Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:48:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
569 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes
> > 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.
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 that part of Jefferson's
reasoning had to stem from the real difficulty in overextending oneself and
one's resources, when it's so difficult to maintain and/or recall those
resources given the transportation and communication technology of the time.
The fact that we have greater resources and greater technologies with which
to manage those resources today means that an entangled alliance now is not
the same as it was in Jefferson's time.
> > 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).
Well, that goes without saying!
> > > > As a patriot, I cannot understand our need to dominate the world.
> > "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.
That was poor message-stacking on my part. I was replying to Dan's
statement without distinguishing it from yours.
> > 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.
Agreed--this is a murky area in which no answer is proof against "yeah,
but." I would say that the the absolute hands-off attitude professed by
some is reprehensible, but I don't have a clear-cut answer of when
involvement is appropriate.
> > 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?
>
> 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.
Let me rephrase: If Nation A, as one entity, imposes sanctions against
Nation B, as another entity, such that those sanctions cause harm to
innocent individuals in nation B, how is this different from the citizens of
Nation A, as one body, imposing sanctions (in the form of purchase boycott)
upon Corporation A, such that those sanctions cause harm to innocent
employees of Corporation A? The degree of harm will vary, certainly, but
are the two types of sanctioning different in kind? I'm not really
interested in buy-cigars-and-go-to-jail issues, since these are subordinate
to, and do not address, the larger issue of harm to innocents in the
sanctioned nation.
> ++Lar
As an aside, if I address or refer to you within a paragraph, should I
call you Lar, ++Lar, or Larry?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| (...) <snip> (...) Well, yes and no. While it may be easier to project power now than then, it was already easier in 1914, and I would argue that entangling alliances made WW I flare up worse and faster than if it had been just Austro Hungary (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
