I'm not talking about what works. This isn't where you go for the latest in utilitarian consequentialist analysis. Evil can be effective, but it'll never be cowed by playing the same game. If you think that is the only way to win then you have already lost, because our enemies are a whole lot better at that than we are. Nobody will ever completely win or lose. As long as humans are around this war will continue. It isn't about the destination, its about the journey. Without principles the journey has no meaning and demoralization in the presence of what we face becomes inevitable.
For me, I have to follow certain rules to feel righteous, and to be effective, I have to feel righteous. Every personality has tradeoffs and a shadow side. This comes to mind though https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3BJPVLogg4
The NAP misses the core issue at hand, which is the maligne and pervasive influence we are fighting against. Such influence neither requires coercio, nor relies in it. It works more through fraud (in all it's different ways), than through force. But it can be stopped through force (forcefull exclusion would be the preferred nethod here). Here the NAP turns out to be more of a handicap, than help.
The NAP doesn't prohibit coercion, it just prohibits the initiation of coercion. No coercion against the innocent. As to who is innocent, a lot of discussion could be had in that space, but that is the necessary framing to elegantly separate good from evil (given my views). Also, exclusion isn't coercive given robust property rights.
What makes an action evil is a specific combination of intent and effect, the means are secondary, but nonetheless relevant. Different means lend themselves more or less towards different ends, but are neither exclusive nor deterministic towards them. Coercion has a tendency towards evil, but neither a monopoly nor no utility for good.
When it comes to intent, that is something, we can not observe. We have to infer it from peoples actions. Regarding those, actions with consistent, persistent, intentional and needless infliction of harm, are the essence of evil.
"...whoever can maintain dominance in the cognitive domain will ultimately prevail in any conflict..."
"...Both sides engage in MindWar..."
Both are true, but the almost total control of the mass media gives one side an essentially insurmountable advantage. It seems to me that if you can write the mainstream narrative, then you cannot be defeated. Truth may be inconsequential. So as long as one side has that dominance, then the outcome of any general Mindwar is a foregone conclusion. The history of the past few decades seem to prove it
Truth has a way of exerting itself in spite of our enemies best efforts. That said, much work is needed to help it along. Yes, it seems bad, but I find such a challenge gives life meaning.
As long as we're still talking and not acting, our cognitive is dominated by the Nudgemeisters.
The truth is they've already won and this is all peasant grumbling.
"...whoever can maintain dominance in the cognitive domain will ultimately prevail in any conflict..."
Oh. That's a lot of money, sweat and time saved !
That doesn't cost $700 Billion !
"It is immoral to use force against the innocent."
We're really going to have to cancel actual war, here...and as it happens...we have.
ROE=NAP. ROE is simply a lawyers scam and BTW changes daily...or more than daily.
NAP....don't use force against the innocent. OK.
Because terror never works, fear doesn't work.
Violence never changes anything....
Especially against the innocent...
HAMAS just defeated Israel.
In fact Israel is probably going the way of South Africa but much worse and it's happening fast.
Review: HAMAS just won.
AQ and the Islamists won against America, we left.
The Taliban won.
The Khmer Rouge won.
The North Vietnamese won.
Mao won in China.
The USSR won.
The Tartars won.
The Mongols won.
The Romans won.
Apply all this to WW2, the Indian wars on this Continent, indeed to any victory ever...
tell me how history, and success, meet your exacting criteria?
They don't.
This is all a formula to delude yourself we can talk or think our way out of it..
I'm not talking about what works. This isn't where you go for the latest in utilitarian consequentialist analysis. Evil can be effective, but it'll never be cowed by playing the same game. If you think that is the only way to win then you have already lost, because our enemies are a whole lot better at that than we are. Nobody will ever completely win or lose. As long as humans are around this war will continue. It isn't about the destination, its about the journey. Without principles the journey has no meaning and demoralization in the presence of what we face becomes inevitable.
If we lose the journey is over.
If people trust others to defend or lead them and they are failed deliberately then that’s immoral.
Leading sheep as the Black Goat to Doom isn’t moral.
Journey? Theory? Let’s take survival. Survival is moral.
Deliberately failing when OTHERS will DIE because they trusted the wrong people isn’t Morality.
For me, I have to follow certain rules to feel righteous, and to be effective, I have to feel righteous. Every personality has tradeoffs and a shadow side. This comes to mind though https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3BJPVLogg4
There are other people who are involved who depend on us for survival. Never mind Constitutional government.
So feel bad (it is very bad) and defend them anyway.
Sacrifice righteousness for others, as all the other sacrifices are made.
The NAP misses the core issue at hand, which is the maligne and pervasive influence we are fighting against. Such influence neither requires coercio, nor relies in it. It works more through fraud (in all it's different ways), than through force. But it can be stopped through force (forcefull exclusion would be the preferred nethod here). Here the NAP turns out to be more of a handicap, than help.
The NAP doesn't prohibit coercion, it just prohibits the initiation of coercion. No coercion against the innocent. As to who is innocent, a lot of discussion could be had in that space, but that is the necessary framing to elegantly separate good from evil (given my views). Also, exclusion isn't coercive given robust property rights.
What makes an action evil is a specific combination of intent and effect, the means are secondary, but nonetheless relevant. Different means lend themselves more or less towards different ends, but are neither exclusive nor deterministic towards them. Coercion has a tendency towards evil, but neither a monopoly nor no utility for good.
When it comes to intent, that is something, we can not observe. We have to infer it from peoples actions. Regarding those, actions with consistent, persistent, intentional and needless infliction of harm, are the essence of evil.
"...whoever can maintain dominance in the cognitive domain will ultimately prevail in any conflict..."
"...Both sides engage in MindWar..."
Both are true, but the almost total control of the mass media gives one side an essentially insurmountable advantage. It seems to me that if you can write the mainstream narrative, then you cannot be defeated. Truth may be inconsequential. So as long as one side has that dominance, then the outcome of any general Mindwar is a foregone conclusion. The history of the past few decades seem to prove it
Truth has a way of exerting itself in spite of our enemies best efforts. That said, much work is needed to help it along. Yes, it seems bad, but I find such a challenge gives life meaning.