A Question on Duels and War.

[RichardY]

I was wondering if the Leaders/Mafia Dons of nations think that war is presumably a just solution why not fight directly against one another, have some skin in the game? You could have Putin and his Defence and Foreign Minister vs The Ukrainian Chocolate Boy, Victor Poroshenko and his Goon squad. Could still test out and develop better weapons and technology, but would have a more localised destruction. Could equip them with Flamethrowers and Fighter jets. Same with Saddam Hussein, Bush and Blair. 

 

If they don't fight wouldn't it be reasonable to call them cowards? I mean if they really are doing things for the good of the people, why not have people willing to stake their lives and not the millions of lives of others, who want no part. If people like Saddam, Putin, Gaddafi or any politician that base their rule on violence, politics being force right? Then surely they would lose credibility and anyone could bump them off (probably a Junior Military Officer, might be why Stalin carried out purges, he wasn't being paranoid), without fear of reprisal.

 

With the Internet now surely it would be easier to broadcast such a challenge, kind of like the Ice bucket challenge, just replace the Ice with Acid and have them throw it at each other. 

 

 

[dsayers]

If they don't fight wouldn't it be reasonable to call them cowards?

You know that adage work smarter, not harder? They're accomplishing greater tasks with less risk to themselves. It's like saying that somebody that travels inside a metal box (car) is a coward compared to a biker who has less protection at higher speeds.

 

Why do you ask? If we know that they're psychopaths, how would labeling them as cowards be of any significance?

 

If you ask me, it's the people who fight for them for no reason other than "orders" that are the cowards. As well as the people that conditioned them into believing that orders, duty, country, whatever is a standard.

[EclecticIdealist]

If we know that they're psychopaths, how would labeling them as cowards be of any significance?

 

If you ask me, it's the people who fight for them for no reason other than "orders" that are the cowards. As well as the people that conditioned them into believing that orders, duty, country, whatever is a standard.

Hey!  That's something that I actually agree with you on.  I hope you don't change your mind about it simply because I agree with you.

[mkaru]

I was wondering if the Leaders/Mafia Dons of nations think that war is presumably a just solution why not fight directly against one another, have some skin in the game? You could have Putin and his Defence and Foreign Minister vs The Ukrainian Chocolate Boy, Victor Poroshenko and his Goon squad. Could still test out and develop better weapons and technology, but would have a more localised destruction. Could equip them with Flamethrowers and Fighter jets. Same with Saddam Hussein, Bush and Blair. 

 

If they don't fight wouldn't it be reasonable to call them cowards? I mean if they really are doing things for the good of the people, why not have people willing to stake their lives and not the millions of lives of others, who want no part. If people like Saddam, Putin, Gaddafi or any politician that base their rule on violence, politics being force right? Then surely they would lose credibility and anyone could bump them off (probably a Junior Military Officer, might be why Stalin carried out purges, he wasn't being paranoid), without fear of reprisal.

 

With the Internet now surely it would be easier to broadcast such a challenge, kind of like the Ice bucket challenge, just replace the Ice with Acid and have them throw it at each other. 

 

But war is not a game or a sport or a "challenge". It is not about honor or not being a coward. War is about physical annihilation of the enemy until his will is broken. It is what Hobbes is talking about when he is talking about the "state of nature" or "state of warre". This is not something that is decided by rules like a sport or a game.

[RichardY]

You know that adage work smarter, not harder? They're accomplishing greater tasks with less risk to themselves. It's like saying that somebody that travels inside a metal box (car) is a coward compared to a biker who has less protection at higher speeds.

The Biker does not assume the Moral Authority to tell people what to, or order people to their deaths. 

 

Why do you ask? If we know that they're psychopaths, how would labeling them as cowards be of any significance?

They can't claim Moral Authority to start a war if they themselves are not ready to die. If they claim Divine Right than obviously "God" would choose the victor, in single combat. Printing the Bible destroyed the Moral Authority of the Church at least in the eyes of those able to read it in their own language.

 

If you ask me, it's the people who fight for them for no reason other than "orders" that are the cowards. 

I would say they are either children mentally in critical thinking or robots that have no freewill/other information, if they only follow orders, not cowards. Coward would be believing in the good and doing nothing. 

 

.As well as the people that conditioned them into believing that orders, duty, country, whatever is a standard.

So politicians and Heads of State don't do this by claiming to represent the country? Would that make Donald Trump a coward by claiming to "make America Great Again"?

 War is about physical annihilation of the enemy until his will is broken. 

 If War is insane, which I will argue it is. Then how is making the person more insane going to deal with the longer issue of war. I use the expression "Skin in the Game" only as showing commitment, like having shares in a company.

[mkaru]

 

 If War is insane, which I will argue it is. Then how is making the person more insane going to deal with the longer issue of war. I use the expression "Skin in the Game" only as showing commitment, like having shares in a company.

 

I am not sure if I would say "insane". "Horrible", yes, in the sense as Hobbes describes that state of war as "nasty" and "brutish". But "insane"? Not in the sense of "irrational", at least not if we follow Hobbes here, who says that it is perfectly rational (and a moral right) to do whatever is necessary to preserve your life when confronted with an enemy. 

 

War means trying to break the enemy's will (make him surrender and comply to your will) or kill him. If you don't, then he will break your will or kill you. There is, of course, no greater form of commitment, than this literal meaning of "Skin in the game", that is of your life. 

 

If it were possible to decide a war by arugmentation or by substituting a game for it (e.g. chess or two gladiators) - it wouldn't have been war in the first place. 

[RichardY]

But who is the Enemy? I'm not sure firebombing and incinerating 100,000,000 men,women and children is sane and goes way beyond horrible when "The Enemy" can do the same to you and even if they can't. What if a group of politicians could break the will of the enemy by launching a first strike or by escalating to Nuclear, Chemical or Biological attack, maybe they estimate there might be only a 0.5% chance of effective retaliation, even with a 0.5% chance would that be considered sane? (would you even cross the road if you estimated there was a 0.5% chance of death or crippling injury).

 

 

 

If it were possible to decide a war by arugmentation or by substituting a game for it (e.g. chess or two gladiators) - it wouldn't have been war in the first place. 

 

There was a case of the Christmas Truce during WW1. Russia pulled out of WW1 becuase of The Russian Revolution, with the spread of Socialism/Communism a poor logical argument, but powerful rhetorical one. The Glourious Revolution in England was resolved by talk when the English King fled and the Dutch King took over. The Kings of Europe or Greece would sometimes fight each other or appoint a champion in single combat to decide a battle or prevent a war.

 

If war is sane then there is no chance of preventing or resolving it, unless everyone goes insane.

[mkaru]

 

 

There was a case of the Christmas Truce during WW1. Russia pulled out of WW1 becuase of The Russian Revolution, with the spread of Socialism/Communism a poor logical argument, but powerful rhetorical one. The Glourious Revolution in England was resolved by talk when the English King fled and the Dutch King took over. The Kings of Europe or Greece would sometimes fight each other or appoint a champion in single combat to decide a battle or prevent a war.

 

If war is sane then there is no chance of preventing or resolving it, unless everyone goes insane.

 

I wouldn't want to say war is sane but that it is sane for people in a "state of war" to do whatever is necessary to protect themselves. Of course there are "rational" ways of ending a war. There probably are not many wars in history that wer ended (won) by "total annihilation" of the enemy. But what does "rational" mean? When wars are ended by a truce, isn't that because some of the parties have lost their "will to fight"? That is their will to fight has been broken by the enemies preceding military actions. Is a truce not the last act of a war? Or is it the first act within the state of peace following a state of war? I think rather the former. And is a truce really a state of peace (in a strong sense of "peace")? 

States can coexist in a state of peace. But is it wise for them to rely on the good will of other states? Or should they follow the principle "si vis pacem, para bellum"?

[dsayers]

The Biker does not assume the Moral Authority to tell people what to, or order people to their deaths. 

Do you think that this disproves that people respond to incentives, the underlying point?

 

They can't claim Moral Authority to start a war if they themselves are not ready to die.

This in stark contrast to millenia of empirical evidence to the contrary. Again, you missed the point. There's nothing useful in trying to point out that a murderer also stole a candy bar.

[RichardY]

Do you think that this disproves that people respond to incentives, the underlying point?

They also respond to justice or present society and advanced technology would not exist.

 

 

This in stark contrast to millenia of empirical evidence to the contrary. Again, you missed the point. There's nothing useful in trying to point out that a murderer also stole a candy bar.

How many Generals or people would have followed Washington, Rommel, Patton, Lee, Napoleon, Hitler, Caesar, Attila, Genghis Khan, Richard I & III, Barbarossa, Cortez, James II, Alexander the Great, Stalin, Mussolini, Saddam, Gaddafi and Mugabe. If they knew they weren't ready to stake their lives at least once on what they believed or desired rightly or wrongly.

 

How many Japanese would have followed their officers if they weren't ready to gut themselves if they lost or have their head cut off?

 

Mutiny in the French Army in WW1 was covered up probably because the officers and generals weren't ready to die. How many American G.I's would be willing to follow their officers or Generals in Vietnam if they knew they were cowards?

[dsayers]

They also respond to justice or present society and advanced technology would not exist.

Deflection; Doesn't answer the question.

 

As for the rest of your post, you're going to believe what you believe because you want to believe it. Point taken.

[RichardY]

Deflection; Doesn't answer the question.

dsayers, on 06 Jun 2016 - 10:50 PM, said:

Do you think that this disproves that people respond to incentives, the underlying point?

 

They also respond to justice or present society and advanced technology would not exist.

"They also", meaning I do not disagree that people respond to incentives. But, as you seem keen on people responding to incentives. What incentive would make you run around the WhiteHouse perimeter naked with a sign saying and screaming like a lunatic  "Freedomain Radio is The Best" ?

[dsayers]

What incentive would make you run around the WhiteHouse perimeter naked with a sign saying and screaming like a lunatic  "Freedomain Radio is The Best" ?

Relevance? You walk up and tell a guy to give you his wallet, you risk him hurting you and/or society shunning you. Command an army from afar while the soldiers' peers bow to you... bit of a risk disparity, would you agree?

 

I'm not cowardly when I reach for a reciprocating saw instead of a hacksaw. I'm trying to accomplish my goal with greater ease, lower risk, increased payoff, etc because I respond to incentives.

 

Why do you need for these people to be cowards and for others to agree so badly I wonder.

[RichardY]

You miss understand me, I mean you literally and not someone else. The incentive does not have to be negative it can be positive. I was wondering if people respond to incentive what incentive would you take to do an immoral or unjust action.

 

I agree reasoning is preferable to a point but if the leader of a nation establish rule by force how much can you reason with someone who only acts by force. "Peace in our time"

 

Why do you need for these people to be cowards and for others to agree so badly I wonder.

 Mostly because I'm concerned for my own future in Europe and am thinking of whether to leave by any moral means I can think of, or stay and fight evil. If I can build on my ability to identify inconsistencies and doubt then I could use that against Evil or cowardly people.

[dsayers]

 Mostly because I'm concerned for my own future in Europe and am thinking of whether to leave by any moral means I can think of, or stay and fight evil. If I can build on my ability to identify inconsistencies and doubt then I could use that against Evil or cowardly people.

I think you're being dishonest with at least one of us. Also, you're moving the goalposts a lot.

 

You're not going to meet these leaders. Whether or not they're cowards, on top of being psychopaths still is of little use.