The Fundamental Political Question

[commonsense]

In order for diplomacy to work, there must be the possibility of the use of force as a final resort.

uttelly hogwash!!!!


its the OPPOSITE!


1862, 1942, 1916 - when the balance of power is 50/50, 40/60, 60/40 - there is room to negociate. which is another word for compromize.

by the time its 10/90, 20/80, or even 30/70, there is no need to negociate, just concoure.


------look to history, and you know what you say above is utterly wrong.

......OK I'm going to make an exception here - due to history i know and so respect - but will say they did not need to negociate in order to win, they would have won eventually, but negoitated for their own ends - playing to the ego (Nixon in the instance) - and signing the Paris Peace Accords was a sham of course, and served most sides, North Vietnam ("we only want peace"), Nixon (thanks for signing, so i can be re-elected), not so much the South Veit, who know their time as limited and were sold out (sold out sort of - but they never fought worth a damn and had nothing to back via force - so went along with it to buy time....buy hope.....the last straw).


And so to ammend my above post a little, if all know the "party is over" and most of the parties are willing to go through a sham "negociation" in order to save face/s - that option is easier than collecting an army to make the same outcome


-- refer to the 38 Cheq "peace accords" for another reference

its all about cost benefit analiysis.

Is the policy of MAD about cost/benefit? Really, tell me what you think.

[henry quirk]

I wrote...

never offend; always defend

never start a fight; always finish a fight


I agree, with the exception of always finish a fight. With rare exception one can defend one's self against a threat of force without getting into, "fight," which costs the defender more than any fight is worth.

that's not my experience, no


I would only, "fight," if it were a last resort, in which case there is no limit to what is right.

that's the idea, yeah: reality rarely conforms to the idea


Winning a fight never proves or gains anything, especially if the opponent is still alive. George Bernard Shaw said, "if you're going injure your neighbor you better not do it by halves."

indeed


From what you have said in other places you believe a government is needed

yep

a sensible, minimal, local constabulary

a sensible, minimal, local court

a sensible, minimal, border-stationed military

a well-armed militia

we need these cuz some folks can't self-defend and I don't wanna be the one to take care of 'em

we need these cuz it would be better all around if I could enlist employees to find the guy who swiped my car instead of me huntin' him down myself: better all around cuz, in their hands, he gets to live

government (as I describe it above) is not for me: it's for the incapable and to protect offenders from folks like me

[RCSaunders]

Force is the only language that some people will heed, even if there are other known languages that are more congenial. Whatever is not forceful is easy to ignore. No political action can take place without some manner of power or force to induce cooperation.

I really cannot believe you mean what your words are saying. What you are saying is it is perfectly alright to use force to make other people do what you like, even if they have never done anything to harm or threaten someone else. If you have a certain social agenda it is OK to force others to support or conform to it. Do you also believe it is perfectly alright for those whose social agenda is different from yours to use force to make you conform to their?

What makes you think it is up to you (or anyone else) to make people listen to you and live the way you would like them to? If that is not what you mean, what would you ever have to use force for? Isn't using force to make anyone do, or not do, what they do not choose to do or not do a kind of slavery isn't it?

Again, I never said this is alright.

Good!

What you said was:

[You must] resort to force when reason wastefully falls on the unreasonable.

I am not saying that this is right; only that it is necessary.

I really don't see the difference between, "right," and, "necessary." It's never necessary to do what is not right. If something is necessary to do, it is right to do.

[RCSaunders]

I wrote...

never offend; always defend

never start a fight; always finish a fight


I agree, with the exception of always finish a fight. With rare exception one can defend one's self against a threat of force without getting into, "fight," which costs the defender more than any fight is worth.

that's not my experience, no


I would only, "fight," if it were a last resort, in which case there is no limit to what is right.

that's the idea, yeah: reality rarely conforms to the idea


Winning a fight never proves or gains anything, especially if the opponent is still alive. George Bernard Shaw said, "if you're going injure your neighbor you better not do it by halves."

indeed


From what you have said in other places you believe a government is needed

yep

a sensible, minimal, local constabulary

a sensible, minimal, local court

a sensible, minimal, border-stationed military

a well-armed militia

we need these cuz some folks can't self-defend and I don't wanna be the one to take care of 'em

we need these cuz it would be better all around if I could enlist employees to find the guy who swiped my car instead of me huntin' him down myself: better all around cuz, in their hands, he gets to live

government (as I describe it above) is not for me: it's for the incapable and to protect offenders from folks like me

If you're willing to pay someone else to defend those who can't defend themselves, and do the work of finding stolen goods, and protecting you from other threats such as foreign invaders, and someone is willing to do those jobs for what you are willing to pay, why would you object to that? Why do you need to be forced to support some agency with the exclusive right to initiate force and a track record of almost complete failure to have those things.

There is nothing wrong with you having any of those things you said you want a government for. There is everything wrong with forcing people who have no interest in what you want to pay for them.

But you need not worry about it. Government is inevitable. It's just never going to be the kind of government you want.

[henry quirk]

If you're willing to pay someone else to defend those who can't defend themselves, and do the work of finding stolen goods, and protecting you from other threats such as foreign invaders, and someone is willing to do those jobs for what you are willing to pay, why would you object to that? Why do you need to be forced to support some agency with the exclusive right to initiate force and a track record of almost complete failure to have those things.

two things...

I don't need protection from foreign or domestic enemies

...and...

who sez they get an exclusive right to anything?

in the current scheme: it seems they do (I'll be postin' sumthin' in my 2020: not safe... thread that might be an indicator that's shiftin' a bit)

in my scheme: the militia exists solely to counter the other three (much as it's supposed today only overtly, unambiguously)


There is nothing wrong with you having any of those things you said you want a government for. There is everything wrong with forcing people who have no interest in what you want to pay for them.

I agree...not sure where you got the idea that I wouldn't...whole whack of shit I don't pay for now under the current scheme


But you need not worry about it. Government is inevitable. It's just never going to be the kind of government you want.

seems to me: neither of us is gonna get what we want in this

so we navigate the mess as best we can

[commonsense]

I really cannot believe you mean what your words are saying. What you are saying is it is perfectly alright to use force to make other people do what you like, even if they have never done anything to harm or threaten someone else. If you have a certain social agenda it is OK to force others to support or conform to it. Do you also believe it is perfectly alright for those whose social agenda is different from yours to use force to make you conform to their?

What makes you think it is up to you (or anyone else) to make people listen to you and live the way you would like them to? If that is not what you mean, what would you ever have to use force for? Isn't using force to make anyone do, or not do, what they do not choose to do or not do a kind of slavery isn't it?

Again, I never said this is alright.

Good!

What you said was:

[You must] resort to force when reason wastefully falls on the unreasonable.

I am not saying that this is right; only that it is necessary.

I really don't see the difference between, "right," and, "necessary." It's never necessary to do what is not right. If something is necessary to do, it is right to do.

I do see a difference. No matter. I think we have been in agreement sans this difference in meanings. At least I can say that I understand you better now.

[commonsense]

[You must] resort to force when reason wastefully falls on the unreasonable.

I am not saying that this is right; only that it is necessary.

How can it ever be necessary to initiate force against someone else when they haven't used force or threatened to?

And yet you accepted (endorsed?) without comment the nearly identical phrase when it was posted, not by me:

I will resort to force when reason wastefully falls on the unreasonable.

[RCSaunders]

Is the policy of MAD about cost/benefit? Really, tell me what you think.

Just curious. What is, "MAD?"

[commonsense]

never offend; always defend

never start a fight; always finish a fight

Good advice. BTW a fight is finished when one side surrenders. That means you can end a fight without ending the life of an opponent.

[commonsense]

Is the policy of MAD about cost/benefit? Really, tell me what you think.

Just curious. What is, "MAD?"

Mutually Assured Destruction—first operationalized by the USSR & the US, whereby each superpower maintained a nuclear arsenal that could completely annihilate the other, thus making a nuclear war unthinkable. It guaranteed a mutual standoff.

[commonsense]

Is the policy of MAD about cost/benefit? Really, tell me what you think.

Just curious. What is, "MAD?"

Mutually Assured Destruction—first operationalized by the USSR & the US, whereby each superpower maintained a nuclear arsenal that could completely annihilate the other, thus making a nuclear war unthinkable. It guaranteed a mutual standoff.

[RCSaunders]

[You must] resort to force when reason wastefully falls on the unreasonable.

I am not saying that this is right; only that it is necessary.

How can it ever be necessary to initiate force against someone else when they haven't used force or threatened to?

And yet you accepted (endorsed?) without comment the nearly identical phrase when it was posted, not by me:

I will resort to force when reason wastefully falls on the unreasonable.

What phrase by whom? Where did I endorse it? I'm sure you are wrong since I reject all use of force except in defense against force, and in most cases there are better (safer and more economical) methods of defense.

[commonsense]

I resort to force when reason wastefully fails on the unreasonable.

RC, I suppose you didn’t take notice of this earlier. That would make your posts consistent. Like I said, I just couldn’t understand why this (per my interpretation) was seemingly OK with you. Clearly it wasn’t.

[commonsense]

I reject all use of force except in defense against force, and in most cases there are better (safer and more economical) methods of defense.

I agree that the use of force other than for defense is unethical. I have only been pointing out that when one party needs to defend itself, some other party is the aggressor. As a practical matter, this is realistic. If I stated that I think it is morally right to be the aggressor, I erred. If the aggressor can make a credible threat, he may be able to inflict his will on his opponent without actually employing force. I offer my comments not as a promoter of force, but as a sad observer of what makes diplomacy work.

[RCSaunders]

BTW a fight is finished when one side surrenders. That means you can end a fight without ending the life of an opponent.

The problem is, those who believe fighting and force are the right way to settle things are usually vindictive as well. If you are fighting because every other avenue of defense has been blocked, you haven't really won unless the one threatening you is made unable to seek revenge.

I would never use force except as a last resort, but when I do, it's total. It's only ever come to that once in my life, long ago in Southeast Asia. It was in a war zone, but the experience was as a civilian. I blame myself for being where such a situation could occur, but not for what I did. I now have a better strategy of defense. The first rule is, "don't be there when it happens."

I would never initiate force against anyone else, but anyone who threatens me with force, which I have no option to avoid, has declared that they are unworthy of human consideration and will receive none, which usually means they have chosen to die rather than cease threatening. I'm only giving them what they have choosen.