July 29, 2006

Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam, Circumspice
Everett

I can give my pieces Latin titles too.

I also can't help but wonder why "rampant capitalism" is as bad as Communism. One has been the greatest generator of wealth in history. The other mires its those in its thrall in abject poverty. One is depends upon the exercise of liberty by economic actors. The other denies all rights to those under its power. One allows individuals to advance economically by virtue of their own talents. The other reduces everyone save the ruling elite to the lowest common denominator. The imperfections of capitalist systems stem from the inherently flawed nature of its actors. The flaws of Communism and other, less extreme socialisms are inherently systemic.

It means nothing to say that the rights of the individual need to be against the rights of the society without defining what the rights of each are. And the rights of each cannot be defined without defining what their duties are. "Taxation that helps the poor" does not show "good social awareness" unless it is proper for the state to provide for the poor, something you have asserted but failed to support with anything like an argument. Bear in mind that I'm not questioning the obligation of the individual to help those in need, but rather the assertion that it is the responsibility of the state to do so.

To quote Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest."

I've said it before, and I'll say it again now. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is one of the most morally obtuse statements ever. A freedom fighter is defined by the objective he seeks to attain, while a terrorist is defined by the tactics he uses. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but it is possible to be a freedom fighter without being a terrorist and vice versa, and it is foolishness to equate the two. A freedom fighter fights (at least in theory) for a just cause, while terrorism is never justified because it ipso facto targets civilians.

It is pointless to trot out figures of civilian casualties in Iraq (50,000 is the most recent number I've heard) without considering who has killed them and under what circumstances they were killed. If you have any evidence that a significant number of those civilians were deliberately killed by coalition forces (esp. American forces), I'd like to see it. I don't have any hard numbers handy, but it wouldn't surprise me if at least 85% of the civilian deaths have been caused by terrorist/insurgent activity. If I'm right, there can be no moral comparison drawn between 9/11 and United States action in Iraq. Rather, the comparison should be drawn between 9/11 and insurgent and terrorist activity in Iraq.

Also, I've made some comments concerning civilian casualties that I'd be interested in your opinion on over at my blog: http://dwobd.blogspot.com.

What lies have been told in support of the Iraq war? The WMD intelligence appears to have been wrong (though it is also possible Saddam had his WMD shipped to Syria with Russian help before the U.S. invaded), but is there any evidence that this was widely known prior to the invasion of Iraq? If anything, Saddam's ties to al Qaeda have been shown to be much more extensive than was believed prior to the U.S. invasion. Contrary to Joe Wilson's assertions, Iraq was interested in purchasing yellow-cake uranium from Niger and were taking steps to acquire it. Saddam was also waiting for the UN sanctions regime to collapse so that he could fire up WMD manufacturing programs again. Certainly things were not as we thought them, but it's quite a leap to then conclude that the arguments made in support of the invasion were in any way dishonest.

Concern for people in far-flung regions of the globe is all well and good, but surely the command to love your neighbor as yourself is a better guiding principle. After all, is it not your obligation to help those with whom you come in contact first? You talk about a brotherhood of man, yet your notion world-citizenship seems to ignore the needs of those you are in the best position to help. What's more, you seem to be imposing an economic litmus test to determine who is worthy of your charity. Concern for the poor is certainly an essential element of the Christian life, but charity begins at home, and the command to love your neighbor as yourself does not consider class in determining who your neighbor is.