Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:58:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
564 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > 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?
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 Jeffersonian view of "honest
friendship with all, entangling alliances with none" isn't perceived as
workable by some. Me, I'm willing to give it a try again. It worked fine in
the past.
> 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'm pretty sure he's not saying that. I know I'm not.
> 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.
It isn't mine. We ought to honor the rights of all who are in our borders,
citizens or not. We ought to expect and hope that other nations feel the
same way. But when american citizens venture outside our borders, they are,
unfortunately, on their own. That is, they ought not to have the expectation
that they will be fished out of trouble by military intervention if they
venture to unsafe places. (note that US embassies are "within our borders")
> 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."
I agree.
> And I also beleive there are world criminals
> that need to be brought to justice.
I agree with the goal. It is the mechanism where we may disagree. We are not
the world's policeman and should not be asked or expected to be. But people
who feel strongly about this ought to be able to work privately to achieve
justice. (Amnesty International springs to mind, a worthy charity if there
ever was one...)
> There's no justice or heroism in bombing
> and destroying other countries and contributing to the death of millions of
> innocent people.
It is hard to disagree with that.
> America is the biggest bully on the block as far as I'm
> concerned.
I'm not sure I agree that America is the biggest or worst (did you mean
*ever*, or just at the moment or what? I think the SovUnion had us sussed by
billions of victims (yes, I said billions)) but I agree that bullying needs
to stop.
> As a patriot, I cannot understand our need to dominate the world.
As a patriot I don't think the vast majority of citizens (we as a country)
actually feel we *have* such a need to do so. I don't! Further, I personally
think those individual politicians that feel that need ought to be turned out.
> 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.
Indeed it does and I would start the same place you would, lifting all
sanctions against all countries. Or did you only want to lift some but not
all? Would you support sanctions against Israel, for example, if they were
lifted against everyone else?
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| (...) But there's a reason that the past is in the past. The world as Jefferson (whose idea of property, by the way, included certain individuals who were not duly compensated for their labor in his service) perceived it is largely irrelevant to the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| (...) In the good old days it was colonialism and empire building--theft and occupation of other lands and exploitation of the native people and resources. We can't do that anymore today, everybody is watching everybody, so we build an economic (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| (...) And what is our national interest, besides economic imperialism? (...) What are our national interests, besides economic imperialism? (...) Perhaps I misunderstand you, but are you saying that only Americans have rights, such as those of (...) (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
|
|
|
|
