Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Jun 2001 18:27:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
551 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
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 world today, no matter how much some might wish otherwise.
Here's another piece from Jefferson that bears reflection as surely as the
over-cited "entangling alliances" phrase:
Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them
like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the
men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did
to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with
the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more
enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to
keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still
the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever
under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)
That is, what was good for Jefferson and the fledgling US isn't
necessarily good for us. Too many people (though not you, as I read you)
ascribe near-deific status to the founding fathers, as though these
venerable men were the incarnation of State Wisdom for all time. Their
greatest wisdom lay in their ability to recognize that their answers were
not comprehensive nor permanent, but were in fact subject to the necessities
of the times and circumstances that would follow.
> > 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.
"Dominate the world" is a phrase as wide as the world itself. If we are a
dominant economic power, why is that bad? If we are a dominant cultural
power, why is that bad? Even if we are a dominant military power, why is
that inherently bad? If (and it's admittedly a big "if") we don't abuse
that power, for instance, to exterminate countless Ukrainians, or invade our
sovereign and oil-rich neighbor, what's the harm? I agree that some nations
may be uncomfortable with the implied hegemony of the US, but if we are able
to act and judge (through appropriate consensus) that we are morally
required to act, why should we not act?
> Indeed it does and I would start the same place you would, lifting all
> sanctions against all countries.
I'm puzzled by this--how are economic and trade sanctions any different
from "voting with one's dollars" to express dissatisfaction with a corporate
power, except in degree? Certainly there are innocent victims in Iraq and
Cuba, but would there not also be innocent victims (ie: employees) of a
financial body that was sanctioned into bankrupcy? Isn't this, therefore,
merely one ultimate expression of a libertarian-accepted form of financial
leverage? I'm not being flippant about this; I see real similarities
between the two, and I'm trying to find a solid distinction.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| (...) Somewhat, yes. Largely? Not sure. Certainly the ability to rain defeat on your enemy 12000 miles away in a matter of a few hours is a major difference, though. (...) I don't give deific status to anyone or anything (other than, perhaps, (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
