Libertarianism kills ... people

[Swammerdami]

I was curious how a thread titled "Libertarianism kills people" devolved into a discussion of whether the U.S. admitted to targeting civilians with its WWII carpet-bombing and fire-bombing! None of the WWII belligerents were Libertarian.

(I think we can dispense with the sub-debate. The U.S. definitely did target civilians, if only because it knew that munitions factories were dependent on human workers and therefore that bombing workers' homes was a convenient way to cripple the factories. U.S. reluctance to admit it was targeting civilians is understandable. I personally think those bombings were proper: Germany and Japan killed far more civilians than the U.S.; putting a quick stop to these atrocities was a worthy goal.)

The hijack began because Brooks (or OP) mentioned defeating fascism as something the post-rational U.S. could no longer accomplish:

I would be hard-pressed to find a better reason for the turn from the collective effort that ended the Great Depression and defeated fascism in World War II than the libertarian philosophy of promoting individualism over collectivism in virtually every aspect of society and the economy. Collectivism is nowhere better demonstrated than in government.

And the hijack began:

I am dubious of the claim that the US won WWII.

In the Pacific mostly.

In the West mostly the Russians won the war.

I was one of the culprits:

The Soviets did not defeat Germany without assistance.

... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FMxQyleTnk&ab_channel=Boozetowne ...

The Russians killed a lot more German soldiers.

The US killed mostly civilians. Targeted civilians.

(It's about location. The Russians were killing Germans on Russian soil. Had it been convenient for them to kill more German civilians I don't think Stalin would have hesitated.)

I'm afraid Mr. Bomb, questioning whether the U.S. admitted to targeting civilians, must get some of the blame as well. Let's listen to the General in charge of both the "strategic" bombing of Japan and Operation Starvation.

You've got to kill people. And when you've killed enough they stop fighting.

Bloodthirsty LeMay was hardly reprimanded for murdering civilians. Instead he was eventually promoted to head the U.S. Air Force. (There were even calls to award him a fifth star — I think he would have became the first active officer so promoted in peace time.)

 

[untermensche]

We have the Pentagon Papers.

We have video of US troops so blood thirsty they killed reporters and kids in Iraq.

When the troops found out they said the civilian should not have brought his kids to a firefight.

The firefight was US helicopter troops killing reporters from beyond the sight of the people on the ground.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I was curious how a thread titled "Libertarianism kills people" devolved into a discussion of whether the U.S. admitted to targeting civilians with its WWII carpet-bombing and fire-bombing! None of the WWII belligerents were Libertarian.

Basically people agree that targeting civilians is bad.
Many people in this forum think Libertarianism is bad.
Therefore the two are the same thing.

 

[Bomb#20]

What would they know? According to your theory, they have no more access to the minds of the planners than you have.

They would know if civilians were targeted simply by looking at where the bombs dropped.

No need to see any minds.

Have you ever tried to hit a target from 20,000 feet up while flying at 350 mph? Your argument for the unobservable intention you claim existed is exactly the same as this one: "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

I was curious how a thread titled "Libertarianism kills people" devolved into a discussion of whether the U.S. admitted to targeting civilians with its WWII carpet-bombing and fire-bombing! None of the WWII belligerents were Libertarian.

No, but Libertarianism is capitalist and America is capitalist, so America mustn't get credit for anything, so untermensche was belittling our contribution to beating the Germans, because SD's Brooks reference baited him.

The hijack began because Brooks (or OP) mentioned defeating fascism as something the post-rational U.S. could no longer accomplish:
...
I'm afraid Mr. Bomb, questioning whether the U.S. admitted to targeting civilians, must get some of the blame as well. Let's listen to the General in charge of both the "strategic" bombing of Japan and Operation Starvation.

But I didn't question whether the U.S. admitted to targeting Japanese civilians -- we were debating untermensche's denigration of our attacks on German military targets. I can't imagine even untermensche would give the Soviets the credit for beating the Japanese.

Anyway, sorry for participating in the derail. If you think there's yet more to be said about the OP's contention that a philosophy that appeals to 2% of the population is to blame for what's wrong with America, carry on.