When just
war doctrine says that a war can be legitimate only if carried out by lawful
authority, the point is in part that private individuals have no right to declare
and prosecute a war, no matter how just their cause. Only governments have that right. But that doesn’t mean that just anyone in government has the right. As Francisco Suarez writes in his classic
treatment of just war doctrine:
[A]n inferior prince, or an imperfect state, or whosoever in
temporal affairs is under a superior, cannot justly declare war without the
authorization of that superior. A reason
for the conclusion is, first, that a prince of this kind can claim his right
from his superior, and therefore has not the right to declare war; since, in
this respect, he has the character of a private person. For it is because of the reason stated that
private persons cannot declare war. A
second reason in support of this same conclusion is that such a declaration of
war is opposed to the rights of the sovereign prince, to whom that power has
been specially entrusted; for without such power he could not govern peacefully
and suitably…
[A] war which, according to the preceding conclusion, is
declared without legitimate authority, is contrary not only to charity, but
also to justice, even if a legitimate cause for it exists. The reason supporting this conclusion is that
such an act is performed without legitimate jurisdiction, and is consequently
an illegitimate act…
[H]e who makes war without the authorization in question,
even if he has, in other respects, a just ground for so doing, nevertheless
incurs the penalties imposed upon those who wage an unjust war. (The Three Theological Virtues: On Charity,
Disputation XIII: On War, Section II)
Hence,
suppose that the mayor of an American city, or the governor of some U.S. state,
attempted to take the United States to war with Venezuela. Obviously, such an act would have no legal or
moral justification, for mayors and governors simply have no authority to do
such a thing. And equally obviously,
this would remain the case regardless of the justice of their cause.
But under
the U.S. constitution, the same thing is true of the President of the United
States. It is Congress rather than the President
that has the authority to maintain and fund the armed forces and to declare war. While the President is commander-in-chief,
that entails only that he is in charge of prosecuting a war once it is
initiated, not that he can himself initiate it.
To be sure, the War Powers Resolution – itself passed by Congress – adds
that the President can take military action in limited ways such as repelling
an immediate attack on the U.S. But he
must still consult with Congress and may not continue the action beyond sixty
days without congressional approval.
Nor can it
be said that custom has rendered such limitations a dead letter. It is true that presidents sometimes have
acted in ways that arguably go beyond them.
But when they have done so, this has typically been protested and
resisted as contrary to the law, rather than accepted as a de facto norm. Moreover, presidents still often do seek congressional
approval, and are expected to do so, especially when proposing a major military
action. For example, the Bush
administration’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and against terrorists were
conducted under congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Naturally, one can question whether
everything that that administration did was justifiable under just war criteria,
but it does seem at least to have met the “lawful authority” condition.
Nor would it
do to suggest that the U.S. constitution is merely man-made law and thus
irrelevant to just war doctrine, which is a matter of natural law. For it is part of standard natural law
teaching that human law, like natural law, is binding in conscience as long as
it is not contrary to the natural law. Now,
whatever one thinks of the way the U.S. constitution sets out war powers, it is
not contrary to natural law. One can
argue that a different way of setting them out would have been better, but this
gives one no right whatsoever to ignore or disobey the law as it actually
stands.
And there
are in fact good reasons for the limits the U.S. constitution puts on presidential
power where war is concerned. For while
war can be just, it is extremely morally hazardous even in the best of
circumstances, and the passions associated with it frequently overwhelm reason. It should never be resorted to lightly, without
very careful weighing of the relevant moral and practical considerations. Limiting the president’s discretion where
war-making is concerned facilitates this.
Addressing the question of how citizens can be confident that a proposed
war is just, the eminent Catholic natural law theorist Heinrich Rommen wrote:
[F]reedom of the press and freedom of speech… afford a chance
for the issue to be presented broadly and objectively and for both sides to be
heard. A good opportunity exists also
where the representatives of the people have some control over the foreign
policy of the government. Another
favorable factor would be a constitutional provision that the most concentrated
competence of sovereignty – the declaration of war – be exercised “by
plebiscite or at least by resolution of representatives of the people” …
Only where these factors in some way operate, has the
individual citizen an access to the elements of fact and of law that make the justice
of the case… [W]here the public authority is uncontrolled and the citizen is
merely the subject of tendentious propaganda, he has hardly any access to the
objective facts which constitute the truth and to the justice of the case, and
must nolens volens rely upon
authority. (The State in Catholic Thought, p. 671)
Now, in the
case of possible war with Venezuela, the Trump administration has not only not
received congressional authorization, it has manifestly offered only “tendentious
propaganda” in support of such action.
My previous article noted some examples of this, such as the attempt to
stretch the word “terrorism” to cover actions which, while criminal and
immoral, are simply not “terrorist” in the legal sense. A similar sophistry was put forward this
week, when the administration declared
fentanyl to be a “weapon of mass destruction” (WMD). This is as absurd as pretending that Saddam
Hussein was a WMD (as some defenders of the Bush administration did when no
actual WMD had been found in Iraq). Like
Saddam, fentanyl is very bad indeed. But
like Saddam, fentanyl is nevertheless not a “weapon of mass destruction” in any
literal or legal sense.
President
Trump also this week suggested
that U.S. military action is justified because of Venezuelan theft of American “oil,
land, and other assets.” What he appears
to have in mind is Hugo Chavez’s taking control of oil assets from various American
companies almost twenty years ago. But
protecting corporate business interests is hardly a compelling reason to send
American servicemen to die. Moreover,
some of the companies in question have been compensated, other claims are still
being litigated, and the companies have
indicated that they have no interest in returning to Venezuela anyway.
Hence the
administration has still failed to make the case that war with Venezuela meets
the “just cause” condition of just war doctrine. And in any case, as I have argued, it has
also failed to meet the “lawful authority” condition. It seems the administration itself may
realize that much. The Washington Post has
reported that:
administration officials made a concerted push to reassure
potential GOP defectors – walking back Trump’s repeated threats of escalation
and sharing with them more details about its aggressive activities to disrupt
the Latin American drug trade.
Crucially, it appears, Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco
Rubio provided a classified briefing for select members of Congress where they
indicated the administration is not currently preparing to target Venezuela
directly and didn’t have a proper legal argument
for doing so, people familiar with the meeting told The Washington Post. (emphasis added)
Let’s hope that, Trump’s rhetoric and the massive naval buildup notwithstanding, concerns about the legality of a war with Venezuela will prevent the administration from starting one.
As Susie Wiles said, Trump wants Maduro to cry uncle and step down. He might.
ReplyDeleteobviously a politically inept individual can barely see 2 steps ahead of an action let alone assume a 5th step complex strategy
DeleteTrump gave Maduro many opportunities to cry uncle. Maduro stupidly called Trump's bluff and now is in an U.S. jail. The Venezuelan people rejoice that he has been held accountable.
DeleteLike Saddam, fentanyl is very bad indeed. But like Saddam, fentanyl is nevertheless not a “weapon of mass destruction” in any literal or legal sense.
ReplyDeleteTrue.
This is as absurd as pretending that Saddam Hussein was a WMD (as some defenders of the Bush administration did when no actual WMD had been found in Iraq).
It is absurd. However, a small correction: chemical WMD were in fact found in Iraq, just in far smaller amounts than had been trumpeted. Some claims had run as high as 30,000 tons of chemicals. US troops found something on the order of 5,000 chemical missiles, most of them old. The disposal of these was difficult, and there were soldiers that had to be treated for exposure to the chemicals. It wasn't 30,000 tons. And it wasn't 0.
But claiming fentanyl is a WMD is absurd. Hospitals use the stuff for pain.
The Iraq War was justified by the specific claim that Saddam was continuing to research and manufacture WMDs, which was false. What were found were leftover weapons from a program that had been halted 10 years earlier, rotting in storage and far from usable. Had the Bush administration not been determined to prosecute the war under any pretext, they would have noticed just how flimsy the intel justfying the war really was. Instead, we got an unjust war.
DeleteIt's true that Bush engaged in a campaign to inflate the danger from WMD. It's also true that Bush would have had just cause for returning to fighting the hot war (from the lukewarm war that was going on for a decade as containment after the 1st Gulf war), because Hussein had not lived up to his cease-fire treaty obligations. As proven by the 16 UN resolutions saying that. Bush apparently made the political guess that he would not get approval for returning to hot war without some new basis besides that, so he inflated the WMD problem. he shouldn't have done that. But the WMD excuse was in fact an add-on to the already existing just cause of war. The war may have been fought under false pretenses as to the WMDs, and maybe he was right that he could not get congressional approval without lying about the WMDs, and if so then his war was an unjust war by sidestepping proper authorization through lies. But the lies didn't erase the prior just cause that existed.
DeleteWait, so now "not living up to one's cease-fire treaty obligations" is a blank check for war? In that case, both Israel and Hamas ought to resume the Gaza war immediately, since neither side is actually following the ceasefire agreement.
DeleteAlso, inconvenient as it may be, Hussein was justified in refusing to cooperate with the UN inspections, because they were being carried out in bad faith as an excuse for US espionage and had consistently found that Iraq had no capacity to use or manufacture WMDs. If you were a criminal, and a crooked cop was using a warrant to search your house for stolen goods as an excuse to scope out it out for a burglary, the fact that you're a criminal doesn't negate your right not to be victim of illegal actions yourself.
Again and again, I'm impressed by how the strict moral seriousness of Just War Theory is vindicated in the real world. Everybody thinks their pet war is special. Everybody wants to bend the rules just this once. It never turns out well. You either tick all the Just War boxes, or you stay home.
As Tony pointed out, any war would not be with Venezuela (whose legitimate leader is Edmundo Gonzales) but with Maduro and the cartels. Maduro must know that if he does not cry uncle, there is a likelihood of him having a similar fate to the Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu in 1989.
ReplyDeleteThat happened in the context of a much larger dramatic movement in Eastern European nations. People in the U.S. are too focused on the shiny image of Donald Trump and not enough on the large-scale rightward shift in Latin American nations. Brian Winter on "Latin America's Revolution of the Right" in Foreign Affairs magazine is a reasonable place to start.
So, war is war. Seems to me there are no "just" wars, except through contrivance. Under just war doctrine, it is assumed one side is right; the other(s), wrong. But, *nobody's right, if everybody's wrong*---that's an old line from an old song, and another example of the contextual reality notion.
DeleteJustification of war is fallacy, as far as I can tell.
Sure, it can be argued that conflicts like the American revolution were justified, on the basis of foreign imperialism. Point made, and taken. However, there may have been peaceful settlement, had there been cooler heads to prevail. No, it was not about tea---that was just a silly pretext. A symbolic demonstration. Looking at the outcome, pragmatically, someone won and someone lost. Two world wars showed that coordination, cooperation and brute force could prevail. Justification of war =, roughly, pragmatic fallacy, because we could be, "better than that". We, after all these generations and conflicts, are not. Which is a large piece of my contention concerning what I've called contextual reality. That root word, context, is showing up more in discourse now. You are welcome.
Oh come on. When the Vikings or Visigoths are at your gates, and not inclined to treat because if you don't fight, they will take your wealth, kill all the men, rape all the women, and take slaves, whereas if you fight them, their warriors will have a great day proving themselves, THEN kill all the men, rape all the women, and take your wealth and slaves: they simply don't care what terms you would offer, they have a better offer anyway. It's fight them, or suffer torture, dishonor, rape, death, and pillage. You're not "justified" to fight them?
DeleteMy understanding, when offering comments, was we were discussing war, and whether there is lawful authority for *just war* doctrine. I'm drawing a distinction---or attempting to. Vikings and Visigoths were outlaws, from the get. Their motives were rape and plunder, a priori. Any notion of them fighting a war, just or unjust, is misplaced, in my opinion. If anyone, wants to make a different distinction, go ahead .
DeleteWars have produced war crimes and criminals. Always shall. Whether wars emerge as just or unjust, history tries to decide. Sometimes. Sometimes history errs. Vikings, and so on, always erred. They were rapists and plunderers because they could rape and plunder, i.e., they were criminals.
So, are combatants in wars criminals? It very much depends on whether they are ever brought to trial and convicted. Luckier ones die first.
Happy Holidays!
Anon, come on. This is manifestly, obviously horseshit, and you should know better. Trying to claim that you're "not at war with a country but just their leader" is sophistry of the highest order. Whether Maduro is popular or not, whether he's legitimate or not, he still represents the Venezuelan people, at least for now. It also doesn't mean that you have permission from the Venezuelan people to do a little regime change. Just because a leader is bad or unpopular, that doesn't mean you can just put your own puppet in power. But it's quite obvious to me from your post that you don't give a shit about the justice of the actions you support. Since you've been posting about the goodness of South America's rightward lurch, I am going to make an educated guess that you are simply on a crusade to overthrow all of South America's socialist governments, and that crusade justifies everything in your eyes, so you don't care how many innocent people get killed in the process. The ends justify the means, right? Wait, are you the same anon who posted about how "radical feminists" might take over Venezuela and legalize abortion? If so, then I hope you realize the nauseating hypocrisy of claiming to be "pro-life" while being a war hawk. If so, you're not pro-life, you're just pro-forced birth.
DeleteEXE,
DeleteI am not the Anon who posted about radical feminists taking over Venezuela. Many nations do not consider Maduro as having won the last election, just as many nations in the seventh coalition against Napoleon did not consider Napoleon as the legitimate ruler of France (he had been exiled in Elba and took over the country in a coup) and specifically stated that their war was not with France but with Napoleon.
Invalid comparison. Napoleon declared war on those countries and was perpetually hostile, obviously intending to build a system of imperial dominance. Maduro is doing nothing of the sort. Even if it is true that many South American countries consider him illegitimate (and I'd ask you to provide receipts for such claims before I took them seriously), that still doesn't mean you or they are just allowed to go in and perform regime change willy-nilly.
Deletethat still doesn't mean you or they are just allowed to go in and perform regime change willy-nilly.
DeleteThat's true.
However: there is a fuzzy area, under natural law, about where and when other countries can (justly) interpose and intervene in a neighboring country that has not declared war on its neighbors, and generally the answer has NOT been "never". When an illegitimate leader takes control outside of the workings of local law, his lack of legitimacy makes him closer to "fair game" for intervention - though not BY ITSELF sufficient for an intervention of war. If he then imposes categorically unjust forms of social (dis)order, that raises the basis for possible intervention. If he then makes life difficult for all and extremely difficult for many, so that they feel they must flee, then that need for flight to other countries clearly raises higher the neighbors' grounds for intervention. Even a purely internal grave evil of government, if massive enough, would potentially justify intervention, e.g. genocide (as in Kosovo 1994? Armenia 1920?). Just war theory (as developed so far) doesn't give clear and explicit formulation of the limits of this kind of just cause of war, but traditionally has NOT excluded such as presenting "just cause".
In this case: socialism is a per se, categorically unjust form of social order. This is taught by Catholic doctrine, not simply as doctrine but as included in the natural law and therefore knowable under the natural light of reason.
However, Maduro didn't start it the move to socialism, Chavez did. As he also started the authoritarianism / loss of democratic forms. On the other hand, Maduro was Chavez's vice-president, and had some responsibility for the state of affairs even before he first took the "presidency". And the last 2 elections, under Maduro himself, were considered rigged by outside observers. So: a mixed bag, but "illegitimate ruler" is at least not clearly a false claim.
It is obvious that with towering inflation and other economic woes, their socialist-leaning changes have made life difficult for everyone, and greatly difficult for many, leading to massive emigration of @ 8M, or over 25%. This is regional crisis level, not local. There is at least plausible room for other countries in the region to decide to intervene to stem the tide, and to address the underlying cause of it. There is also room for them to try to avoid that by resorting to other means, if feasible. But are there any? That's not an easy question. In general, if you "get involved in the internal affairs of another country, you're on a very slippery slope," to quote a famous line. It's true. And generally countries should not intervene merely when a neighbor's bad (but real) self choices work out the way you predicted (i.e. badly), but that limiting constraint isn't the only applicable rule when the ramifications are no longer "internal". Sometimes prudence leaves you with ONLY poor options, and you must choose the least bad of them.
I don't think that this all means the US should go to war with Venezuela: it's not obvious that this is the right solution, and even if (still hypothetical) there were a just cause of war here, of which I am not convinced, the other criteria would need to be met - and I would still be skeptical of our lying pres. I'm just pointing out that the just cause determinants are not WHOLLY straightforward and ALL pointing to "no just cause".
EXE,
DeleteTony points out some of the reasons why Maduro can be considered an illegitimate leader. Another one is that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Maria Corina Machado, the intellectual leader of the opposition to Maduro. This would not have happened had they considered Maduro the legitimate leader. Moreover, there were not outcries of protests that Machado was unsuitable for the Nobel Peace Prize; that would have been the case if Maduro were largely seen as the legitimate ruler. Hence, the distinction between Venezuela and the cartels/Maduro as to whom Trump is opposing makes sense.
Nor do I advocate "the ends justify the means"; I am not a consequentialist. Most consequentialist ethicists are on the left, by the way; most right-wing traditionalists are natural law ethicists or virtue ethicists or neo-Kantian deontological ethics.
I'll grant that these are much better arguments. I generally agree with them, at a basic level. Certainly there are some situations where intervention is legitimate - for instance, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam invaded Cambodia to stop Pol Pot's genocide. However, there's one assertion you made that I'd like to challenge as incorrect. That being the assertion that socialism is a per se evil by Catholic doctrine, and especially that such is knowable as part of the natural law. On the first point, the Catechism only condemns "atheistic and totalitarian governments associated with socialism and communism". This'd only rule out stuff like the Soviet Union - and if you think that's all Socialism can be, you really need to expand your understanding, because it's so parochial that it's leading you astray. John Paul II used Marxist concepts in Laborem Exercens, Benedict XVI praised democratic socialism, and Pope Francis even went so far as to call Marxists (specifically, as opposed to Socialists more generally) as being the ones who thought like the true Christians (in my experience, this is mostly correct too, at least in the modern day). You could, of course, claim that they're all just awful Popes and all wrong, and stick with the late 19th-early 20th century Popes instead, but unless you're diving headfirst into the swamp of sedevacantism, it's hard to see how there could be any logically valid reason to draw that line, as opposed to mere personal bias. The later popes had the benefit of hindsight and a more nuanced experience of what socialism was and could be, after all.
DeleteIt's even less clear that this idea is so obvious that it can be deduced purely from natural law (if by that you mean the observation of the natural world - I find that many Catholic thinkers use natural law as merely a cloak for Catholic doctrine and play rhetorical shell games to make it seem otherwise). It's hard to see how social ownership of the means of production as opposed to private ownership could be intrinsically evil. Can you explain to me what you mean?
@EXE: I don’t know what “marxist” concepts you think JPII had in those encyclicals, but I doubt it meant what you seem to think. Benedict praised democratic socialism for “a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness”, but kept far away from praising it as a good formal or conceptual understanding of human organization of the economy. Benedict’s most inciteful addition to the state of the question (after confirming what JPII said) was to propose for advancement the idea of gratuitousness as an essential element of social order – something not even remotely in line with socialism. Francis was notoriously sloppy stating Church teaching, and given to many gaffe’s, gaps, and exaggerations, so without a specific statement of his, I can only say: how does it FIT with what all the popes before him said? Which is the standard I would live with.
DeleteThe Church teaches that private property is part of the natural law. I have no problem with people voluntarily forming cooperatives, communes of certain sorts, and similar arrangements with various kinds of mutuality engineered into them, choosing to subordinate their (past) private ownership of goods to a (small) social group, as component pieces of the larger social order. (One might argue that a corporation constitutes just such a cooperative society within the larger society.) Socialism is different in that it means means that “society” controls ALL of the means of production.
I know that some socialist theorists argue that in socialism the state need not be the (theoretical) agent of control of the means of production, but I believe that there is a reason that, in actual socialist attempts, no other source has been the agent, and it’s a theoretical one, a flaw at the very heart of the problem: Only the state has the capacity to enforce community requirements for the use of the means of production, and the definition of “production”, and so the state will always be the gatekeeper in FINAL control of those means and the standards applied to determine when and how they fall under such control; and in practice no actual conversion from non-socialism to socialism can be envisioned without forcibly removing property that is now justly in private hands, which takes state-level force, and is consequently non-voluntary and unjust. So, whether you will or nill, the state is a necessary agent of the control needed. And so (unlike my initial point) when it isn’t voluntary, you deprive individuals of the use of their own discretion, ingenuity, and creativity to make good things the way they think good. This is in direct contradiction to subsidiarity, the correlative fundamental ordering principle of social order lying on the opposite end from solidarity.
And the general problem with such state-forced control (besides just plain getting such control): there is NO FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION between my private property that I “use” for my own welfare in producing something that I need, (like whittling a wooden dowel for a tool I use in my garden) and my private property that I use for “production” for my own welfare and for that of others (like whittling many wooden dowels that many could use similarly). The former is just me using my own stuff for myself. The latter violates socialism, but is inherently part of the meaning of private property. (In reality, I suppose my whittling the wooden dowel for myself also violates socialism, if there is some production plant that also makes them.) Socialism as such cannot allow me to treat my private property as private without violating its raison d’etre.
Here’s what JPII said in Centessiumus Annus, a later work than Laborem or Solucitudo:
Delete10… Rerum Novarum criticizes two social and economic systems: socialism and liberalism. The opening section, in which the right to private property is reaffirmed, is devoted to socialism…
11…If Pope Leo XIII calls upon the State to remedy the condition of the poor in accordance with justice, he does so because of his timely awareness that the State has the duty of watching over the common good and of ensuring that every sector of social life, not excluding the economic one, contributes to achieving that good, while respecting the rightful autonomy of each sector…
12. The commemoration of Rerum novarum would be incomplete unless reference were also made to the situation of the world today…
This is especially confirmed by the events which took place near the end of 1989 and at the beginning of 1990. These events, and the radical transformations which followed, can only be explained by the preceding situations which, to a certain extent, crystallized or institutionalized Leo XIII's predictions and the increasingly disturbing signs noted by his Successors. Pope Leo foresaw the negative consequences — political, social and economic — of the social order proposed by "socialism", which at that time was still only a social philosophy and not yet a fully structured movement. It may seem surprising that "socialism" appeared at the beginning of the Pope's critique of solutions to the "question of the working class" at a time when "socialism" was not yet in the form of a strong and powerful State, with all the resources which that implies, as was later to happen. However, he correctly judged the danger posed to the masses by the attractive presentation of this simple and radical solution to the "question of the working class" of the time — all the more so when one considers the terrible situation of injustice in which the working classes of the recently industrialized nations found themselves….
His words deserve to be re-read attentively: "To remedy these wrongs (the unjust distribution of wealth and the poverty of the workers), the Socialists encourage the poor man's envy of the rich and strive to do away with private property, contending that individual possessions should become the common property of all...; but their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that, were they carried into effect, the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are moreover emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community".39 The evils caused by the setting up of this type of socialism as a State system — what would later be called "Real Socialism" — could not be better expressed.
13. Continuing our reflections, and referring also to what has been said in the Encyclicals Laborem exercens and Sollicitudo rei socialis, we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property. A person who is deprived of something he can call "his own", and of the possibility of earning a living through his own initiative, comes to depend on the social machine and on those who control it.
Hey Tony, I notice that you omitted the first half of Benedict XVI's actual quote. The full quote is this:
Delete"In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness."
https://firstthings.com/europe-and-its-discontents/
I am very curious why you omitted the part where the Pope calls democratic socialism close to the Catholic ideal. A suspicious mind might suspect that you are trying to create and control a narrative.
As for your contention that there is no distinction between an artisan's tools and the massive machinery used in a factory, this is false. Maybe they could be considered as part of the same category in the abstract, but their uses are very different. This would be like conflating between a hunting shotgun and a nuclear bomb because they are both "weapons" and can be used to kill. Only the most extreme and fringe forms of Socialism would call for the expropriation of a gardener's spade or a workman's hammer, or ban single-person businesses. The primary thing Socialism is concerned with is the abolition of exploitative labor relations. A factory owner gets his money from the mere fact that he happens to legally own a factory, machinery, land, etc. He might do some work managing his assets or businesses, but he does not get paid "for" doing that in the same way that the technical assistant he hires to delegate these tasks to does. The asset produces wealth, the capitalist takes it, doles out a "rent payment" of sorts to the workers for producing it, then keeps the rest for himself. He does not NEED to do any work in order to get paid, and if the system is robust he might be able to get away with doing no work forever. The worker, meanwhile, gets his pay from selling his labor. He does the actual hard work involved in making the asset produce wealth, but he has no say in how that wealth is distributed, solely because he does not legally own the asset. The problem is that the wealth produced by the collective is distributed by one singular person or a small group of people, who unjustly privilege themselves and deny the majority of workers their just due. A single workman producing stuff for personal benefit is not performing any such exploitation, because he is not taking advantage of anyone else's labor.
I am very curious why you omitted the part where the Pope calls democratic socialism close to the Catholic ideal.
DeleteI suspect I didn't view it as an essential portion, because JPII expressly said socialism promotes envy, which is contrary to Catholic morals. I think the worthwhile point of agreement is in the point I brought out: the "formation of social consciousness".
The primary thing Socialism is concerned with is the abolition of exploitative labor relations.
One of the principal errors of socialism is the false claim that factory owners are (always) exploitive of laborers. There is no valid principle that supports this.
A factory owner gets his money from the mere fact that he happens to legally own a factory, machinery, land, etc. He might do some work managing his assets or businesses, but he does not get paid "for" doing that in the same way that the technical assistant he hires to delegate these tasks to does. The asset produces wealth, the capitalist takes it, doles out a "rent payment" of sorts to the workers for producing it, then keeps the rest for himself.
The one who invested his own assets, i.e. his private property, into building the tools and machines of the factory did in fact "do something": he applied his saved-up past energy (in the form of saved wealth), his ingenuity, and took a risk that doing this could produce something of more value to the human family than merely keeping it saved for a rainy day. This combination of actions is "worth" something. Leo XIII says this explicitly: the investor is justly due a portion of the wealth so generated.
The exact ratio of real value that ought to go to the investor / manager vs to the laborer is a matter of adjustment and prudence, and varies according to a vast array of factors. Two of the factors are supply and demand (but this applies both for investment money and for labor). Another is risk. And another is the base amount necessary to sustain labor.
He does not NEED to do any work in order to get paid, and if the system is robust he might be able to get away with doing no work forever.
If the system works even halfway normally, he is indeed working quite industriously when he sorts out what to invest in and what to avoid, and how to do start the ball, which is laborious. And investors who sit on their can "forever" eventually lose everything, because no wealth-producing system as complex as a large business is static, and the society is not static either.
He does the actual hard work involved in making the asset produce wealth, but he has no say in how that wealth is distributed
You seem to have bought the myth peddled by Marx and others. He does some of the hard work. The managers do hard work. The investors do hard work. The laborer gets to decide how to distribute that portion of the wealth that he contracted for that he is paid for his labor, as that labor is the wealth-generating asset he has control of.
The problem is that the wealth produced by the collective is distributed by one singular person or a small group of people, who unjustly privilege themselves and deny the majority of workers their just due.
Google has thousands of institutional investors/owners, and millions of individual investors: it's not a "small class".
Once we agree with Leo that the investor is justly due a portion of the wealth generated with his contribution to the effort, squabbling over the just proportions is not a matter of principle but of applied prudence in the arena of resource (wealth) use. There have been (a few) large employee-owned companies, and oddly enough, the wages paid out by the employee owners were not all that different from similar investor-owned companies. If the employees themselves set the wages, and those wages are in line with the wages offered an by investor-run company in the same market, that the investor isn't "exploiting" the laborers, is he?
The problem is that the wealth produced by the collective is distributed by one singular person or a small group of people, who unjustly privilege themselves and deny the majority of workers their just due.
DeleteSo, you would be fine with a small investor set who properly and justly divided up the profits between the parties involved, right? It's not the role of being investor that's the problem, but the unjust distribution?
I thought not: socialism says that ANY portion going to the investors is wrong, ALL of the profits belong to the workers. Pope Leo flat out denied this: the investor doesn't just put in his wealth: he analyzes what to invest in by seeking what is (currently) under-invested in (this may take a lot of work), with energy and creativity he plans out a program of building and construction and hiring and organization, and he risks his wealth in an uncertain attempt to produce wealth. This is worth something.
As for your contention that there is no distinction between an artisan's tools and the massive machinery used in a factory, this is false. Maybe they could be considered as part of the same category in the abstract, but their uses are very different.
It’s not that the difference in scale is not important: it is important to some questions. The problem is that for this purpose, socialism can’t provide a principle that separates out the individual worker working with his loom, from the small co-op with their 10 looms, or the factory with a hundred looms with 100 investors behind it. The traditional expression is “the means of production” because that’s the only concept on which they can hang their argument, and that applies to the small producer as well as the large. When they shift the ground of the argument to "exploitation", they automatically lose the argument unless they rely on the assumption that the investor has no just claim on the wealth he invests, and his time and effort put into figuring out HOW to make it all work to produce a profit.
You may note well that the individual employee in a large business has almost no control over “his labor” in reference to a large business: either he joins or not, but beyond that he gets no say: he cannot readily negotiate a wage special to him other than what others will get. But this is equally true in a socialist system running that large business: he’s just one person, if “the collective” sets labor wages, he has no capacity to modify it if he wants a different wage. It’s a function especially of “large”, not of “capitalism” as such, and in socialism, the enterprise is even larger than in capitalism, as it covers the whole collective works. (You could try to avoid the problem by promoting the idea of only very small businesses, like the distributists want, but that gives up all the things that can ONLY be done by large enterprises (whether public or private). And of course is contrary to socialism.)
These matters have been hashed out a zillion times: the Church's position, that private property and subsidiarity are part of the natural law has led to the natural conclusion that state-forced divorce of private property when used as "the means of production" is not consistent with the natural law, is well documented. The Church's equally strong interest in social solidarity with workers and the poor has been channeled via other means than that of the forced collectivization property, e.g. Benedict's emphasis on the "logic of gift" in economics to counter pure self-interest.
There's so much nonsense in your responses here that I don't even know where to begin. The first thing that slaps me in the face is that you feel completely justified in cherry-picking whatever Papal quotes you like and ignoring the ones you don't. Even if John Paul II did in fact say that socialism "promoted envy", that doesn't make him right, and it sure doesn't justify you in blowing off socialism without argument. Why, I could just as easily say that capitalism promotes greed, greed is against Catholic morality, and thus capitalism is 100% evil, and any statements praising any part of it must be wrong, unimportant, or ignorable. Alternatively, I could take Beendict's praise of democratic socialism and use that to dismiss every anti-socialist statement from other Popes. You have simply plucked one opinion from history that you like and decided that you have the right to interpret everything else through the lens of this one opinion. Anything that contradicts it is wrong, or unimportant, etc. This is such an egregious bit of sophistry that it very nearly makes me not want to engage with you anymore.
DeleteI could respond to each point, but it's obvious that we are both arguing from completely incompatible sets of principles. You don't seem to be able to comprehend anything other than capitalism, and many of the arguments you use only make sense if you presume a capitalist framework. Thus the argument would have to go deeper, down to first principles, if anything meaningful was to happen. You seem to base your principles on "Pope Leo said X", and the rest of your arguments are just sort of clustered around that haphazardly. Surrender your intellect if you like, but I need more persuasion than just taking a 19th century Pope's word for it, especially given the testimony of history. The idea that you can just achieve "conciliation" between people who have fundamentally opposing interests is naive at best, and every attempt at it has failed. The 20th century shows that the states which most closely clove to the Catholic Church in politics and economics strongly tended towards also being highly oppressive and authoritarian. The Church of this time encouraged corporatism, and those who listened the most closely were Salazarist Portugal, Francoist Spain, Fascist Italy, and Peronist Argentina. Nazi Germany also followed a similar corporatist "class reconciliation" attitude with the singular state-sponsored "Union" which everyone was part of. Granted, none of these groups were absolutely and totally in harmony with the Church on every detail, but the fact remains that the states most closely associated with the Church's economic corporatism were all some flavor of fascist. Does this not concern you at all? You types typically like to lambast Socialism for being nice on paper but leading to horror in practice. Well, then, how do you respond to your own track record?
I could respond to each point, but it's obvious that we are both arguing from completely incompatible sets of principles.
DeleteThat does seem to be the case.
You don't seem to be able to comprehend anything other than capitalism, and many of the arguments you use only make sense if you presume a capitalist framework.
Well, you're wrong on that. Everything I said above works on the premise that private property is part of the natural law, not capitalism. You weren't being observant enough (e.g. when I included a note on distributism). I didn't even attempt to argue that premise: that's not because I view it as an unprovable first premise (I think it is capable of arguable support), I just didn't intend to go back any farther. So instead I relied on the thesis that Pope Leo said it is from the natural law, and later Popes supported him in that claim. That is: the Church teaches that it can be known by the natural light of reason, with 100 years of popes being in firm agreement with that. I didn't think the commbox here was sufficient space for the full argument. I was responding to your comment:
However, there's one assertion you made that I'd like to challenge as incorrect. That being the assertion that socialism is a per se evil by Catholic doctrine, and especially that such is knowable as part of the natural law.
in which my response shows, not the proof from natural reason, but that the Church SAYS that it knowable as part of the natural law. I never tried to give the argument itself, and if you thought I was, then you were looking for something that wasn't intended to be there.
The idea that you can just achieve "conciliation" between people who have fundamentally opposing interests is naive at best, and every attempt at it has failed.
Christianity itself holds that NO peoples have fundamentally opposing interests, as we are (all) directed toward being part of the same extended family, adopted sons and daughters of God. Our partially opposing economic interests should have limiting constraints based on that underlying community. Economics should ultimately serve fundamental human goals and interests, for which solidarity is an intrinsic aspect.
The 20th century shows that the states which most closely clove to the Catholic Church in politics and economics strongly tended towards also being highly oppressive and authoritarian.
And state oppressive authoritarianism demonstrates, in itself, their failing to be truly Catholic, as subsidiarity is a second intrinsic aspect of human good, alongside solidarity.
"Not Real Catholicism!"
DeleteHmm, now why would the states that most closely tried to cleave to Church teaching be the most authoritarian? You aren't trying to claim that the Church itself isn't "really" Catholic, or wasn't before Vatican II, are you? Strange how those who deliberately tried as hard as possible to be Catholic, had the explicit approval of the Vatican, and made Catholicism the state religion were "Not Really Catholic", now, isn't it?
Hmm, now why would the states that most closely tried to cleave to Church teaching be the most authoritarian?
DeleteThis is silly nonsense. "Most closely tried to cleave to Church teaching"? Proof?
Isn't interesting that the Church has neither canonized nor beatified ANY of the leading figures of the Franco government? Hmmm? Maybe...they weren't primarily motivated by the Church's call to holiness? Even though the Church - in 2007 - beatified 498 people killed by the socialists before and during the Civil War, She has not seen fit to so recognize Franco or his lieutenants. Why is that?
Sure, the Church made a concordat with Franco. She made a deal with Communist China a couple years ago. That proves little if anything. She also made an agreement with Germany, though explicitly condemning some of the Nazi program: political agreements don't imply formal doctrinal support of the government's ways, certainly not for ALL of the government's ways. The Church approved Constantine's declaring Christianity the religion of the empire, but the Church does not thereby state that every government must officially recognize the Church and make Catholicism the official religion. It's complicated, and your comment pretends it's simple.
We have gotten far off the track of your original complaint: whether (according to the Church) socialism implies practices contrary to the natural law. It is apparent that you don't like the Church's social teachings from Leo to JPII, though you like some of the comments made by popes after JPII. The question I would leave you with (and yes, I intend to leave this discussion) is whether you have any interest in attempting to integrate what Leo, Pius X, Pius XI, and JPII said with the later papal comments you noted into a COHERENT teaching, or do you prefer to just go with part of that picture?
Given the capture of Maduro and his wife (who had also been previously indicted in America), it seems as if Tony and I were right in saying that the Trump administration's actions were against Maduro and the drug cartels rather than against the main populace of Venezuela. The Venezuelans in Florida and elsewhere are joyously celebrating what the Trump administration has done. It is in line with what Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, and other Democrats had advocated for in the past. I rejoice with the Venezuelans.
DeleteUnfortunately, it's obvious that this administration is run by lawless men. JD Vance, a self-professed Catholic, has publicly stated on Twitter that he doesn't care if the attacks constitute war crimes (more specifically "I don't care what you call them" in response to someone alleging they are war crimes, but it's hard to read that as a denial that they're war crimes, since no argument was put forth). I'm pretty sure that makes America the bad guy here.
ReplyDeleteTo "more specifically 'I don't care what you call them' in response to someone alleging they are war crimes, but it's hard to read that as a denial that they're war crimes, since no argument was put forth" - it seems to me that "I don't care what you call them" is not an answer to the implicit question "Were those actions war crimes?", but a refusal to answer it with expression of disrespect towards the one who asked.
DeleteGranted, but I think at that point we're splitting hairs. The overall point seems clear regardless - that the VP is unconcerned with whether or not the strikes constitute war crimes. When someone refuses to answer a serious, plausible accusation, it is entirely reasonable to read that as an admission of guilt. Plus, this administration has been "vice signalling" for a while now. To clarify, vice signalling is the opposite of virtue signalling, or if you want to be pedantic, virtue signalling to a very specific crowd. This takes the form of publicly and loudly making statements generally considered tasteless, immoral, or perverse, as a way to signal either your rebelliousness/authenticity/toughness, or to appeal to fringe groups that approve of such behaviors. For example, being publicly and unabashedly racist in order to "own the libs" or appeal to racist voters. The Trump Admin has been doing this extensively, as part of a generalized push to normalise extreme-right positions like White Nationalism. "Don't be ashamed to be called racist" is a pretty common line used among racists online - I believe Steve Bannon said this sort of thing publicly. Given this, it's also plausible to read Vance's statement as effectively meaning "Yes, we are murdering brown people indiscriminately, many of whom are likely innocent. I approve of this because I hate brown people, and I don't care what you think. What are you gonna do about it, libtard? Are you gonna cry? Am I right, fellow White Nationalists?". Or something to that effect.
DeleteUnfortunately, after the Nuremberg trials, the politicians have learned a lesson that was not intended. Some might have hoped that hanging someone for planning an aggressive war will discourage others from starting aggressive wars, yet in practice we still have aggressive wars, only the we call them by other names. Like Putin's "Special Military Operation" in Ukraine.
ReplyDeleteIt also means that wars are not declared.
And one side effect of that is that where various Constitutions say that the wars are to be declared by some Parliament, Congress or Assembly, those provisions get bypassed.
I wonder if it wouldn't have been better if the war criminals were simply removed from power and forgiven.
It wasn't Nuremburg that did that, it was the proliferation of nuclear weapons. True, large-scale wars between nuclear powers are no longer feasible because nuclear weapons mean that both sides have the ability to render mass mobilization pointless. Thus conflicts must be rendered more localized, or act through proxies, political pressure, etc. Russia, for instance, is only invading Ukraine because they gave up their nukes.
DeleteAnd no, it definitely wouldn't have been better to forgive them. That would've just taught an even worse lesson; that there are no consequences for warmongering at all. It would also have been an outrage against justice, for the blood of the millions of innocents slain demanded some kind of punishment.
"That would've just taught an even worse lesson; that there are no consequences for warmongering at all." - I'm pretty sure that removal from power is a "consequence". Also, "proliferation of nuclear weapons" that you mentioned is more of a "teacher" here.
Delete"It would also have been an outrage against justice, for the blood of the millions of innocents slain demanded some kind of punishment." - there is a sense in which that is true. Yet, is it not an "outrage against justice", when the war crimes of the victors were not likewise punished?
"And no, it definitely wouldn't have been better to forgive them." - it is a decision that would have advantages and disadvantages.
Some advantages:
1. Lesser injustice in not punishing the war criminals of the Allied side.
2. No disincentive for proper declarations of war and the like.
3. Less of a myth for Nazis being "ultimate evil", which causes problems to this day (for example, Putin's pretext for war with Ukraine is that Ukrainians are "Nazis" - of course, the common definition of "Nazi" is "someone I hate for reasons that have something to do with politics"). And, while Nazis did lots of evil, the "competition" for the most evil done in WW2 was fierce, and it is not so obvious that they really managed to "take the first place". Stalin was not going to be "content with the second place" either.
4. Less of a reason for Germany and Japan to fight to the end (it is hard to force someone to surrender, when he knows he'll be killed after surrendering).
5. That avoids injustices in the trial itself. For example, the judgement includes things like "It was contended for the defendants that the attack upon the U.S.S.R. was justified because the Soviet Union was contemplating an attack upon Germany, and making preparations to that end. It is impossible to believe that this view was ever honestly entertained.", and we can be pretty sure that Stalin did intend to attack Hitler at some point. The only question is when was the day planned for attack: a day after Hitler's attack, two weeks after it, or in 1942.
Some disadvantages:
1. The war criminals would be left largely unpunished.
2. The people in Western Allied nations wanted revenge.
I think the advantages do outweigh the disadvantages. I guess you think otherwise.
Mmh, I don't know if I agree with those ideas.
Delete1.You're correct that the Allies failed to do anything about the war criminals on their own side, and that was wrong, albeit a very common form of wrong.
2. I don't know what you're trying to say in your second point.
3. Calling the Nazis' status as "Ultimate Evil" a myth is deeply troubling. I'm not here to defend Stalin, but trying to bothsides him against Hitler is a terrible idea and raises worries that you're trying to whitewash Hitler, which you might end up doing inadvertently even if that isn't your intention. At least Stalin mostly didn't *deliberately* set out to wipe out or enslave entire ethnic groups as a matter of stated policy. Preventing people from using the "Nazi" line is a meaningless idea, humans will always use comparisons to whatever person or group is the most evil as a rhetorical tool. It wouldn't change anything meaningful if everyone compared their enemies to Stalin or the Devil instead of to Hitler.
4. Germany and Japan's willingness to fight on had very little to do with Allied policy. Japan's was based on pre-existing ideology, which was fanatically devoted to the idea of not surrendering. Meanwhile in Germany, Goebbels in 1945 was putting out propaganda suggesting that the Allies would pursue terms far HARSHER than unconditional surrender (in effect, German genocide, either directly or by mass sterilization), which suggests that he didn't think the Allied demands were harsh enough to inspire his soldiers to fight to the death to resist.
5. This claim is not wrong, and even if it were, it would not be "unjust". Frankly I am disturbed by how much sympathy you have for actual literal Nazis, especially for higher ranking officials. Here, let me analyze the claim:
Was Stalin planning to attack Hitler at some point? Yeah, probably, and both of them probably knew that. They were two conniving snakes who were both in it for personal gain. Stalin just miscalculated and thought he would be the one pulling the con. HOWEVER, it is clear from Hitler's own policy plans that he considered the conquest, ethnic cleansing, and exploitation of both Eastern Europe and Russia to be completely necessary. If I desire my neighbor's property and attack him in order to steal it, my action doesn't become self-defense just because I have good reason to suspect that he had plans to do the same to me. I might care about that, but since my primary motivation was stealing his property, it's not defense, even pre-emptive self-defense. There are possible situations where you could legitimately launch a pre-emptive strike to destroy an enemy that is planning to attack you, but that's not what Hitler was really motivated by. Even if he was sure that Stalin was completely peaceful, he would not have changed his mind because destroying the Soviet Union and stealing its land was his real goal.
"Calling the Nazis' status as "Ultimate Evil" a myth is deeply troubling. I'm not here to defend Stalin, but trying to bothsides him against Hitler is a terrible idea" - well, there can only be one "ultimate evil", or else it is not really "ultimate". So, "bothsiding" is a perfectly good way to deal with such a claim.
DeleteThe part about Nazism being evil and very evil is true and harmless. It is specifically the part about "ultimate evil" that causes many problems.
"I'm not here to defend Stalin, but trying to bothsides him against Hitler is a terrible idea and raises worries that you're trying to whitewash Hitler, which you might end up doing inadvertently even if that isn't your intention." - if it is fine for you to suspect that, I am also within my rights to suspect that you are here to whitewash Stalin (and other kinds of Socialists). The things you are writing in other comments do not seem to contradict this suspicion.
"At least Stalin mostly didn't *deliberately* set out to wipe out or enslave entire ethnic groups as a matter of stated policy." - somehow I suspect that Crimean Tatars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars) or Chechens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Chechens_and_Ingush) might disagree with you on this point...
And anyway, yes, Nazis specialised in killing or enslaving people based on their ethnicity, Soviets specialised in killing or enslaving people seemingly at random (of course, there are exceptions in both cases). Why is the first kind worse?
The obvious answer is pretty circular: "Because that's what Nazis did, and Nazis are the ultimate evil.".
Coincidentally, that's one reason why "Preventing people from using the 'Nazi' line is a meaningless idea, humans will always use comparisons to whatever person or group is the most evil as a rhetorical tool." is not a sufficient answer. The problem is not merely that the word "Nazi" is used as an insult. A more significant problem is that the ones who fought Nazis (or who imagine to be fighting Nazis) get to be seen as "good guys" automatically. And other crimes get minimised.
And thus we have, for example, an absurd situation when Trump, who himself was almost killed for supposedly "being a Nazi", does not rule out Putin's demand for "denazification" of Ukraine as obviously absurd and unacceptable, and praises Russia for being on the same side of WW2.
"This claim is not wrong, and even if it were, it would not be 'unjust'." - it is wrong, and having wrong claims (stated with great certainty, and without an argument) in judgement does make it less perfectly just. Especially given that it might have counted as an extenuating circumstance (it is probable that otherwise it wouldn't have been mentioned).
"Frankly I am disturbed by how much sympathy you have for actual literal Nazis, especially for higher ranking officials." - God came to die for all of us, including high-ranking Nazis, Communists and the like. We can't just hate them, feel superior, and leave it at that.
That, coincidentally, is another reason why having a myth of some group of people as "ultimate evil" is a bad idea.
By the way, as you might note, Nazis also had a myth of a group of people being "ultimate evil".
You're either a fascist or an enabler of fascism. I will not waste any more time with you.
DeleteI think so too.
ReplyDeleteDon't waste your time with Walsh, Prof.
ReplyDeleteHe has literally re-tweeted that, "Law is not some objectives transcendent Truth".
Walsh needs to take a philosophy course or basic catechism.
It isn't clear to me that the US Constitution requires declarations of war in the manner suggested. The model for that element in the Constitution was British practice, which used the declaration to manifest juridical relationships, and tended to be made after hostilities were in process. Further, the practice of punishing brigandage by regimes is a common one. E.g., a declaration of war would not have been required for the US Navy to act against Lafitte's Barataria (which it did). The degree to which nations acting contrary to justice, international law, and the common good of the US have been involved in aiding Venezuela to send drugs to the US that have killed thousands of US citizens seems more than sufficient to justifiy bringing Maduro to face the indictment for the same. The wider question about the moral goodness and prudence of further engagement with Venezuela is real. But it can be argued that preventing Chinese, Iranian, Russian, drug gang destruction of Venezuela (the Venezuelan election was as I understand it overturned by Maduro who has been ruling unjustly) is in the just interest of the US. If all this is untrue or unfactual, then the case for any further involvement fails. But the bringing of Maduro to justice for the sake of the common good when Maduro was violating US law (and arguably international law) in supporting the drug shipments to the US seems a good thing. And it is not clear that the case for some involvement is predatory: it is the Maduro regime that seems to have predated on its people, and on the common good of the US...
ReplyDeleteThis is a commendable argument by Ed Feser, against the jingoism of his interlocutors and most of the right-wing conglomerate. One wonders how human beings can not only acquiesce to but actively participate in the horrors of the world and this comment section bears great example. The minority are anti- Stephen Miller types while the majority are sophistical Millers - willing to invent other reasons than what is obvious to justify the imperial ambitions of an immoral and terrible man. Miller today talked about the iron law of force and Power and the US right to dominate this hemisphere. Where will the outrage be in churches and the like? Nowhere, but for small arguments like Feser’s that, as can be seen here, will be ignored. Not one of these defenders refer to the actual words of the administration- just making up entire other reasons to justify them. Not one matches their thought experiments to the actual actions and deeds of these people- just wish casting scenarios that may make it okay down the line. Shameful.
ReplyDeleteNow, this rogue admin sets their eyes on Greenland, possible Cuba and others, while terrorizing domestic Democratic states - and the majority of Christians in comment sections here and real life just go along with it and make up reasons to justify it. There is no life where this evil will not impact you negatively. It is shortsighted and immoral to bargain with the devil because of your resentments and petty grievances.
May there be a just God that can shine light somewhere so the one day the earth maybe rid of the hypocrites and parasites that continue to bedevil it.
Wow. Nervy, articulate and eloquent. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteI think this action by Trump and the US is just a step in the right direction to defend the western world against communism, radical Islam (its most pure heretical form) and the nominalist, secular humanist, modernist heretical views permeating western culture. This attack on Judeo-Christian culture is intentional by a host of evil powers that we can all name. The “war” is intentional but difficult to define when compared to ancient and medieval wars.
ReplyDeleteThis war is intentional and coordinated, but it is using guerilla tactics of infiltration and propaganda to gain a foothold within western societies and instigate violence and ultimate destruction of the last hope for the western world, the United States moving to strengthen and defend a Christian world ultimately against communism.
We need to see the big picture here and recognize the dynamism of the “war” we are in.
I respect Ed Feser as one of the finest philosophers in the world. However, for him to insist on a full plan to explain logistically the phases and objectives of how the operation will be done in Venezuela is impractical and unrealistic. He needs to be more patient to see how the operation unfolds before saying Trump actions are not morally justifiable. Trump has to make prudential decisions moving us forward in this long term “war”. It involves many elements to govern the way to victory for western culture. He has the experience of leading large businesses and now a large government in this internal and external struggle against communism. The Church rejects communism and socialism no matter what current cardinals, bishops and popes say.
I'd love to hear the name of a person who someone thinks would lead us in this situation more effectively. It certainly is not Mamdani. Precedence of prior presidents does not see them following a rule like the war powers act. There is questions about its constitutionality. Who is the last president who actually followed that act or the rules prior to that act being voted in somewhere around the Vietnam War era? Again, the times have changed. The US and other western cultures are being infiltrated from within and externally by negative powers which are not oriented to build a Christian culture. The nature of "war" itself needs to be updated for the situation of our times.That includes the Just War Doctrine principles for an age of war more in the medieval times rather than the nature of war and defense necessary for our era.
Very well said, John. I echo your comments regarding Ed being one of the finest philosophers in the world but think that he misses the bigger picture where Trump is concerned. On the question of lawful authority, many leaders from the Duke of Marlborough (Blenheim campaign) to Patton (crossing the Rhine and probably other situations) have exceeded their authority and not revealed their plans to those higher up (who would not approve of them if they knew those plans) but who carried out the needed actions. When the results are bad, those who exceed their authority are usually disciplined; when the results are good, they are sometimes rewarded. The lawful authority requirement is not worthless (a group of renegades should not take matters into their own hands) but allowances can be made for leaders to act above their level of authority if the results are good. On a related point, Trump had good reason to suspect that someone in congress like Eric Swalwell would leak plans and that would lead to American deaths.
Delete