Love Your Enemy

Jonathan Pageau offers that the highest value in Christianity is love; it is this that is at the top of the hierarchy.  His comments, reasonably well-captured, I hope:

Jonathan Pageau: But there’s a key in that, in the “love your enemy” thing.  It’s important to understand it.  One of the problems of reality that these hierarchies of tribalism, these hierarchies of identity are inevitable.  You can’t avoid them.  They have to exist or else the world stops to exist; it ceases to exist.

And so, how do you deal with it?  A lot of the Christian answers are something like that: love your enemy.  Love your enemy doesn’t mean that he’s not your enemy.  It’s not saying that this person is not your enemy.  It’s saying that this person is your enemy; you have to find it in yourself – and you can still defend yourself, actually. 

In terms of Christian understanding, no Christian country would say you need to let yourself get invaded by another country.  But the idea is that you need to continue to see the humanity of even the person that’s attacking you, and to see that they share something in common with you, even though they are your enemy.

Living By The Sword

I would like to follow-up on two of my earlier posts: Deliver Us From Evil, and The Lion and the Lamb.  These posts deal with the issue of using physical force in defense.  Are we called by Scripture to be pacifist?  That is the question.

I know the views stemming from the sacrifice of Jesus, or from using the verse that is paraphrased in the title of this post.  I do not intend to develop these here, but will address these views later.  I intend to offer something to the contrary – as I have in these earlier posts.  Several verses are offered, interspersed with my thoughts.  Note: where indicated with an asterisk, these passages were found here:

Psalm 82: 3 Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.  4 Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

Isaiah 1: 17 Learn to do right; seek justice.  Defend the oppressed.  Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.

Proverbs 31: 9 Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.

Here are several verses about defending the weak, those who are oppressed.  I wonder: are we to defend them only with words, perhaps just in court, in front of a judge?  Are we only to act passively, after the injustice has been committed – perhaps even their murder?  What if defending them requires something more…like a sword?

Jeremiah 22: 3 This is what the Lord says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place.

This is another verse on defending those oppressed.  It requires that one does not shed innocent blood while doing so.  It offers no prohibition regarding the blood of the guilty.  The following verse offers an insight regarding what the guilty can expect:

Exodus 22: 2 “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed. *

At night, intentions are not clear.  In the daytime, presumably, intentions can be better understood.

Proverbs 24: 11 Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. 

How would we rescue those being led away to death?  Again, with words, a judge – after they are killed?  God will repay us according to what we have done.  Continuing with this passage:

12 If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?  Does not he who guards your life know it?  Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done?

According to this verse, it seems this also includes being repaid for what we haven’t done.  Perhaps like not using the sword to defend those being led away to death.  This might be better understood by the following:

Exodus 21: 14 But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death. 15 “Anyone who attacks their father or mother is to be put to death. 16 “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession. *

Deuteronomy 24: 7 If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you. *

Am I on safe ground to suggest that if these actions are worthy of the perpetrator being put to death, these are also actions for which one may physically intervene to defend the poor and oppressed?  Again, what does “defend” mean?  Is it only in court, in judgement?  It doesn’t seem to be helpful to the dead victim if this is the case.

Are weapons allowed?  In Nehemiah, the Jews have returned to rebuild the walls.  The locals are opposed to this.

Nehemiah 4: 13 Therefore I stationed some of the people behind the lowest points of the wall at the exposed places, posting them by families, with their swords, spears and bows. 14 After I looked things over, I stood up and said to the nobles, the officials and the rest of the people, “Don’t be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your families, your sons and your daughters, your wives and your homes.” *

Half the men did work while the other half held swords.  This was to defend against the locals – not against animals of prey, but human beings.

But enough of the Old Testament.  Many, like  Marcion of Sinope, believe that the Old Testament doesn’t really count anyway.  Let’s go to the New Testament.

America Invaded; Government Impotent in Response

Fantastic, I know.  Perhaps you are thinking, “what – is this a post about the War of 1812?”  After all, that might be the last (if not only) time that one would consider the statement in the title to be true. 

It has long helped that the United States was protected from invasion by two vast oceans.  It also helps that the United States spends more on military, intelligence, security than much of the rest of the world combined.  It also helps that the population is well armed.

To the extent one considers Pearl Harbor or 911 an invasion, the response to each was most certainly not “impotent.” 

So, who could ever invade, and if they did so why on earth would the United States be impotent in its response?

WASHINGTON — Supporters of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, including his government security forces and several armed individuals, violently charged a group of protesters outside the Turkish ambassador’s residence here on Tuesday night in what the police characterized as “a brutal attack.”

Eleven people were injured, including a police officer, and nine were taken to a hospital, the Metropolitan Police chief, Peter Newsham, said at a news conference on Wednesday. Two Secret Service agents were also assaulted in the melee, according to a federal law enforcement official.

And the initial response?

The State Department condemned the attack as an assault on free speech and warned Turkey that the action would not be tolerated. “We are communicating our concern to the Turkish government in the strongest possible terms,” said Heather Nauert, a State Department spokeswoman.

No arrests.

Agents of a foreign government, on American soil, attacked and beat Americans.  An invasion; an impotent response.

Maybe the protestors instigated the aggression; Erdogan’s security detail was merely acting in defense?

Hardly.  The New York Times (yes, I know) has done an extensive examination of the many videos that were taken at the time of the attack.  Here is what they found:

The men kicked people lying on the ground and put a woman in a chokehold just a mile from the White House. They outnumbered the protesters nearly two to one.

Ten of the men who attacked protesters appear to be part of a formal security detail. Two of these men charged protesters and appeared to start the main part of the fight.  At one point, as many as four of the men were attacking the same protester.

Six men who attacked protesters wore outfits resembling a summer uniform worn by Turkish guards…One man knocked two women to the ground, and another man repeatedly punched Lucy Usoyan, a protester, as she lay on the ground.

Some of the attackers identified themselves as supporters of Turkey’s president…Two of these men, Alpkenan Dereci and Sinan Narin, were involved at the very beginning, when they pushed and punched protesters they met in the street.

But why call this an invasion?  Did the Turkish government have anything to do with this?

Turkey’s president, Mr. Erdogan, watched the brawl from a black Mercedes-Benz sedan parked nearby, at the Turkish ambassador’s residence. His role in the clash, if any, is unclear. But video of his entourage shows that at least one member of the security detail positioned next to him rushed into the fight and started kicking and punching protesters.

While sitting in the car, Mr. Erdogan conferred with Muhsin Kose, his head of security, who leaned into the car’s rear door. After speaking with Mr. Erdogan, Mr. Kose talked into his earpiece, and three security personnel who were guarding the president’s car hurried toward the protest.

The brawl began moments later, and one of these men, a heavy-set bald man, appeared on video punching and kicking people.

Mr. Kose talked to Mr. Erdogan throughout the brawl.

It is worth going to the article; the video examination is very thorough and telling.

Conclusion

Almost two weeks later and still no arrests, no sanctions, no statement from Trump, nothing.

The United States can identify the guilty for terrorist events 6000 miles from shore within 30 minutes; the United States can find a way to retaliate for such “crimes” within a few days thereafter.

Within minutes, the US government can place economic and financial sanctions on Russia, Iran, Syria, etc.  None of which have invaded the United States.

But an invasion by a foreign government on US soil?  Nothing. 

Impotent.

Make America Great Again?  Pass the Viagra.

Investing in Defense Contractors

A question for Walter Block (condensed):

My question is, would it be a violation of the NAP or libertarian principles for anti-war libertarians to own stock in companies such as those, either through index funds or by purchasing individual shares in a brokerage account?

Would a libertarian be in violation of the NAP or libertarian principle by working for any of those companies as well, in a capacity not directly related to warfare?

Before specifically getting to Walter’s reply…I have dealt with this topic before, long ago in the very early days of bionic mosquito.  At the time, the point was raised by Richard Maybury at The Daily Bell.  I have a series of posts on this topic of investing in defense contractors, but offer the following as the most relevant:

Richard Maybury: The Ugly: This post expands, in a somewhat crude way given bionic was just a pup at the time, my initial comments on the view that it is not consistent with the NAP for a libertarian to own defense stocks.

Richard Maybury at The Daily Bell: this post furthers the dialogue, including a back-and-forth between bionic and whoever was dealing with feedback at The Daily Bell that day.  This post continues that same dialogue with TDB.

Now, on to Walter’s reply (condensed):

The problem with “owning stock” in a bad company is that you are sort of stuck. Stipulate that it is bad to do so. Well, then, what are you going to do? If you sell your shares, you besmirch the person who purchases them from you. Ditto for giving them away to someone else. How about if you just burn your stock certificates? Then, everyone else’s shares rise in value, with the same result. Stuck, I say.

I see no problem here.  What someone else does with his capital and given his principles is his business.  I am responsible for my own behavior; heaven help me if I am also responsible for the behavior of everyone else.

Yet, I see no answer to the underlying question; for example, what if I don’t own such stock today – therefore none of Walter’s concerns arise?  Is it a violation of the NAP to purchase such stock?

I offer one portion of my earlier posts, linked above; it should be noted, Marbury uses examples of handguns and the like when discussing the ethics of investing in Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics:

Maybury’s position on investing in things that do well in wartime is corrupt.  Maybury advocates profiting from the most hideous outward manifestation of the state: war.  Almost every weapon produced by such investments is one of mass destruction – not able to be aimed solely at the intended target (assuming you even trust the state’s judgment on the intended target, individuals half-way around the world that pose no harm to Americans).

One will say that the weapon cannot be immoral, only the operator.  This is correct for a rifle or bow and arrow.  It can be aimed at the intended target.  Not so for weapons of modern warfare.  All such weapons produce what is sanitarily called “collateral damage.”  These cannot be used in a moral manner.

I go on to cite a Rothbard passage on this same point.

Returning to Walter:

What about working for an evil firm, or, for the government? Well, I was employed by several public universities. One justification is that such schools are not evil per se, since colleges would also exist in the free society.

This is a confusing statement.  Why intersperse teaching at a university with the answer to the question at hand?  In any case, I generally agree with Walter’s conclusion – colleges would exist in a free society.  Further, as colleges are virtually all captured by the state, one who has a calling to be a professor has little choice about the funding nature of his employer; most colleges and universities receive significant state funding – directly and indirectly.

What about working for a governmental institution totally incompatible with liberty, such as the Fed or the CIA. Here, I would say that a libertarian could do so, but, only if he undermined the mission of these institutions, not promoted them.

I cannot disagree with this, although I am personally not very comfortable with this.  What can one say about an Edward Snowden, for example?  That such as he is so rare and that such efforts result in negligible fundamental change suggests how difficult it is to destroy from the inside. 

Otherwise, stay clear – there is nothing compatible with liberty here; such entities would never exist in anything even remotely resembling their current form absent government.

And I say the same for today’s defense contractors; and I conclude that investing in these is a violation of the NAP.

Conclusion

I offer below my responses to the nuanced portions of the original questions.  I realize these are delving deep into the gray areas, so I offer my replies with this caveat:

What about investing in defense contractors through an index fund?  If the index is a broad-based industrial index, I do not see an issue; if it is a focused defense and aerospace index, I think not.

What about taking a non-warfare-related position in a defense contractor?  If it is in the washing machine division, I see no problem.  If it is general corporate G&A or overhead, then I see it as a problem.

The Future of Air Travel

I give it about ten years….

·        Fingerprints, retina scans, and DNA swabs.

·        You will be required to disrobe entirely.

·        Body cavity searches at the TSA agent’s discretion.

·        You will, of course, be offered a private screening room.

·        Your clothes will be returned to you at the arrival city.

·        New clothes will be issued to you for the flight; something akin to the blue hospital robes with the open backside.

·        Oh, and slippers.

·        Your clothes, carry-ons, and luggage will be sent on a separate, baggage-only plane.

·        All hard drives and electronic devices will have all data duplicated onto government-controlled media.

·        As your plane will carry no baggage, it can now offer double-decker seating; this will offset the cost of the second, baggage-only plane.

·        Upon arrival, your clothes will be returned.

·        The arrival city is free to demand another full body screening and cavity search.