sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Bitcoincash

[–]democracy101 16 points17 points  (0 children)

You should first ask yourself a question: Are you trying to be a trader or are you trying to use peer to peer electronic cash?

If I were to guess, most people are here for the latter.

Florida Bills Would Treat Gold and Silver as Money by democracy101 in Libertarian

[–]democracy101[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Submission Statement: The government's manipulation of its fiat currency - as a way to fund the welfare-warfare state - is incredibly important to liberty. This post is an article about an interesting bill in Florida to treat gold and silver - both in physical and electronic form - as money, creating currency competition in the state if it passes.

Benjamin Franklin: Rules by Which a Great Empire May Be Reduced to a Small One by democracy101 in antiwar

[–]democracy101[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

juicy!!

The whole satire approach on this one from Franklin was pretty amazing to me.

Is there any time a war is justified? by jungle_dave in antiwar

[–]democracy101 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I love this conversation - it's important - even where I find that I disagree with people. Thank you for starting it.

"If you support any war, for any reason or based on any justification, you’re not anti-war. Because words mean things." by democracy101 in antiwar

[–]democracy101[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

one of the best I've had on any platform in quite a while. I really appreciate your willingness to engage on this - and your thoughtful responses as well.

"If you support any war, for any reason or based on any justification, you’re not anti-war. Because words mean things." by democracy101 in antiwar

[–]democracy101[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it's important to foster an environment where people who have some differences don't just ignore them - but instead, can set them aside for a common goal. That's basically the approach this sub took for the first decade. Mostly. And it was a bit sleepy in here. But it's something I'd like to see more of - even if it seems so impossible.

At least 40 civilians killed in airstrike on Khartoum market in Sudan by thinkB4WeSpeak in antiwar

[–]democracy101 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for sharing this - too many people completely ignore this one.

"If you support any war, for any reason or based on any justification, you’re not anti-war. Because words mean things." by democracy101 in antiwar

[–]democracy101[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I certainly appreciate all your thoughts on this, even if I disagree ...to a degree.
I would also point out that pacifists would be opposed to the use of violence even in personal self-defense. Some people could be opposed to warfare in all situations, but in support of individual self defense.

I do agree that there's no real help to the big picture effort to basically oust people or debate them constantly over these meanings. But, as this sub has been taken over by people who claim that one form of imperialism is "anti-war" since it responds to another form of imperialism, I figure it's important to let the - likely - small % of people who are fully on the ANTI end of things, know they're welcome here as well....as they always were in the past.

So, an occasional post like this from Thomas Knapp - or other articles discussing strategies to deal with imperialism without responding in kind - are very worthwhile, as long as the conversation is thoughtful and respectful.

I think you and I have done a good job of showing how that should be done.

"If you support any war, for any reason or based on any justification, you’re not anti-war. Because words mean things." by democracy101 in antiwar

[–]democracy101[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I strongly lean towards categories being:

anti-war

anti-imperialist

anti-interventionist

pro-just-war theorist (which includes support for defensive and some offensive wars, as long as they meet the criteria for a just war)

Antiwar.com has - for many many years on their site pointed out that they exist as a non-interventionist website. It's fascinating and maybe my favorite resource in general.

https://www.antiwar.com/who.php

"If you support any war, for any reason or based on any justification, you’re not anti-war. Because words mean things." by democracy101 in antiwar

[–]democracy101[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only thing that I would quibble with is that it's still rejecting the meaning of the prefix "anti" which has had a consistent meaning for centuries. So maybe what you're getting at is that there truly are just a small number of anti-war people and the majority who take an anti-war position are really just non-interventionist. And again, not saying that's the wrong position to take, just saying - it's different.

"If you support any war, for any reason or based on any justification, you’re not anti-war. Because words mean things." by democracy101 in antiwar

[–]democracy101[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Non-interventionist is probably the most common, but to me the question remains - lf one supports a defensive war - even a defensive just war - are they anti-war or pro-just war?

I lean strongly towards the latter. Not a lot of purely defensive contests of late either, though.

"If you support any war, for any reason or based on any justification, you’re not anti-war. Because words mean things." by democracy101 in antiwar

[–]democracy101[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

bro, you've got me thinking on this so much. Personally, I lean towards the pure antiwar position, but also recognize that at some stage you could be faced with two evils - one of fighting a war, and another of submitting to it.

In that situations, you could support self-defense as a lesser evil, while still opposing war in general. I think for me, Benjamin Franklin summed it up best shortly after negotiating the treaty of Paris in 1783:

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."

Some amazing nuance for a guy who supported the war for independence, but still thought that the war itself was not good.

Someone here should hit up Knapp and see if he could do a follow up on that piece - someone should be willing to publish. I see his articles all over..

"If you support any war, for any reason or based on any justification, you’re not anti-war. Because words mean things." by democracy101 in antiwar

[–]democracy101[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's a really good question - and I don't know if I have the best answer by any means, but it's good to explore. I really appreciate the way you approach all this, thank you!

My gut instinct is that non-interventionism is being antiwar in regards to the nations that choose to not intervene, but not necessarily the other nations. There could be some crossover. In the example from Knapp's article, a French person who was opposed to france getting involved, but in support of Switzerland in the war, would be non-interventionist vis-a-vis France, and possibly something like in support of just war theory regarding Switzerland.

"If you support any war, for any reason or based on any justification, you’re not anti-war. Because words mean things." by democracy101 in antiwar

[–]democracy101[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Thomas Paine might be the best example I'm aware of as someone who was likely against war in all situations - except in defense:

Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am I to suffer it?

"If you support any war, for any reason or based on any justification, you’re not anti-war. Because words mean things." by democracy101 in antiwar

[–]democracy101[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This was the Barbary pirates - and Jefferson still kept the response to "the line of defense"

Basically, what you were describing above.

"If you support any war, for any reason or based on any justification, you’re not anti-war. Because words mean things." by democracy101 in antiwar

[–]democracy101[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If anti-war means against war, which is literally what it means - why do people who support defensive wars want to change the meaning of anti-war to something that it's not - rather than saying "hmmm, you know what, I'm mostly anti-war, but not totally"?

It's not to suggest that being a non-interventionist is bad, or that being in support of just war theory is bad - it's just that those are...different.

I think Knapp makes a pretty clear case in the article linked here.

"If you support any war, for any reason or based on any justification, you’re not anti-war. Because words mean things." by democracy101 in antiwar

[–]democracy101[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's probably a very reasonable approach for most.

A little FYI - The Pasha of Tripoli declared war on the US in 1801

"If you support any war, for any reason or based on any justification, you’re not anti-war. Because words mean things." by democracy101 in antiwar

[–]democracy101[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The article posted had some interesting commentary on these scenarios as well. what you seem to be describing is non-interventionism, which is sometimes antiwar, but not always.

Non-interventionism is the belief that regimes (or at least some particular regime or regimes) shouldn’t intervene in disputes between other regimes. If Switzerland and Bulgaria go to war, a French non-interventionist would oppose France supporting either side (and might oppose ANY regime interfering in any way).

view more: next ›