The American Spectator : Was the American Revolution Just?

Text Size

Another Perspective

Was the American Revolution Just?

By Mark Tooley on 7.27.10 @ 6:08AM

A response to Georgetown ethicist John Keown.

Americans of all stripes recently celebrated our country's 234th birthday. But it is fashionable by some on the Religious Left to discredit the American Revolution as primarily the selfish reaction against reasonable taxation. In their eyes, the original Tea Partiers of 1773 are as offensive and today's Tea Party rebels against big government. And since the Iraq War, if not before, the Religious Left has tried to reinterpret traditional Just War criteria into impossibly stratospheric standards, so that no war can ever be moral. Just War teaching thereby becomes a reflexive rebuke to all force, rather than a careful reasoning tool.

The stratospheric standard seems to afflict the critique of the American Revolution by John Keown, a respected ethicist at Georgetown University.

Recently I wrote for The American Spectator about an Evangelical Left commentator mocking America's War for Independence as simply about greed. But that commentator, like most on the Evangelical Left, is overtly pacifist. Religious pacifists will sometimes deploy their version of Just War rules to prove the supposed impossibility of moral force. But they do not treat the tradition very seriously, except as an occasional rhetorical tool. Keown treats the tradition more seriously, and his critique of America's founding late last year ("America's War for Independence: Just or Unjust?") was in the intellectually weighty Journal of Catholic Social Thought, affiliated with Villanova University. Keown's rejection of America's war for independence as immoral deserves a response.

Keown acknowledged that many Roman Catholics in revolutionary America enthusiastically supported independence from Britain. John Carroll, later America's first Catholic bishop, famously accompanied Benjamin Franklin to Quebec to persuade (unsuccessfully ) Quebecers to join them against Britain. John's brother, the statesman Charles Carroll, became the last living signer of the Declaration of Independence. But Keown still deduces that the American Revolution failed to meet the 7 traditional standards of Just War teaching: just cause, proportionality, right intention, competent authority, probability of success, last resort, and comparative justice.

Reluctantly, Keown granted that the Continental Congress may have qualified as a "competent authority" to wage war. The delegates were "moderates," mostly elected by mass meetings in their respective jurisdictions and they waged war in a "controlled fashion." Keown also seemingly admitted that America's Revolutionaries had the "probability of success," which should seem obvious, since they did in fact win. He is skeptical the Americans could have won without France. But it would seem that the British capacity to subdue a large and prosperous colony spread across half a continent, and opposite an ocean, was always doubtful, assuming American will persevered. Forty years later, the Duke of Wellington advised his government to end the War of 1812 with America, even after Napoleon's defeat, thinking the mission unnecessary and unwinnable. What was true in 1815 was probably true in 1775.

So Keown focused on the remaining 5 standards. Regarding whether war was a justified last resort, he surmised the colonists could have been more patient with economic pressure, while admitting that the ongoing boycott of British goods was disrupted by events at Lexington and Concord. Even that British military excursion Keown defended as a legitimate action by a "sovereign power" to "neutralize" arms potentially aimed against it. Keown pronounced the American insurrection "precipitate," especially when Canada, Australia, and New Zealand achieved independence peacefully, and India gained it through civil disobedience. But Keown did not fully consider what impact America's successful revolt and republic had on British governance, not to mention its eventual attitude towards other colonies.

Regarding the demand for "comparative justice," Keown is skeptical that sufficient "values" were imperiled to "override the presumption against war." He primarily disputed that war for American independence was a "just cause," and accused the Americans of exaggeration when their Declaration of Independence inveighed against Britain's plans for "absolute despotism" through "death, desolation and tyranny." Regarding taxation, Keown asserted that American colonists were less taxed than the British, that Britain rightly expected help in paying for the French and Indian War, and that the colonies were unwilling to pay for their frontier defense. Besides, the Americans paid for more in taxes after the American Revolution, he noted.

As to American complaints of taxation without representation, Keown wrote that American legislatures were more democratic than the British Parliament, the colonies had effective paid agents representing them in London, and most British themselves had no direct role in electing their Parliament. Interestingly, Keown extensively quoted two English Protestants, the man of letters Samuel Johnson, and the Methodist evangelist John Wesley. Dr. Johnson insisted the Americans, or at least their ancestors, had foresworn the potential for voting at home in favor of riches in America. Rev. Wesley professed that he, like 90 percent of all Britons, had no direct representation in Parliament, yet still enjoyed civil and religious liberty to the "utmost."

Keown defended the British closure of Boston's port and other coercive acts as the justified reaction against American "criminality," like the famous destruction of British tea. And British trials for Americans outside their own colony, without benefit of a local jury, was justified with local opinion unwilling to punish acts against the British crown. American fears for their liberty were "misplaced," Keown insisted, as the British had "no plan to restrict colonial liberties or impose authoritarian administration."

Even if America's revolution was just, was it "proportionate" to the good it sought? Keown thinks not, even though the new nation's democracy was "impressive." But arguing against it, Keown claimed the revolution "opened the door to the decimation of the Native Americans [and] also pitted colonist against Parliament, white American against African-American, neighbor against neighbor, and father against son. He also alleged that America's Revolution may have spawned the French Revolution and its "bloodbath." Finally, Keown argued that Americans' lacked "right intent," because they refused British peace overtures and mistreated loyal Tories, often seizing their property. In fact, all of the British "peace" overtures, including the 1778 overture by Lord Carlisle, demanded America submit to the British crown. Adamant Tories got better treatment than defeated American "traitors" likely would have. And the atrocities on British prisoner ships, where American deaths exceeded combat mortality, likely rank as the war's worst crimes.

Perhaps Keown's charge that American independence prolonged slavery is his most egregious. Britain abolished slavery in 1833, freeing about 800,000 slaves in its colonies, primarily the Caribbean. British abolition was achieved after decades of humanitarian appeals but was accelerated by a bloody slave revolt and repression in Jamaica. Interestingly, abolition of the British slave trade in 1807 was almost concurrent with America's own end to the importation of slaves, as mandated by the Constitution. Would Britain have abolished slavery in 1833, with compensation for owners, if America's own then 2 million slaves were included?

And to what extent did America's Revolution, with its rhetoric about human equality, fuel abolitionism in both America and Britain? How would an imperial and unchallenged Britain have dealt with America's tribal peoples? Britain's record before the Revolution, and its treatment of indigenous people in Africa and Asia later, provide no clear evidence that the end result would have differed. As to Keown's claims of American paranoia about British plots against their liberties, he of course wrote with benefit of hindsight. Americans were primarily Whigs and identified with the 18^th parliamentary cause against royal authoritarianism. The Tory regime in London, still tainted for many by its historic fealty to the crown, aroused not unjustified suspicions. More importantly, America's Founders, many of them inspired by Calvinist doubts about human nature, rightly feared any assaults upon liberty, however incremental, as potential steps towards tyranny.

America's British overlords were revoking colonial charters, imposing direct parliamentary taxes without consent from colonial legislatures, dissolving and relocating those legislatures, restricting the right to trials by their peers, putting colonial judges onto their own payroll, and quartering large numbers of British troops in the colonies whose targets clearly were the colonials and not external enemies. After Lexington and Concord, the British king declared war on his subjects, for which he hired German mercenaries. As to Boston's "criminality," the Americans were to be taxed for any offloaded tea, whether they bought it or not. Peacefully dumping the tea in Boston Harbor seems almost Gandhi-like.

As to faulting the French Revolution's crimes on the very different American Revolution, this is akin to blaming Christianity for its heresies and imposters. The French collapse into irreligion, murder and dictatorship, in the aftermath of royal ineptitude and repression, should not be faulted on the American Revolution's principles of ordered liberty. Keown quoted John Wesley's opposition to the American Revolution, which was mostly a rehash of Samuel Johnson' s critique. But Wesley as late as 1775 called Americans an "oppressed people" who "asked for nothing more than their legal rights, and that in the most modest and inoffensive manner." Only later, fearing potential revolution in Britain itself, did Wesley condemn the Americans.

Wesley's main disciple in America, who would essentially create American Methodism, was Francis Asbury, who vigorously dissented from Wesley's view on the war, saying he was "truly sorry that the venerable man ever dipped into the politics of America." If Wesley had "been a subject of America, no doubt he would have been as zealous an advocate of the American cause." Asbury would later meet President George Washington, that "matchless man," and hail the "most excellent constitution of these states, which is at present the admiration of the world." As Keown acknowledged, early American Catholics largely agreed with the Methodist Bishop about the new republic.

Keown concluded that the American Revolution is widely viewed as "just" but likely failed to satisfy all, or perhaps not any, of Just War's 7 criteria. He hoped this conclusion would "provoke a renewed appreciation of the strictness of the just war tradition." But bending Just War standards into an asymptotic and unattainable measure, rather than simply disputing American independence per se, seems to be the wider goal of many on the Religious Left, who will welcome Keown's arguments. Meanwhile, shouldn't Keown, who is himself English, also examine whether British actions during 1775-1781 meet Just War criteria?!

About the Author

Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (80) | Leave a comment

Darin| 7.27.10 @ 6:59AM

Everytime I read about someone questioning the existance of America while living in and enjoying the freedom of America, I have to chuckle.

The main freedom I note they do not exercise is the freedom to leave.

Alan Brooks| 7.27.10 @ 1:22PM

"so that no war can ever be moral."

No war is moral-- only perhaps necessary. Communism and fascism were fought and destroyed not because we are moral, but because they were both a big threat.

pete the mediocre| 7.27.10 @ 2:26PM

That may be the most idiotic comment I've ever read.
You see no morality on our part in the liberation of Auschwitz, nor in the liberation of the countries of Europe?
What a hopeless fool!

JS| 7.27.10 @ 7:32PM

Saying that no war is moral is just plain stupid.

A moral war is one which, based on the facts as they appeared at the time, prevents or minimises evil from the enemy without inflicting evil oneself. Deliberately killing or harming civilians is evil; killing inadvertently whilst taking all due care to avoid collateral casualties is not.

War is self-defense or defense of another on a macro scale. Just as it is not only necessary but right for me to use proportionate force to defend myself against a reasonably perceived attack, and just as it is not only necessary but right for me to use proportionate force to defend my neighbor against a reasonably perceived attack, it is not only necessary but right for a country to defend either itself or others against attacks using proportionate force.

In law, many defenses to criminal charges are classified as either excuses or justifications. This traditional division has been under attack, primarily from the left, because moral relativists fail to see the difference between self-defense (which is not only tolerable but right - a justification) and duress (which is not right, but since the reasonable man might be as fallible, is tolerated because punishment in such a situation would be harsh - an excuse).

Just as self-defense on a micro scale is morally right, self-defense on a macro scale is morally right. War can be morally, including wars of choice where we defend others rather than ourselves.

John Questel| 7.28.10 @ 2:54PM

Pretty funny to use the name Alan Brooks. Remember who Alan Brooks was: CIGS during WWII.

John Questel| 7.28.10 @ 3:03PM

Oops...Brooke not Brooks my mistake

Soljerblue| 7.27.10 @ 2:21PM

Darin's thought is also mine. But I add: Keown, like so many who deconstruct the Revolution and its generation, does it from a modern context without -- it seems to me -- fully understanding the social, cultural, and political context of British Americans of the time. From the review above, it seems to me, Keown selected quotes from eighteenth century contemporaries whose arguments played into his 21st century prejudices and perspective. He may be a noted ethicist, but as an historian he still needs work.

Mark James| 8.22.10 @ 11:43AM

My Thoughts exactly. Whenever ANY centralized government begins to usurp individual rights in favor of a dictatorial regime or collectivist authority violence to return liberty is justified. To not act so would be to assist and perpetuate the violence of tyranny upon yourself, your peers and your progeny.

Melvin| 7.27.10 @ 7:27AM

What the Sam Hell is an, Ethicist? Of course this questions is asked in the most sarcastic of tones. Mr. John Keown needs to go out and get a real job.

Robert Pinkerton| 7.27.10 @ 5:52PM

Our English word (conventionally a plural noun) "ethics" comes from the Classical Greek ethos, which in its turn comes from the noun, "ethnos, which means "People," in the sense of a recognizable and temporally continuous group -- in German, Volk, in Russian, Narod<?i>, in Hebrew, ha Leum. Ethics are overt and intrapsychic behaviors which bind those who practice them in common, together into a People.

Presumably an ethicist is someone who studies, and philosophizes upon, ethics -- whether as cross-cultural comparative study, or of his or her own culture.

Old Soldier| 7.27.10 @ 7:28AM

" a respected ethicist at Georgetown University"?

Seriously? Not by me.

Doctor Right| 7.27.10 @ 7:52AM

"Religious Left" = complete frauds.

They purposefully wrap themselves in the Bible and distort the meaning of scripture to push a socialist, statist agenda...

...And by doing so, they drag a lot of well-meaning but poorly informed people along with them...

Like my own Mother, a staunch Catholic who thinks Amnesty for all illegal aliens in this country would just be so gosh-darn swell!! 'Cuz by golly, those people need HELP!!!

Whenever I hear the phrase "religious left", I am reminded of Christ's admonition "By their fruits, you shall know them."

Well, we should all know what these fruitcakes are up to, and on any issue, it's no good.

D. Singh| 7.27.10 @ 8:25AM

"I rejoice that America has resisted."

William Pitt's speech against the Stamp Act

Gentlemen, Sir,

I have been charged with giving birth to sedition in America. They have spoken their sentiments with freedom against this unhappy act, and that freedom has become their crime.

Sorry I am to hear the liberty of speech in this House, imputed as a crime. No gentleman ought to be afraid to exercise it. It is a liberty by which the gentleman who calumniates it might have profited, by which he ought to have profited. He ought to have desisted from this project.

The gentleman tells us, America is obstinate; America is almost in open rebellion. I rejoice that America has resisted. Three million of people so dead to all feelings of liberty, as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest.

I come not here armed at all points, with law cases and acts of Parliament, with the statute book doubled down in dog's-ears, to defend the cause of liberty: if I had, I myself would have cited the two cases of Chester and Durham. I would have cited them, to have shown that even under former arbitrary reigns, Parliaments were ashamed of taxing a people without their consent, and allowed them representatives.

Why did the gentleman confine himself to Chester and Durham? He might have taken a higher example in Wales; Wales, that never was taxed by Parliament till it was incorporated.

I would not debate a particular point of law with the gentleman. I know his abilities. I have been obliged to his diligent researches: but, for the defense of liberty, upon a general principle, upon a constitutional principle, it is a ground on which I stand firm; on which I dare meet any man.

The gentleman tells us of many who are taxed, and are not represented. The India Company, merchants, stock-holders, manufacturers. Surely many of these are represented in other capacities, as owners of land, or as freemen of boroughs.

It is a misfortune that more are not equally represented: but they are all inhabitants, and as such, are they not virtually represented? . . . They have connections with those that elect, and they have influence over them. The gentleman mentioned the stockholders: I hope he does not reckon the debts of the nation as a part of the national estate. Since the accession of King William, many ministers, some of great, others of more moderate abilities, have taken the lead of government.

(passage omitted)

None of these thought, or ever dreamed, of robbing the colonies of their constitutional rights. That was to mark the era of the late administration: not that there were wanting some, when I had the honour to serve his Majesty, to propose to me to burn my fingers with an American Stamp-Act.

With the enemy at their back, with our bayonets at their breasts, in the day of their distress, perhaps the Americans would have submitted to the imposition: but it would have been taking an ungenerous and unjust advantage.

The gentleman boasts of his bounties to America. Are not those bounties intended finally for the benefit of this kingdom? If they are not, he has misapplied the national treasures.

I am no courtier of America; I stand up for this kingdom. I maintain, that the parliament has a right to bind, to restrain America. Our legislative power over the colonies is sovereign and supreme. When it ceases to be sovereign and supreme, I would advise every gentleman to sell his lands, if he can, and embark for that country.

When two countries are connected together, like England and her colonies, without being incorporated, the one must necessarily govern; the greater must rule the less; but so rule it, as not to contradict the fundamental principles that are common to both.

If the gentleman does not understand the difference between external and internal taxes, I cannot help it; but there is a plain distinction between taxes levied for the purpose of raising a revenue, and duties imposed for the regulation of trade, for the accommodation of the subject; although, in the consequences, some revenue might incidentally arise from the latter.

The gentleman asks, when were the colonies emancipated? But I desire to know, when were they made slaves. But I dwell not upon words. When I had the honour of serving his Majesty, I availed myself of the means of information which I derived from my office: I speak, therefore, from knowledge. My materials were good; I was at pains to collect, to digest, to consider them; and I will be bold to affirm, that the profits to Great Britain from the trade of the colonies, through all its branches, is two millions a year. This is the fund that carried you triumphantly through the last war....

You owe this to America: this is the price America pays you for her protection. And shall a miserable financier come with a boast, that he can bring a pepper-corn into the exchequer, to the loss of millions to the nation?

I dare not say, how much higher these profits may be augmented. Omitting the immense increase of people by natural population, and the emigration from every part of Europe, I am convinced the whole commercial system of America may be altered to advantage. You have prohibited where you ought to have encouraged, encouraged where you ought to have prohibited. Improper restraints have been laid on the continent, in favour of the islands. You have but two nations to trade with in America. Would you had twenty! Let acts of parliament in consequence of treaties remain, but let not an English minister become a custom-house officer for Spain, or for any foreign power. Much is wrong; much may be amended for the general good of the whole....

The gentleman must not wonder he was not contradicted, when, as minister, he asserted the right of Parliament to tax America. I know not how it is, but there is a modesty in this House, which does not choose to contradict a minister. I wish gentlemen would get the better of this modesty. Even that chair, Sir, sometimes looks towards St. James's. If they do not, perhaps the collective body may begin to abate of its respect for the representative...

A great deal has been said without doors of the power, of the strength of America. It is a topic that ought to be cautiously meddled with. In a good cause, on a sound bottom, the force of this country can crush America to atoms. I know the valour of your troops. I know the skill of your officers. There is not a company of foot that has served in America out of which you may not pick a man of sufficient knowledge and experience to make him governor of a colony there. But on this ground, on the Stamp Act, when so many here will think a crying injustice, I am one who will lift up my hands against it.

In such a cause, your success would be hazardous. America, if she fell, would fall like a strong man. She would embrace the pillars of the state, and pull down the constitution along with her. Is this your boasted peace? Not to sheathe the sword in it scabbard, but to sheathe it in the bowels of your countrymen? Will you quarrel with yourselves, now the whole House of Bourbon is united against you...

The Americans have not acted in all things with prudence and temper. They have been wronged. They have been driven to madness by injustice. Will you punish them for the madness you have occasioned? Rather let prudence and temper come first from this side. I will undertake for America, that she will follow the example. There are two lines in a ballad of Prior's, of a man's behaviour to his wife, so applicable to you and your colonies, that I cannot help repeating them:

"Be to her faults a little blind

Be to her virtues very kind."

Upon the whole, I will beg leave to tell the House what is really my opinion. It is, that the Stamp Act be repealed absolutely, totally, and immediately; that the reason for the repeal should be assigned, because it was founded on an erroneous principle. At the same time, let the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies be asserted in as strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend every point of legislation whatsoever: that we may bind their trade, confine their manufactures, and exercise every power whatsoever - except that of taking money out of their pockets without their consent.

William Pitt the Elder, House of Commons, January 14, 1766

Anarcholibertarian77| 7.27.10 @ 7:18PM

Possibly one of William Pitt's saner moments in the House of Commons. Even Pitt, an arch-Tory and defender of the King's prerogative, had some moments of classical liberalism. Soon after this speech, Pitt, now the Earl of Chatham, pushed for the passage of the Mutiny Act and then the Townsend Acts. But this speech, while not showing his true feelings, is really hard hitting agaisnt the king's prerogative.

Mimi| 7.27.10 @ 8:29AM

After 234 years of our existance....The matter is settled! Amazing... we are paying up to $50,000 a year at some colleges to have our children listen to this CLAP-TRAP!! We'd get more bang for the BUCK by paying the liberal professors ship fare to go to outer Mongolia. The author had to twist truth like a pretzel.... I wonder what other " theories" they can come up with to undermine AMERICA. We have a lot of work ahead....us ,present day PATRIOTS!!! 98 days......THE BEGINNING!!!

Blackwatch| 7.27.10 @ 3:01PM

$50K a year for college to learn to hate America?

better to spend your funds on trade school $10k for your child and then assist them in a few years when they are competant in their craft and they want to set up their own busienss. Your child will run circles around the wage slaves they hire.

John Rusche| 7.27.10 @ 8:40AM

Just this one right alone was enough to justify the American Revolution -- the right to publicly criticize the government and it's leaders!

Paul D| 7.27.10 @ 10:23AM

Good point.

Keown's thesis that the war was unjust falls apart if you simply examine the bill of Rights. Articles 1,3,4,5,6 and 8 specifically address rights that were trampled by the British Crown leading up to the Revolution. The example Mark Tooley gives about quartering troops is addressed in Art.3. Art.4, unreasonable search and seizures, was encapsulated into the constitution because the fresh experience of British soldiers breaking into homes unannounced was still very much on the Founder's minds.

I could go on, but you all can read the Bill of Rights for yourelves and make the connection.

Paul D| 7.27.10 @ 5:17PM

Ooops, I meant Amendments...

Robert| 7.27.10 @ 8:44AM

With all this talk about tea parties, I must correct one common held believe. The Boston Tea Party was in response to the national government supporting a corporation, to big to fail, facing bankruptcy...by giving it an unjust business advantaged, over other like businesses, at taxpayer expense. The corporation was the East Indies Company and the government was that of Great Britain. Notice a similar condition today.

Walking Horse| 7.27.10 @ 9:09AM

Robert, point well-taken. The similarities between 18th century mercantilism and corporatism should be noted widely. We are fighting an ancient battle, and our enemies would demoralize us in the present instance by denigrating the prior.

"Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." -- Thomas Jefferson

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." -- Thomas Jefferson

A. C. Santore| 7.27.10 @ 9:08AM

Mr. Keown and all of his fellow "ethicists" should be required to read the Declaration of Independence - from the first word to the last - several times - and demonstrate that they understand it - before being allowed to pontificate [no slight intended to real pontiffs] about our Revolution.

[Expletive deleted.]

Dan Hirsch| 7.27.10 @ 9:23AM

Mr. Tooley,

I congratulate you on your patience and forbearance in responding coolly and rationally to Dr. Keown's malarkey.

Has Dr. Keown ever heard of religious freedom? Ever heard the English phrase "Damn Bloody Papist!" Does this 'thinker' at the Catholic university have any recollection of religious freedom as one of the primary reasons for emigration to the new found continent?

It seems that to Dr. Keown, if Hitler had won, he would have cleared six of the seven "criteria" for just war, maybe seven if you can hate the non-Aryans enough.

His criteria are descriptive rather than prescriptive; he can only judge the war after it happens, not before. And it sounds that losers are never justified.

Sounds like the ends do justify the means: I'm pretty sure that approach is 180 degrees off the Catholic course.

Therefore, in the face of extranational threats, Dr. Keown will be found buried in his little books and papers while real people are faced with life or death questions. He will pop out of cubby hole and congratulate the winners on the justness of their cause.

Dr. Keown, I have a question for you. It's really been bothering me. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You could be very helpful there.

Thanks ever so much, Mr. Tooley and Dr. Keown.

PS. I've assumed Mr. Keown's PHD; if it's not a fact, doctoral review boards, you are on notice!

Adolph H

Gill O’Teen ✝✡$| 7.27.10 @ 9:51AM

Angels are spiritual beings and have no legs. Therefore the answer to your ancient riddle is ‘none’. However it only takes one to carry the soul of a kommie Georgetown perfesser to Hell. As I recall the climatic scene in the
1973 movie The Exorcist occurred in Georgetown. Now we know what became of that exorcized demon.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡$
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
“There's not a day in my life that I don't feel like a fraud. Other priests, doctors, lawyers - I talk to them all. I don't know anyone who hasn't felt that.” - Father Damien Karras (played by Jason Miller)
Only 908 days to go.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡$| 7.27.10 @ 9:33AM

Every war in support of liberty against tyranny is Just.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡$
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” - Thomas Jefferson
Only 908 days to go.

Purpleguy| 7.27.10 @ 3:08PM

There is no tyranny when the government reflects the will of the people ....

"The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object."

If your peeps didn't win a majority, so sad, too bad for you.

Deborah D| 7.27.10 @ 4:46PM

The will of the people was not reflected by what this Congress passed. As all lefties do -- Obama and company hid their true proclivities (with the help of JournOlisters) from the American people. I'll bet a lot of Americans would like a do-over.

When the votes are as lopsided (and as unethically procured) as these votes on health care, the financial bill, the stimulus...then that is not the will of the people.

RCV| 7.27.10 @ 7:16PM

What nonsense! You guys were calling Obama a socialist all through the campaign. Our President is doing exactly what we the people elected him to do. We had eight years of you morons in power and it was clear enough how incompetent you are.

John II| 7.27.10 @ 10:16PM

"We the people" vis-a-vis Professor Obama is down to about 25 percent now--which SHOULD get you to thinking about what the hell "we the people" had in mind in November 2008--and who put it in their mind with such ease.

Purpleguy| 7.28.10 @ 12:33PM

Of course, you full of it, see my post almost right below... Facts are not something Rasmussen can pull out of their ass ... but go ahead, believe it if you wish. They don't include anyone using a cell phone - which I might point out includes most of the young electorate and the affluent "elites" ... so of course you're getting Grandma and Grandpa Moses in your polling. What does it mean when he is ahead of you in those polls, whoa, wait for that!!!!

Purpleguy| 7.28.10 @ 12:20PM

Sorry, dearie - but we live in a Representative Democratic Republic - not direct representation - we elect the people to vote for us, not as our proxies only doing our bidding - if you don't like the voting, elect someone else - but you have the will of the people being exercised everyday now by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House, Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Senate, and President Obama and his administration ... until you get a chance to change it ... as if changing to a Republican will change things .. it won't - they'll just borrow and spend some more like Reagan, Bush I and Bush II ... and not pay for anything.

I know it's tough, but that's what the Founders left for us to follow - representation with taxation.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡$| 7.27.10 @ 6:35PM

Actually there is such a thing as tyranny of the majority (also: tyranny of the masses), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, (which) is a criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority's interests so far above a dissenting individual's interest that the individual would be actively oppressed, just like the oppression by tyrants and despots. Some hypotheticals might be if a majority voted to exterminate all fans of the color purple or if a gum’mint imposed a healthcare scheme on a population against its wishes. What if a majority voted to enslave all Muslims? I imagine fans of gay marriage might disagree with you.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡$
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
“ince he signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act a bit more than 100 days ago, the president has given a number of speeches and interviews in which he continues to say things that, well, just aren't so. Just last Friday, he told MSNBC's Chuck Todd that the law "not only makes sure everybody has access to coverage but is reducing costs."”- Michael Tanner in new York Post July 20.
Only 908 days to go.

Purpleguy| 7.28.10 @ 12:23PM

I'm sorry darling, but that is what the Supreme Court is for - an unconstitutional law would be struck down. The Enslavement of Muslims or anyone would be unconstitutional - at least in my America ... what about yours?

Not reducing costs - hmmmm, let's see, children can stay on their parents' policies until age 26, with no additional cost. Kickbacks to the Insurance companies have been eliminated for Medicare advantage ... that's just 2 I can think of already.

Tim*| 7.27.10 @ 8:03PM

Ain' t No More Majority .

" The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-five percent (45%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 (see trends).

Republicans hold a ten-point advantage on the Generic Congressional Ballot. "

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .

Remember In November .

Purpleguy| 7.28.10 @ 12:30PM

What are you talking about? That's bull pockey. ... here's a copy of today's RealClearPolitics.com's take on the President's approval rating, which is similar to Reagan's at the same time in his Presidency:

President Obama Job Approval
RCP Average
Approve
45.7
Disapprove
49.0
Spread -3.3

And the Congressional Approval:

Generic Congressional Vote
RCP Average
Republicans
44.7
Democrats
41.4
Republicans +3.3

JeMeRappelle| 7.27.10 @ 9:39AM

Mr. Tooley: I understand your righteous indignation at unwarranted criticism of our American Revolution on supposedly religious grounds. But by trying to reason with the unreasonable, you legitimize and encourage more foolishness. Would you waste your time arguing theology with a panhandler wearing an aluminum foil hat? I have too much respect for you to believe that. And a "Religious Left?" Isn't that a non sequitur? How can you believe in a Judeo-Christian God and also believe in Marxism? The closest thing to a god the Left has is its worship of the Earth god, not unlike the ahistorical, pseudo-Germanic religion of the Nazis. Of course, the busy Nazis found little time for their religion, unless you consider their slaughter of Jews a relgious exercise.

Don't waste your talent arguing with the Left on their level. You can't win that way.

S.L. Toddard| 7.27.10 @ 9:41AM

1. A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
2. A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
3. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
4. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
5. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
6. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
7. The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

By these criteria, the Revolutionary War seems to me to be a Just War, while the conquest of Iraq clearly was not.

George Tre| 7.27.10 @ 10:47AM

I am not sure what thought processes you are using to say that the Iraq war did not meet even some of the above "rules". To my way of thinking it met all of them.

Mark| 7.27.10 @ 11:36AM

That is exactly the point. This is what we call a circular argument in the scientific community, and is the typical kind of argument the left loves to try to pull over people’s eye. First state I am some type of authority, then give certain guidelines which state my stance, then prove my stance given my guidelines. It is all quite gratifying in the end.
Basically it comes down to this, change one event during the American Revolution and the whole outcome changes with unknown results. For the scientific minded, it is like taking the initial set of conditions for an integral, changing those initial conditions, and then trying to determine the out come of the new integral given the previous set of outcomes. The new outcome is all "hogwash" and nothing more than someone's opinion.
If Mr. Keown's paper had been submitted to the scientific community with a "normal" peer review, it would have been laughed at and discredited.

Purpleguy| 7.28.10 @ 2:06PM

Not that I agree with your characterization of the left - but on the right you simply say, "It's a known fact" and don't bother with anything else... it's a presumed fact and that's it ... no argument, we all know it's true, end of story.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡$| 7.27.10 @ 11:07AM

Just a quick glance of your 5th point “The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.” indicates that anybody can create a list of justifiable points to unjustify that of which he disapproves. We have no way of knowing, especially in advance, whether or not a peace established after a war will be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.” It is possible that at least for the next several years after The Revolution, OUR predecessors would have been better served to have remained under the thumb of the British monarchy. And might not the descendants of American slaves have been better off today had the Civil War never happened? Since we can never know with certainty the answer to these and other questions, we can never go to war since some future opiner might condemn us.

However, I will concede that even a just war can be fought unjustly if the justified army is shackled by silly rules of engagement by a political policy that prevents its achieving victory as quickly as possible with a minimum of casualties of its own personnel. We should never commit our military to risk itself unless we are determined to achieve victory. OUR Country has not been so dedicated since the Japanese surrender in 1945.

The ultimate goal of a just war is to win.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡$
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
“A just war is better than an unjust peace” - attributed to Saint Augustine.
Only 908 days to go.

Cpm| 7.27.10 @ 11:15AM

I knew it wouldn't be long before the appearance of a tur..Toddard in the punchbowl.

George S| 7.27.10 @ 11:47AM

Just curious... if Great Britain attacks us tomorrow morning to take back the territories it lost during the Revolution, would that meet the Seven Dirty Words You Can't Say to a Pacifist?
1. They asked us nicely, but we refused;
2. 10 Downing St is a legitimate gov't;
3. Wronged? We whooped their red coated asses;
4. They can win -- Obama is Appeaser in Chief;
5. Hey, peace along with East America is better;
6. They'll only shoot us with soft lead ball and leave us with 18th century anitbiotics;
7. Sure, no civilians, whateverrrr...

Well, the Brits have a Just Cause. Can we defend ourselves against a Just Cause War or not? It's not on the list... what do we do?!?

But if the war is Non-Just and started against us, is the war Just for us? What if it is Just for us and Just for the attacker? Where does the Just middle lie, for someone is unJust in their mistaken Just thinking?

If the war is Just but there is no Just man to see it, does it make a sound?

Is Just in the eye of the beholder? One man's Just is another pantywaist's hissy fit.

How do we stop big corporations from wielding disproportional influence of Justness? After all, their lobbyists can sell their idea of Justness of War to congress.

Do the people vote if a war is Just? That would be a great idea! Even better, if the people had, say, representatives in government by proportion to population and enumerated per state to do the voting for them. Then the question of Just can be democratically applied.

What if the president is not a citizen, does that impact 'legitimate authority'? If a President appoints czars without confirmation by congress, is that a legitimate authority? Ergo, does the Obama White House have the authority to wage war on us?

Does all this sound silly?

oldpapajoe| 7.27.10 @ 1:03PM

Sorry you are wrong. The strategic wisdom of waging the invasion is a matter of another discussin, but by the seven points you have listed, the invasion was justified. Every point you mentioned were justified.
#1. years of Sadam violating the armistice justified the war, he violated so many UN directives, statements, resolutions, etc

#2. Legitimate authority: the American government

#3. Reduce the wrong suffered, see #1.

#4. Absolutlely the case of assured victory

#5. Wanted a free Iraq, peaceful with its neighbors and the US

#6. Absolutely minimal casualties to civilians, and military. Very precise targetting--the most precise in the history of warfare

#7. See #7

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.27.10 @ 9:43AM

I repeat,

"You cannot enslave a free man. You can only kill him." (Robert Heinlein)

Mr. Keown is obviously a slave in his heart of hearts. What's he got to lose?

Our early colonists had enough problems trying to wrest a living out of a howling wilderness. Their beloved wives, mothers, and children, died in droves.

On another thread, someone questioned the will of the American "free men AND women" of today.

My best guestimate is that some 10 to 15% of our population is holding its collective breath, awaiting a very personal tipping point in their own lives.

Think of the Jews in pre-war Germany and Poland. Some saw the writing on the wall early enough...and headed for America.

Some did not read...and then fought a losing war in ghettos here and there.
Most did not read until they smelled the gas in the death chambers.

My question then is this:

Since we have no............ where........ to run, should we wait until we are forced into a "ghetto", or on a death train, ..............or subject to a death panel?

Why not fight the war while we can win it with votes, and the hundred million armed persons as our final deterrent, our "nuke" if you will?

Occam's Tool| 7.28.10 @ 5:33PM

I had my chance to pursue a career in academe---passed on it. Too much stench.

Bruce Thompson| 7.27.10 @ 9:50AM

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_d8MN.....gement.JPG

Probability of success?

"...confronted by a peremptory demand backed by armed force that they should furnish necessary supplies to their country's enemies, met in open air council to chose between ignoble peace and all but hopeless war..."

"...almost to a man the assembly followed and, without further formality, the settlement was committed to the revolution"

The following day, June 12, 1775, those men forced the surrender of the first British warship to haul down its flag during the Revolution. This during a time when the Royal Navy definitely "ruled the waves".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Machias

Vern Crisler| 7.27.10 @ 11:00AM

Sounds like the "ethicist" is merely repeating old Tory criticisms of the American revolution. The fact is, the American revolution was not about taxation per se, but about the nature of representation. The British were too arrogant to see this or to pull back from their "march of folly."

Austin Scott| 7.27.10 @ 11:39AM

One can only really examine whether a war was just if one tries to put oneself in the situation prevailing just before the war broke out. And, in that situation, the American public broke down (so historians calculate) at about one third each for revolution, loyalism, and undecided. So the issue was not clear even to those most directly affected at the time.

I think it is evident, in retrospect, that the British government was foolish, stubborn, and incompetent in its prosecution of the war. And that Washington's army was heroic, determined, and skillful. And, in history, victory determines what is ethical after the fact. The U.S. has, surely, contributed far more to the ethical good of the world than harm.

However, there is no harm in recognizing both sides of the debate. Some of my ancestors were loyalists who left the States after the Revolution. Their perspective was that, as subjects of the King, they had no inherent right to revolt. They strongly objected to the French alliance as treasonable, since many of them had spent decades fighting the French for control of North America. And, though they had many of the same grievances as the revolutionaries, they felt that there could be peaceful solutions found. Those that went to Canada were satisfied with the manner in which such issues were settled there. Others returned to Britain and then fanned out across the Empire. Most of them thought of America as a nation of unfortunately estranged cousins, not former enemies.

Francis Beckwith| 7.27.10 @ 12:00PM

John Keown is not part of the Religious Left. He is one of the most articulate and sophisticated defenders of the sanctity of life, publishing not to long ago one of the finest critiques of physician-assisted suicide.

Keown is not alone, by the way. Norm Geisler--the Evangelical philosopher and political conservative--has also argued the American Revolution was not justified under the rubric of just war theory. You can find it in Geisler's book, Christian Ethics ( http://tinyurl.com/2u3olyy )

Vern Crisler| 7.27.10 @ 12:30PM

So when did Geisler become a traitor to his former beliefs? Is this the same Giesler who said: "The basic principles of conservativism are the basic principles of Americanism–those embedded in our Birth Certificate–The Declaration of Independence. It is from these principles that we derive the conservative agenda. Foremost on the list are the beliefs in a Creator, creation, and God-given moral absolutes."

http://www.normangeisler.net/C.....genda.html

ds80| 7.27.10 @ 1:22PM

So what's the point of Keown questioning whether the American Revolution was justified? I can tolerate it from one standpoint only: that it is a silly academic debating exercise.

If not that, then what is the purpose? To subtly denigrate his country? That seems oh-so-liberal-lefty-de-rigeur. I wonder who he might be trying to score points with.

CalMark| 7.27.10 @ 12:44PM

So, the Revolutionary War was not just?

Everyone seems to have forgotten the Third Amendment, which forbids quartering--i.e., housing soldiers in private homes. It was a huge and incendiary issue in pre-revolutionary America.

The British were treating the American wilderness as a military playground for proxy wars against France. As payment for this "protection," the colonists had to quarter British redcoats, highly arrogant "guests." The colonists were unhappy; shut up, explained London to the ungrateful peasants: this is for the common good!

I invite Mr. Professor "Just War" McKeown to act on his beliefs. He should pack his home with regime activists (ACORN, SEIU, Black Panthers and suchlike). WITHOUT government compensation, as in the old days. For the common good, of course.

Jim| 7.27.10 @ 1:44PM

McKeown and Tooley seem to have skipped over an important point regarding Parliament. The charter, that all the colonies were a part of, were with the King, the Parliament had no part of it. Any taxes or other regulations coming from Parliament were only suggestions to be considered by the colonists. Anything imposed by Parliament was an usurpation of power. Similar to about 2/3 of our federal laws from our legislative branch, our judicial branch creating laws by fiat, and our executive branch giving Chrysler to Fiat.

Steve| 7.27.10 @ 2:06PM

Keown apparently is not familiar with colonial American history.

The American colonies were not under the authority of English Parliament. Both the New England colonies with their own autonomous charters and the southern crown colonies did own George III as king. But English parliament had no more authority to tax or quarter troops in the American colonies than the Australian parliament does over Canada.

And -that- was the point.

Their rights as Englishmen were being systematically denied. They were being reduced from being free Englishmen to colonial subjects like the Hind. They appealed many times, being willing to seek a lower and less independent status as English shires with representation in English parliament. They were laughed at and denied.

When England invaded the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Bay and occupied Boston, that was an act of war by one of George III's kingdoms against another.

It is all in the Declaration of Independence in summary form, in far greater detail theoretically in the Rev. Samuel Rutherford's _Lex, Rex_ of 1644, the Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights of 1688, and in various diaries and discussions in the American colonies.

Jim| 7.27.10 @ 2:35PM

My apologies for misspelling Keown's name.

Matt| 7.27.10 @ 2:45PM

Ethicist? when did we start asking 'ethicist's about ethics? ha! what a joke! Where do I get a degree in ethics? 'Just' as defined by a person with a worthless education... Who cares what this joker thinks? I don't want someone's opinion on the "stratospheric standard" of a just war. Just wars are not determined by 'ethicists'. Ethics aren't determined by a joker with a degree, they are determined by a free society.

Austin Scott| 7.27.10 @ 2:53PM

So CalMark thinks that the colonies had no need for protection against the French? What does he think Washington was doing before the Revolution?

The French were a far more likely bet than the British to rule North America. That they did not end up doing so was a great triumph of arms and changed the global order.

Perhaps those who were annoyed at having troops in their houses would have preferred being French-speaking Catholics.

CalMark| 7.27.10 @ 3:10PM

I am well aware that George Washington fought against the French. The British government also repeatedly denied Washington a regular army commission in the nastiest ways imaginable, in line with the behavior of quartered British soldiers toward their hosts.

Many of the conflicts WERE adventurism spilling over from the Continent. The British WERE to blame. I'm a fan of our allied "cousins" across the sea, but like all Imperial nations in their heyday of Empire, they had an ugly habit of fighting proxy wars in other people's backyards.

As for the personal attack: I am Catholic and proud of it. So take your bigotry to a leftie blog where it belongs, Know Nothing.

Osamas Pajamas| 7.27.10 @ 3:08PM

The critics of capitalism have their own "greed" problem. They who denigrate the "greed" of capitalists for the money that they have earned have their own special kind of greed --- "greed for the unearned," in the words of novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand. Here's their secret strategy. Charity and justice are diametrically opposed concepts --- charity is not justice, it is injustice. The anti-capitalistic skunks seek to reverse their definitions, so that getting paid what you haven't earned is "justice" or "social justice" or "economic justice" while getting paid for what you have earned is self, greedy, injustice. The advocates of altrusim and self-sacrifice are frauds and swindlers --- and that includes the religious authorities of the planet, who deserve at least a slap in the face, if not the hangman's rope.

Ryan| 7.27.10 @ 4:46PM

Here is where Rand is wrong.

You're right when it comes to most forms of forced-giving by the government; you're wrong when it comes to voluntary charity to aid my fellow man when he cannot aid himself.

Osamas Pajamas| 7.28.10 @ 12:40AM

You have left unaddressed the polar opposites of charity versus justice. Justice is getting what we deserve. Charity is the suspension of justice to award the undeserved. This is not a popular view among the touch-feely class and moral swindlers, but it is factual.

GW| 7.27.10 @ 4:53PM

Can the Materialist crap. Ayn Rand was no beacon of moral authority. Charity is in no way injustice, but in fact an important part of any moral society. But, I find your last line very telling. Those who disagree with you should be killed. How "free" of you.

solipslip| 7.27.10 @ 6:32PM

Yep-nothing like a laissez-faire fascist!

Osamas Pajamas| 7.28.10 @ 12:38AM

Solislip, you dope. Fascism is full-blown statism while laissez faire puts severe controls on the growth, expense and powers of government. Doubtless you were miseducated in a public school or in any case a school infected with public school faculty louts.

Osamas Pajamas| 7.28.10 @ 12:47AM

GW --- Ayn Rand was and remains a beacon of moral authority, a fact found annoying by thieves of every political and religious stripe. Justice is getting what we deserve. Charity is the suspension of justice to award the undeserved. This is not a popular view among the touchy-feely class and moral swindlers, but it is factual. Those who advocate self-sacrifice [Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, OhBummer, and most religious authorities] are always there with their hand out, to collect the sacrifices given up by the those whom they have hornswoggled and bamboozled and intimidated into a state of pain, fear, and guilt. GW, you're the type that needs to be overthrown by deadly force, and your fake moral authority set ablaze with gasoline, and whizzed on, to put the fire out. America's # 1 victim class are the privately-employed taxpayers, and I urge them to assert their rights on every front and by deadly force whenever they find it necessary to advance their liberty and destroy their oppressors. That'd be you, sport.

Osamas Pajamas| 7.27.10 @ 3:09PM

The critics of capitalism have their own "greed" problem. They who denigrate the "greed" of capitalists for the money that they have earned have their own special kind of greed --- "greed for the unearned," in the words of novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand. Here's their secret strategy. Charity and justice are diametrically opposed concepts --- charity is not justice, it is injustice. The anti-capitalistic skunks seek to reverse their definitions, so that getting paid what you haven't earned is "justice" or "social justice" or "economic justice" while getting paid for what you have earned is selfish, greedy, injustice. The advocates of altrusim and self-sacrifice are frauds and swindlers --- and that includes the religious authorities of the planet, who deserve at least a slap in the face, if not the hangman's rope.

Otis, my man!| 7.27.10 @ 5:22PM

Oh you wacky Randian you!

W L Ball Jr SFS '51| 7.27.10 @ 3:13PM

In re: John Keown and his theories.
Yep..the USA is always wrong, even in its beginnings.
It becomes tiresome after a while to read such long winded prose about another "hate America" opinion.
Does Georgetown have NO shame at all? He may be an intellectual, but he also lacks common sense, and, in my opinion, should NOT be on the faculty..

gene hauber| 7.27.10 @ 3:56PM

Keown and Singer from Princeton have redefined the word ETHICIST.
It now means grossly ignorant of morals and values.
WHERE DO THESE PEOPLE COME FROM AND WHO HIRES THEM??

dw| 7.27.10 @ 3:59PM

Keown is just another in a long line of examples illustrating what too much education does when absorbed by mental morons. He is the same type who would argue that we should not have developed the atom bomb and then used it to end the war against Japan. Easy to say when you were not one of the troops lining up to invade what would have been a serious meat grinder. Never mind that Nazi Germany was very close to harnessing nuclear power or that the Soviet Union sooner or later would have developed it. Imagine that scenerio.
What idiots like Keown do not account for is the simple fact that the end result of the revolution was the establishment of a decentralized form of governance designed to allow the ordinary populace the chance to achieve based on merit, as opposed to a soceity ruled and controlled by an isolated, maonarchical ruling class. The control of the populace by the wealthy and chosen in such a society was iron clad and all but guaranteed no chance of economic or political advancement for the ruled.
With victory in the revolution ruling was no longer passed within a small group of select individuals but was now opened to the possibility that through elections anyone could achieve political influence and further that anyone may achieve economic independence.

Tish| 7.27.10 @ 4:17PM

The "religious Left" strikes me as an oxymoron. If you are on the Left, you believe in some mixture of Marxism, communism, and/or socialism, and their tenets are antithetical to all forms of Christianity, and to most other religions as well.

I exclude Islam, because it is an ideology masquerading as a religion.

Adam Smith| 7.27.10 @ 5:30PM

Everything about the left stems from simply confusing injustice for justice.
Justice is equal protection under the law.
Leftists believe justice is equal outcomes regardless of effort or merit.
This then requires UNEQUAL treatment “which they designate themselves alone to administer”.
Unequal treatment is by definition injustice, but this allows leftists to feed their veracious cravings of power over fellow human beings while providing cover amongst the easily confused.
From this one thing, ALL conflicts stem.

solipslip| 7.27.10 @ 6:44PM

a dictatorial spoon, dipping the bowl of socialism, meting out their justice...

Thom| 7.27.10 @ 8:36PM

The classical concept of “just war” has been losing its luster since the early part of the last century. Just War as normally presented has two fatal fallacies both of which haven’t stood the test of time.

The first fatal fallacy is that all “war” can be reduced down to grievances that reasonable people come to terms with if the second fallacy is met, that of unlimited time. Like all resources, time is scarce in the scheme of things and the mortality of men makes that ever more so.

As demonstrated by thousands of years of known and even more of unknown conflicts throughout history, “wars” happen for as many reasons as there are wars. No two are alike. It has also been amply demonstrated that it only takes one side to have a “war”. It is not a sporting event where participation by both sides is required. All too often those that put their faith in the first fallacy end up buried somewhere in an unmarked grave if at all.

The second fallacy has been overcome by events so to speak. Technology has accelerated the ability to both start and end a war in the same hour. There is no time left for reason when faced with an enemy armed with WMD that will use them. Because believers in the classical sense of “just war” can’t fathom the depth of destruction only minutes away with modern weaponry they tend to ignore the fatal flaw in their reasoning that reason itself can prevent most if not all wars. As a movie quote once made the point about our times, “I’m not worried about the man that wants 10 nuclear warheads; I’m worried about the man that only needs one”.

People wedded to the concept of “just war” have too much time on their hands and are living in a time that is long gone in the scheme of things. It took over ten years of grievances to boil over into the American Revolution. Modern wars develop and are over in a foot note of that time. It goes without saying that people living inside the bubble of academia tend to find all sorts of solutions to imaginary problems that don’t actual work in the real world where infinite variables and players all get a vote at the table.

MERLIN| 7.28.10 @ 2:28PM

I wonder what Keown would have concluded if asked to justify colonialism? I suspect, starting from a different point, and a selected set of first principles, he would have concluded colonialism is unjust. He would then have to reconcile his opposition to colonialism with his opposition to the American Revolution.

Occam's Tool| 7.28.10 @ 5:36PM

The problem with a clown like Keown,
can be seen with the following thrust:

It is not right to use one's might
To oppose a Regime that's Unjust.

poco| 7.29.10 @ 2:15AM

Keown had an opinion, no better or no worse than any other fool.

REB| 7.29.10 @ 11:11PM

Well written! Ethicist? Come on get a real job! Just another papered idiot in an ivory tower who never worked a day in his life telling real people they've somehow missed it in wanting to be free from tyranny...friend of obammys no doubt! I'm sure he'd like it in england much better than with us rebels and we wish he'd go!