Debate: Is War Ever Justified? | Learn Liberty

"Debate: Is War Ever Justified?" by @LearnLiberty
► Join us on Facebook: on. 14xAtig
► Follow us on Twitter: bit.ly/14xAJxV
► Join us on Google+: bit.ly/12q2zJ0
► Watch more videos: bit.ly/14xAWB4
Most wars seem to create costs that far outweigh their benefits, but is war ever justified? In this Learn Liberty debate, Prof. Bryan Caplan and Prof. Jan Ting disagree. Prof. Caplan argues that pacifism should be U.S. policy as the costs and benefits of war are too difficult to predict and innocent lives are almost certainly going to be lost. Prof. Ting argues that there are occasions in which war is necessary, such as against ideological or religious perspectives that cannot be reasoned with. He uses World War II as an example when U.S. military intervention did more good than harm. Prof. Caplan contends that this is difficult to measure. What do you think? Should military intervention be an option on the table? Why or why not?
See our other debate on income inequality: • Debate: Is There Too M...
Check out Bryan Caplan's blog! econlog.econlib...

[@TheScourge007]

The problem isn't determining the consequences of "doing the right thing." The problem is determining what the right thing is to begin with.

[@deborahdean8867]

You'll find the best , most reliable, way to determine ' the right thing" is to use the Torah, the bible, Gods law . But perhaps what you mean is adequately being able to judge what's right because of lack of thorough information . Countless times I've seen situations ejected one c oi inclusion is seen as clear, but then another perspective is introduced and changes everything. Discerning the truth is never easy because people lie. Lol.

[@alyzak.8997]

determining what God's law is a mammoth task on its own@@deborahdean8867

[@FrankWhite604]

The Problem here is that the Law Professor offers answers in a Legal/moral perspective while the Economics professor offers answers in a economics perspective... it's like comparing apples to oranges

[@brianclark4796]

is that right...

[@FrankWhite604]

***** lol... you don't agree?:P

[@spec24]

+Brian Clark you're clearly an intellect

[@joshuasizer1709]

At some point, we have to merge the two views...

[@Ctajm]

William F. Buckley was once asked in an interview if he agreed with the policy of non-intervention. He replied, "I categorically reject the idea. We could have intervened in 1930's Germany with a relatively small application of force. The cost of pacifism, isolationism, and appeasement can be measured by 66 million lost lives."

[@AvNotasian]

Wait what he said we should not intervene to enforce law and order even within his own country? That doesn't make any sense...

[@wintercook2]

I agree that war should be considered as a last resort option. The problem is that this never happens. Ever. We are a pugnacious people. The idea of educating ourselves on history, and properly assessing the odds of any sort of successful outcome just doesn't occur. People want to fight. Worst of all, they want to trust their politicians. How un-American.

[@whatiswrongwiththeworld8451]

I agree. Everyone always says that war is only the last resort, but people tend to be very quick to declare that everything else failed.

[@Joe7_OSRS]

Defending yourself and your property (including others that need help/are incapable themselves) is always justified. Attacking someone else and taking over their property is never justified. It's that simple.

[@Bilbus7]

It's actually not that simple Joe.

[@rkrzbk]

It is absolutely terrifying that there are people like Caplan out there. Wow... He needs to take a step outside his college's faculty lounge and open his eyes. Wow..

[@keithvrotsos3843]

Since the dawn of human kind, when our ancestors first discovered the killing power of rock and bone, blood has been spilled in the name of everything: from God to justice to simple, psychotic rage.

[@Sergio-nb4hj]

Your point? If you are saying this fact justifies war, you are using fallacious reasoning (appeal to nature fallacy)

[@warangelthelight2077]

War is human nature basically.

[@AsEasyAsMJC]

A big problem with this debate is that Bryan Caplan seems to care more about attacking Jan Ting's intelligence than really working on an answer to the debate. Altogether, Bryan makes himself out to be a prick in a suit.

[@BrianMartensOfficial]

I find it funny that many people tend to resort to ad hominem attacks against Caplan instead of simply admitting that he is a very intelligent person and debating his arguments instead. I too was jealous when I learned under him, but then I began to appreciate his motivation to know the facts and arguments of his personal philosophy and economic views rather than simply adopting views based upon how they sound expressively.

[@ADerpyReality]

It's almost as if the people here came here for a... Debate.

[@jfast8256]

I've been watching Caplan only very recently/heavily and it's very clear he has tunnel vision and is incapable of seeing things outside his purview. Like the Hammer only sees his nails hold two boards together and doesn't see any other damage it can possibly do, Caplan only sees one side of one bit of economics and immigration to the exclusion of all other issues. Today was my biggest mouth drop though. The complete disregard of what would have happened if the allies lost. Saying our guesses were wrong is also completely dishonest. Just because we don't know the exact effects of electing people who believe in Liberty into office, doesn't mean we can't understand that electing communists into office is far worse, regardless of how off our guesses of the outcomes are.

[@deborahdean8867]

I dont think hes particularly smart at all. And he isnt very knowledgeable about the subject, or history. At all!

[@IIIMajesty]

It's justified when you win.

[@joesubscriber]

I met a young German man last year who argued with me that countries need to go to war to defend themselves and they darned well better win rather than lose. I asked him whether it might not be better at times to lose than to win. He responded that my question was crazy. No one ever is better off losing a war, he said. So, Germany today would be better off if the Nazis had won WWII? Or has Germany been better off having lost? He admitted to me that he couldn't argue that.

[@josephgraham4531]

War is a good thing if you win and not lose and in ww2 it was clear if USSR lost in the east then the allies would have lost therefore Germany prelonging the war til they made nukes

[@TheSaltyAdmiral]

It is a huge diffrence between "Are we better off intervening?" and "Is it RIGHT to intervene?". Which is also the reason we see alot more intervening in places where it is economical or strategically beneficial to the intervener. And always keep in mind that "history is written by the victors". Take america for instance, some of its actions now and in the past certainly meets its own standard for when they should intervene. Its a great deal of etnocentrism and hypocrisy in american policy.

[@LibertysetsquareJack]

I couldn't agree more. This debate wasn't really about "war:" it was about INTERVENTIONISM. There is a big difference. The fact that most Americans see intervening in foreign affairs as synonymous with the act of war itself simply demonstrates that we have become an imperial power.

[@BeanDar]

Hi

[@deborahdean8867]

Its because these interventions result in war, and are often so outrageous they indeed are acts of war. Do I don't think it's a big mistake . Most of the time our interventions are bombings and assassinations. War in every sense but admiting the name.

[@gregoryamer]

There is evil out there & war will always come. Being prepared for it is the only sensible option. I will not be a sheep & I will not expect others to be sheep.

[@SaulOhio]

"Its out business as free citizens to elect leaders whose judgment we trust with those questions". No that is the dilemma, cause there ain't no such thing. I don't trust any of them.

[@wintercook2]

You've hit upon the crux of the problem. There were countless potential leaders who would have done exactly what George W. Bush did in invading Afghanistan and Iraq. 56% of the American people supported the invasion of Iraq. Many more supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Without that support, leaders don't have the guts to commit political suicide for their party. Governments go to war at the drop of a hat. In our country it's people's ignorance of history that allows these things to happen.

[@Niccodemuus]

Professor Caplan is obvisouly oblivious to war and war terminology. He declares that Guerrilla Warfare is recklessly killing innocent people and forcing others to join their band of "warriors", whereas what actual guerrilla warfare is small mobile groups using military tactics and the element of surprise to take on larger, less mobile traditional armies. I think before he decides to join into debates on these matters, he ought to study up a little on things he will be talking about...

[@petetoteles]

The real problem is that sometimes you have to acknowledge that you are already at war against your will and the right response is to defend yourself or others, that's the case for WW2. Now, starting war where there is none is never justifiable.

[@LearnLiberty]

Is there such thing as a "just war?" In this video, Professor Bryan Caplan and Professor Jan Ting debate the question. "Debate: Is War Ever Justified?" | LearnLiberty #liberty #pacificism #debate #veteransday #veteransday2013

[@Reckless3057]

"All the best results" Have you ever heard of Iran? Iraq, Egypt, come on man. You can't cherry pick how empire works out great without explaining the places where it has caused massive human suffering.

[@RadicalRC]

I've got a tall book stack staring me down. While at work today I listened to the CSPAN 1:03 interview with him on this book. Enlightening.

[@ADerpyReality]

There is time when war is justified. But 90% of the time it isn't.

[@VivaCristoRei9]

I agree. I think of ww2, when the uk and France begged Germany to stop, but Germany wouldn’t stop, so the uk and France declared war for the greater good

[@brettcarroll4676]

2. Justification for intervention via cost/benefit analysis? No. The ONLY justification for war is necessity for preservation of life & liberty, & the only litmus test is whether you have the political will to be victorious. Once you are committed to war, it is a moral imperative to win at ALL cost. Strategies & tactics should reflect this. If you lack the will to win, blood or treasure spilled in such an indeavor is unjustifiably wasted. Winning can mean different things.

[@Sfidt1]

So, violence is justified when: 1) Done by people 2) To attack people who initiated violence against people from point 1) Private armies financed by people voluntarily can declare war on people who declared war first on innocent people. War done by the entity of organised violence that the state is and financed by violent robbery which is taxation using slave labour, which the unvoluntary soldiers are, is never justified. Especially now when in wars innocent people suffer because the weapons in use are weapons of mass destruction like bomb carriers, huge range explosives, nuclear weapons that nearly always harm people who didn't initiate violence.

[@skylarscaling]

Tell that to all of the war torn 3rd world countries that aren't thrust into war by a centralized government, but by warring factions of people grasping for power.

[@guj19]

Sure, it's less violent to let every bully everywhere have their way, but people stand up for themselves and live life under their terms, not someone else's.

[@brettcarroll4676]

6. False equivocation between the Soviet Empire & the US. The USSR wasn't "at risk" because they were powerful; they were "at risk" because they were hostile invaders bent on world domination. If the rest of the world unilaterally disarmed in the face of Soviet aggression, we'd all be standing in line for our rationed toilet paper & cheese.

[@superlucci]

But if somebody believed in the Preemptive strike principle, they would be able to have their fate determined by their own actions, rather than having their fate determined by others, which would happen if they believed in the NAG.

[@Ephisus]

Nonintervention in North Korea has had exactly the kind of human cost that this pacifist is worried war would.

[@jccusell]

That does not refute the fact that bombing innocent people is immoral. Would you fly a plane and drop bombs on civilians? In the first 2 weeks alone, 40 thousand iraqi civilians were bombed to death by US en British soldiers. Would you kill a North Korean child for the greater could? Would you pull the trigger? Just because the North Korean power that be are immoral doesn't make it right to be immoral yourself be killing innocent people.

[@jccusell]

Furthermore, you don;t know the out come of a war with North Korea in the past, so you wouldn't know.

[@Ephisus]

Christiaan Cusell luckily, Im not trying to refute that bombing innocent people would be immoral.

[@samuelgreenrod1812]

Christiaan Cusell Never is bombing innocent people an okay thing to do. I would support an intervention in a torn, oppressed country like North Korea militarily. War is a terrible thing, however it is absolutely necessary to give power to those who are put down, immorality is not acceptable, and so invading a country of immorality like Iraq and North Korea are a neccessary evil.

[@Ephisus]

Sam Greenrod I see no reason to hedge and call it evil, no more than a hammer is evil. Its a moral neutral, albeit one with very negative consequences if used inappropriately.

[@DinoDudeDillon]

Prof. Caplan completely evaded the San Diego/Montreal question.

[@darthhodges]

Something Kaplan (arguing for pacifism) failed to seize on was that Professor Ting (arguing for intervention) kept suggesting it should be standing with locals fighting for freedom, as though they asked us there. Which of our current/recent interventions does that apply to? Not Iraq, I don't think Afghanistan either. Ukraine explicitly asked for military assistance when Russia moved on Crimea and we said no. Those carrying out our current interventionist habits are not using the logic or reasoning Professor Ting is so what is their reasoning?

[@TheRonnierate]

Both are missing the police state point.

[@ArmoredAlgebra]

Professor Bryan Caplan around the 5:00 minute mark: There is someone talking about human aggression and war who knows EXACTLY nothing about it. As a former military member, who grew up in a fighting family in the Marine Corps, has a degree in political science focusing in securities, and identiying mostly libertarian, I say: you couldn't be farther from reality. That isn't the way it works, nor do people think like that when life and death is on the line, much less political influence.

[@Joe7_OSRS]

Something can't be moral, a principle, when it's untrue, when it's inconsistent. You've both said "it's an ideology," but I've shown that initiating force being immoral as a truth. Either point out the flaw in my argument or stop wasting my time.

[@csfelfoldi]

Economist only weigh things as profit/loss. This is why they cannot predict the future at all.

[@xWilcoXx]

War is often Justified....Just not usually...

[@sladeoriginal]

That word "we" I dont like it.

[@terradraca]

Not to dismiss the tragic loss of life but dropping bombs on the coast is less than a pin prick to the US and would bring them no closer to actually invading the US.

[@SirPhilosopher]

The first proposition is absurd. Interventionism is its own dangerous ideology. By that logic other countries could very well intervene in a preventative war against us. War should not be the response to humanitarian concerns.

[@warrenscott879]

Joshua Miller no, the first speaker covers all of his bases clearly, so which part exactly was "absurd?" He didn't claim intervention as an absolute ideology but as the VERY last option on the table. The arguments against war were all economic and rational contentions. He isn't thinking about the fact that we do not live in a world of only peaceful, trustworthy people, but also irrational and malignant dictators, gangs, drug lords, etc. The case against "ideology bringing peace" is sound while the pacifist argument only refers to a perfect world, where everyone would live peaceably but as the man on the left and right both agreed, the future cannot be predicted.

[@warrenscott879]

Humanitarian concerns is not the same as eminent, inescapable danger due to a malignant dictator or tyrant, which is the circumstance in which the man on the left advocates for war as a FINAL option. I guess you missed the example of genocide and killing women. You are blind if that is the basis of your standpoint. The world is not a perfect place with perfect people, but the exact opposite of that.

[@sollertiskhan3254]

@@warrenscott879 no wrong. Invading a country and killing innocent on the basis of humanitarian concerns is not effective. Look back at your country 100 years ago, I'm sure there are many things your country use to do that you now view as immoral. How would you feel if some outsider attacked and invaded your country on the basis of Humanitarian concerns, killing your ancestors? Also goverments never intervene on countries on the basis of Humanitarian Concerns. That is simply an excuse of justification for the truth, goverments attack others countries for their own safety or power.

[@pmmeyourdadjokes9811]

Slippery slope

[@deborahdean8867]

@@warrenscott879 a horrible dictator is only your opinion. Dictators have supporters. The problem here is the American self righteous ego that makes them think any casual idea they have should be forced on mankind. Mind your own business and we would avoid 99% of all wars. We have no right to 'intervene ' . It's like the liberal feminists going to Africa and trying to force abortion on them. Birth control too. They interviewed a woman, head of African women's group of some sort. The african woman said they didnt want abortion and abortion was not the answer to poverty. She even gave an example, she said a woman could get an abortion but still have no job in 2 years. Yet, she likely could have hurt her social standing so she is worse off than before. She begged gh or educational programs and job opportunities. The liberal feminist argued to the bitter end insisting abortion was the answer to poverty and women's rights in africa. These people have too much money. They get to fly around the world, meddling in everyone's business, making things worse, pissing people off, and ultimately starting wars. The federal government having access to the amount if money they get from federal income tax is waaay to much snd just allows them to cause trouble.

[@superlucci]

Why should we give a damn about innocents in other countries, when the terrorists in other countries didnt give a damn about us? And its not like these terrorists are created in a vacuum, that are born and raised in a culture which allows this. Busting out a poll that says the majority in their country doesnt like it doesnt mean jack squat. Also, you totally missed the point anyway. Us determining our fate, is infinitely better, then waiting for our fate to be determined by them, who kill us

[@csfelfoldi]

14:18 Neutral countries have some of the most well equipped armies in the world, the whole point of being neutral is that neither great power can dictate to them. Switzerland and Austria can stay safe cause they have a relatively large army tucked away in mountains that would be a pain in the back to fight.

[@Malygosblues]

My only problem is with Prof. Caplin's argument is that A. It was never addressed how pacifism would deal with a radical ideology and B. That he used the Soviet Union Fear argument. If we are going under the idea that we can't predict the future then how can we say that the fear of the Soviet Union made them more susceptible to war? It increased the probability, yeah, but his argument was that we can't operate under probabilities.

[@SurElliott]

The best way to find the answer to this question is to choose which conflicts to intervene in at random.

[@Wilsontheterrible]

I believe that Professor Ting successfully argued his case. He spoke his case more eloquently without descending into overly patriotic jingoism. In some instances, intervention is necessary when all other means have been exhausted.

[@TECHN01200]

War can only be justified in self defense against an unjust war. Because war is its own justification, therefore, all wars are unjustifiable.

[@jakepelter4045]

What makes initiation of force wrong? The belief that is wrong is an ideology.

[@KeeganIdler]

However, my favorite explanation is commital strategies. For example, with animals that mark territory what they are really marking is an area in which they will fight even to their own detriment, and the further into the area the more they are willing to fight even to the death. So long as both sides know this, violence will generally be avoided since it is harmful for both sides. What I have described is a very basic 'right makes might' scenario where a basic level of property exists.(cont)

[@PercPhreak]

I agree with Caplan's position (non-interventionism), but Ting mopped the floor with him

[@zechariahhazel5950]

Chaplin's thesis is that the outcome of war is ambiguous - since we cannot predict the outcome of war, we should avoid it. But he fails to apply this idea to the other outcome. We also cannot always predict the outcome of not intervening.

[@brettcarroll4676]

1. RE: Prof. Caplan's 1st: "War today inevitably means deliberately or at least recklessly killing innocent civilians..." A categorically false assertion, at least in terms of US forces. The extraordinary measures our troops take to minimize loss of life, often at great risk to their own, ought not be disparaged by those who don't share in their risk. I imagine he's a critic of the "smart" weapons, too. Perhaps he would find carpet bombing more humane. Lacking in historical perspective.

[@lusoprince8737]

War should be illegal 🪖 Vigilante Justice should be legal 💪🏻 War drags everyone into it. Vigilante Justice (Street Justice) has way less casualties, especially when it's personal.

[@Bindahaha]

But... if "doing the right thing" constantly causes negative consequences, I think a logical person can make an educated guess to stop doing "the right thing", or at least drastically change their approach.

[@Bindahaha]

Even still, the divergence of those resources cannot be forced. The question of benefit is for the person providing those resources to determine, not the supposed "benefactor". Basically, if it were going to help people, the divergence of resources towards defensive action would be voluntary. Therefor, any involuntary tax to fund a defensive war would be unneeded, and if it were to exist would bring the supposed "benefit" into question, not to mention the benefactor (for now, state government)

[@phillycheesetake]

"I'd say that Bolshevism introduced the idea of "killing someone on the basis of an ideology"" Really? I'd say religion did that. In fact, I wouldn't just be saying it, I'd be right in saying it.

[@dedencyde1]

they should defend themselves. it isnt against the non agression nor a violation of property rights principle to defend yourself against an aggressor.

[@AustralianRealist]

That Caplan guy is pretty naive and unrealistic.

[@rmyd027]

Totally agree, after his open boarders idea was basically debunked immediately, he didn't bother to attempt supporting it. There are so many of his points that have holes in them that he just ignores, while Prof. Ting would address the numerous problems posed by Prof. Caplan

[@SturFriedBrains]

rmyd027 Virtually everything Ting said was debunked, & examples Ting made to debunk Caplan's ideas were hollow and conjecture based at best. Caplan made historical references all the time which were good solid references. Example: Caplan's "China didn't invade the disarmed Soviet Union" example was totally true, happened & supported Caplan's argument, & Ting's response was "well china's communist" & "the world is complex"... how does that debunk or even remotely respond to anything Caplan said?

[@SturFriedBrains]

Also Caplan wasn't making open borders a tenet of his stance, it was just one spitballed example of something that would be infinitely cheaper than war which **could** solve the problems we have with other countries practices.

[@Polumetis]

Every altercation, that U.S has been part of, has been instigated by the U.S themselves. So I don't see what's the problem.

[@Polumetis]

rmyd027 U.S put an oil embargo on Japan, and froze their assets in the U.S. That provoked Japan to attack.

[@MisterSandman009]

War is rarely justified. Prof. Jan Ting is correct. The U.S should be looking for more limited interventionism and scale back their current interventions. However, they should not completely isolate themselves.

[@Bindahaha]

Define War: For me, aggression by a state against another state. Define Justified: For me, for any action to be justified it must not violate property rights nor the non-aggression principle. Answer: War cannot be justified as statism itself and war violate my definition of justified.

[@654321poiuytrewq0987]

this time the Asian was right most of the time. the white guy was pacifist fairly tail land while the Asian guy was in the real world

[@654321poiuytrewq0987]

I should say I saw atleast one other vid with the same slanted eye guy and he was dead wrong.

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

the white guy was quite stupid i mean he said he maybe wanted to remove the US military one day. i tell you if you did that and remove the nuclear arsenal within five years the anti USA alliance and enemies would gather together to invade the USA red Dawn style.

[@SmokemNow]

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -Salvor Hardin (fictional character) There has to be better ways to deal with these crazies, economic or just plain guile. We have religious fanatics and that fanaticism should be used against the rulers in a way to put them out of power.

[@raylider]

I may choose to own a gun without having intent to ever use it. I may choose to own a gun in the rare case that I MAY have to use it defensively. So, NO Dr. Ting, abolishing the US military is not a logical conclusion that follows having no intention of using it. Believe it or not, you may have a military for defensive purposes without any intent of exercising it in other countries.

[@arai6147]

Caplan is saying this is costly coz we dont know the outcome and points in line to that for everything. What is actually really predictible in the world? His answer is we shouldnt do anything ever coz we dont know anything for sure. And he has been talking about how china and russia disarmed their military. So in that same line of thought, americans rather not have a military if they aren’t ever going to use it. I think you misinterpret that mr.tang brought up the suggestion in the first place lol he is making an example of caplan’s stupid argument. Just sit on your asses and worty about the economics. Caplan is so deep into calculations that he is paralysed Thats basically whats called paralysis by analysis

[@flamedrag18]

war is only ever justified if you were attacked first and only in a defensive manner.

[@deborahdean8867]

I don't know about that. Look at Ukraine. Ukraine was insisting it wanted to give up neutral status and join NATO. Them joining NATO meant nato military bases all up and down that long border. Russia knew that was indefensible and if they allowed it, very dangerous for them. So they invaded. And of course in addition the US sponsored the Ukraine color revolution in 2014. Even though Ukraine was bombing its own Russian citizens , Russia did not invade on moral grounds. And that wasnt mentioned until after the war started. So Russia did act preemptively defensively. Only if the citizens can control the 'interventions' of their own country can peace stand a chance. If you pick a fight, or stick your nose in other peoples business, there will be conflict and bad feelings. I think national governments have too much money at their disposal to play with, and not enough actual work to do. So they go around being busybodies in everyone's lives. What could go wrong.

[@keithvrotsos3843]

Our country should not be overseas nation building, however the claim in favor of removing the military in order to achieve piece is very naive.

[@barbourjohn]

It seems to be really about intervention - not necessarily war per se. No one argued just war principles. Prof Ting got close but it was still intervention and not defensive war.

[@MrJarth]

One person can not. But a system can. Cultures could for a period.

[@Bindahaha]

Defining terms is a key part of debating. If you want to counter my argument go for it, if you want to define the terms your way, go for it. If you want to counter my definitions, go for it. They SHOULD do nothing. They CAN voluntarily hire defense companies. People assuming what other people should or want to do is a huge problem with statism.

[@Martial-Mat]

The impossibility of predicting the consequences when doing the right thing, is no argument against doing the right thing, in any area of life. The problem comes, when a country whose own system of politics is utterly corrupt, has the temerity to try to engineer through war, regime changes in other countries -often for reasons that are not to do with the wellbeing of the population, or even the global population at large.

[@xlegiofalco]

Right and wrong cannot be codified into law. You can try to make the legal framework for war but ultimately its a moral decision, making a cost-benefit analysis in a timely manner given the information at hand, by leaders in whom the people have invested trust. There's too much emphasis on the perfection of "the decision" to go to war and not on the "execution" of peace, which is the aim of war. Death and destruction are terrible but there are worse things.

[@drcool41]

I don't think he is saying we should just remove our military all at once, He is saying that we should slowly decrease military spending and play it as we see it. If decreasing military spending creates danger for us, we raise it again. If it makes us safer and just as safe as we were before, we keep lowering until we hit that sweet spot. It is possible that our sweet spot is $0 on military. But he's not saying that we jump there, we should find our sweet spot empirically.

[@Martial-Mat]

Well of course if you simply define terms to suit your own argument, then you will always win. By defining non-aggression as one of your two conditions for unjustification, you make it impossible that ANY state violence could be justified, including defence against an aggressor. So when a population is attacked by another population they should...?

[@LefteyeRighthand]

Interventionism is a flawed and failed philosophy. Protecting interests, territory and resources on the other hand works every time.

[@vedinthorn]

War is like government, at the best it's a necessary evil.

[@LiouTao]

Communist takeover of China was not because of US intervention in WWII. It was because of US intervention post-WWII. The US foreign policy in regards to China made it impossible for China to win the war against the Communists. Arms Embargo of 1946 is a good example. The RoC was unable to secure necessary ammunition to successfully fight the Communists.

[@SexDrugsFinance]

You could make a consequentialist argument for anything. That's the problem with consequentialism.

[@zacharymccutcheon8607]

I don't think that either addressed the real concern of their opposition. The case for military intervention never asked "what is the maximum amount of harm that you would allow before being willing to respond with violence?" Then follow up with, "Is it possible for that amount of harm to be done in the world today?" The case for less military intervention never asked "What is the minimum amount of harm that would would require before being willing to respond with violence?" Then follow up with "Is it possible that responding with violence causes at least that amount of harm?" These questions better address their arguments. That war is a regretful necessity, and that war causes more war.

[@v1e1r1g1e1]

"No man is an island, entire of itself...." The assertion extends to the argument, that we are collectively responsible for the well-being of our fellow human beings... whether right next door or in another country far away. If the League of Nations had stomped on Hitler's head in 1934 there would have been no WWII. Similarly, if the UN had acted earlier the Rwanda genocide would not have occurred. Vietnam, Afghanistan & Iraq failed because of lack of commitment - not due to moral error.

[@phillycheesetake]

"Violence is a perpetual cycle of the state" The state isn't a cycle, it's a covenant which is forced upon you, and throughout history has been used to brainwash people into continuing it. That doesn't mean it's cyclical, it means it's enduring. "Germany is a country that of statism" That wasn't my question, I asked what tumor RESULTED FROM Germany's defeat. If the Nazis won, or if there was no war at all, Germany would still have a violent state. Violence isn't cyclical by nature.

[@nicholasbates1502]

It is better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war. Only until we can get rid of the human nature were some people feel the need to use power at every turn, then and only then can we get rid of our military. We can't choose how people act, but we can choose how we react.

[@deborahdean8867]

That's why religion is the only answer because all the major religions are about self mastery, self control of the inner man.

[@TheScourge007]

Normal moral principles don't hold that killing and not killing people requires equal justification. Killing people is a known bad. The consequences of war are therefore people die, and lots of things either good or bad we can't predict will happen. We don't even have decent probabilities on that. So in terms of putting moral considerations on war, we can't consider things which we can't predict. All future consequences are canceled out and we're left with the known short-term negative.

[@AshContraMundum]

Yes. A lot of people seem to have a misunderstanding on what WW2 was about.

[@brettcarroll4676]

5. Not a fan of "Guerilla warfare"? What is the alternative? Does he want soldiers to line up in neat rank & file & take turns shooting each other on cue? Guerilla warfare is using asymetrical tactics against a numerically or technologically superior power. Period. If you're justified to go to war, you're justified to use the tactics that will defeat your foe. If you're not justified to use the tactics you need to win, you're not justified to be at war.

[@TheOsamaBahama]

Caplan says that the future is very difficult to predict, and so the US should not intervene because it can have bad consequences. But to not intervene can also have bad consequences. So why does he has a side on the matter ?

[@Krishnakri]

+Rick Apocalypse Any intervention has to be in good faith for the right reasons. More importantly, when one decides to act, one takes responsibility for the consequences. Thus today, America is blamed for the Iraq war and destabilizing the Middle East as a result. This despite the Middle East being a very volatile zone.

[@TheOsamaBahama]

Krishna Janaswamy Yes. Today we can see that the Iraq war was a mistake because we know the results. I think the american government at the time couldn't predict or didn't care to predict what could happen.

[@TheOsamaBahama]

Krishna Janaswamy But take another example. ISIS. Yes, part of the reason for it's existence was the Iraq War. But this was caused by the Bush administration. A new administration maybe could solve the problem. The intervention in Lybia was sucessful. Putin already said that wants to work with the West to defeat ISIS. Yes, this can have bad consequences, and we can't predict them. But to not intervene also has bad consequences, and this we can predict, because they are already happening.

[@marlonmoncrieffe0728]

Rick Apocalypse How was the intervention in Libya a success?

[@deborahdean8867]

The US intervenes because it cannot mind it's own business. Everything has consequences. We have no right to impose our values on others. And the feds have too much money at their disposal which is just asking for trouble

[@Cryofax]

Professor Caplan's argument that we don't know if Germany/Japan would have been any worse than post WW2 Communism (China/Soviet Union) is flawed. Although USSR/China did murder more people, they did it internally. Japan/Germany were actively and aggressively seeking world domination and would likely have not stopped until they were defeated. Also, when the USSR began to try and spread communism throughout the world, our military strength is what helped prevent it.

[@Feeltheh8]

What I took away from this video: Ting- not jingoistic, reasonable, probably left of the average American. Caplan- radical, unreasonable, cognitive dissonance when presented with contradictory evidence.

[@ISeeOldPeople3]

In the cases provided in the debate they spoke of ethnic cleansing, in this case taking action and not taking action equally get someone killed. So the question becomes, do you intervene and pursue your interests in the situation? or do you do nothing and allow it to continue. Either way someone is going to end up dead. In such a case pacifism needs equal justification, because your pacifism is someone else's unanswered call for help.

[@CosmoShidan]

One question, when you stated "of Germany wanting to take over the world is not true", do you mean that that Germany only wanted to occupy territories that were of strategic importance?

[@mdsouza]

very sad that an economist is losing to a lawyer due to logic.

[@Joe7_OSRS]

Great reply, I loved the effort you put into that.

[@siphra]

I think the answer is yes, but if you are going to commit to war, then you commit to the whole war and everything that means, not half measures that don't have a complete end goal.

[@brettcarroll4676]

3. Citing the uncertainty of the future as justification to NOT intervene begs the question. The "cost" of not acting is almost equally uncertain; however, if war is truly necessary, not intervening will necessarily result in loss of life.

[@Wyattinmnk]

In order to engage in conflict, resources must be appropriated or diverted from known useful purposes towards the questionable conflict. It cannot be true that the conflict is in the interest of those providing the resources, unless they can enjoy some benefits from the outcome that exceed the original uses of those resources. The only time this has been or likely will ever be true are in acts of defense for those who provide the resources.

[@ArmoredAlgebra]

Where in the frik did I say immigrants were draining welfare? I said they are causing problems in Europe with free immigration throughout the whole of Europe. And they are. If Italy lets in as many immigrants as they want (which they have), they can go to the UK, France, Germany, etc. And they have. And it has caused many problems and tons of debate. Do the research, that's undisputed.

[@Joe7_OSRS]

To be considered moral we can't rape, murder, steal, etc. The same criteria has to be used when trying to discover these actions to be moral or immoral. No one is saying that "because assault being moral contradicts and it being immoral doesn't contradict, then all people will never assault because everyone wants to be moral." What you're doing is what debaters call a straw man argument. What I'm showing you is that assault being moral is impossible. Truths don't have exceptions.

[@benrcrenshaw85]

Never going to war unless you are absolutely sure of victory assumes an aggressive war. Defensive wars - such as France, Britain, or the Soviets in WWII - don't need such assurance since they are literally a fight for survival. Had Churchill sat down and done a cost-benefit analysis before declaring war on Germany, he would have determined it too costly and an almost zero chance of winning. Yet there is no price for life and freedom, and Britain beat the odds and I'm sure glad they did.

[@gingerfeest]

I never advocated letting the state do whatever it wants. The U.S. intervened and stopped the Nazi regime, was that the wrong move?

[@PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

6:26 Prof. Caplan: "Do we have a clear reason to think that the long-run benefits are so wonderful that they are going to outweigh the short-run costs?" Did Prof. Ting ever disagree with this test? It seemed to me that they both agreed that this was a good test to see if one should intervene. What they disagreed about is the likelihood that real world cases pass these tests. Caplan thinks that there are practically no real world cases that pass this test and Ting thinks there are a fair amount.

[@ThingWhatKicks]

If a "militia" can be "turned" against the population, then it really is the same thing as a standing army, and thus also needs to be abolished. The point of a real militia is that the population IS the militia. Hence, it can't turn on itself.

[@7Lakings7]

You think "Attacking someone else and taking over their property is never justified" is a true statement or an emotional based opinion?

[@safafafdaafafds4717]

man these guys have hella good arguments xD I Agree with them both and can't really decide left or right. I wish there is a middle one.

[@ThingWhatKicks]

Don't be tedious. Militias absolutely obviate the need for standing armies. Maybe if you had said something like, "Sure, standing armies are useless except for offense--militias are just as effective defensively and cost next to nothing, but you do need an air force and/or navy." That would have been a credible response. Try harder next time.

[@jknewcastlelol]

Before governments existed, so did war. In fact, much more war and conflict than there is now.

[@lltoon]

Events like 1953 where America staged a coup to remove Iran's democratically elected leader out of office just because he wanted to nationalize the country's oil is something I put to memory. America has done much more like this in their own interest at the expense of other people's right to freely choose their own government. For this reason alone, America is not in a moral position to decide what is right or wrong when it comes to declaring war, and Ting is biased when he said otherwise.