Hacker News Reader

> I think the words are not meant to be a comprehensive list of rules for exactly when war is justified.

I disagree. I think his words are pretty clear. From the article:

> There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

View on HN

Do you believe that such a simple statement can possibly constitute a comprehensive list of rules for exactly when war is justified? By way of comparison consider the fact that just about everyone believes that murder is wrong and the legal definitions of the various types of “murder” is quite long. Even so the definitions are murky enough to require judges, lawyers, and juries to settle matters in some individual cases.

It’s hard to argue that Smedley’s single sentence can possibly constitute a comprehensive set of rules when “defense of our homes” is so vague and can reasonably be interpreted to encompass so much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com