Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:01:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
566 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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.
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.
> 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.
I don't give deific status to anyone or anything (other than, perhaps,
myself... but I digress).
> 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.
BUT, I think their thinking is still, today, 200+ years later, more relevant
and more correct than a lot of folks do.
> > > 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?
None of those are what I would call a bad sort of dominance.
> 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?
When exactly are we, as a nation, morally required to act? I've said before
that I was not sure that Libertarian orthodoxy gave a satisfactory answer in
the case of, for example, WW II. Some would argue that we entered LATER than
we should have, as the evil was obvious much sooner and was clearly a threat
to spread outside the borders of the belligerents.
> > 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.
The distinction seems clear to me. If I choose not to purchase shoes made in
mainland China, it is my choice and nothing more. If I choose to purchase a
cigar made in Cuba, on the other hand, it may subject me to being thrown in
prison for violating a sanction.
That strikes me as a difference in kind, not degree. Not buying shoes is a
moral decision. Not buying cigars is a matter of legality.
Hence, while I applaud efforts to shed light on practices that would lead
folks to make moral or practical decisions about what products to purchase,
I oppose sanctions that, by force of law, interfere with the functioning of
the market in making those same decisions.
If that doesn't help clarify, can you restate the question?
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes (...) As is the ability to keep tabs with one's home nation in microseconds rather than months. The reason I mention this, and the reason I basically reject the "entangled alliances" caution, is (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
