Revise and Extend
I confess to a bout of auto-googling just now! In the course of it, I found that James at Aces Full of Links took the implications of the “Ticking Bombast” article in a direction I hadn’t thought of:
Let me go back to Nazis as I wrap this up.
A hypothetical question has been asked many times, to the point where it has even been written into many stories. “If you could go back in time to before the Holocaust, before World War 2, would you kill Hitler?” Why are we so fascinated by this question, in this form? It assumes you have the power to travel in time and get close enough to Hitler to kill him. Why do we never hear the question “If you could go back in time to before the Holocaust, before World War 2, would you nonviolently prevent Hitler’s rise to power?”
It’s so unsatisfying. You don’t get to kill anybody.
There’s other good stuff in the entry, including the suggestion that
The Nazis are famous for unethical medical experiments, which means that you can’t discuss such experiments without the Nazi spectre appearing. If the Nazis were famous for water boarding, I doubt we’d have a debate in this country regarding whether water boarding was torture. The effective emotional counter argument would be “isn’t that what the Nazis did to all those people” and nobody wants to be like a Nazi.
Meanwhile, we learn from Planet Republican (pop: Dwindling!) that a society that forebears to torture is doomed to Anarchy!
Comment by JDComments —
December 29, 2006 @ 10:38 am
In noticing you referenced my post, I think it only fair to point out that my argument was not so much in favor of torture as it was against the “logic” you used to oppose it, which I felt was incorrect and would lead to anarchy if applied.
I hope your readers join in the discussion.
Comment by Hogan —
December 29, 2006 @ 10:50 am
If the alternative is the “logic” that you can’t toilet-train your child unless you’re willing to kill every single person in the world, then I’ll take the Libertarian Mind, please. (And I’m a democratic socialist.)
Comment by KCinDC —
December 29, 2006 @ 10:59 am
Didn’t Senator Durbin try that “effective emotional counterargument”, only to be attacked as an unpatriotic troops-hater for comparing the United States to Nazi Germany? He got nowhere and was forced to give an embarrassing tearful apology.
Was that just because the Nazis aren’t famous enough for torture, or was it because Bush worshippers don’t give a damn whether we’re being Nazi-like, as long as it supposedly advances the war on terror?
Comment by Doug T —
December 29, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
“Was that just because the Nazis aren’t famous enough for torture, or was it because Bush worshippers don’t give a damn whether we’re being Nazi-like, as long as it supposedly advances the war on terror?”
No, it was because the Nazis are famous for being evil and the US is accepted as good as an a priori article of faith. Ergo, nothing we do could possibly be anything at all like the Nazis and anyone who says such things hates America.
Comment by Handsome —
December 29, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
I agree that it’s horrible that everyone wants to go back in time and kill Hitler to prevent the Holocaust. I myself strongly suspect that if you simply kidnapped Hitler and tortured him for weeks on end and maybe popped one of his eyes out and fried it on a hotplate — did they have hotplates back then, I don’t know, well, maybe over an open flame with a barbecue fork through it, then — and made Hitler eat it, you could get much the same result, and have more fun, too.
As to how we wouldn’t waterboard people if the Nazis did it, I believe the Nazis did waterboard people, or at least, I remember some movie called SURF NAZIS MUST DIE and I doubt anyone would have made that movie if there hadn’t been any surfing Nazis. I’ve never understood why we cry and cry so much about waterboarding terrorists at Gitmo anyway. I mean sure it’s no fun when you’re learning and you’re falling off the boards all the time but the waters around Cuba are some of the most beautiful in the world and once you get the knack I would think waterboarding there would be a dream. I mean jesus call me an enemy combatant and send me down to Cuba to surf would you? I understand President Bush can do that now and I don’t know why people are so upset.
Comment by steveintheknow —
December 29, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
“I think it only fair to point out that my argument was not so much in favor of torture as it was against the “logic” you used to oppose it, which I felt was incorrect and would lead to anarchy if applied.”
I didn’t see anything in Jim’s hypothetical that suggested an argument against the use of torture, as he didn’t even attempt to define what torture is. He merely pointed out how ridiculous the hypothetical used to justify it is by proposing one as equally retarded.
In my opinion , what Jim pointed out is that reality needs to come back into the discussion about torture. Unfortunately the pro-torture folks don’t want to do that because the reality probably does not favor their argument.
I don’t know for certain (wonder why), but here’s my guess…. Most of the people tortured or detained have been so wrongfully, or without just cause. And of the ones, who were “justifiably” detained and tortured, $100 bucks says nothing has come of it, and nothing will.
You say one hypothetical leads to anarchy, I say the other leads to a totalitarian government in which human rights and liberty mean very little. All that being said, which conclusion do think we are closer too? And therefore which hypothetical is more ridiculous?
Comment by theophylact —
December 29, 2006 @ 6:30 pm
Stephen Fry’s Making History gets rid of Hitler non-violently by making sure he’s never born. (In the event, it turns out not to be an improvement, but…)
Comment by Scott —
December 29, 2006 @ 7:15 pm
Would you go back in time and abolish all govt in Germany, creating an anarcho-capitalist ’state’, to prevent Hitler’s rise to power?
Comment by Eric the .5b —
December 29, 2006 @ 10:42 pm
…But could you, assuming you had the background and experience, bring yourself to go back in time and painstakingly mentor Hitler in his painting so that he wouldn’t ever turn to politics?
That’s the real question.
Comment by Jon H —
December 30, 2006 @ 12:18 am
Someone should go back and introduce Hitler to emo, so he’d vent his angst as a singer-songwriter known as Lederhosen Confessional.
As for comparing the US to the Nazis, sensitive defenders of civil discourse don’t countenance it unless the US has killed six million and one Jews.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
December 30, 2006 @ 4:04 am
Eric, rather than mentoring Hitler in painting, one could simply be his patron. Use knowlege of money-making events to get a pile of dough and keep him busy with commissions. Heck, some of his watercolors of Vienna scenery aren’t bad, seriously; one could found a cards and prints company and give him a steady income selling the stuff to tourists and Americans. Get that started in the mid-’20s, and then maybe bring him to America in the early ’30s.
Comment by Jon H —
December 30, 2006 @ 4:47 am
One could even pass on some modern business ideas, thus giving rise to….
Adolph Hitler, Painter Of Light
Just as long as he doesn’t get the idea of using slave laborers to dab highlights onto the prints to make them special.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
December 30, 2006 @ 6:47 am
I wish I could claim I hadn’t thought of the comparison.
Comment by Barry —
December 31, 2006 @ 12:19 am
“Adolph Hitler, Painter Of Light”
Does this mean that Thomas Kincaid is actually a potential mass-murdering dictator who’s being neutralized by patrons from the future?
Can we torture him?
Comment by Eric the .5b —
December 31, 2006 @ 1:30 am
Brilliant!
Comment by theophylact —
December 31, 2006 @ 8:56 am
Then, of course, there’s always Norman Spinrad’s The Iron Dream…