Dave Smith, a libertarian comic, has taken to the world’s biggest podcasts—including a recent debate with me onPiers Morgan Uncensored—to argue that war should be judged by the same moral logic as domestic murder.
Excellent. Even before trying to refute the premise of david smith’s argument, we should start at the analogy first. The better less simplistic analogy is that you are having a huge event at your house where 100 guests and relatives showed up. The party is going well as different groups partake in different activities. Your neighbor next door has had run ins with you before and there is a high degree of animosity between the two of you. Well the next door neighbor has decided to do something to ruin your party. He sneaks into the backyard where about 10 kids and young women are playing. He kills all the children and rapes some women before killing them. He also forcefully takes 4 of the kids and adults back to his house which has 10 family members there. The family members and hostages are holed up in the house, shut the doors and windows and hunkered down in secret passageways.
You decide to go after the murderer and free your family members. It is very difficult because the murderer is hiding with his clan using them as shields and has your family members there.
According to Dave Smith, you should not even attempt to get at the murderer but rather leave him alone and beg him to release your family. Live and let live and hope for the best. If only you can reason with him and give him full amnesty, it’ll be alright. Not only that why not let him take over your house and you’ll leave.
In what world would anyone think that the above response is correct either morally, logically or otherwise.
Instead the proper response is to try to target the murderer while not harming the murderer’s family members and to recapture your family to safety. That is the correct response. And yes there is collateral damage in that approach ( some of his family members will be killed and yes some of your family held hostage will also die.
Any less response, while still offering the murderer a chance to come out and be arrested ( but live), is morally bankrupt. It is dangerously disingenuous to think the perpetrator actual thinks like you and listens to reason or shares your liberal civil beliefs.
This is what not only is Israel facing but it is a systemic issue that is eroding the West. Not only does the left now rationalize criminal and horrible behavior ( see Luigi and Tren de Agua), but elements of the right in neo isolationist and super libertarian ideology ( see the Charles Lindbergh faction) have rationalized a if only we are all just left alone to be free mentality. Both radical elements are the challenges we face.
I hope we overcome both because Western existence will depend on it.
His argument is ridiculous. It’s an apples to elephant comparison.
The real question regarding wars and how we’ve decided as a country to wage wars, is the question at hand. Is the Cold War engagement narrative still viable post Cold War? Must we really remain the world’s police force?
I’d say that answer is no.
What I’ve seen is a great deal of hyperventilating about instability is the world without the threat of American boots on the ground. But not a lot of chatter about the current instability as a result of our policy of boots on the ground.
Also, Western Europe is no longer, and hasn’t been since the 1960s, fledgling nations unable to defend themselves. Reasonable people can argue when Western Europe recovered from WWII enough that it could have funded better national defense structures. However, objectively speaking we’re defending the top GDPs in the world. American taxpayers are fronting the defense of Europe. That makes zero sense.
I don’t see our elite brain trust justifying a continuation of the Cold War mentality based on anything other than fear that we’re doing something different. If you read National Review it’s like they’re all waiting on Reagan to rise from his tomb.
This is the state of our supposed leaders. Unimaginative at best and incapable of dealing with the real world as it is in 2024 (dare I say, as it was in 1989?).
Excellent. Even before trying to refute the premise of david smith’s argument, we should start at the analogy first. The better less simplistic analogy is that you are having a huge event at your house where 100 guests and relatives showed up. The party is going well as different groups partake in different activities. Your neighbor next door has had run ins with you before and there is a high degree of animosity between the two of you. Well the next door neighbor has decided to do something to ruin your party. He sneaks into the backyard where about 10 kids and young women are playing. He kills all the children and rapes some women before killing them. He also forcefully takes 4 of the kids and adults back to his house which has 10 family members there. The family members and hostages are holed up in the house, shut the doors and windows and hunkered down in secret passageways.
You decide to go after the murderer and free your family members. It is very difficult because the murderer is hiding with his clan using them as shields and has your family members there.
According to Dave Smith, you should not even attempt to get at the murderer but rather leave him alone and beg him to release your family. Live and let live and hope for the best. If only you can reason with him and give him full amnesty, it’ll be alright. Not only that why not let him take over your house and you’ll leave.
In what world would anyone think that the above response is correct either morally, logically or otherwise.
Instead the proper response is to try to target the murderer while not harming the murderer’s family members and to recapture your family to safety. That is the correct response. And yes there is collateral damage in that approach ( some of his family members will be killed and yes some of your family held hostage will also die.
Any less response, while still offering the murderer a chance to come out and be arrested ( but live), is morally bankrupt. It is dangerously disingenuous to think the perpetrator actual thinks like you and listens to reason or shares your liberal civil beliefs.
This is what not only is Israel facing but it is a systemic issue that is eroding the West. Not only does the left now rationalize criminal and horrible behavior ( see Luigi and Tren de Agua), but elements of the right in neo isolationist and super libertarian ideology ( see the Charles Lindbergh faction) have rationalized a if only we are all just left alone to be free mentality. Both radical elements are the challenges we face.
I hope we overcome both because Western existence will depend on it.
Hilarious. As a moral philosopher, Dave Smith remains a comedian.
As a comedian, Dave Smith remains a moral philosopher, or something.
Self loathing Jews like Smith have to take some responsibility for the killing of 2 Jews in Washington.
Plus his whole “if i murdered your family then hid with my family you wouldn’t blow up my innocent child” bit is absurd and obscene
That’s without mentioning that the “innocent child” is a participant in the abuse of my kidnapped children.
Exactly and why did no one jump on this point
His argument is ridiculous. It’s an apples to elephant comparison.
The real question regarding wars and how we’ve decided as a country to wage wars, is the question at hand. Is the Cold War engagement narrative still viable post Cold War? Must we really remain the world’s police force?
I’d say that answer is no.
What I’ve seen is a great deal of hyperventilating about instability is the world without the threat of American boots on the ground. But not a lot of chatter about the current instability as a result of our policy of boots on the ground.
Also, Western Europe is no longer, and hasn’t been since the 1960s, fledgling nations unable to defend themselves. Reasonable people can argue when Western Europe recovered from WWII enough that it could have funded better national defense structures. However, objectively speaking we’re defending the top GDPs in the world. American taxpayers are fronting the defense of Europe. That makes zero sense.
I don’t see our elite brain trust justifying a continuation of the Cold War mentality based on anything other than fear that we’re doing something different. If you read National Review it’s like they’re all waiting on Reagan to rise from his tomb.
This is the state of our supposed leaders. Unimaginative at best and incapable of dealing with the real world as it is in 2024 (dare I say, as it was in 1989?).
Excellent! Thank you!