"The end results of Diamond's experiences don't seem to converge on libertarianism."
How so? Libertarians recognize the need for the state to enact and enforce laws and punish offenders. Diamond may be no libertarian, but there's nothing inherently anti-Libertarian about the vengeance article.
The issue, Megan, as per your original post, is war crimes. Atrocities and war crimes can be the same thing, but can also be distinct.
Furthermore, tribal wars have next to nothing to do with the types of war the US wages.
Slocum, I suppose it is a continuum. I think that if you believe a State imposing itself on a People is what ends cycles of violence (as opposed to the emergent social contract view that Diamond seems to reject) then you aren't a libertarian. This is probably a semantic argument though because the rubric "libertarian" covers a lot of ground.
Of course the state's monopoly on violence puts a lid on the cycles of vengeance that would otherwise prevail. Of course social contract theory cannot explain this (it's a theory, not a description of anything that has actually happened). The best theoretical account of vengeance remains Rene Girard's 1977 classic "Violence and the Sacred." Girard's theory is perfectly consistent with Diamond's excellent article. The only problem with the Diamond piece is that he ends up endorsing a role for revenge in modern life, albeit equivocally. Girard would not do so.
The only problem with the Diamond piece is that he ends up endorsing a role for revenge in modern life, albeit equivocally.
How so? I read it as saying that the modern denial of feelings of vengeance as a normal human emotion can be somewhat psychologically unbalancing, not advocating people acting upon it. We acknowledge that people feel lust and that it is normal, but very few people think that this implies that rape is OK.
I'm with greg. Diamond doesn't just argue vengeance is some atavistic human trait. He seems to romanticize it a bit in his piece. One gets the idea that if only his stepgrandfather (?--I'm not going back to check facts pardon my laziness) had got his vengeance when he had the chance his (the stepgrandfather) life would have been better.
I don't really understand what Megan is claiming this article says about war crimes. People have a strong desire for vengeance. People who commit war crimes are often driven by a desire for vengeance. The state's function is to promulgate laws and regulations and to discipline individuals into the belief that they are better off forswearing vengeance. Societies of law are powerful societies which handily conquer and assimilate primitive clans; armies with orderly and well-enforced codes of conduct are powerful and disciplined armies which handily defeat bloodthirsty rampaging hordes.
And then there's the point about people who give up the emotional satisfaction of personal vengeance in favor of disciplined social morality suffer a certain amount of eternal psychic hunger, much as life is never quite as fun after age 4. Not sure where that one gets us in terms of war crimes.
I mean, I liked the article, but what is Megan claiming it says about war crimes committed by modern, civilized armies? It could be taken to say many different things.
I don't really understand what Megan is claiming this article says about war crimes.
I thought it was pretty clear. The strong desire for vengeance is part of human nature and is particularly likely to be expressed in action during war, so, even though we may be able to reduce the incidence of war crimes (through things like the Geneva Convention) we're not likely to be able to eliminate them completely. I would go further, in fact, and argue that treaties, conventions, and other state mechanisms are not likely to even reduce the incidence of war crimes very much.
I thought about you when I read that. Diamond has been making this point for a long time as has Pinker.
I should add that you should be careful who you associate with. The end results of Diamond's experiences don't seem to converge on libertarianism.
Life is so....... messy!
"The end results of Diamond's experiences don't seem to converge on libertarianism."
How so? Libertarians recognize the need for the state to enact and enforce laws and punish offenders. Diamond may be no libertarian, but there's nothing inherently anti-Libertarian about the vengeance article.
The issue, Megan, as per your original post, is war crimes. Atrocities and war crimes can be the same thing, but can also be distinct.
Furthermore, tribal wars have next to nothing to do with the types of war the US wages.
Slocum, I suppose it is a continuum. I think that if you believe a State imposing itself on a People is what ends cycles of violence (as opposed to the emergent social contract view that Diamond seems to reject) then you aren't a libertarian. This is probably a semantic argument though because the rubric "libertarian" covers a lot of ground.
Of course the state's monopoly on violence puts a lid on the cycles of vengeance that would otherwise prevail. Of course social contract theory cannot explain this (it's a theory, not a description of anything that has actually happened). The best theoretical account of vengeance remains Rene Girard's 1977 classic "Violence and the Sacred." Girard's theory is perfectly consistent with Diamond's excellent article. The only problem with the Diamond piece is that he ends up endorsing a role for revenge in modern life, albeit equivocally. Girard would not do so.
greg:
How so? I read it as saying that the modern denial of feelings of vengeance as a normal human emotion can be somewhat psychologically unbalancing, not advocating people acting upon it. We acknowledge that people feel lust and that it is normal, but very few people think that this implies that rape is OK.
I'm with greg. Diamond doesn't just argue vengeance is some atavistic human trait. He seems to romanticize it a bit in his piece. One gets the idea that if only his stepgrandfather (?--I'm not going back to check facts pardon my laziness) had got his vengeance when he had the chance his (the stepgrandfather) life would have been better.
I don't really understand what Megan is claiming this article says about war crimes. People have a strong desire for vengeance. People who commit war crimes are often driven by a desire for vengeance. The state's function is to promulgate laws and regulations and to discipline individuals into the belief that they are better off forswearing vengeance. Societies of law are powerful societies which handily conquer and assimilate primitive clans; armies with orderly and well-enforced codes of conduct are powerful and disciplined armies which handily defeat bloodthirsty rampaging hordes.
And then there's the point about people who give up the emotional satisfaction of personal vengeance in favor of disciplined social morality suffer a certain amount of eternal psychic hunger, much as life is never quite as fun after age 4. Not sure where that one gets us in terms of war crimes.
I mean, I liked the article, but what is Megan claiming it says about war crimes committed by modern, civilized armies? It could be taken to say many different things.
I don't really understand what Megan is claiming this article says about war crimes.
I thought it was pretty clear. The strong desire for vengeance is part of human nature and is particularly likely to be expressed in action during war, so, even though we may be able to reduce the incidence of war crimes (through things like the Geneva Convention) we're not likely to be able to eliminate them completely. I would go further, in fact, and argue that treaties, conventions, and other state mechanisms are not likely to even reduce the incidence of war crimes very much.
This is also, don't you think, a pretty much open-and-shut argument for why the state should severely restrict and regulate gun ownership?
Steve Roth,
No.