@Kyle, I think this is true - but also very true of the left, or at least of a large portion on the left who have begun to self-identify by pointing out how horrible conservatives are and how they are very much not a part of that tribe...
@Matthew Schmitz, You're absolutely correct, though I think the labor/liberal divide will be even more of a crisis for the left. I think that's going to be my next series.
@M. Farmer, British imperialism led directly to a huge global trading empire and much colonization was done both to open up new trade routes and new places to exploit. Civilizing the natives was beneficial to the Brits for numerous reasons and was also an act perceived as Christian.
@Katherine, I haven't moved leftward at all in my foreign policy views actually. And I don't think I'm taking a Marxist view of history here either. I think armed conflict is always about power - either exerting power to take or lay claim to something or exerting power to prevent something from being taken. Whether this boils down to actual treasure being plundered, or whether we are talking political domination, spreading Christ by the sword (or Allah for that matter) is immaterial. These are still forms of plunder. In any case, there are obviously a myriad different reasons each individual actor in a conflict chooses to join. But the wars themselves all still end up falling into these broad categories in the end in spite of good or ill intentions.
I agree, this is a very good post. And whether the discussion has shed light or mud is up for debate at this point. I do have more to say on this and on Will's post and hopefully will say it tomorrow. Cheers.
@M. Farmer, And why do we even need to consider the full array of human motivations when discussing war? I never said there were only two reasons why men fight in wars - I said there were only two kinds of war.
@John Henry, He was opining on both, and was basically saying you can't understand what it means to be human through the study of economics. But really - what's the point of that? You can understand a great deal of what it means to be human through the study of economics - but no field can encompass every aspect of what it means to be human. I'm not sure anyone (at least anyone here) is saying that.
So if a bunch of people threw together some armies today, and took them over to say - Jordan - to conquer that country and overthrow its government in order to restore it to its natural state as a part of Christendom, all because they were religious zealots, what would you call this? Because of its religious nature, would it somehow no longer be a war of conquest? Would the taking of that land not be plunder?
I would no sooner turn to Chesterton for a clear understanding of economics as I would turn to Milton Friedman for a sonnet. And yes, I do see markets in everything - even in the Crusades, even if many men who fought in the Crusades had noble intentions. Even if the Crusades were wars taken on behalf of God, they were none the less wars taken to capture supposed godless lands and turn them over to Christendom. How that can be seen as anything short of plunder - even spiritual plunder (though there was, if I recall correctly, a 'land' component to the spiritual plunder) - these were still wars of conquest. And conquest is plunder. Or, if you prefer to view them as protecting lands rightfully belonging to Christendom, you could justify them as wars of defense. You could easily do this at the time, less so now.
@valdemar, I fail to see how each of these players can't be viewed through the lens of defense and plunder. Besides, I speak to some degree on wars of obligation and wars of folly as well. World War I is certainly a war of folly, birthed from secretive alliances and changing power dynamics across Europe. Rising powers and old enemies saw where they could gain power and/or territory (plunder) and others viewed this as a threat to their sovereignty and chose to declare war more for defensive purposes. The United States involvement was pretty absurd, but was largely done to increase the reputation of our country and to help defend our allies - I'd say this counts as a little of both, but it's mostly folly (my third category, which I admitted was the exception the plunder/defense binary).
@Christopher Carr, I would say that purposefully provoking another country into attacking you would probably be done in order to attack them in response, probably to enact some form of plunder.
@Michael Drew, I don't think all defensive wars necessarily become wars of plunder on the society fighting them. Expense does not necessarily equal plunder.
@gregiank, I think it's a mix of the two. Mostly, yes, the state accrues power to protect us with all the best intentions, but it intentionally grabs that power.
@Will, Nonsense, Will. The Crusades were sold by stoking up religious fervor, but do you really think they were anything more than wars of plunder? Hell, one ended up sacking Constantinople, hardly a bastion of Islam at the time. Furthermore, even if Afghanistan was a defensive war initially, what is it now? How can we possibly believe that the Iraq invasion was anything of the sort?
Thanks, everyone. I know this whole "What does Erik believe, what should he label himself, how should he do it" bit is getting a bit tired at this point, but I JUST CAN'T HELP MYSELF! :)
@Simon K, I agree entirely, Simon. What I'm searching for is somewhere in between the two. Stronger safety nets than a minimilast liberal state, but not quite so burdensome as the social democracies. The right balance should lead to a society ready for the freest markets, most mobile labor force, confident, prosperous, etc.
@Michael Drew, Well here is where he and I might differ than. While I think that there is some truth to this - that some liberal ends are certainly served by libertarian means, I would also say that some libertarian ends are served by more liberal/progressive means. I would say this is especially true of safety nets. A strong welfare apparatus allows for better markets, a more stable labor force, etc. So it works both ways. Perhaps this project is partly about striking that balance as well as reconciling these two strains of liberalism.
On “The New Culture War”
@Kyle, I think this is true - but also very true of the left, or at least of a large portion on the left who have begun to self-identify by pointing out how horrible conservatives are and how they are very much not a part of that tribe...
"
@Matthew Schmitz, You're absolutely correct, though I think the labor/liberal divide will be even more of a crisis for the left. I think that's going to be my next series.
On “Quote of the Day”
@North, I'm pretty sure colonialism was part of the rise and fall of the British empire. It certainly doesn't have to be just the one or the other.
"
@M. Farmer, British imperialism led directly to a huge global trading empire and much colonization was done both to open up new trade routes and new places to exploit. Civilizing the natives was beneficial to the Brits for numerous reasons and was also an act perceived as Christian.
"
@Katherine, I haven't moved leftward at all in my foreign policy views actually. And I don't think I'm taking a Marxist view of history here either. I think armed conflict is always about power - either exerting power to take or lay claim to something or exerting power to prevent something from being taken. Whether this boils down to actual treasure being plundered, or whether we are talking political domination, spreading Christ by the sword (or Allah for that matter) is immaterial. These are still forms of plunder. In any case, there are obviously a myriad different reasons each individual actor in a conflict chooses to join. But the wars themselves all still end up falling into these broad categories in the end in spite of good or ill intentions.
On “Kain’s wars.”
I agree, this is a very good post. And whether the discussion has shed light or mud is up for debate at this point. I do have more to say on this and on Will's post and hopefully will say it tomorrow. Cheers.
On “Quote of the Day”
@M. Farmer, And why do we even need to consider the full array of human motivations when discussing war? I never said there were only two reasons why men fight in wars - I said there were only two kinds of war.
"
@John Henry, He was opining on both, and was basically saying you can't understand what it means to be human through the study of economics. But really - what's the point of that? You can understand a great deal of what it means to be human through the study of economics - but no field can encompass every aspect of what it means to be human. I'm not sure anyone (at least anyone here) is saying that.
"
@Rob, @ Will -
So if a bunch of people threw together some armies today, and took them over to say - Jordan - to conquer that country and overthrow its government in order to restore it to its natural state as a part of Christendom, all because they were religious zealots, what would you call this? Because of its religious nature, would it somehow no longer be a war of conquest? Would the taking of that land not be plunder?
"
I would no sooner turn to Chesterton for a clear understanding of economics as I would turn to Milton Friedman for a sonnet. And yes, I do see markets in everything - even in the Crusades, even if many men who fought in the Crusades had noble intentions. Even if the Crusades were wars taken on behalf of God, they were none the less wars taken to capture supposed godless lands and turn them over to Christendom. How that can be seen as anything short of plunder - even spiritual plunder (though there was, if I recall correctly, a 'land' component to the spiritual plunder) - these were still wars of conquest. And conquest is plunder. Or, if you prefer to view them as protecting lands rightfully belonging to Christendom, you could justify them as wars of defense. You could easily do this at the time, less so now.
On “One last thought on War”
@valdemar, I fail to see how each of these players can't be viewed through the lens of defense and plunder. Besides, I speak to some degree on wars of obligation and wars of folly as well. World War I is certainly a war of folly, birthed from secretive alliances and changing power dynamics across Europe. Rising powers and old enemies saw where they could gain power and/or territory (plunder) and others viewed this as a threat to their sovereignty and chose to declare war more for defensive purposes. The United States involvement was pretty absurd, but was largely done to increase the reputation of our country and to help defend our allies - I'd say this counts as a little of both, but it's mostly folly (my third category, which I admitted was the exception the plunder/defense binary).
"
@Christopher Carr, I would say that purposefully provoking another country into attacking you would probably be done in order to attack them in response, probably to enact some form of plunder.
"
@Michael Drew, I don't think all defensive wars necessarily become wars of plunder on the society fighting them. Expense does not necessarily equal plunder.
"
@Eagle Driver, You have entirely missed the point. I mentioned this in an update to my last post. Defensive wars are the only sort of justified wars.
On “Capitalism, Anarchy & War Part II”
@silentbeep, I hear you and generally agree. Anarchy is too Utopian by far.
"
@gregiank, I think it's a mix of the two. Mostly, yes, the state accrues power to protect us with all the best intentions, but it intentionally grabs that power.
"
@Will, Nonsense, Will. The Crusades were sold by stoking up religious fervor, but do you really think they were anything more than wars of plunder? Hell, one ended up sacking Constantinople, hardly a bastion of Islam at the time. Furthermore, even if Afghanistan was a defensive war initially, what is it now? How can we possibly believe that the Iraq invasion was anything of the sort?
On “Capitalism, Anarchy & War”
Thanks everyone for the really good discussion. Lots to think about here.
On “On conservatism and such”
@RTod, Not sure I've ever deeply inspired anyone before - so thanks!
"
@gregiank, Thanks, Greg.
"
Thanks, everyone. I know this whole "What does Erik believe, what should he label himself, how should he do it" bit is getting a bit tired at this point, but I JUST CAN'T HELP MYSELF! :)
Cheers
On “Liberaltarian Q & A session”
@Simon K, I agree entirely, Simon. What I'm searching for is somewhere in between the two. Stronger safety nets than a minimilast liberal state, but not quite so burdensome as the social democracies. The right balance should lead to a society ready for the freest markets, most mobile labor force, confident, prosperous, etc.
"
@Michael Drew, Well here is where he and I might differ than. While I think that there is some truth to this - that some liberal ends are certainly served by libertarian means, I would also say that some libertarian ends are served by more liberal/progressive means. I would say this is especially true of safety nets. A strong welfare apparatus allows for better markets, a more stable labor force, etc. So it works both ways. Perhaps this project is partly about striking that balance as well as reconciling these two strains of liberalism.
"
@silentbeep, I do say pretty explicitly that I'm probably not the one to ask you know.
On “Rumors of liberaltarianism’s death are greatly exaggerated”
@Dennis Sanders, I think the point is to make both libertarianism and moder progressive politics both more liberal.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.