Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:43:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
551 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?
>
> > 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?
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 trade, than yes.
>
> > 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.
Sorry about that, I kept saying "we", refering to Americans because I was
talking about what the US govt. can and cannot do. You could substitute any
nation in place of the US in that statement.
As far as one nation honoring the rights of another nation's citizens, they
obviously do not have to. I may have rights as an American citizen, but the
government of China is not obligated to protect them.
The Founding Fathers were perhaps the wisest bunch of people in the same place
at the same time. But a lot of what they said was idealistic (their actions
were a bit more pragmatic), and being idealistic just doesn't cut it in foreign
policy.
>
> The true world criminals like George H. Bush, Saddam Hussein, or Slobodan
> Milosevic, all filthy cowards, will never atone for their crimes against
> humanity.
What was Bush's crime? (not that I'm a big Bush defender)
> 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?
I think the lopsided kill ratio is more a result of America's geographic
isolation and technological superiority than any particular policy.
> 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.
Harry Browne (the LP presidential candidate) endorsed a policy of
assassination, which I fully agree with. It makes a lot of sense if you want to
punish dictators without hurting civilians.
-Marc
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| (...) I hadn't realized that Libertarians endorsed state-sponsored killing of anyone, which would be the most likely source of this kind of assassination attempt (other than attempts internal to that nation.) In addition, Harry Browne is neither a (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| (...) I mean dominating other nations through unethical trading practicing or harsh sanctions or expoitating human labor and natural resources of other nations. There's no morality in using force to "defend" our greedy business ventures and 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
|
|
|
|
