I think there is an obvious difference between civilians killed in the
course of military operations aimed at military targets, and civilians
rounded up in concentration camps, deliberately starved to death, and
the like (as under communist regimes).  That’s not to say the former are
always justified; merely that it is not nearly as bad as the latter.

Well. A few things.

1. I know this is a popular opinion, but if you’re going to insist on it, I’d like to know why you think this is the case. War atrocities leave their victims quite as dead as prison-camp atrocities, and I can’t see even a prima facie why the victims of one suffered less evil than the victims of the other. Do you? Why?

I think there is an obvious difference between civilians killed in the
course of military operations aimed at military targets, and civilians
rounded up in concentration camps, deliberately starved to death, and
the like (as under communist regimes).  That’s not to say the former are
always justified; merely that it is not nearly as bad as the latter.

Well. A few things.

1. I know this is a popular opinion, but if you’re going to insist on it, I’d like to know why you think this is the case. War atrocities leave their victims quite as dead as prison-camp atrocities, and I can’t see even a prima facie why the victims of one suffered less evil than the victims of the other. Do you? Why?

In the real world, it’s obviously not – especially since many of the US’ “endless wars” actually were against brutal totalitarian regimes. . . .

Shame how all those dead civilians kept getting in the way of the brutal totalitarian regimes the U.S. government was fighting wars against.

U.S. bomber wings show up over Tokyo, planning to firebomb a “brutal totalitarian regime,” and somehow instead they end up killing 100,000 men, women and children in a single night, who were not part of the regime and had no control over it. They show up over Hiroshima, and in Nagasaki, expecting to drop atomic bombs on a “brutal totalitarian regime,” and somehow instead they end up dropping them on cities of hundreds of thousands of people, wiping out about a quarter million civilians in the process over the course of just over 72 hours. Years later, the U.S. government comes to Viet Nam, intending to wage war against a brutal totalitarian regime, and somehow by the time they leave, the brutal totalitarian regime is still flourishing there, but 4,000,000 other Vietnamese no longer are. A man with less perspective might think that this sort of thing was a sign that the U.S. government, like every other government, doesn’t actually wage war against “regimes;” rather that it wages wars on countries and peoples who are inevitably become the overwhelming majority of the victims of the war. Perhaps this was done in the hopes that by doing it, they might somehow get at the regime hiding behind those people in those countries. If so, then the question of justice here certainly turns on something more than just the quality of the ends for which these megamurdering means were deliberately chosen.

But it’s good of you to note that this massacre of millions has, on occasion, every now and then, in spite, of course, of the countervailing considerations, in the full light of objective reevaluation, led to wars which were in some sense unjust, and therefore worthy of condemnation, even if not worthy of being mentioned or remembered in the same breath as the victims of the U.S. government’s geopolitical enemies.

In the real world, it’s obviously not – especially since many of the US’ “endless wars” actually were against brutal totalitarian regimes. . . .

Shame how all those dead civilians kept getting in the way of the brutal totalitarian regimes the U.S. government was fighting wars against.

U.S. bomber wings show up over Tokyo, planning to firebomb a “brutal totalitarian regime,” and somehow instead they end up killing 100,000 men, women and children in a single night, who were not part of the regime and had no control over it. They show up over Hiroshima, and in Nagasaki, expecting to drop atomic bombs on a “brutal totalitarian regime,” and somehow instead they end up dropping them on cities of hundreds of thousands of people, wiping out about a quarter million civilians in the process over the course of just over 72 hours. Years later, the U.S. government comes to Viet Nam, intending to wage war against a brutal totalitarian regime, and somehow by the time they leave, the brutal totalitarian regime is still flourishing there, but 4,000,000 other Vietnamese no longer are. A man with less perspective might think that this sort of thing was a sign that the U.S. government, like every other government, doesn’t actually wage war against “regimes;” rather that it wages wars on countries and peoples who are inevitably become the overwhelming majority of the victims of the war. Perhaps this was done in the hopes that by doing it, they might somehow get at the regime hiding behind those people in those countries. If so, then the question of justice here certainly turns on something more than just the quality of the ends for which these megamurdering means were deliberately chosen.

But it’s good of you to note that this massacre of millions has, on occasion, every now and then, in spite, of course, of the countervailing considerations, in the full light of objective reevaluation, led to wars which were in some sense unjust, and therefore worthy of condemnation, even if not worthy of being mentioned or remembered in the same breath as the victims of the U.S. government’s geopolitical enemies.

@facebook-1702318862:disqus : “May Day is now primarily associated with state communism,  …”

By whom?

That seems to be what you primarily associate it with, but I have to wonder how widespread you seriously believe your associations to be.

In the two communities I’ve lived in for the past several years (in southern Nevada, and in eastern Alabama), May 1 seems primarily to be associated with street protests in favor of immigration freedom.

@facebook-1702318862:disqus : “May Day is now primarily associated with state communism,  …”

By whom?

That seems to be what you primarily associate it with, but I have to wonder how widespread you seriously believe your associations to be.

In the two communities I’ve lived in for the past several years (in southern Nevada, and in eastern Alabama), May 1 seems primarily to be associated with street protests in favor of immigration freedom.

Also — for what it’s worth — previously discussed at BHL, in “I’m against Free Trade Agreements because I’m for free trade”.

Also — for what it’s worth — previously discussed at BHL, in “I’m against Free Trade Agreements because I’m for free trade”.

Jason Brennan : "May Day is now primarily associated with state communism,  ..."

By whom?

That seems to be what you primarily associate it with, but I have to wonder how widespread you seriously believe your associations to be.

In the two communities I've lived in for the past several years (in southern Nevada, and in eastern Alabama), May 1 seems primarily to be associated with street protests in favor of immigration freedom.

Jason Brennan : "May Day is now primarily associated with state communism,  ..."

By whom?

That seems to be what you primarily associate it with, but I have to wonder how widespread you seriously believe your associations to be.

In the two communities I've lived in for the past several years (in southern Nevada, and in eastern Alabama), May 1 seems primarily to be associated with street protests in favor of immigration freedom.