Hi Platt, Paul, Rog et.al
On 28 Sep 2001 at 10:33, Platt Holden wrote:
> Hi Horse: (Got it right this time, but Rog still hasn't forgiven me) (-:
Nor me by the looks of things! :-(
> > It would depend entirely on who/what had attacked us. There are
internationally
> > valid laws which govern the rules of conduct which _civilised_ societies
adhere to.
> > This is the RULE OF LAW and when rogue states break these laws and
declare
> > war on others they are subject to the retribution of those states and/or
members of
> > coalitions of states they have attacked.
> > If, for example, the government of Germany attacked the UK and gassed
6000 in
> > London, this would be an overt declaration of war - whether stated or not -
and the
> > UK, under international law would be entirely justified in retaliating. However,
if a
> > terrorist cell of the IRA attacked the UK and gassed 6000 people, then even if
it
> > was common knowledge that they were armed, supplied and encouraged by
both
> > Eire and the USA we would not be justified in retaliating in kind against Eire
or the
> > USA.
> > The US and a coalition of other countries are about to do exactly this against
> > Afghanistan and probably Iraq when they get a chance. This is illegal,
according
> > to international law and immoral according to MoQ.
>
> If the US harbored, supported and protected IRA terrorists who gassed and
> killed 6000 people in London, the English would be entirely justified to retaliate
> in kind and then some. The more relevant question is: why would retaliation be
> immoral according to the MOQ? I don't find the MOQ denying the morality of a
> society's right to self-defense. If you believe otherwise, please cite chapter and
> verse.
First off, retaliation and self-defense are two entirely different things that spring
from different motives. Retaliation is more heavily biased toward the biological,
i.e. revenge! whilst self defense has a much higher balance of Social/Intellectual
value. I have no problem with self-defense but revenge merely leads to more
violence and is completely pointless in the long run even though it may be
'justified' or 'legal'. It has an immediate feel-good appeal, like sex, but unlike sex it
produces nothing of worth. International law may support retaliation but this is a
far cry from justification under the MoQ.
More to the point can you show me a passage in Lila which supports revenge and
pointless violence as a means to supporting or producing a healthy society from
which Intellectual value and rationality is produced.
I completely agree with you that the MoQ supports self-defense though what was
initially proposed by dubya was nothing to do with self-defense it was pure and
simple vengeance.
Also what you're saying here seems to be to do with quantity rather than Quality.
At what point is it reasonable to retaliate against another state? And why
shouldn't retaliation be permissible after a single instance of killing due to terrorist
violence or attack by a rival state if you're so sure that retaliation is permissible?
Your initial premiss' were:
> > PLATT:
> > "I interpret the MOQ view to be that those who are terrorists and those
countries
> > who support and/or tolerate terrorists have the moral standing of germs and
like
> > germs must be deliberately and ruthlessly annihilated by all means at our
> > disposal."
My objection to this was that if this is the case then the US has the moral
standing of germs and deserves to be deliberately and ruthlessly annihilated as it
has supported and tolerated terrorists (IRA). This is not official US policy in the
sense that it is part of the Presidents address to the nation or whatever but is
practically the case and can be shown to be so from records etc.
Personally I think that this is a complete misinterpretation of MoQ. Or if it isn't
then Bin Laden was justified in committing this horrendous act. If anyone agrees
with your statement but can produce a counter argument to show that Bin Laden
wasn't justified I'd be interested in hearing it.
> > > Ok, but put the (UN) headquarters in London. The U.S. should withdraw its
> > > funding. It is immoral for a nation to support those who wish to see it
> > > destroyed.
> >
> > Happily. The main reason that the UN headquarters were in the US is
becasue
> > the US wished for them to be there during the formation of the UN after
WWII. It
> > believed it could dominate the proceedings but when it found that opinion was
> > against it in a number of areas it went off in a sulk and refused to play. For
years,
> > whilst the US couldn't dominate the UN it failed to pay its bills even though it
> > retained it's power of veto - which it used on a number of occasions. As for
being
> > immoral for a nation to support those who wish to destroy it, this is arrant
> > nonsense.
>
> What is really nonsense is the idea that England would send money to the IRA
> or any other group bent on its destruction.
Maybe England isn't that daft but the USA has supplied the Taliban with millions
of dollars with about fifty million dollars just a few months ago. This money would
have probably been used to fund Bin Laden. The US also played a major role in
funding and training the Mujahadeen (which I believe effectively became the
Taliban).
Additionally, the US funded, armed and trained much of the Iraqi Army and
Airforce.
Whilst the UK hasn't funded the IRA it has funded and aided a number of the
Loyalist paramilitary groups.
Much of the above has been done in the name of self-defence but has failed to
attain it's stated aim - in fact quite the opposite. It is not the case that initial
support for a group which provides a violent response is meant to be self-
destructive, just that the outcome is often this way.
> >According to the MoQ it is more moral for an idea to destroy a nation
> > than for a nation to destroy an idea. Intellect is more dynamic than Society
and
> > your equating a terrorist to a germ is entirely wrong. A germ has no Social or
> > Intellectual content - a terrorist does.
>
> Absolutely disagree. A terrorist doesn't have social or intellectual content
> worthy of the name. I agree instead with Pirsig's view (surprise). Just substitute
> "terrorists" for "criminal blacks" in the following passage from Chapter 24 and
> note how he equates crime with biological patterns. Also, take special note of
> the last five words.
<SNIP>
> "Phaedrus had had no answer at the time, but he had one now. The idea that
> biological crimes can be ended by intellect alone, that you can talk crime to
> death, doesn't work. Intellectual patterns cannot directly control biological
> patterns. Only social patterns can control biological patterns, and the
> instrument of conversation between society and biology is not words. The
> instrument of conversation between society and biology has always been a
> policeman or a soldier and his gun."
There are quite obviously two different scenarios alluded to in the above by
Pirsig.
In the case of CRIMINAL acts it is the policeman who is in control.
In the case of an act of WAR it is the soldier.
In the case of recent events it cannot be said that an act of war has been
committed as Bin Laden and his organisation is not a state and cannot
reasonably or legally declare war on the US or anyone else for that matter.
Whoever committed the atrocious act has committed a CRIMINAL offence. As
this is the case then the current response in terms of a MILITARY build-up is not
reasonable or justifiable as the response needs to be related to the act and thus
only a POLICE response is justifiable. The big problem here is that the criminal
act committed is of a transnational nature and the only organisation that can
legitimately and legally respond to this is the UN and it would seem that you do
not recognise the UN as a legitmate or morally acceptable organisation. By
reference to the MoQ then we need some form of alternative to the UN which is
capable of acting as an impersonal and transnational police force.
But whichever way you look at it a massive build-up of military systems to deal
with this is not the right way to go. Similar responses have been tried in the past
and have failed. A WAR on terrorism will be as effective as the war on drugs - i.e.
not at all.
>
> The idea that humans by reason of being human are "intellectual" is
> mistaken. As Pirsig said of Lila, "Intellectually she's nowhere." The same is
> true of criminals, terrorists, religious fanatics and some of my best friends.
The whole quote is:
"Biologically she's fine, socially she's pretty far down the scale, intellectually she's
nowhere. But Dynamically … Ah! That's the one to watch. There's something
ferociously Dynamic going on with her. All that aggression, that tough talk, those
strange bewildered blue eyes. Like sitting next to a hill that's rumbling and letting
off steam here and there.… It would be interesting to talk to her more."
What is blindingly obvious in the above is that Pirsig does NOT say that, like a
germ, Lila has NO social or intellectual Quality. So criminals, terrorists, religious
fanatics and some of your best friends may not have social or intellectual Quality
in abundance but that is a long way from saying that they are germs and can be
treated as such.
Also, if Pirsig considered Lila as little more than a germ, as it would appear you
do, then would he have bothered to expend the energy he did? Wouldn't he have
just dumped her overboard at the first opportunity?
> According to the encyclopedia Britannica, the Magna Carta was "the charter of
> English liberties granted by King John in 1215." So your interpretation is at
> least open to question. What I noticed, though, was your admission that a
> group in merry old Englandwere without intellect, supporting Pirsig's view that
> being human doesn't automatically grant someone an intellectual pattern. How
> about inbred morons of English aristocracy today? Are they still intellectually
> vacant?
These liberties were not granted to peasants and serfs but to the aristoracy and
the wealthy as I've said before. If it had been otherwise then I would have thought
that a government elected by the entire population above 18 years of age would
have been realised before 1928.
Also I didn't say that the aristocracy were without Intellect or reason but that it
would have been suborned by social value. The _dominance_ of Intellectual
value has been mainly a 20th Century affair. And as for the English aristocracy,
as with Lila, Intellectually they are nowhere - the recent British headlines support
this.
>
> > > So I gather you put terror to defend freedom on the same moral level
> > > as terror to defend totalitarism? Or have I misunderstood you again
> > > since you didn't say it?
> >
> > Yes I put terror to defend freedom on the same moral level as terror to defend
> > totalitarism. Terrorism is terrorism. Murder is murder and psychopaths are the
> > same by whichever standards you care to apply. I do not and could not ever
justify
> > murder and terror in the pursuit of democracy. Once this happens democracy
is
> > hollow and worthless and is no better than the law of the jungle. Might does
not
> > make right.
>
> This is really the crux of our debate. Your position means you would not have
> dropped the atom bomb on Japan to terrorize the country into surrender and
> save thousands of Japanese and Allied lives. You would not have murdered
> Hitler to shorten the war in Europe and possibly prevent it all together. You
> would not say that the combined might of the Allies in WWII made our victory
> over the Axis right. In a word, your position is "pacifism."
No, if you read most of what I have written so far you will see that quite obviously
my position is not one of pacifism. Additionally, even if it were then this would not
for one moment alter the accuracy or veracity of any statements I have made.
You seem to be edging toward the ad hominem argument here (I.e. if I am
advocating pacifism then I must be a pacifist and as such cannot be correct etc.)
which is not the way to go.
Dropping the bomb was not an act of terrorism it was an act of war committed
during war.
Murdering Hitler prior to his acts of war would have been a criminal event and
unjustifiable except in hindsight.
Killing Hitler after the onset of war have been a justifiable act of war.
What made the response of the allies morally correct is that we acted in self
defense against the Axis powers.
> So, I take it the rule we must follow says we can "arrest" terrorists only after
> they act and no attempt should be undertaken to annihilate them before they
> make London into a spot on the ground that glows in the dark. The rule of war,
> "kill or be killed" does not apply. Such a pacifist approach is hopeless naive.
Well the normal course of events is that if a person commits a criminal act he is
then sought, caught and arrested. He is entitled to a fair trial and brought before a
court and if found guilty is punished in accordance with the law. What you seem
to be suggesting is that we shouldn't bother with all this namby-pamby innocent
until proven guilty rubbish and that the idea of a fair trial, habeas corpus etc. is
leftist nonsense. All we need to do is assume someone might be a criminal and
then kill them - remind me again who makes these choices and what reasons
they might like to give, or are reasons necessary? I don't think that this is what
could be called a reasoned or reasonable attitude and given a choice between
mindless violence and reasoned pacifism I'd take the latter. Mind you it is not the
case that I MUST take either - see below.
If you are serious about your statement above would you mind very much if the
UK or some other country sent over a few hit squads to root out and kill American
citizens before they cause any trouble. We could just assume that they probably
will commit horrendous crimes in the near future.
>
> In 1942, George Orwell wrote about then English pacifists:
>
> "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you
> hamper the war effort on one side, you automatically help out that of the other.
> Nor is there any really way of remaining outside such a war as the present one.
> In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.' "
>
> Maybe Bush had Orwell in mind when he said to the nations of the world,
> "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
This part of your argument reminds me of the attempt that was made to
undermine Pirsig in defining Quality as objective OR subjective - residing in the
Subject or the Object. It assumes that there are 2 and only 2 choices (either
Subject or Object) and this is THE classic SOM fudge. As we have seen there is
also the Quality approach which is neither to support the potentially illegal and
immoral actions of a military response nor to condone the criminal actions of Bin
Laden and other terrorists. Dialogue and negotiation are the only means by which
terrorism will be defeated.
George W. Bush may be mired in SOM but I had thought that most contributors
to this forum would have been moving away from this position.
Horse
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:33 BST