America's Two Just Wars (1 of 5) Murray N Rothbard

[richardcadbury]

The Confederacy was a threat to the slaves.

[thirdshift47]

The Civil War--a conflict between the wage slave based economy of Northern industrial capitalists vs the chattel slave based plantation economy of Southern agrarian capitalists.

A predictable outcome of the American ideology that exists 'til this day with the strongest market competitor feeding on the weakest.

[WorshipInTruth]

Well his stance on abortion is disgusting, but generally he is right. He violates his own "non-aggression" principle by denying that a child in the womb has a right to life.

[WorshipInTruth]

My absolute favorite political thinker of the modern era. Was there anything regarding politics that he was not right about??

[robertwc82]

if the opposing side is unjust how can the war be just? to me a just war would be a war where both sides are just, though i cant concieve of any circumstance were both sides are in the right

[ransom22]

@robertwc82 The "just-ness" of a war, or of anything, must be based on an absolute standard of justice not defined by either side. With this in place and using Rothbard's definition of "just war" when one group is acting against that standard of justice and the opposing group is in line with that standard, that would be a just war.

[robertwc82]

@ransom22 yeah but what i'm saying is you can not have a war without at least 1 side "acting against that standard of justce"

when i say justice i am talking about something objective. it is not relative to either sides opinion of what is moral but based on what actually is moral. my definition of immoral is causing unneccasary harm.

certain actions are objectively harmful

[ransom22]

@robertwc82 Sorry for misunderstanding you. Thank you for the clarification. I completely agree with you. Well said.

[BlackSheepReport]

People who are anti-secession are ,by the nature of their opposition, for the control of people by force. It's that simple.

[EHardy1971]

Brilliant my ass. I wonder had he been in one of the Nazi concentration camps (considering he was Jewish), if his view on our involvment in WWII would have been different? If we had not got involved, you idiots wouldn't know the word "Liberty". Last time I checked, we were the ones that got attacked first. Let me translate this for all of you, baaaaaa,baa,baaaaaaa........

[strider00111]

What kind of liberty are you talking about ? Your free but you have to pay for it. Taxation.

[allisot]

@EHardy1971

Might have started out like that, but we didn't finish the war there. We cut up the world along political lines and divided the world as spoils to the victor. You might go back and review the recording again, including the rest of it.

[Rico8458]

yeah, you are right. the winner writes the history. end of story.

[Rico8458]

germans did horrible things, they were evil according to allies, but to bomb cities what the allies did not even german bombers did that much damage. i mean a stuka can only do so much. two wongs dont make a right but the winner is always right. lol

[pretorious700]

@Rico8458 The winners always get to write the history. What Americans learn in the statist public school system is something very different than what really happened.

[Surhotchaperchlorome]

Actually, Mr. Rothbard, I can make this even easier for you.

War is justified if and only if:

1. It is a purely defensive war: no preemptive "we need to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" bullshit.

2. The people fighting in it and funding it do so on a voluntary basis alone.

3. If peaceful measures have been tried and failed.

4. If it does not involve meddling in the affairs of others.

Your basis of "overthrowing an oppressive power" could be used to Justify the BS of Iraq.

[Surhotchaperchlorome]

con:

As a common reason to continue in Iraq, "but we need to free these people!"

[Rico8458]

usa war crimes when they bombed german cities.

[StickyGreenTreez]

@Rico8458 And germans did the same things.

[dons123111]

I agree that the American Revolution was a just war. I'm not convinced that the Southern States were correct. My ancestors were burned and pillaged in Missouri and Kansas by southern slave owners. They moved out west to get out of the US. None of them fought in the Civil War neither did they take sides. So the rest of this series will be interesting for me. Since I have always been a Capitalist Yankee at heart.

[zoolpigieon]

@dons123111

if you're referring to the southern militias, everyone, especially Lee, thought they were a bad idea.

[Rico8458]

Rothbard is the king of the truth of money.

[tourmaline86]

WWII was an unjust war?

[sniffsnarff]

yeah. It likely wouldn't have happened weren't it for US entrance in WW1. The European countries had already fought to a stalemate by the time we got seriously involved, which turned the tide. Otherwise, had we not gotten involved, the war would have ended on it's own with the new boundaries of the countries lying at the "no-man's-land / trench network". Then..no depraved Germany..no Hitler in power.

At least, that's the theory. Unless you have a parallel universe handy, we'll never know.

[Americaisgreat123]

Opposing America's entrance into WWI is not the same as opposing its entrance in WWII. I oppose the first and support the second.

[sniffsnarff]

why?

[treddas851]

In A Theory of the Consumption Function—Milton Friedman argued that the best way to make sense of saving and spending was not,as Rothbard(or von Mises)had done,to resort to loose psychological theorizing,but to think of individuals as making rational plans about how to spend their wealth over their lifetimes.This was an anti-Keynesian idea—and return to classical ways of thinking—and it worked,and remain the foundations of how economists think to this day.What have Rothbard done??

[dieyoubastards]

The invader is always wrong.

[KraljevicPavle]

About 7 mins in, he gets to the good stuff. Really touches a Serb's heart. Thanks Murray, from a Libertarian Serb!

Inb4 Serbs are evil, etc

[PhiloCentinel]

He champions the death penalty and caning? I just lost quite a bit of respect for Rothbard.

[DarthKazi]

You missed the point...

[Mechanized0]

What is your objection to these two opinions?

[PhiloCentinel]

They are barbaric and cruel.

[dieyoubastards]

If you are against the death penalty for murderers,then you are FOR the killing of innocents.

That is barbaric and cruel.

[PhiloCentinel]

I'm not saying that they shouldn't be punished, but the death penalty is always wrong. It doesn't fix anything, it is vengeful and pitiful, and it cannot ever be reversed.

[dieyoubastards]

It fixes a lot.

It removes the killer from society.

You "liberals" who want to coddle the killers should be the ones who have to pay 60,000 a year to house these murderers and then be held responsible when they finally get out and do it again.

It makes me sick to think you scumbags want to coddle killers so that they can slaughter more innocent people.

Revenge would be to torture them, which is what they deserve..

[dieyoubastards]

All I'm saying is that after you kill a child, you do not deserve to draw one more breath on this green earth and should havbe your life snuffed as quickly as possible.

Personally,I don't think such scum who rape and kill are even worth a bullet.

Stone them or beat them to death with a stick I say.

You put the life of a rapist killer over an innocent child.

THAT is the height of barbaric cruelty.

Absolutely disgusting.

[PhiloCentinel]

You pretend that the only way to keep someone from killing again is to murder them, when they could simply be imprisoned. Frankly- if you really want to stone people you are just as fucking psychotic as they are. There's no difference between them and you, but at least they generally don't try to hid their sadism under the false pretense of justice- they're honest about it. You can fuck off- go to Saudi Arabia if murdering criminals gets you off so much.

[dieyoubastards]

fuck you you sack of shit.

I am not willing to pay $60,000 a year to support a murderer.

Execution of murdering scum is not murder,idiot.

Murderers should not have the rights of innocent,law abiding people.

Maybe you would like the freedom to rape and kill with impunity.

Scum like you do not deserve to live in civilized society.

You should go to S.Africa,where 25% of the young men admit to committing rape and thousands of whites have been brutally killed.

You disgusting piece of shit.

[PhiloCentinel]

Are you really getting that angry because someone else disagrees with you? You pitiful cunt, you can't even control your emotions, which is why you do your thinking with them, along with the most base and vengeful aspects of human nature. I scoff at your pitiful quasi-indignation, just as much as I scoff at your disregard and disrespect for human life.

[dieyoubastards]

I am angry because you enable murderers you sick bastard.

Go live in the jungle and love up on a murderer,you won't last long,you don't deserve to live among civilized people.

Go get yourself killed if that's what you want,but you pigs force rapists and murderers on MY family,you son of a bitch,you can go to hell.

[PhiloCentinel]

You dehumanize people because of the actions they had committed in the past- to you it's not like you're putting a human being to death, they are closer to animals, and that is both sickening and disturbing. The brutal despotism you would drag us down into would be a step backwards into barbarism and away from the lofty values of compassion and freedom which we as a species mush embrace. You are the lowest of of the low, and you are closer to an animal than those whom you would execute.

[dieyoubastards]

They de-humanize themselves when they take an innocent life and they give up any right they had to live

.I don't believe in prison.

If you kill an innocent person you should die.

If you don't hurt anyone,you should be left alone.

But the bankers in control want to destroy this country,and profit from crime,so they bring in drugs and jail people for using them.

It is a sick system.

And you are a sick animal for letting murderers continue to kill.

YOU are the animal.

[dieyoubastards]

Being against the death penalty IS in all practicality being FOR the killing of innocent children.

They ALWAYS get out and do it again.

And even if they didn't get out,I can't afford to support murderers who have NO right to life at $60,000 a year.

Your kind makes me want to vomit you scum.

[PhiloCentinel]

You would like to pretend like you're not killing a person by putting a murderer to death, you'd like to pretend that it's black-and-white, us-vs-them, they're monsters and we're just good, honest, upstanding citizens who would could never do something wrong. What's more, you act like not executing a murderer is the same as putting the murder weapon in their hand so that they can end another's life.

[dieyoubastards]

It is the same because they always do it again,given the chance.

Monsters DO exist in this world,they are very sick,violent people.

So do idiiots and enablers of monsters,

"liberal" scum like you.

And I am not pretending motherfucker.

[cgrsmknwmn]

cds10690:

Please, oh enlightened one, feel free to point out why you regard me as "an idiot."

Oh, and it would be nice if, while doing so, you have someone proof your words of grand wisdom. It seems you never quite got the hang of proper capitalization and punctuation.

But, I suppose such an intelligent being as yourself doesn't have time for such concerns as coming across as a literate being.

Slainte!

[Springtime916]

it sounds like Rothbard is giving his lecture in a Dinner... with a construction crew inside.

[whoo689]

Not to mention all the expansions of state power that WW1 preceded. War Production Board? Stifling dissent through the espionage acts? Jailing people like Eugene Debs just for speaking out?? On and on and on.

[whoo689]

I'd go a step further and argue that we never should've gotten involved in WW2. The most we should've done is aid the Allies in terms of money and weapons and whatnot. But it was a mistake to get involved and create the toothless League of Nations and for Wilson to use the war as an excuse to "make the world safe for democracy" and all that neoconservative bullshit.

The war was a fucking waste of time. It was NOT justified. We weren't fucking threatened. We could've stayed out.

[whoo689]

Yes, Germany did attack some of our submarines, but big deal. They never actually attacked the mainland of anything like that. We should've kept it restricted to a naval war with Germany instead of getting involved in Europe's mess. Austria-Hungary didn't give a fuck about us and rightly didn't fuck WITH us in ww1.

Besides, the Zimmerman Telegram probably was a hoax by Britain or maybe even pro-war Wilsonians to goad us into war. Germany aligning with mexico to take the us out? come on

[whoo689]

err. WW1. we shouldn't have gotten involved in ww1.

[crazycuntryboy2]

The Civil War was over RIGHTS not slavery, the Union didn't give a fuck about slavery. They just wanted out money and were willing to MURDER to do it.

[lnd3005]

Caning for vandals? Is that a joke?

[vedder110]

You never know with Rothbard. Really interesting guy, but like Chomsky he takes really extreme views on random issues (of course on different issues than Chomsky).

[MrCropper]

4:30 He believes the South was justified in its attempt at separation!?!

One star. }:-(

[odin422]

Lincon did not start the Civil War because of slavery

Find his quotes.

[coffeeintheface]

The only reason America exists is beacuse we separated in the same fashion from Great Britain. Government has no legitimate claim on the land. Slaves or not it doesn't matter: the South had the right to secede.

[cds10690]

and they should have let the losers go.. we would be a lot better off today wit hout them

[Joseph565112]

Do you wish the British would have "kicked the crap out of the" first Revolutionaries?

[brainpolice2]

Yes, and to deny the right of secession is a form of slavery in and of itself.

[chowdy64]

Beautiful point.

[cgrsmknwmn]

Over 85% of Southerns did not own slaves, and had no interest - vested or otherwise - in slavery. In that era, the common belief of nearly all whites, Northern and Southern, was that blacks were inferior. Ludicrous to believe that 600,000 white would be willing to die for what they believed to be an "inferior" race.

So, to "free the slaves," white Southerners were made slaves by the glorious Union.

Lincoln was a tyrant, a mass murderer of Hitlerian proportions, and the ultimate was criminal.

[WhatsReallyGoingOn84]

If you know the truth about The Civil War, you should research National Socialist Germany. That era of history is even more twisted in today's media.

Look up their side, good sir, and you will replace "Hitlerian proportions" with "Stalinist proportions."

I encourage everybody to give Mein Kampf a try. After all, it was the number one selling book of all time in it's day, aside from The Bible. 700+ pages = more substance than we've been told about. Give it a read; it will open your eyes.

[cds10690]

you are an idiot

i could go into detail but trying to point out the obvious to a moron like you - well thats just not going to happen

I am just glad the US kicked the crap out of the south

[jpcl21]

@brainpolice2 not if the party entered a contract.

[ransom22]

@brainpolice2 Secession is not a right. When the Southern stated joined the United States, they agreed to abide by the law of the country as defined by the Constitution. They're choice to secede was not granted by the Constitution nor could it be justified by the Federal Government denying God given rights to the people upheld in the Constitution. The worst part is, considering how horrible the economy was in the South, the war probably wasn't even necessary to rebuild the Union.

[hungarygator]

@ransom22 Secession is certainly a right. Read the 9th and 10th amendments. The Founders certainly felt states had the right to secede if they wished just as they all seceded from the British Empire. 3 states ratified the constitution with the express reservation that they could secede if they chose and they all believed they had that right...and so did Lincoln in 1848 before Northeaster business interests explained how much money they stood to lose....

[harryogre]

That's like asking where the pope discusses Catholicism. Rothbard was primarily an economist but his anti war statements are scattered in almost everything he said or wrote. He touches on it in The Betrayal of the American Right and covers it more clearly in his 4 volume Conceived In Liberty. Mostly he just refers to it as a fact and lets the more history minded libertarians handle it

For clarity of the libertarian view of WWI and WWII I would suggest Jim Powell's great book Wilson's War

[RMMHS4RP]

Thanks, that's helpful. I'm just starting to read Rothbard's work, so I'm trying to find places where he addresses the questions I'm most interested in.

[RMMHS4RP]

Did Rothbard ever write about U. S. entry into WWII? I'm a little surprised that he doesn't regard it as a just war. After all, it was Japan that threw the first punch, and the U. S. declaration of war on Germany only came on Dec. 11, 1941, three days after Germany's declaration of war on the U. S.

I'm aware that FDR imposed a crippling embargo on Japan. Does Rothbard consider that to have been a prior act of war to which Japan was only responding with its attack on Pearl Harbor?

[harryogre]

yes

The idea that Japan threw the first punch is what public school teaches but is a simple lie

Rothbard says WWII was caused by Wilson getting us involved in WWI and the resulting mess that became of Europe, allowing fascism to arise

WWII would never have happened had we kept out of WWI and allowed the standard European pattern of war to play its self out as it always had.

WWII Korean War Vietnam The Cold War, and almost all the unrest in the Middle East were caused by US entrance in WWI

[RMMHS4RP]

Right, so where does Rothbard discuss all of this?

[Webins]

While the conection between WWI and Nazi Germany are clear, the connection to Japan's imperialism, which goes back from before WWI, is not so clear.

So whether the U.S. was right to enter WWI or not, it can't really justify or explain the Pearl Harbor attack.

[crazycuntryboy2]

WW1 and WW2 were BOTH caused by the OTHER side. The Germans attacked the Lusitania, and in WW2 the Japanese used an excuse to bomb us. What happened was they used the SAME tactic that the US Government used on the confederacy, put a decoy to piss therm off and put on an attack, but instead of Fort Sumter it was a small submarine that entered the harbor. We bombed it. Then they sent their entire navy over and used that as an excuse.

[freeyourcrt]

Try googling this:

An Unspeakable Horror Now Encrusted in Myths

By Robert Higgs

Cheers and happy reading

[RMMHS4RP]

I actually just posted that on my Facebook page last week. It's a great article. But Higgs doesn't really discuss the Roosevelt Administration's heavy handed dealings with the Japanese government during the 1930s, and its desire to get the U. S. involved in a war against them, and against Germany for that matter. Does he write about this in any of his books, like Depression, War and Cold War?

[freeyourcrt]

Not sure. This was the fist thing I think I ever read from him. I have a book on my shelf called The Roosevelt Myth that might touch on it but I haven't cracked it yet, BTW, a REALLY well researched (and footnoted) book is: A Century of War by F.W. Engdahl. It's a eye opener for certain. That book and a little Machiavelli and this crazy mixed up world starts to make a little more sense (in a crazy sort ot way).

[Joseph565112]

God Bless the Revolutionaries and the Confederates. Actually given what our government initially was and was meant to be the first Revolutionaries were Confederates as well.

DEO VINDICE

[cds10690]

you mean god damn the Confederates

[csason]

Regards.. hammerdrills and all..;)

[utubehayter]

thank you for posting this

[klaptongroovemaster]

Rothbard is badass

[ProclaimLiberty]

Thank you for posting this. This speech by Rothbard was one of the instigators to changing my way of thinking.