[annalex]

I thank everyone for the spirited discussion on these threads following the September 11 massacre. I began this article under peaceful circumstances as an abstract analysis of property rights, following Pursuit of Liberty: Right to Roam or Licence to Trespass?; the segue into the just war theory became its natural extension.

I plan to take a break from the Defense of Liberty series and will skip a few weeks. Suggestions of topics to discuss are always welcome. If you would like to be on my bump list, for the Defense of Liberty series, please let me know.

Please SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

[annalex]

Rudyard Kipling

Fuzzy-wuzzy

(Soudan Expeditionary Force)

We've fought with many men acrost the seas,
An' some of 'em was brave an' some was not:
The Paythan an' the Zulu an' Burmese;
But the Fuzzy was the finest o' the lot.
We never got a ha'porth's change of 'im:
'E squatted in the scrub an' 'ocked our 'orses,
'E cut our sentries up at Sua~kim~,
An' 'e played the cat an' banjo with our forces.
So 'ere's ~to~ you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, at your 'ome in the Soudan;
You're a pore benighted 'eathen but a first-class fightin' man;
We gives you your certificate, an' if you want it signed
We'll come an' 'ave a romp with you whenever you're inclined.

We took our chanst among the Khyber 'ills,
The Boers knocked us silly at a mile,
The Burman give us Irriwaddy chills,
An' a Zulu ~impi~ dished us up in style:
But all we ever got from such as they
Was pop to what the Fuzzy made us swaller;
We 'eld our bloomin' own, the papers say,
But man for man the Fuzzy knocked us 'oller.
Then 'ere's ~to~ you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, an' the missis and the kid;
Our orders was to break you, an' of course we went an' did.
We sloshed you with Martinis, an' it wasn't 'ardly fair;
But for all the odds agin' you, Fuzzy-Wuz, you broke the square.

'E 'asn't got no papers of 'is own,
'E 'asn't got no medals nor rewards,
So we must certify the skill 'e's shown
In usin' of 'is long two-'anded swords:
When 'e's 'oppin' in an' out among the bush
With 'is coffin-'eaded shield an' shovel-spear,
An 'appy day with Fuzzy on the rush
Will last an 'ealthy Tommy for a year.
So 'ere's ~to~ you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, an' your friends which are no more,
If we 'adn't lost some messmates we would 'elp you to deplore;
But give an' take's the gospel, an' we'll call the bargain fair,
For if you 'ave lost more than us, you crumpled up the square!

'E rushes at the smoke when we let drive,
An', before we know, 'e's 'ackin' at our 'ead;
'E's all 'ot sand an' ginger when alive,
An' 'e's generally shammin' when 'e's dead.
'E's a daisy, 'e's a ducky, 'e's a lamb!
'E's a injia-rubber idiot on the spree,
'E's the on'y thing that doesn't give a damn
For a Regiment o' British Infantree!
So 'ere's ~to~ you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, at your 'ome in the Soudan;
You're a pore benighted 'eathen but a first-class fightin' man;
An' 'ere's ~to~ you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, with your 'ayrick 'ead of 'air --
You big black boundin' beggar -- for you broke a British square!

[PatrickHenry]

Although the Indians may go to war between themselves, and the farmers may fight for territory between themselves, the war between farmers and Indians is a war between civilizations. The difference is that both the farming civilization and the foraging civilization are complete and self-sufficient systems of property rights. No deal exists that would enable them to coexist and maintain their full sets of property rights.

Bit of a disagreement here. I would suggest that the foraging "civilization" doesn't have property rights as we know them. So there is no conflict of property rights. There is a conflict between a society that has such rights and one that doesn't recognize them at all. (Tribal territory, used by custom, isn't the same thing at as a property right.)

[Free the USA]

Another thought provoking article. I will probably return latter with a question.

[annalex]

Due to a formatting error, it is not clear that the two paragraphs beginning:

The endless local wars were not, as is believed, the doing of "robber barons" ...

War, moreover, had some civilized features -- it was a game. ...

are a quote from Barzun (with an embedded quote). The two paragraphs were supposed to be indented, and the starting quotation mark is missing.

[Maelstrom]

Thank You

[Justin Raimondo]

Leave it to some "libertarian" to derive the "right" of the US to a worldwide empire from a "bubble of personal space wrapped around each person." I guess the US "bubble" extends to five continents. How long before the "bubble" bursts?

[Demidog]

Just authority: Only the legitimate rulers of the state may declare war.

Thus any suggestion that bin Laden's declaration of war puts us at war is false. We are not at war either as our leaders have not declared a constitutional war.

We are involved in an unjust action.

[annalex]

I should probably put you on my regular bump list.

[Pistias]

Are there any rules that control warmaking under natural law? The question is trivial in the case of competitive violence with mutually agreed upon rules between individuals

Unless the law of nature precludes killing for honor or entertainment. Also, you seem to say that individuals should be free to toss away their lives, but

inaction next to a helpless person whose life is in an immediate peril is no different in its immediate effect from homicide if help can arrive only from the inactor. Provided that the inactor can render help without injury to himself, his inaction is unrightful, and so an act of help becomes a duty.

here you say that to refrain from helping someone in distress is criminal. I assume, then, that "helpless" assumes "not suicidal?"

[Free the USA]

I always enjoy your thoughtful analysis and being strongly influenced by Ayn Rand I tend to agree with it. I was wondering if you have a thought on how to reconcile a need for a pre-emptive first strike with the idea of natural rights. Libertarians often place an absolute restriction on first initiation of force that leaves them waiting to be attacked before they can respond. If all sides observe the non-initiation of force pledge of the Libertarian Party there is no problem; but war like the game of Chess often yields great advantage to the aggressive party. Sitting back and trying to build defenses leaves a nation vulnerable to great loss that could be prevented by a judicious application of a pre-emptive first strike. Israel attacking Iraq’s Nuclear production facilities would be an appropriate example. I think there is a way to justify a pre-emptive strike as an extension of the right of self-defense. I don’t think Ayn Rand ever dealt directly with the issue but there ought to be a way to explain the justification within the framework of Natural Law. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated.

[annalex]

Next installment:

Defense of Liberty: Libertarianism and the Public Square

[annalex]

Here is some supporting material: Classics and War

[annalex]

keep alive.