Blogroll
- Is It A Genuine "Nervous Breakdown" Or A fake One? OR, Is he Paid To Discredit The Jewish People?
- A Beginner's Guide To The P. Diddy Story
- Offsite Post: ‘Layers of Meaning in “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”’
- Exploring the Lenten Triodion: A Journey through Penitence and Joy
- The Clinton Chronicles
- Existing In Many Places: Telephone As Consolation
- The Lies Are Also Electric
- Happy Sunday Morning World
- No World This Week
- The Sunday of Orthodoxy
- Triumph of Orthodoxy
- Saint Sophronius of Jerusalem
- Recollections of the Triumph of Orthodoxy in Moscow, 1914
- Sunday of Orthodoxy
- Igumen Israel (Andreyev) +1937
- Offsite Post: ‘Pondering over “A Thanksgiving Reflection”’
- The Greatest Blessing (2016)
- Interview 1871 – Burn, Hollywood, Burn! with Irina Slav
- Offsite Post: ‘The Holiest Days on Americanism’s Calendar’
- Guerrilla Marketing – #SolutionsWatch
- The Globalist’s SECRET Message!
- Climate Change is Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience (2015)
- Offsite Post: ‘Cousin Payne’s Wedding’
- CHD to Host ‘The Rally to Reclaim Free Speech’ as SCOTUS Hears Landmark Censorship Case Murthy v. Missouri
- CHD to Host ‘The Rally to Reclaim Free Speech’ as SCOTUS Hears Landmark Censorship Case Murthy v. Missouri
- Offsite Post: ‘We’re Running out of “Next Times”’
- From Aristocrat to Ascetic: The Disguised Path of Saint Anastasia
- Offsite Post: ‘Do Patron Saints Still Matter?’
- Autobiography of Alexandros Papadiamantis
- Exploring the Essence of Praising God
- Brian Hooker to Participate in Senator Ron Johnson’s COVID Response Briefing, ‘What Are They Hiding?’
- Navigating the Path to Confession after Grave Sins
- Miraculous Encounters: The Power of Saintly Relics
- A hindu convert to Orthodoxy
- Un hindus convertit la Ortodoxie
- The Sign of the Cross in Different Religions
- Allegations Made Against CHD Employee
- Alexandros Papadiamantis Resource Page
- How Great Spiritual Figures of Greece Helped Form the Renowned Conductor Dimitri Mitropoulos
- CHD Files First in Series of Lawsuits Seeking Disability Accommodation for People Injured by RF Radiation from Cell Towers
- Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Children’s Health Defense Publish Groundbreaking New Book, ‘The Wuhan Cover-Up’
- Artificial Intelligence as Artificial Brilliance (Metr. Hierotheos of Nafpaktos)
- How to fight any passion
- Pr. Serghei Baranov – Cum să te lupți împotriva oricărei patimi
- The Catacomb Church (1991)
- Movie: "Men of Anjolos" (1997) - An Islamic Movie on the Life of the Seven Youths of Ephesus
- The story of a repentant Sergian Priest!
- A brutal crush and a dark Ecclesiastical secret!
- Tortured for Orthodoxy: concerning Mother Joanna (†1998)
- The Bitten Apple of Apple Inc. (Metr. Hierotheos of Nafpaktos)
- 41 Testimonies: on Sergianism and the "ecclesial" status of the Soviet Church
- Hymn of love
- Imnul iubirii
- The Eternal Day
- Follow Me
- I will give you rest
- Single Mind, Simple Life – Gospel for the Third Sunday of Matthew
- Save your soul with fear of God
- Enduring skillfully
- Orthodoxy is unique
Cele mai citite
- Să învățăm să iubim
- Clark Carlton: Modernity considers sub-natural existence the sumit of human progress
- Dostoevsky for Parents and Children: (IV) Merchant Skotoboinikov's Story
- O mica problema de retorica
- 101 carti de necitit intr-o viata
- O stire: moartea presei.
- Totalitarism homosexual
- Alternativa Nicusor Dan. Nula
- Cu ochii larg închiși
- Evolutionism pe intelesul tuturor
Libertarianismul ca victima colaterala |
Economie |
Scris de Florin Rusu |
Vineri, 08 Iulie 2011 12:34 |
Datoria unui libertarian este aceea de a refuza orice participare (chiar si pasiva) intr-un razboi modern, orice inrolare si are chiar datoria de a dezerta in cazul in care statul dispune de mijloacele necesare de a-l inregimenta fortat. Si statele moderne chiar detin aceasta putere. Cel mai bun exemplu este cel al lui Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr., autor al unor excelente carti despre decadenta spiritului liberal clasic al civilizatiei occidentale (The Decline of American Liberalism, The Civilian and the Military). Influentat de traditia istorica revizionista referitoare la primul razboi mondial, Ekirch a fost un critic dur al politicii externe beligerante a lui Roosevelt si a refuzat inrolarea in 1943. Drept urmare a fost pedepsit sa munceasca in folosul comunitatii, fara fi platit timp de doi ani, intr-o institutie de retardati mental. Deloc surprinzator, toata viata a considerat ca in acei doi ani, a fost tratat de catre administratia americana ca un prizonier politic. Dar de ce ar avea un libertarian datoria de a nu participa si chiar de a se impotrivi prin toate mijloacele non-agresive unui razboi modern? Pentru ca razboaiele moderne sunt declarate de catre un stat (sau o instituie internationala mai nou – precum NATO) impotriva altui stat, a cetatenilor (inclusiv civililor) acestuia si impotriva propriilor cetateni declarati dezertori. Dezertori la propriu si la figurat. Un libertarian consecvent nu are alta sansa decat sa fie declarat din start, potrivit definitiei razboiului modern, inamicul propriului sau guvern.
Wendy McElroy sustine de altfel ca singurul tip de razboi in care un libertarian ar putea fi implicat este unul despre care s-a mai scris pe acest blog: “Thus, a just war would have to be conducted in a manner reminiscent of the 19th-century ones, during which civilians picnicked beside battlefields because the military on both sides accepted the distinction between civilians and combatants. It is not enough merely to reduce civilian casualties and to argue that any casualties were unintended. "Unintended" does not mean unpredictable or unforeseeable. If an action can predictably lead to the death or injury of innocents, then it cannot be justified within libertarianism.” De altfel textul lui McElroy este extrem de bine argumentat si construieste chiar si conditiile in care s-ar pute imagina, in absenta existentei statelor si intr-o ordine perfecta a proprietatii private, un razboi just libertarian: “A libertarian just war would have to be declared in response to an act of aggression that could not be remedied by a lesser level of defensive violence. It would have to be declared by an agency on behalf of people who had assigned their rights of self defense. The war could be declared only on behalf of those assignees. Dissenters would have to be left in peace to defend themselves, or not. The declaration of war would be against the individuals responsible for an attack but not against the "enemy" civilian population. And, finally, the war would have to be conducted with strategies and weaponry that could not foreseeably involve injuring or killing innocents.” Ce nu explica McElroy este ce s-ar intampla in conditii mixte: in care ar exista si o comunitate privata, protejata de o agentie de protectie, si state nationale (o problema similara am mai ridicat in urma cu cateva saptamani). Cum ar trebui sa se comporte membri acesteia in eventualitatea unui razboi care ar afecta si comunitatea respectiva: fie direct ca act de agresiune (invazie), fie indirect (comunitatea respectiva este victima conflictului dintre doua state-natiune la fel de invadatoare). Si ce sanse de supravietuire ar avea agentia de protectie respectiva? Daca majoritatea membrilor comunitati isi exercita dreptul de a rupe contractul cu aceasta din varii motive, de la interesul egoist la pacifismul mai accentuat al unora dintre membri? Acestea sunt doar cateva dintre intrebarile mai mult decat necesar a fi puse unui occidental contemporan. Cu atat mai mult cu cat traim intr-o lume in care, precum scria Joseph Schumpeter, noile state au devenit un mecanism care se auto-perpetueaza, un adevarat perpetuum mobile: “created by the wars that required it, the machine now created the wars it required”.
|