Two Words: Barbary Pirates
I'm glad we won that one. Oh, and so you consider what Switzerland did in World War II to be the most moral thing to do? Staying neutral was the way to go in 1941? That worked so well for so many countries, perhaps you could share how neutrality did global peace such great favors in the two world wars?
Saying what you say is a strange form of nationalism and national pride. Would a foreigner in 1941, seeking peace for the world, have tried to get the US to go home and stop fighting? No, the only ones promoting that line of reasoning were radicals within the US.... and the enemies of the US.
Piracy is bad, but how does that justify government? And remind me again where the Barbary Coast is located. Last I knew, it was in the Mediterranean Sea coast of Africa. As in, not US business.
Hitler didn't rise to power in a vacuum. His rise to power was a consequence of the debacle that was the end of WW1, where the US intervened on the wrong side even if we assume there was a "right side" in the first place. Both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, like the current chaos in the middle east, were consequences of militarism. maybe it's time for a new strategy, since the old methods invariably create worse messes than they were intended to address.
You may need a history lesson. These marauders were taking hostages and stealing goods being shipped on the high seas. The area is North Africa, and the US was a seafaring nation once. We still are through our military.
In any case, we had to do some serious warfare with these petty thieves. A lot of good anarchy did back then, because the Islamic imams looked the other way at piracy.
Here's a few links. Seriously you should know about our first war with Muslim extremists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates
There are defensive wars which occasionally are fought elsewhere. The shores of Tripoli being one of those.
Again, you are making the argument "Bad things, therefore we needed government." It's not a rational argument. Why weren't the merchants armed? Why weren't local nations doing anything? You just say, "Government did X, therefore government is good, and government enforcers deserve praise." I think there are some slight holes in your rationale.
edit
Perhaps it would be clearer if I simply said, "Ends do not justify the means, and the details behind the events make your over-simplified analysis suspect."
Interesting point not taken! First off, the beloved government was paying tribute to the Barbary states to keep our merchants safe. But that was taxpayer funded. Why not use the taxes to go kill them instead of paying tribute? I think killing them was moral and paying the tribute was not. That's what seemingly the politicians, navy admirals, marines, and Thomas Jefferson thought... but who are they?
Jacob says they were wrong, so we should have.... paid the ransoms? And the tribute? And told our merchants to go leave their wife behind and buy their own canons? Your own moral foreplay is destined to bring forth a bunch of hand-wringing whiners who just blather "peace" when the bad guys want to kill, maim, steal, and destroy things.
War isn't precisely moral... but it has its uses in the moral realm.
The next time our merchants are being captured and sold into slavery... maybe you should pipe up and tell the captors that you volunteer to take their place. You know, since war is such a bad idea.
Should I quote this? I hope you understand my point. This is why history should be taught and learned in public schools. I feel you missed it.
"While Barbary corsairs looted the cargo of ships they captured, their primary goal was to capture people for sale as slaves or for ransom. Those who had family or friends who might ransom them were held captive but not obliged to work; the most famous of these was the author Miguel de Cervantes, who was held for almost five years. Others were sold into various types of servitude. Attractive women or boys could be used as sex slaves and was considered the original "fate worse than death". Captives who converted to Islam were generally freed, since enslavement of Muslims was prohibited; but this meant that they could never return to their native countries." (See link above)
I hope you can understand my point as well. You create a false dichotomy in your argument, and use one atrocity to justify more atrocities.
Yes, historical events happened, but they are an opportunity to question why they occurred as they did, and question the justifications offered for the actions people took. It does not mean military action was necessary or proper because it occurred.
Remember, slavery was enshrined in the US Constitution, too. The US
engaged in piracycommissioned privateers. US government complaints against slavery and piracy are thus incredibly hypocritical. Of course, hypocrisy is an epidemic among politicians throughout history, too.Why were the options limited to "pay bribes or wage war"? Why weren't merchant ships armed against a clear and present danger? There's still something fishy about the whole narrative.
Killing people is the ultimate recompense for evil. I am wondering... if the merchants are now armed (which some privateers were both), then is there a moral improvement over arming a paid professional soldier? I don't see everyone jumping through these moral hoops with you...
But
This is dichotomy. You just flipped the coin and said heads is good and tails is bad. But it's two sides of the same coin.
The government killing bad guys by fiat or by hiring mercenaries.... is that the moral dilemma? The act of going to war versus killing bad guys with small guns in a disorderly fashion?
On memorial day, why don't you give thanks to God for the mercenaries and merchants who shot bandits, and the judges who sent bad guys to the gallows? But heaven forbid you thank God for professionals who were fighting a war!
Who are you thankful for? Hmm?
Merchants: Armed at their own expense, and only using weapons in self-defense.
Governments: Armed with funds plundered from the productive population, and invariably using those arms to initiate further aggression against peaceful people, as repeatedly demonstrated throughout history.
You have to perform some extreme mental gymnastics to equivocate these fundamentally distinct actions, intentions, and outcomes.
Mental gymnastics? No, try your own logic on for size.
So a bad guy is now marauding on land... call him a land pirate. Your beloved government should lay down its arms or prevent its citizens from possessing arms, even for defense. The number of governments who permit firearms is pretty small, the US is one of them. Ok, so you now have small arsenals and militias, and they begin to organize into mercenary organizations. The NRA of that alternate world (in your mind) starts to hire professional paramilitary fighters. Before you know it, the armed citizens are essentially the same thing as the current government-run military. It has some differences, but it's still the equivalent of a State-run military from other countries.
This ad-hoc group of militia men... protect just their assets. So any bad actors that do it no direct harm are free to continue. You end up with a class system... the rich get stronger and protect their wealth. The poor or unorganized get weaker.
The governmental (State) military is designed to protect everyone. It's the ancient equivalent of Universal Bad Actor Care.
You are trying to split it out and have Jacob Care in which only the rich pay for protection. You are arguing for the Mafia-style protection rackets. Because with the Mafia, you have rich people hiring their own private assassins to keep the big business racket running. Your program will have Bosses who are untouchable.
This is the absurd consequence of reducing the State military to an emergency defense structure and permitting the Merchants to protect themselves in its stead. While I am not exactly saying that a standing military is the greatest and most efficient idea in modern warfare, it has its purpose for large, far-flung empires and nation-states whose interests lie outside of its borders.
In other words, the military is effective. Your ideas are not adaptable beyond maybe the occasional pirate attack. But World War 2's unrestricted submarine warfare (and the bad state actors involved) was just one reason why your para-military methods won't fix our world.
I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why not just get Congress and the President to stop the evil warmongering? The standing military isn't the problem; it's the power brokers who wield it.