Saturday 27 August 2011

Response To Anonymous Question On Defence & Expropriation

In a (trashed) comment to my post below on the amendments to the land expropriation act, an anonymous commenter (I have a suspicion as to who it was) asked me a not entirely unreasonable question amid a barrage of vile and gratuitous insults. I will answer it here in a short seperate post for several reasons: first, I want to keep it seperate from the rest of the defence essay I'm writing; second, as I write it's nearly 3am on Friday night and I've been busy all day - I'm too tired to do much more than a short post; third, I don't back down from a challenge like that, even if I do trash the rest of the comment (unlike Turton, I will not ban people for arguing with me, nor even for bad language or strongly expressed disagreement - but I probably will ban you for gratuitous, extreme incivility). The question was this:
"So let's say mainland China will imminentaly attack Taiwan, should the government go into lengthy protracted discussions with land owners to be able to use their land for defense installations?"
First of all, there is an obvious problem with the way this question is put - which is that, if an attack from the PRC was "immanent" (i.e. already underway or very soon to be so), then not only would "protracted discussions" be a waste of valuable time, but possibly the actual construction of any "defence installations" would be too; not only that, but the siting of "defense installations" could hardly be rearranged in such circumstances unless they were highly mobile units such as PAC-3 missile launchers (and even then, were an attack "immanent", mobile units almost certainly could not be redeployed to new, unprepared locations quickly enough).

That problem aside however, there is still the substantive matter of whether land expropriation by the State is justified if it is done for the purpose of national defense. So you might easily imagine the government preparing a new site well in advance of any potential attack, and in doing so, considering whether to buy land voluntarily or simply expropriate it. Alternatively, you might consider whether existing sites used by the MND today were at some point acquired through use of legalized theft. Either scenario would bring you to the same substantive ethical point of question.

I think there are two questions to answer here. The first is how likely a property owner is to refuse to sell up, and the second is whether the State is justified in forcing him to do so or not.

On the first question, I would guess that most property owners would be more likely to sell their land for use in collective defense against the declared threat of an external State than for its' use by a large corporation. The distribution of benefits seems to be wider and more generalized across the population in the case of national defense than in the case of a single manufacturer establishing a plant requiring a few thousand employees. Those assumptions are arguable however, since not only do the benefits of "defense installations" depend on success, but whether any given manufacturer can continue to work depends on broader conditions of security, i.e. you probably can't do your normal job if you're factory is being bombed. Whatever the unconsidered uncertainty of the assumptions through which the "defense installation" project might be perceived, it nonetheless remains likely that, at least for reasons of social pressure, most property owners would sell-up their land for the cause (assuming they perceived the MND as competent at installing and running the thing).

However, it is still possible to imagine, on several grounds, scenarios in which property owners refuse to sell. Would the State then be justified in seizing their land? No - unless perhaps it could be conclusively demonstrated that the non-sale of the land would result in disaster for other people with whom the property owner is in society with and that the State's proposed seizure were the only means of preventing this. Those conditions however, are extremely stringent and therefore unlikely to apply. First, the mere possession or "installation" of defensive weapons cannot by itself guarantee that a disastrous attack by an enemy State will not succeed; perhaps nuclear weapons are the closest thing to any such guarantee, although some of the problems with that should be obvious. Second, since the State exercizes an effective monopoly on the production of security, it is susceptible, like all other economic cartels, to being perverted by the economic incentives for high prices and poor quality that monopoly and cartel structures tend to inculcate (i.e. basically, there is always a good chance they are likely to make a f*cking mess of whatever it is they are supposed to be doing). Third, and in dovetail with that last point, it may be that a property owner (or group of such property owners) have a viable alternative means of either dissuading or repelling aggression which requires that they access to their land (e.g. militia groups which, whilst they might do nothing to raise the cost of invading, could be significant in raising the costs of staying put).

More generally, I stick to the principle that the State may not expropriate land under any circumstances, even war (there ought to be no need for this anyway, even in war time). Dogmatic? Yes, but not stupid.

There are other arguments to be made in response to the question, but pursuing them here would not only take me too far into subjects I'm already writing about for my defense essay, but tapping them out on the keyboard would likely retard my rise tommrow morning by another hour or two.

* * *
Incidentally, a correction... I noted in an earlier post that the Nankunshan temple was in the Beidou district of Chiayi county... well not according to this map of Tainan I snapped in the 7-11 the other night (zoom in on the far left, upper-corner):

9 comments:

  1. There's another question here--actually several. First, from where, oh where, is Taiwan to attain new/more weapon systems? Certainly not from the United States anytime soon. Second, the battle for Taiwan, if there will be one, will be fought in the air and at sea, not on land, and will include many--and I mean many--ballistic and cruise missiles from China. Would the government want to put these (imaginary) new weapons out in the middle of a populated plain for missiles to easily target? Third, even the Pentagon has said--for decades, actually--that the PLA lacks the ability to put boots on the ground unless the Taiwan military is utterly blind or otherwise neutralized (after missile strikes) and the US Navy (and the Japan SDF) has decided not to intervene or has been otherwise neutralized as well. So much for land battle; and even if there were a land battle, the government will not allow citizens to possess firearms in order to resist at any form of local level. By that point, the battle is already lost. And by that point, anyone (usually in the government) with a Green Card would have already hightailed it to southern California anyway, leaving the defenseless locals to their fate.

    I invite anyone who would like to have his home taken from him (for "defensive purposes") to do so voluntarily: move out of your apartment, which will soon be knocked down to make room for (imaginary) new weaponry. This nimby bullsh*t has got to go.

    I have seen how much import foreigners in Taiwan in general put to Taiwan's traditional military security issues. I remember a few months ago Dr. Keating had a little video talk with Dr. Tsai. The only people who asked a question remotely related to anything beyond the environment, arts, how Tsai is different from Ma, and how soon the sky will fall, was David Reid. He got nervous laughter, was told he was really serious, and then ignored. It just goes to show how out of touch people are with the real threat. Oh, and I remember as well (I think you even commented on it here) an article by a professor at NTU (I think) who said that the PRC is not a threat and global warming and climate change are--or at least those last two are much bigger and more-immediate threats. All of this, plus the general public's lack of concern about a very real threat only 90-100 miles away, makes me quite disillusioned. That, and the fact that Comrade Barry, as you once called him, and his realpolitick-pussy gang have already pulled up their tutus and run away. I'm wondering what battle anyone should prepare for? More likely it will resemble a sale over in some back room over roasted pig intestines and baijiu. In any case, I invite anon to first get real, then get informed, and finally to donate his apartment complex (if on Taiwan he be; and since foreigners cannot buy land here, he's got nothing to say anyway; of course, he'd know that by now if he'd merely looked at the laws) to the military--so they could build a weapon depot (or something) disguised as a fully operational buxiban, yet another 7-eleven, a chemical factory, or some other god-awful thing. The record is not in anon's favor, and your arguments above delineate other moral and ethical problems involved.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nathan,

    "Would the government want to put these (imaginary) new weapons out in the middle of a populated plain for missiles to easily target?"

    The question made no assumptions as to location, so the property owner could just as well be somewhere along the north-east coast for example.

    "Third, even the Pentagon has said--for decades, actually--that the PLA lacks the ability to put boots on the ground unless the Taiwan military is utterly blind or otherwise neutralized (after missile strikes) and the US Navy (and the Japan SDF) has decided not to intervene or has been otherwise neutralized as well."

    I think it's better to assume the worst and prepare accordingly. Besides, those three assumptions are either changing or may prove to be invalid in the event of war: the PRC is modernizing its military capabilities and perhaps already has the capacity to destroy or greatly damage Taiwan's defences; Taiwan's defences are already likely compromised both by procurement difficulties, low morale and PRC agents; U.S. and Japanese involvement on our behalf is not a given (regardless of which party holds the White House), however much we might like to believe otherwise.

    "...even if there were a land battle, the government will not allow citizens to possess firearms in order to resist at any form of local level. By that point, the battle is already lost."

    The prohibition on firearms ownership is insane, and really ought to be repealed right now. But in the event of an invasion, I don't think all would necessarily be lost. Largely this is because I assume the PLA would not go for outright genocide across the island.

    The way to think about this is to raise the costs of annexation so much that any PRC administration of Taiwan would be so weak, ineffective and unduly expensive that it would sap the political will to maintain PRC rule over Taiwan. An armed (and practiced) populace would be one aspect of that strategy: it's much more difficult and costly to butcher and/or coerce an armed and ideologically united people than to do so to an unarmed and disunited people.

    "The only people who asked a question remotely related to anything beyond the environment, arts, how Tsai is different from Ma, and how soon the sky will fall, was David Reid. He got nervous laughter, was told he was really serious, and then ignored."

    Even his question, on the death penalty, was nothing to do with defense. The closest was actually Ben Goren's question on (IIRC) diplomatic status and dealing with the U.S. State Department.

    "...an article by a professor at NTU (I think) who said that the PRC is not a threat and global warming and climate change are--or at least those last two are much bigger and more-immediate threats."

    I don't remember that specifically, but it doesn't sound out of the ordinary - just last night a Taiwanese girl and her mom were telling me that either annexation was "impossible" or that rising sea levels due to global warming were a greater threat than the PRC.

    Crazy.

    I may leave my defence essay until later next week in order to make the most of the good weather before the typhoon rains come.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think there was a comment about China trying to drive a wedge between Taipei and Washington; if it was Goren's, my apologies. My memory is foggy, as I haven't considered that video much more than trash (and certainly not worth watching for a second time).

    I make no assumptions about placement of weaponry; I simply asked a question. The PRC is also quickly improving its satellite imagery (some say almost as good as that which the US possesses). Conventional weapons systems are essentially useless with regard to Taiwan's security. Although I think F-16s a good start, the are already eclipsed by current PLA technology and are good basically only as a symbolic gesture (which is better than nothing, mind, but less than a real something).

    I argue for a Taiwan nuclear deterrent, although Beijing has said that Taiwan's possession of nuclear weapons would be a reason to invade (meaning, evidently, that the slightest motion toward procurement would be means for war; judging by the leakiness of Taiwan's "intelligence" community, this is also essentially a non-starter unless Taipei [and Washington, which is unlikely] call the PRC's bluff). The whole issue rests on Washington's stance on the situation, and I agree that it doesn't really matter who is in the White House, although certain presidents have had at least stronger and more positive feelings toward Taiwan. The current one is a spineless twit in Beijing's back pocket, but that goes without saying.

    So, for me, a nuclear deterrent would be a good idea (if it could be kept secret--an enormous "if"). As one former PLA officer once said, Washington wouldn't sacrifice LA for Taipei. But I also highly doubt the PRC would sacrifice Chongqing, Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, Wuhan, etc., for Taipei and Kaohsiung. Just a hunch.

    Anyway, I agree with you that a local-type "people's war" (forgive the Maoist reference; you ought to know by now that I mean merely a local war of resistance) of some kind would be a major deterrent, especially considering the amount of outcry that would take place once only-child generation sons get sent home in body bags. However, such an option also appears a non-starter given not only the attitudes of people here (which I referred to above and also one of my comments in regard to this being brushed aside by a one J. Michael Cole as a mere "pipe dream") but also relatively recent steps by the government to further centralize authority. These are my reasons for pessimism: Taiwan is, either way, f*cked.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Conventional weapons systems are essentially useless with regard to Taiwan's security."

    Is that a reference to the PLA's nukes? I don't think they'd dare use them partly because of worries of U.S. retaliation and partly because domestic outcry in China could be sufficient to bring down the government. I think most Chinese would be appalled at the use of nukes against Taiwan. There would literally be hell to pay for that.

    "Although I think F-16s a good start, the are already eclipsed by current PLA technology..."

    Well the Su30 is technically superior to the F-16, Mirage and IDF in many respects, but that doesn't necessarily translate into the air superiority requisite for an invasion.

    "I argue for a Taiwan nuclear deterrent, although Beijing has said that Taiwan's possession of nuclear weapons would be a reason to invade..."

    Well as you yourself say, that's almost certainly a non-starter so it makes more sense to think about other strategies.

    "I also highly doubt the PRC would sacrifice Chongqing, Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, Wuhan, etc., for Taipei and Kaohsiung."

    Right, but nuclear warheads would not be necessary for that - the Taiwanese military could target those places with cruise missiles if they had them, but without the electronic warfare complement to that capability (which requires better aircraft) it's a mute point. Of course, god forbid it ever came to that - no way would I want to ever see entire cities on either side hit by cruise missiles.

    "Anyway, I agree with you that a local-type "people's war" (forgive the Maoist reference; you ought to know by now that I mean merely a local war of resistance) of some kind would be a major deterrent, especially considering the amount of outcry that would take place once only-child generation sons get sent home in body bags."

    The term you're looking for is "guerilla war" - Che Guevara apparently read Tom Barry's book during his own campaigns and then subsequently wrote on the subject himself. I wonder if his book is any good...

    I don't think a guerilla campaign would be a major deterrant by itself, but I do think the possibility of one would add something valuable to a strategy of raising the costs of annexation as a deterrent.

    "However, such an option also appears a non-starter given not only the attitudes of people here (which I referred to above and also one of my comments in regard to this being brushed aside by a one J. Michael Cole as a mere "pipe dream") but also relatively recent steps by the government to further centralize authority."

    No I don't agree that it's necessarily a non-starter; some of those things can be changed, and are probably easier to bring about than a nuclear deterrent. It's only a non-starter if nobody starts arguing for it.

    When I talk to Taiwanese people about this, I get a sober nodding of heads after I push through the initial incredulousness.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The rains have started.

    I'm well aware of the concept of "guerrilla war." I used the "people's war" term simply because it hits home more here (and also because Holmes used it not long ago in an article about creating a situation in which Taiwan could offer a naval deterrent; I believe he published a similar article in the _Taipei Times_, and Cole lauded the original in the _TT_ as well, although he found my earlier discussion amateurish and out of touch with whatever reality is).

    True, Taiwan would not need a nuclear force to dissuade the PRC and inflict major damage on cities in China. Possession of a nuclear deterrent would be a sharp wake-up call to the PRC, however. (I also think that if the Japanese, South Korean, etc., publics can, respectively, agree to their governments possessing nuclear arms, they deserve a sufficient deterrent as well, given the threats they are both facing. But this is beside the point.)

    I don't see either political party or any NGO or other non-governmental/private sector agency looking into the idea of a local deterrent (i.e., the possibility of a guerrilla war) on Taiwan. I blame the rulers, not the ruled, but the ruled have done very little actual thinking on the matter. This is not promising.

    I think a localized, guerrilla conflict would be a major deterrent so long as it is sustainable from the local standpoint. It may also prove devastating to the CCP regime. Imagine thousands of families all losing their only sons; how long do you think they'd be able to keep that bottled up by Xinhua, Renmin Ribao, and CCTV? I suppose they could do so for "as long as it [took]," but that would be difficult as shown by the July train wreck and the anger on Sina Weibo, etc. The "Taiwan issue" strikes at the heart of the CCP regime, and if it were unable to take Taiwan even with far superior force, I think there would be a major look inward (or a major thrashing outward) that would spell its doom. Hopefully it never comes to this, but if they invade, I'll pick a few off with a whatever weapon I can get my hands on. It's this pussy giving away of everything and this defeatist mentality I see all over this island (and the pussies in Washington) that have me pessimistic. And that mentality is linked to Washington's own. And these things, too, are not promising.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "The rains have started."

    Yes: I've just got back from the market in time. Plenty of veg for the next few days. Tommorow I might go out to the beach with the camera, see what the waves are doing.

    "I used the "people's war" term simply because it hits home more here..."

    You mean in ironic reference to the early days of the communist revolution? The term guerrilla warfare translates as 遊擊, but there is no direct translation for "people's war". Correct me if I'm wrong.

    "...also because Holmes used it not long ago in an article about creating a situation in which Taiwan could offer a naval deterrent; I believe he published a similar article in the _Taipei Times_, and Cole lauded the original in the _TT_ as well, although he found my earlier discussion amateurish and out of touch with whatever reality is..."

    I remember the Holmes piece in the Taipei Times and it seemed sensible to me given the absence of sufficient arms sales from the U.S. to Taiwan, but not being an expert on naval strategy I'm perhaps not in a good position to judge well.

    On J.Michael Cole - I think he does good work on defence reporting, but I didn't see the discussion you refer to.

    "I also think that if the Japanese, South Korean, etc., publics can, respectively, agree to their governments possessing nuclear arms, they deserve a sufficient deterrent as well, given the threats they are both facing. But this is beside the point."

    Actually, I don't think it is beside the point. A nuclear armed Japan would be a major deterrent to a military attack on Taiwan.

    "...the ruled have done very little actual thinking on the matter. This is not promising."

    It depends who you talk to.

    "I think a localized, guerrilla conflict would be a major deterrent so long as it is sustainable from the local standpoint."

    Assuming PRC air superiority and detailed satellite coverage over Taiwan, and assuming no major changes in Taiwanese political economy between then and now... then I suspect that the Chinese would fancy their chances. A guerrilla campaign would be very difficult to sustain without quite a lot in the way of prior decentralization and repudiation of State powers. The less the State controls, the more things are left to the market and civil society, the greater the "sustainability" of a guerrilla campaign would be.

    "Imagine thousands of families all losing their only sons; how long do you think they'd be able to keep that bottled up by Xinhua, Renmin Ribao, and CCTV? I suppose they could do so for "as long as it [took]," but that would be difficult as shown by the July train wreck and the anger on Sina Weibo, etc."

    Agreed.

    "Hopefully it never comes to this, but if they invade, I'll pick a few off with a whatever weapon I can get my hands on."

    You'd either have to go through local police or organized crime to get hold of weapons, but you probably couldn't do it directly. You could end up being sold out to the Chinese as a "terrorist" that way.

    Guerrilla warfare against a Chinese invasion would only work given the prior legalization of firearms partly due to the logistical need for distributed procurement of ammunition.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The exchange between myself and J. Michael Cole happened a few months ago on a friend's Facebook wall. Perhaps not a good example of thoughtful conversation, and I don't really hold it against him (I'm not that kind of person), but it did open my eyes to an enormous hole in his thinking (not so much that he rejected the idea but HOW he rejected it, like a father telling a child to go ask the child's mother).

    There are certain logistical concerns, but as you (and I) put it, those could all be mitigated rather smoothly by the unfettered functioning of the market. (I can hear the "progressive" crows circling overhead as I write that.)

    I hadn't thought of a nuclear Japan as a deterrent to a PRC invasion of Taiwan. That's a good point. I might give that some thought; perhaps a topic of a future blog post or something (depending on how much I want to stir the pot there in the future).

    The translation, in traditional Chinese, for "People's War" is "人民戰爭." I refer to it from Mao's "Little Red Book." I'm no Chinese language expert--studied for about four years, but have done so much work in English lately that I fear I'm losing my edge in a few places--but I do believe that the English is roughly a direct translation. I've not read the "Little Red Book" in its entirety in Chinese, although I have a copy of it in English translation (sadly, not in Taiwan, however). There are, I think, electronic copies available. Anyway, Mao is not the military mastermind his successors think him, and he speaks and writes vaguely on such issues. He does have the concepts of "guerrilla war" and "total war" down quite well, however, if vague.

    I have heard from several people that some members of the DPP (or affiliated groups) have considered such ideas. That they are not at all mainstream, however, and that they often have very little grounding in reality and not one iota of thought towards a broader and more general campaign (and nothing whatsoever to do with the market) doesn't make me very optimistic, but that it has been at least considered is at least generally, I suppose, a positive if the proverbial shit should hit the fan.

    That such a resistance to a military takeover may be encouraged covertly by certain US agencies might also be a positive, although it would be difficult to carry out and, were it discovered, would ruin Sino-US relations (and probably for good) had they not yet been completely ruined. Of course, if they were already ruined, or had they been ruined by an attack, that may be a reason for Washington to consider assisting in a resistance. However, I think by that time a solid number of apologists and panda huggers would be in control in Washington (had the realpolitickers not already sufficiently severed the berries from Washington's twig, so to speak).

    ReplyDelete
  8. The private property, no taxes freaks are at it again - yawn. But in the end, you admit that the state has, under certain circumstances, the right to expropriate land or raise taxes. Well done, you learned something and grew up a little bit. So here is some more reading material for you:

    There are still some sane rich people out there who understand that a functioning society needs fair taxes.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/29/tax-us-more-say-wealthy-europeans

    Tax us more, say wealthy Europeans

    http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2011/06/09/2003505311

    Tax rates are good for rich, good for business

    http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/warren-buffett-read-lips-raise-taxes/story?id=12199889

    Warren Buffett: Read My Lips, Raise My Taxes

    ReplyDelete
  9. "But in the end, you admit that the state has, under certain circumstances, the right to expropriate land or raise taxes."

    I didn't actually. I said it may possibly be justified if there were no other alternative and the consequences would be certain.

    "Well done, you learned something and grew up a little bit."

    I didn't learn anything - the subject has been familiar to me for a long time.

    "There are still some sane rich people out there who understand that a functioning society needs fair taxes."

    Oh.. Warren Buffet. He's wrong (and when he says this sort of thing, it's just PR), and you're an idiot. If he thinks the mega rich should pay more for government, then he doesn't need to wait for the taxman does he? He can simply gift his money to the Treasury.

    The same goes for those "wealthy Europeans".

    Not only is there no good reason why services like healthcare and education cannot be provided by the market, but there are plenty of good reasons why they should be.

    The typical Leftist sop about "the poor" is retarded and I can see the argument four or five steps ahead of this.

    ReplyDelete

Comment moderation is now in place, as of April 2012. Rules:

1) Be aware that your right to say what you want is circumscribed by my right of ownership here.

2) Make your comments relevant to the post to which they are attached.

3) Be careful what you presume: always be prepared to evince your point with logic and/or facts.

4) Do not transgress Blogger's rules regarding content, i.e. do not express hatred for other people on account of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.

5) Remember that only the best are prepared to concede, and only the worst are prepared to smear.