or parts of it.

 

[C~G]

When I go to work and have money taken from my paycheck, without my permission, upon penalty of prison, I was just robbed. As a citizen I agree to this robbery, but that doesn't change what it really is by using a nice euphemism called 'taxes'.

If you want government protect you from any kind of other robbery you pay taxes.
So yes, you could name it as robbery but you pay them so somebody else wouldn't ask you to do so for them.
You have to pay for the protection to the fellas in your block.

When my money goes to someone that didn't go to work but simply sat home all day and used my money I earned to buy things for themselves, for their benefit only, then that is totally different than me voluntarily going to a restaurant and exchanging my money for goods and services that benefit me.

There's logical glitch in your statement. You chose voluntarily go to work despite the fact that somebody else might sat home and gain benefit from it.
It's only matter of degree how much you gain benefit of going to work compared to staying at home that makes the difference.
Of course stupid is such society that values more sitting in home than doing work.

If all of my tax money went to things like roads, national defense, etc. then that would be different as I benefit from my money. When my money is used for no benefit to me then that is a form of involuntary theft.

How about if it goes to scientific research in field of medicine? Does that benefit you or not? It might benefit you in the future, but you aren't sure abou t it. Also I could point out that there might be benefits giving people who don't have job money so they can consume things and keep the economy rolling (apart from possible social effects), which would benefit you in long run, but maybe that would be too big strech in current one-way-capitalism-mind-framework.

The answer to thread's question is obvious, unless there's conflict where single human life isn't sacrificed in the holy altar of war.
I don't believe such thing truly exists, so answer is definately no.

 

[Sidhe]

Yes and no. Typically, no in the short term, although, in the long term, empires are known to spread technology to a wide area, or assimilate technology from local tribes. Take Rome and the Incas for example, they did the same thing. The Romans got their architecture tech from the Etruscians or whomever, as well as assimilating other technologies from other tribes. The Inca did something similar, such as asorbing road building technologies, and other technologies from empires. In turn, when that empire falls, the existing, and surrounding tribes now have that level of technology, or parts of it.

Hypothesise on what would of happened without war, we'd probably still be fairly technologically backward, it's impossible and it would take a non violent non acquisitve species of animal to create a non violent intelligent life form. Now would it be such a bad thing to be peaceful and backward, really?

In modern times do you still think most of the time it's wise or justified to go to war?

 

[YNCS]

When I go to work and have money taken from my paycheck, without my permission, upon penalty of prison, I was just robbed. As a citizen I agree to this robbery, but that doesn't change what it really is by using a nice euphemism called 'taxes'.

It is taken with your permission. Your elected representatives, acting on your behalf, voted for those taxes. If you don't like what your elected representatives did, then you can vote them out of office.

When my money goes to someone that didn't go to work but simply sat home all day and used my money I earned to buy things for themselves, for their benefit only, then that is totally different than me voluntarily going to a restaurant and exchanging my money for goods and services that benefit me.

Oh please, spare me the whine about welfare bums. Besides, if you don't want your taxes to support the disabled, the unemployed, and the elderly, just get your elected representatives to stop all welfare payments. Also, hope that you never become disabled, unemployed or elderly.

I suppose next you'll say "I've never driven down a particular road at the other end of the state, so why should my taxes go towards the upkeep of that road?" Taxes are used for the benefit of all residents. You may never drive on Route 111 in East Podunk, but your taxes help maintain that road.

If all of my tax money went to things like roads, national defense, etc. then that would be different as I benefit from my money. When my money is used for no benefit to me then that is a form of involuntary theft.

What a selfish guy you are. Most of us grew out of the ME ME ME frame of mind when we got past five years old.

Does the term "social contract" mean anything to you?

P.S. - As I already said and you chose to ignore:

Don't get me wrong I'm not some 'abolish taxes' nut, but let's call it what it is.

I do not "expect not to pay for the benefits you receive from the country/town/etc." as you have accused.

If you say that taxes are theft, then you appear to me to object to paying taxes. I pointed out that there is no difference between paying taxes and making a purchase. In both cases, you are paying for goods or services. I assume that you don't consider the money you pay for groceries to be stolen from you. Likewise, the money you pay for your ISP isn't stolen, even if you don't use the internet because you're on vacation. So what's the difference between paying your ISP and paying your taxes?

 

[Eukaryote]

The decision to go to war is almost never rational. World War I was kicked off when some fool killed another fool. Events were cleverly manipulated by the Austrian foreign minister, Leopold von Berchtold, who didn't factor in the simple fact that his country lacked the power to achieve what he wanted. It didn't help that Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany was an intelligent but superficial man who didn't consider the effects of his actions. Austria-Hungry and Germany started that war. They both lost. In World War II Germany and Japan took on the entire world. It never occurred to them that the rest of the world was stronger. This was particularly true of Japan. The American Civil War was started by the Confederacy. The Confederacy lost. The Franco-Prussian war was started by France. France lost. Almost every war since the Industrial Revolution was initiated by the side which ultimately lost. Going to war is not a rational act.

War is the ultimate criminal act, an armed robbery writ large. It's always about economics, one of the few ideas that Marx had gotten right. It's always started by a nation that wants something some other nation has. The terms may be couched in terms such as Manifest Destiny or Lebenstraum or other political slogans to grab the attention and ardor of the masses, but what it comes down to is "They have it. We want it. Let's get it."

An unprovoked war is as immoral as an unprovoked murder. There is a significant difference between self-defense and murder. And I can guarantee you that a defense of "I killed him because I thought he might attack me at some unspecified time in the future" will not get you very far in your murder trial.

Very wise words.

 

[YNCS]

Thank you, Sidhe and Drool4Res-pect, for your kind words.

 

[CaptainF]

The decision to go to war is almost never rational. World War I was kicked off when some fool killed another fool. Events were cleverly manipulated by the Austrian foreign minister, Leopold von Berchtold, who didn't factor in the simple fact that his country lacked the power to achieve what he wanted. It didn't help that Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany was an intelligent but superficial man who didn't consider the effects of his actions. Austria-Hungry and Germany started that war. They both lost. In World War II Germany and Japan took on the entire world. It never occurred to them that the rest of the world was stronger. This was particularly true of Japan. The American Civil War was started by the Confederacy. The Confederacy lost. The Franco-Prussian war was started by France. France lost. Almost every war since the Industrial Revolution was initiated by the side which ultimately lost. Going to war is not a rational act.

War is the ultimate criminal act, an armed robbery writ large. It's always about economics, one of the few ideas that Marx had gotten right. It's always started by a nation that wants something some other nation has. The terms may be couched in terms such as Manifest Destiny or Lebenstraum or other political slogans to grab the attention and ardor of the masses, but what it comes down to is "They have it. We want it. Let's get it."

An unprovoked war is as immoral as an unprovoked murder. There is a significant difference between self-defense and murder. And I can guarantee you that a defense of "I killed him because I thought he might attack me at some unspecified time in the future" will not get you very far in your murder trial.

Well written.

To the OP, I would say that war cannot really create any benefit, but it can be used to avoid a really bad situation.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

It is taken with your permission. Your elected representatives, acting on your behalf, voted for those taxes. If you don't like what your elected representatives did, then you can vote them out of office.

And if my effort to vote them out of office is unsuccessful? Then everyone else can decide how much of my money is confiscated from me without my permission! If I don't pay I go to prison, again involuntarily.

--------

Oh please, spare me the whine about welfare bums. Besides, if you don't want your taxes to support the disabled, the unemployed, and the elderly, just get your elected representatives to stop all welfare payments. Also, hope that you never become disabled, unemployed or elderly.

I suppose next you'll say "I've never driven down a particular road at the other end of the state, so why should my taxes go towards the upkeep of that road?" Taxes are used for the benefit of all residents. You may never drive on Route 111 in East Podunk, but your taxes help maintain that road.

What a selfish guy you are. Most of us grew out of the ME ME ME frame of mind when we got past five years old.

Does the term "social contract" mean anything to you?

You talk but you don't listen to my response. I'll restate this for you once more: I am not against paying taxes. Please don't label me selfish and go on some rant telling me "I suppose next you'll say" when you didn't read what I already said:

Don't get me wrong I'm not some 'abolish taxes' nut

I do not "expect not to pay for the benefits you receive from the country/town/etc." as you have accused.

I pay my taxes and for the most part don't object to where the money is spent. My objection is not to paying, but is that we cloak the involuntary theft with the nice sounding label 'taxes'.

--------

If you say that taxes are theft, then you appear to me to object to paying taxes.

This is a incorrect assumption by you and is a misunderstanding as explained above.

--------

I pointed out that there is no difference between paying taxes and making a purchase. In both cases, you are paying for goods or services. I assume that you don't consider the money you pay for groceries to be stolen from you. Likewise, the money you pay for your ISP isn't stolen, even if you don't use the internet because you're on vacation. So what's the difference between paying your ISP and paying your taxes?

Bold by me.

I'll explain again because there is a huge difference. It is based on the voluntary or involuntary basis of the payment and upon whether or not I directly benefit in any way from the payment.

Perhaps these examples will help.

1. Voluntary and without benefit (directly) to me: I donate money to build a well for a village in Africa, to help save the whales, etc. Voluntary and not theft.

2. Voluntary and with benefit to me: I voluntarily donate money to the construction of a neighborhood park that I use, I pay my ISP, a restaurant meal, etc. Voluntary and not theft.

3. Involuntary and without benefit to me: A small part of my tax money used for things like corporate welfare, payments to uninjured people simply too lazy to work, people who defraud the government out of unearned money, the "waste and fraud" of government, etc. Involuntary and theft.

4. Involuntary and with benefit to me: Most of the taxes taken from me that go for legitimate things like roads, police protection, national defense, Route 111 in East Podunk, etc. Involuntary and theft.


Sorry to get so far off-topic but I hope that helped finally clear things up.

P.S. - Your WWI bit was good, but that was an easy example. Do you feel our 'wars' in Panama and Grenada were a net negative result?

 

[Xanikk999]

I would say the american revolution was a good war.

It was the first of britians colonies to secede and was followed by a wave of democratic revolutions.

Such as the french revolution... However that didnt go so well.

 

[Tulkas12]

War. . huh. . good god lord! What is it good for?...

JOBS!

lolololol