must read later.
This is quite interesting. They were proven wrong, so we should give them another chance. The Rothbard vision of the lack of danger the Soviets posed sounds very much like Paul's denial of the danger islamic terrorism poses. It seems very appropriate that Ron Paul has a picture of Rothbard in his office.
His rabid rabble aren't normal society, it would seem.
Ask any of the Paulies who they consider the greater threat, the terrorists or the US government. Most will answer the US government.
Stalin’s U.S.S.R. was already working to influence American politics, policy, education, entertainment, etc.
Did it pose a “threat” to US Security? Was any harm done by spies handing the Soviets the secrets to the atomic bomb?
The “non-intervention” policy only works when BOTH sides agree not to exert influence.
Too bad there aren’t any freepers up to Jonah’s challenge.
Very good, informative, educational article by Johah Goldberg. Thanks for posting.
Facinating read. An article which both supports and bashes Run Paul.
There has always been a pacifist strain to libertarian domestic policy (government is violence). Why should foreign policy be different? One answer might be: because it is different. The international arena simply isn't a liberal polity where concepts such as contracts and property rights apply as they do in, say, Cleveland. To treat the world as just another sphere of liberalism is a category error.
Contracts and property rights enforcement is a legitimate function of government for all but anarchists and such. Because we really don't want a World Government (I think it is a strong consensus here), who is going to be an "enforcer" in the world? History developed the way that this role fell largely on the United States. Even when we do nothing a threat of our possible action has a pacifying effect. I see no alternative that has 1) muscles to do it and 2) I can trust. Maybe one out of two, but not two together.
Another 2 good articles on the non-interventionism:
Penumbrae galore?
Bwahahahaha
The problem with too many libertarians is that their ideology blinds them to common sense.
Case in point. Ask libertarians if they think roads and bridges should be privately owned. Many — perhaps most — will say yes.
Now think about that for a minute. Private ownership makes sense in industries where competition is natural. If you don’t like Crest toothpaste, you can buy Colgate. But what if some private company owns the roads surrounding your home?
The roads can be regulated, of course. Oh, but wait a minute. Libertarians are allergic to government regulation of private industry. So that means the private company can essentially hold you hostage in your own home. What’s to keep them from charging you whatever they see fit — or simply not letting you use their roads at all if they so desire?
That’s the problem. Common sense informs normal people that roads should not be privately owned (except perhaps in very limited cases where plenty of alternatives exist). But an alarming percentage of libertarians can’t see the obvious problem.
If they can’t see something as simple as that, what are the chances they will have a sensible foreign policy?