Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:41:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
465 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Marc Nelson, Jr. writes:
> As a card-carrying Libertarian, the foreign policy plank is probably the part
> of the platform I disagree with the most. Regardless of what domestic policies
> we persue (libertarian ones, I hope), our national interest doesn't change.
And what is our national interest, besides economic imperialism?
> Now, I didn't agree with some of those actions, namely, Yugoslavia, Haiti, and
> also Somalia, which wasn't mentioned. But I disagreed with them because I
> didn't think they served our national interests, not because they violated
> libertarian principles.
What are our national interests, besides economic imperialism?
> The difference between domestic policy and foreign policy is that when we make
> domestic policy, we are dealing with citizens who have constitutional rights
> and are subject to a common law and authority. Their rights should be infringed
> as little as possible and only to protect the person and property of others. In
> foreign policy we are dealing with sovereign nations who exist in a state of
> nature. There is no common authority above them. They have no rights as far as
> other nations are concerned and have no obligation to treat each other in any
> "proper" manner.
Perhaps I misunderstand you, but are you saying that only Americans have
rights, such as those of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? I
thought these were "inalienable human rights" not specific to Americans? If
I follow you correctly, America has no obligation to honor the rights of
people in other countries, the same rights America calls "inalienable." I
hope this isn't you sentiment.
I beleive that all humans have equal rights in terms of life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness. Our founding fathers said it best that these ARE
"inalienable human rights." And I also beleive there are world criminals
that need to be brought to justice. There's no justice or heroism in bombing
and destroying other countries and contributing to the death of millions of
innocent people. America is the biggest bully on the block as far as I'm
concerned. As a patriot, I cannot understand our need to dominate the world.
That's our national policy for you.
The true world criminals like George H. Bush, Saddam Hussein, or Slobodan
Milosevic, all filthy cowards, will never atone for their crimes against
humanity. These are men (in the loosest use of the word) with blood stained
hands, yet they live on. Tim McVeigh, another filthy coward, finally
received justice. But I fear America may miss the greater lesson in the
Oklahoma tragedy, which is HURT. It hurts when innocent loved ones die a
cruel death at the hands of criminals and brutes. We honor those who died by
not inflicting such suffering on other innocent people in our own country or
in other countries. How many innocent civilians around the world has our
nation murdered in wars, "police actions" or in the name of our f*cked up
foreign policy? On the flip side, how few American civilians have died at
the hands of other nations?
If the Libertarians want a violence-free foreign policy, I say why not? A
good start would be lifting the sanctions against Iraq and ending the cruel,
needless suffering of innocent men, women and children. Nearly a million
people have died as a direct result of the sanctions, over half of them
children. Tiny human beings, flesh and blood, powerless and suffering
because our nation chooses such a stupid, murderous policy. The sanctions
only strengthen Saddam! They actually help keep him in power by killing off
his opposition. We could also lift the sanctions against Cuba. Why should
generation after generation of Cubans live in condemnation because our old
guard of "Cold War" morons can't let go of their stupidity? Our foreign
policy needs much work.
Dan
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| (...) Economic imperialism, whatever that might be, surely doesn't fall within *this* libertarian's definition of what an appropriate national interest ought to be. Can you define what you mean a bit more? What I think Mark is getting at is that the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| (...) Dan: Permit me to take a guess, both for clarity's sake and also to make sure that I understand what he's saying. He's referring not to the "inalienable" rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but rather the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| (...) policies (...) and (...) Well, exactly what our national interests are is certainly a matter for debate. I was just saying that whatever we decide they are, it is fine to use force to protect them. But if by economic imperialism, you mean free (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| (...) As a card-carrying Libertarian, the foreign policy plank is probably the part of the platform I disagree with the most. Regardless of what domestic policies we persue (libertarian ones, I hope), our national interest doesn't change. Now, I (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
271 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
