Do you think war will ever end?

[Chris Is Gay]

I'm not making a poll this time because people tend to find it easier to leave answers w/out justifying them.

I'm going to say no, and not because I believe most people are bloodthirsty psychos (they aren't) but because acts of state violence are emergent phenomena of complacency, ignorance, greed, etc. which are very widespread

Barring significant physical modification to the average person, war will probably never come to an end

[Maxibon]

you just had to add in the robots didnt you

[stevensonmat2]

war...war never changes...

These kind of questions are boring and pointless.

[Maxibon]

lets talk about libertarianism instead

[Chris Is Gay]

you just had to add in the robots didnt you

Genetic modification isn't "robotics"

Unless you consider people to be machines based on genetic algorithms

Which, come to think of it, they are

[Maxibon]

there was a cybernetic in there before the edit

[Iskandar]

Genetic modification isn't "robotics"But it is transhumanism which is something you love to bring up.

[Chris Is Gay]

Yeah more than one way to skin a cat

[stevensonmat2]

Hasn't this thread been done many times over?

[Chris Is Gay]

But it is transhumanism which is something you love to bring up.

So?

Everyone has their pet issue

It's better than "yo let's trip balls maaaaaan"

[Chris Is Gay]

Or "everything is about property rights"

[Iskandar]

Not everyone brings it up constantly, though.

[Chris Is Gay]

Chode brings up prop rights constantly, in every thread

Not all of my posts or indeed all of my threads are about transhumanism

Some of them are about creationism

Some of them are about the environment

A few are even about international politics

[Against Miik!]

Yes war will eventually end, but only if we don't kill ourselves (possibly via war) first.

It will take a long long time though. Think about the causes of war. These things can all go away. Resources can become infinite, religion will eventually prove useless, we will eventually all probably one race. This won't happen all of a sudden, obviously, but over time, war will become so outside of the norm that anyone who declares war will be like excommunicated from the earth or something so eventually people just won't.

Thats what I think. Give it like 3000 years though, or something.

[Maxibon]

Resources can become infinitewhat

[Chris Is Gay]

practically infinite

barely scarce

[Maxibon]

doubtful

[Chris Is Gay]

Well once we start mining asteroids and recycling like mad and stuff maybe not

Already these guys at Exxon are working at recycling carbon dioxide into oil via genetically engineered algae

[stevensonmat2]

Wow this is fascinating stuff. Almost as interesting as "can a machine think?".

[Iskandar]

With improvements in technology, the scarcity problem may become negligible, for some resources at least. This is getting into futurist territory though.
Chode brings up prop rights constantly, in every threadThat's because he's a libertarian and politics can be reduced to property for him.
Fair enough.
[QUOTE]Not all of my posts or indeed all of my threads are about transhumanism

Some of them are about creationism

Some of them are about the environment

A few are even about international politicsK.

[Against Miik!]

Yes, technological advances in genetic engineering look very promising. We are just tapping into it now. Give that a few hundred years, and you'd be amazed at what we'll probably come up with.

JS, scientific progress is generally exponential. Look at the world 100 years ago. We didn't even have flight. 60 years later we went to the moon. Today air travel is the safest (albeit most frustrating) form of transportation.

[Against Miik!]

With improvements in technology, the scarcity problem may become negligible, for some resources at least. This is getting into futurist territory though.


The futurist thing is interesting. I suspect one day we will begin changing ourselves to adapt our environment at least as much as we adapt our environment to fit our needs. Once we map out and are able to change ever gene in our body (inevitable), things will change drastically.

[Maxibon]

human wants are unlimited you guys are thinking about stuff like energy scarcity which may or may not be solved but you'll never eliminate human desire for whatever is scarce

i mean people fight over diamonds and stuff, nobody needs diamonds, people want diamonds and diamonds are rare therefore diamonds are expensive therefore people fight over them

[Against Miik!]

You're talking about Africa obviously? Yeah on a 2000 year timeline, I'm pretty that way of life will become unsustainable.

[Chris Is Gay]

JS, scientific progress is generally exponential. Look at the world 100 years ago. We didn't even have flight. 60 years later we went to the moon. Today air travel is the safest (albeit most frustrating) form of transportation.

If you go just by precedent, futurism offers the most reasonable predictions

I'm tired of hearing responses like "HOW CUM WE DON'T HAVE FLYING KARZ LOL" when lots of science fiction stuff has been realized and in some cases exceeded (e.g., Star Trek pocket communicators didn't have pinball)

And anyway the reason we don't have flying cars has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of people are too dumb to operate 2 ton vehicles in 2 dimensions much less 3

[Maxibon]

You're talking about Africa obviously? Yeah on a 2000 year timeline, I'm pretty that way of life will become unsustainable.what

people want scarce things

it doesnt have to be diamonds it can be anything

[Chris Is Gay]

Behavioral assumptions of mainstream economics are simplified and a little sketchy and besides behavior can be engineered

[Against Miik!]

If you go just by precedent, futurism offers the most reasonable predictions

I'm tired of hearing responses like "HOW CUM WE DON'T HAVE FLYING KARZ LOL" when lots of science fiction stuff has been realized and in some cases exceeded (e.g., Star Trek pocket communicators didn't have pinball)

And anyway the reason we don't have flying cars has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of people are too dumb to operate 2 ton vehicles in 2 dimensions much less 3

Technological advances generally don't happen as astoundingly in practice as they do when we look into the future, usually because its gradual. By the time amazing things come around, they've been eased into becoming commonplace. Like 10 years ago, pretty much everyone had a giant tube television. Now, you can't get a tv that has the depth of a laptop screen for like $1000.

I think things like this sum it up best:

http://sd4.sd-lj.si/diggit/20yago.jpg

The big guy is 1gb of storage in 1987. The little guy is 1gb of storage in 2007. That is absolutely amazing if you ask me. So given the exponential nature of advancement, whos to say that technology can't make war obsolete?

And judging future causes of war on current market demands is kind of silly. I mean, who the fukc cares about the spice trade any more compared to 1000 years ago.

[Maxibon]

what can be done is different from what will be done

who is going to engineer behavior

[gregulus]

me, obviously.

[Chris Is Gay]

idk, that depends, some blind people have already opted for neural implants to fix their vision, presumably many people will opt for engineering their brains out of sheer choice eventually

[Danger Bird]

obviously the human race will end and therefore so will war

[stevensonmat2]

monkeys make war

[Danger Bird]

animal life will eventually end

[stevensonmat2]

yeah that's a fact

[here comes the bird flu]

if there were no war in the world, that would mean everyone in the world was always in agreeance.

implausible

[cobert]

human wants are unlimited you guys are thinking about stuff like energy scarcity which may or may not be solved but you'll never eliminate human desire for whatever is scarce

i mean people fight over diamonds and stuff, nobody needs diamonds, people want diamonds and diamonds are rare therefore diamonds are expensive therefore people fight over them

Capitalism makes shiny rocks that are scarce desirable, not human nature. Human wants may very well be unlimited, but they are propelled by the system humans live in.

War ends with the end of scarcity of resources to meet human needs and the development of a system that isn't driven by scarcity of human wants. That is a very long time from now.

[cobert]

monkeys make war

if there were no war in the world, that would mean everyone in the world was always in agreeance.

implausible

war ≠ you and your little brother scuffling over name calling
war ≠ your drunk neighbor screaming at you to move your car

Fighting between animals of the same species is almost always to preserve one group's existence when they feel threatened, not to give one side more power.

[siva_chair]

Capitalism makes shiny rocks that are scarce desirable, not human nature. Human wants may very well be unlimited, but they are propelled by the system humans live in.

The systems humans create tend to have a basis in their nature.

War ends with the end of scarcity of resources to meet human needs and the development of a system that isn't driven by scarcity of human wants. That is a very long time from now.

Wars are fought over ideological reasons as well, not just control of resources.

War is a form of collectivism, and as long as collectivist ideology is systematically present, war will be present.

[cobert]

The systems humans create tend to have a basis in their nature.

At one point in time, a group of people developed property and structured authority (government) because it was beneficial to their survival. Instead of molding the institutions of property and authority around human needs, and spreading things like property and authority amongst all people, they tried to mold humans to fit into the institutions. We grew greedy into the system, the system wasn't created to match human greed. It's like our institutions have their own agendas independent of human needs.

The only thing true in human nature is our will to live and our will to continue the existence of our species by reproducing.

Wars are fought over ideological reasons as well, not just control of resources.

War is a form of collectivism, and as long as collectivist ideology is systematically present, war will be present.

I think I see what you're saying, but I'd like you to elaborate on this before I can respond.

[Mr. Ron]

no because people want things and a lot of things are scarce

[siva_chair]

At one point in time, a group of people developed property and structured authority (government) because it was beneficial to their survival. Instead of molding the institutions of property and authority around human needs, and spreading things like property and authority amongst all people, they tried to mold humans to fit into the institutions. We grew greedy into the system, the system wasn't created to match human greed.

The only thing true in human nature is our will to live and our will to continue the existence of our species by reproducing.

Property (and consumption thereof) is a need for humans though. Humans must consume scarce resources to survive, so I wouldn't say that humans were molded to fit the "institution" of property per se. Clearly, there are bound to be conflicts between people, but not all conflict is war. War is solely a product of collectivism and only really came about when humans started recognizing and dividing themselves into groups, obviously.

However, you are right about one thing. The state is a good representation of an institution that excercises its power to mold humans to fit it. Modern war is particularly telling of this in the fact that most modern wars are fought on primarily an ideological basis.

I think I see what you're saying, but I'd like you to elaborate on this before I can respond.

I'm saying as long as collectivism is institutionalized (the state apparatus) and people identify themselves with such an institution, there will be wars. More specifically, there will be large, very destructive, wars.

[Chris Is Gay]

I'm saying as long as collectivism is institutionalized (the state apparatus) and people identify themselves with such an institution, there will be wars. More specifically, there will be large, very destructive, wars.

Yeah and under anarchy we'll not have the enterprise to commit wars or, indeed, pretty much anything else

[siva_chair]

Yeah and under anarchy we'll not have the enterprise to commit wars or, indeed, pretty much anything else

False.

Under anarchy, the individual will just cease to be sacrificial fodder for the collective.

[Chris Is Gay]

:lol:

I'll believe that when you start posting from Somalia

[cobert]

Property (and consumption thereof) is a need for humans though. Humans must consume scarce resources to survive, so I wouldn't say that humans were molded to fit the "institution" of property per se. Clearly, there are bound to be conflicts between people, but not all conflict is war. War is solely a product of collectivism and only really came about when humans started recognizing and dividing themselves into groups, obviously.

Humans do need scarce resources to survive, and as long as one group has those and another doesn't, and as long as they are distributed in an exploitative way where the haves benefit from the have-not's starvation, war will exist (albeit, a stateless world's wars would be strictly class-based).

I'm saying as long as collectivism is institutionalized (the state apparatus) and people identify themselves with such an institution, there will be wars. More specifically, there will be large, very destructive, wars.

Kind of agree, although I think property divides people far more than a state does. A world without government would be more desirable, but I don't see that world being a peaceful (or realistic but that's not the topic of this thread) one if property exists.

[Mr. Ron]

False.

Under anarchy, the individual will just cease to be sacrificial fodder for the collective.
Humans form collectives naturally, though. People organize.

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

I'm going to say no, and not because I believe most people are bloodthirsty psychos (they aren't) but because acts of state violence are emergent phenomena of complacency, ignorance, greed, etc. which are very widespread


but war doesn't have anything to do with greed, ignorance, etc

war is the result of a country's judgment that the risks and expenditures of war are more desirable than maintaining peace

[here comes the bird flu]

war ≠ you and your little brother scuffling over name calling
war ≠ your drunk neighbor screaming at you to move your car

Fighting between animals of the same species is almost always to preserve one group's existence when they feel threatened, not to give one side more power.


by "everyone", i mean every nation

[Smokey D]

War will never end because power relations are inherently unstable and one group will always potentially have a reason to go to war with another.

At one point in time, a group of people developed property and structured authority (government) because it was beneficial to their survival. Instead of molding the institutions of property and authority around human needs, and spreading things like property and authority amongst all people, they tried to mold humans to fit into the institutions. We grew greedy into the system, the system wasn't created to match human greed. It's like our institutions have their own agendas independent of human needs.

It's called a dialectic relationship. We shape and are shaped by our legal/property/governmental systems.


Under anarchy, the individual will just cease to be sacrificial fodder for the collective.

And becomes the sacrificial fodder of anyone powerful enough to kill him or her at any given time.

Also, I'd say that in anarchy people are still going to form communities -- that seems to be part of what it means to be human -- and it's entirely conceivable that people will willingly sacrifice themselves for their community. So anarchy isn't the end of war, but maybe it's the end of conscription.

[cobert]

but war doesn't have anything to do with greed, ignorance, etc

war is the result of a country's judgment that the risks and expenditures of war are more desirable than maintaining peace

But more often than not, that country's judgment is based off of what is best for their own country, and this nationalist mindset leads to a struggle for power. If all countries had an international mindset concerned with human good war wouldn't have to do with greed, but if all countries had an international mindset, nations wouldn't be nearly as necessary or powerful.

War will never end because power relations are inherently unstable and one group will always potentially have a reason to go to war with another.

Well I guess this is true, but when power relations are made more stable through certain factors (dissemination of power) war will be less common.

It's called a dialectic relationship. We shape and are shaped by our legal/property/governmental systems.

I did not know that. I love when people find the preexisting word to describe something I struggle to explain.

Also, I'd say that in anarchy people are still going to form communities -- that seems to be part of what it means to be human -- and it's entirely conceivable that people will willingly sacrifice themselves for their community. So anarchy isn't the end of war, but maybe it's the end of conscription.

as said above, certain factors will lessen the frequency of war.

[Smokey D]

Well I guess this is true, but when power relations are made more stable through certain factors (dissemination of power) war will be less common.


Power relations are probably infinitely complex. Disseminating (I assume you mean equalising) power on one plane entails inequality on another. So you can't ever make power relations stable.


as said above, certain factors will lessen the frequency of war.

Yeah like if we gave nuclear weapons to everyone or something.

[siva_chair]

Humans do need scarce resources to survive, and as long as one group has those and another doesn't, and as long as they are distributed in an exploitative way where the haves benefit from the have-not's starvation, war will exist (albeit, a stateless world's wars would be strictly class-based).

"Class wars" aren't really what is being discussed here though. I thought we were talking about geopolitical conflicts between nations.


Kind of agree, although I think property divides people far more than a state does. A world without government would be more desirable, but I don't see that world being a peaceful (or realistic but that's not the topic of this thread) one if property exists.

No, you have it backwards. Property rights are the foundation of human flourishing (and liberty).

Humans form collectives naturally, though. People organize.

I don't recall where I ever claimed that people did not organize. Collectivism is something entirely different than organization, though.

And becomes the sacrificial fodder of anyone powerful enough to kill him or her at any given time.

Umm that is a fact of power and no system is going to get away from that, what is your point?

My point was that you wouldn't have the wholesale slaughter of droves of people being justified for the "good of the group," which is really the basis for war to begin with. All wars are fought and "justified" by claiming them as necessary for the well being of the collective.

Also, I'd say that in anarchy people are still going to form communities -- that seems to be part of what it means to be human -- and it's entirely conceivable that people will willingly sacrifice themselves for their community. So anarchy isn't the end of war, but maybe it's the end of conscription.

Well I never said there wouldn't be communities, nor the end of conflict, either. I was referring to the idea of modern war as we know it, more specifically.

Here is an article written by Rothbard that I think deals with this issue fairly well. You might enjoy it.

http://mises.org/rothbard/warpeace.asp

[Smokey D]

Umm that is a fact of power and no system is going to get away from that, what is your point?

That anarchy doesn't mean the end of violence or war.

My point was that you wouldn't have the wholesale slaughter of droves of people being justified for the "good of the group," which is really the basis for war to begin with. All wars are fought and "justified" by claiming them as necessary for the well being of the collective.

But in America and stuff the army is professional not conscripted so most people in the military are volunteering to sacrifice themselves in much the same way they would probably volunteer in some anarchic commune type system.


Here is an article written by Rothbard that I think deals with this issue fairly well. You might enjoy it.

I don't have time to read articles.

[siva_chair]

That anarchy doesn't mean the end of violence or war.

I never said it would get rid of violence and only really claimed it would get rid of war as we know it today.


But in America and stuff the army is professional not conscripted so most people in the military are volunteering to sacrifice themselves in much the same way they would probably volunteer in some anarchic commune type system.

They might, but who or what are they going to fight against exactly? Group A might start fighting against group B, but this isn't going to be anywhere near the size or scale that states do (mainly because they cannot indefinitely steal resources from their own people to fund it and also because there wouldn't be vast territorial monopolies). Violence would be essentially localized.

I don't have time to read articles.

Fair enough but it is a good one.

[cobert]

"Class wars" aren't really what is being discussed here though. I thought we were talking about geopolitical conflicts between nations.

In that sense of the word, war would be impossible without nations. I was thinking of war along the lines of one large group of people fighting against another large group of people, where the groups have common interests other than the enemy they are choosing to fight.

No, you have it backwards. Property rights are the foundation of human flourishing (and liberty).

Disagree, but that's outside the topic of discussion.

[Smokey D]

I never said it would get rid of violence and only really claimed it would get rid of war as we know it today.


Well I agree with the first proposition. I'm skeptical about the second.


They might, but who or what are they going to fight against exactly? Group A might start fighting against group B, but this isn't going to be anywhere near the size or scale that states do (mainly because they cannot indefinitely steal resources from their own people to fund it and also because there wouldn't be vast territorial monopolies). Violence would be essentially localized.

Possibly. Perhaps you underestimate how powerful the sense of community can be. Do you think Americans only value America because they are subject to the coercive power of the government? To paraphrase someone famous, man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him. Presumably, a man does not have himself killed for a coercive government alone either, but because he believes in the values he takes it to represent. Presumably also, there is no theoretical maximum size for a community which a person might be willing to die for.

And as I say, we have large scale non-conscripted armies today.

[siva_chair]

In that sense of the word, war would be impossible without nations. I was thinking of war along the lines of one large group of people fighting against another large group of people, where the groups have common interests other than the enemy they are choosing to fight.

Well that kind of blurs the definition of war to render it basically useless for this discussion. How many people does it take for a group to be considered large? Could a war be between two people vs. another person?

Disagree, but that's outside the topic of discussion.

Well I was simply addressing your assertion.

[Elitist Douche Bag]

We can end war altogether if we get rid of all the godless muslim freedom haters

[Smokey D]

Property in a loose sense is very important to humans but it can be manifested in a number of different ways, with many not obviously better than any other conception unless you have some teleological goal as a point of reference.

[cobert]

Well that kind of blurs the definition of war to render it basically useless for this discussion. How many people does it take for a group to be considered large? Could a war be between two people vs. another person?

Well it's unfair to say "the answer to ending war is getting rid of the things you need to have war (by the definition we are using)." Maybe not unfair to say, but too simple. If we are going to discuss how to end war using the definition you are following, we have to think of a way to end it with the state intact, and if we are to argue that war will always happen if a state is intact, then we have to find a way to end large scale violence.

[siva_chair]

Well I agree with the first proposition. I'm skeptical about the second.

I'm have trouble seeing how international wars could occur in absence of states.


Possibly. Perhaps you underestimate how powerful the sense of community can be. Do you think Americans only value America because they are subject to the coercive power of the government? To paraphrase someone famous, man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him. Presumably, a man does not have himself killed for a coercive government alone either, but because he believes in the values he takes it to represent. Presumably also, there is no theoretical maximum size for a community which a person might be willing to die for.

I agree for the most part with what you are saying, but it is clear that states magnify the ability and destructiveness of war itself.

To quote the article you aren't going to read (although the rest of the article clarifies the context that this is said for sure):

Now there are crucial and vital differences between inter-State warfare on the one hand and revolutions against the State or conflicts between private individuals on the other. One vital difference is the shift in geography. In a revolution, the conflict takes place within the same geographical area: both the minions of the State and the revolutionaries inhabit the same territory. Inter-State warfare, on the other hand, takes place between two groups, each having a monopoly over its own geographical area; that is, it takes place between inhabitants of different territories. From this difference flow several important consequences: (1) in inter-State war the scope for the use of modem weapons of destruction is far greater. For if the "escalation" of weaponry in an intra-territorial conflict becomes too great, each side will blow itself up with the weapons directed against the other. Neither a revolutionary group nor a State combating revolution, for example, can use nuclear weapons against the other. But, on the other hand, when the warring parties inhabit different territorial areas, the scope for modern weaponry becomes enormous, and the entire arsenal of mass devastation can come into play. A second consequence (2) is that while it is possible for revolutionaries to pinpoint their targets and confine them to their State enemies, and thus avoid aggressing against innocent people, pinpointing is far less possible in an inter-State war. This is true even with older weapons; and, of course, with modern weapons there can be no pinpointing whatever. Furthermore, (3) since each State can mobilize all the people and resources in its territory, the other State comes to regard all the citizens of the opposing country as at least temporarily its enemies and to treat them accordingly by extending the war to them. Thus, all of the consequences of inter-territorial war make it almost inevitable that inter-State war will involve aggression by each side against the innocent civilians – the private individuals – of the other. This inevitability becomes absolute with modem weapons of mass destruction.

If one distinct attribute of inter-State war is inter-territoriality, another unique attribute stems from the fact that each State lives by taxation over its subjects. Any war against another State, therefore, involves the increase and extension of taxation-aggression over its own people. Conflicts between private individuals can be, and usually are, voluntarily waged and financed by the parties concerned. Revolutions can be, and often are, financed and fought by voluntary contributions of the public. But State wars can only be waged through aggression against the taxpayer.

All State wars, therefore, involve increased aggression against the State's own taxpayers, and almost all State wars (all, in modern warfare) involve the maximum aggression (murder) against the innocent civilians ruled by the enemy State. On the other hand, revolutions are generally financed voluntarily and may pinpoint their violence to the State rulers, and private conflicts may confine their violence to the actual criminals.

And as I say, we have large scale non-conscripted armies today.

That are funded and maintained by aggression against those that are taxed, whereas under and anarchist system, the funds required to support such an army must be voluntarily obtained, and anyone supporting a murderous army that slaughtered innocents would be essentially a criminal.

[siva_chair]

Well it's unfair to say "the answer to ending war is getting rid of the things you need to have war (by the definition we are using)." Maybe not unfair to say, but too simple. If we are going to discuss how to end war using the definition you are following, we have to think of a way to end it with the state intact, and if we are to argue that war will always happen if a state is intact, then we have to find a way to end large scale violence.

Hey now you are starting to understand why I am against the state apparatus.

[siva_chair]

Property in a loose sense is very important to humans but it can be manifested in a number of different ways, with many not obviously better than any other conception unless you have some teleological goal as a point of reference.

Well, the teleological goals and foundations of property rights have been discussed quite a bit on these forums. But you are correct in saying that there definitely needs to be a point of reference.

[cobert]

Hey now you are starting to understand why I am against the state apparatus.

I already understand that, I'm not a fan either, but I have reasons for supporting the state that all deal with the complicated means of achieving a better world. That's a different thread though.

[Smokey D]

Um, well to counter that article I'd suggest that intra-state and revolutionary wars are at least as violent as many inter state wars.

[siva_chair]

Um, well to counter that article I'd suggest that intra-state and revolutionary wars are at least as violent as many inter state wars.

There isn't the capacity for the level of destruction of inter state wars, particularly taking into account modern weapons. It addresses this very point.

Even state actors in intra-state wars don't have the ability to be as violent or destructive (unless they wish to destroy themselves as well as their enemies). The point was not that revolutions and intra-state wars aren't violent (or even that some aren't as equally violent as some state wars), but that statist wars inherently have the capacity to be more violent and destructive.

If you value empirical evidence, this idea still holds true.

[Smokey D]

There isn't the capacity for the level of destruction of inter state wars, particularly taking into account modern weapons. It addresses this very point.

6 million people have died in the DRC.

I dunno what the toll was in the French revolutionary wars, but the revolutionaries depopulated the Verdun.


Even state actors in intra-state wars don't have the ability to be as violent or destructive (unless they wish to destroy themselves as well as their enemies).

Rwanda.

[siva_chair]

6 million people have died in the DRC.

At the hands of two state actors.

Also, this example actually resembles more of an inter state war, as both the FDLR and the FARDC both act essentially as territorial monopolists over their respective regions.

I dunno what the toll was in the French revolutionary wars, but the revolutionaries depopulated the Verdun.

Depends on if you count the Napoleonic Wars or not, really.

Rwanda.

Genocide /= war.

[Smokey D]

At the hands of two state actors.

Also, this example actually resembles more of an inter state war, as both the FDLR and the FARDC both act essentially as territorial monopolists over their respective regions.

Well yes they have claimed a territorial monopoly from territory where neither had a monopoly to begin with. Presumably this could happen in anarchic based conflicts too.


Depends on if you count the Napoleonic Wars or not, really.


Well, I'm not.

But I still think it was like at least half a million people or something who died.

Genocide /= war.

Not really but explain to me the essential differences here. The point is that a non-territorial monopolist group, admittedly with some support from the government, was able to commit horrendous violence on another.

[cobert]

Genocide /= war.

Again, not in the strictest sense, but it's pretty similar.

[siva_chair]

Well yes they have claimed a territorial monopoly from territory where neither had a monopoly to begin with. Presumably this could happen in anarchic based conflicts too.

Both the FARDC and FDLR tax...

If this happened in a region of anarchism, it really wouldn't be anarchism if there were two state actors, would it?

Well, I'm not.

But I still think it was like at least half a million people or something who died.

Yeah and the vast majority died due to smallpox and not the actual fighting. In terms of actual fighting it was only around 40,000 I think (though it may be a bit more or less I'm not 100%).

Not really but explain to me the essential differences here. The point is that a non-territorial monopolist group, admittedly with some support from the government, was able to commit horrendous violence on another.

War is reciprocal in nature, genocide is not.

Also some support? The Impuzamugambi and the Interahamwe pretty much act as a territorial monopolist group in that area. They are definitely supported heavily by other governments as well, since that conflict is part of a broader conflict amongst several states in the region.

[siva_chair]

Again, not in the strictest sense, but it's pretty similar.

Not really. A definative aspect that makes something a war is the reciprocal nature of the conflict. Genocide is simply mass unilateral slaughter of a particular race or ethnic group. It is a very important distinction.

[Maxibon]

Capitalism makes shiny rocks that are scarce desirable, not human nature. Human wants may very well be unlimited, but they are propelled by the system humans live in.thats stupid, humans have been desiring shiny rocks and rare things since they lived in caves

[Smokey D]

Both the FARDC and FDLR tax...

Well, yes my point is they created a monopoly out of a non-monopoly.

If this happened in a region of anarchism, it really wouldn't be anarchism if there were two state actors, would it?

So anarchism is unstable.

Yeah and the vast majority died due to smallpox and not the actual fighting. In terms of actual fighting it was only around 40,000 I think (though it may be a bit more or less I'm not 100%).

40 thousand died in the Terror, but the Terror was not just the extent of the wars. I haven't heard the small pox claim though.

War is reciprocal in nature, genocide is not.

I don't know if that's enough of a distinction.

Also some support? The Impuzamugambi and the Interahamwe pretty much act as a territorial monopolist group in that area. They are definitely supported heavily by other governments as well, since that conflict is part of a broader conflict amongst several states in the region.

Well, I was specifically referring to 1998. I don't know the details surrounding state support for the Rwandan genocide. It's my understanding that the army did support the genociders, but that the majority of the violence was committed within communities. The point being that gross violence can occur at a variety of levels and does not require state support.

[siva_chair]

Well, yes my point is they created a monopoly out of a non-monopoly.

Sure. A monopoly that was enabled by state actors.

So anarchism is unstable.

Not necessarily. Remember, the above happened because the groups in question were enabled by the state to begin with. Sure, it is entirely possible for states to arise out of non-states, but that doesn't at all indicate that we should have states or that states are justified.

40 thousand died in the Terror, but the Terror was not just the extent of the wars. I haven't heard the small pox claim though.

I'm not sure exactly how many it killed in that region, but IIRC it was quite a bit. I mean it shouldn't be really surprising either as during that time it killed hundreds of thousands of people in Europe a year.

I don't know if that's enough of a distinction.

It is enough of a distinction to define what war is. Even wiki makes that distinction.

Well, I was specifically referring to 1998. I don't know the details surrounding state support for the Rwandan genocide. It's my understanding that the army did support the genociders, but that the majority of the violence was committed within communities. The point being that gross violence can occur at a variety of levels and does not require state support.

Which if you recall is a point I did not really dispute.

I think my point still remains, however, about the capacity a state has for violence and destruction. Imagine how many more people could or would have been slaughtered had it been systematically carried out by a state monopolist. Historically, the greatest violence against people have been at the hands of the state because they tend to have the resources capable of perpetuating such things.

[stevensonmat2]

Fighting between animals of the same species is almost always to preserve one group's existence when they feel threatened, not to give one side more power.

The acquisition of power isn't the only motivation for war. "War is merely a continuation of politics by different means", and I would say self-preservation is a political concern in any culture, no matter how primitive.

Besides, monkeys fight over mating, food sources and territory, and they do so aggressively at times. Small scale sure, but by definition (according to Clausewitz) war.

[guitarded_chuck]

People are different and have different opinions and will always disagree with others opinions so there will never be peace

[Ceminon]

Lol, of course war will never end.
War is simply a conflict between two or more humans with a powerful position.
And as far as I know, every animal on this planet gets into conflicts every now and then.

[Chris Is Gay]

Isn't war at a larger scale

[Ceminon]

That is because the people who start wars usually have a very powerful position.
War is more organised than simple conflicts.

[Chris Is Gay]

alright but could neural modification be a way around this

[guitarded_chuck]

it would take the elimination of organized religion and the formation of some common, peaceful philosophical ground for there to never be war tbh

also, people around the world would need to feel like they are equal with all others. meaning, equal distribution of resources, equal quality of life, etc.

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

But more often than not, that country's judgment is based off of what is best for their own country, and this nationalist mindset leads to a struggle for power. If all countries had an international mindset concerned with human good war wouldn't have to do with greed, but if all countries had an international mindset, nations wouldn't be nearly as necessary or powerful.



yes, that's the point: war is a viable tool for a nation to pursue it's self interest given that the costs of going to war are deemed to be less than the costs of maintaining peace

so, with the end being to reduce the frequency of war, the means would be to take measures ensuring that the costs of waging war remain prohibitively high

it's not especially useful to reduce war to the individual level and blame it on "greed" or "evil" inherent in humans

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

it would take the elimination of organized religion and the formation of some common, peaceful philosophical ground for there to never be war tbh

also, people around the world would need to feel like they are equal with all others. meaning, equal distribution of resources, equal quality of life, etc.

but war isn't a phenomenon impacted by individual's morals (I would argue morals at all, but I won't pursue that for now)

war isn't reducible to intrapersonal relationships because it's a much more social thing than that

[Mr. Ron]

it would take the elimination of organized religion and the formation of some common, peaceful philosophical ground for there to never be war tbh

also, people around the world would need to feel like they are equal with all others. meaning, equal distribution of resources, equal quality of life, etc.
Wars are more often fought over non-religious things.


People aren't equal. You'd be lying to yourself. Under the law, maybe, but in reality? No. Equal quality of life can't happen either.

[siva_chair]

People aren't equal. You'd be lying to yourself. Under the law, maybe, but in reality? No. Equal quality of life can't happen either.

It can if human beings are reduced to ants.

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

"equality" is a concept a lot like "freedom" in that, in contemporary society, the positive connotations that go with the word seem to be far more important than the concepts themselves

[Mr. Ron]

There just needs to be certain kinds of people in society to fill roles.



you need people to clean toilets, people to be factory workers, doctors, engineers and CEO's. If everyone had the same standard of living things would obviously be thrown off.

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

yeah

and if you asked all those people why the USofA is so great, they'd probably say something about "freedom" or "equality"

[McP3000]

what a stupid question

[Smokey D]

I loathe the argument that we need an underclass to thrive.

I loathe even more the implication that individuals are destined to be part of that underclass and the implication that being part of that underclass means you shouldn't receive good wages or a high standard of living.

[cobert]

That's off topic from the thread now, but I facepalm at that argument constantly.

We need a million threads to come up to discuss anything in this forum. I don't like how things get off topic and turn into 2 people discussing a million things unrelated to the original question, and I think it always devolves into 1 on 1 discussion because they are allowed to get so far off topic.

[Mr. Ron]

I loathe the argument that we need an underclass to thrive.

I loathe even more the implication that individuals are destined to be part of that underclass and the implication that being part of that underclass means you shouldn't receive good wages or a high standard of living.
I'm not just talking about the underclass. I'm talking about all of the positions in society. They need each other in varying levels.


I'm for good wages and good living conditions. Where did i say I wasn't?

[die of starvation]

differences in standard of living are only useful to the degree that they allow us to incentivize stuff we want people to do
and if we can't come up with a less problematic way of achieving that incentive

they'll inevitably become outmoded at some point in the relatively distant future


war is more difficult because it will always be a consideration as long as it's possible to destroy things
and even if everything became indestructible you could still go to war by using your indistructable objects to wall in other people's indestructible objects

we could make it literally unthinkable by nueral or maybe genetic modification but that could fail

the easiest way is to just give everybody WMDs and rely on the deterrent effect but then you have a race for new weapons systems

idk i guess i would say prolly not

[Iskandar]

Wars are more often fought over non-religious things.Resources and territory.
People aren't equal. You'd be lying to yourself. Under the law, maybe, but in reality? No. Equal quality of life can't happen either.The developing world can be as rich as us. Granted, that will require a careful management of resources.