Posted on 10/13/2001 8:34:37 AM PDT by annalex
I'm responding here. I do not wish to have the argument hi-jacked by Rand. You are taking her out of context anyway.
In order for an attack on the dictatorship to be acceptable there has to be 100% agreement that it is a good idea. That is because intervention uses the resources of everyone but provides no benefit for anyone.
You can pretend if you'd like, that a war with some petty dictatorship actually serves the national interests of the U.S. but it's not really true. It *might* serve the national interest of the people suffereing under the dictatorship but you don't seem to be thinking this out.
After you've crushed the dictator and leave, (and it's probably warm and fuzzy to think you could do so without any American casualties) what happens? Do you say; "Good luck and don't create anymore dictatorships or we'll be back again!"
What you are saying is that "national interest" is an excuse that can be used to justify war but you refuse to give it any meaningful definition. In reality you could trade it with "because" and have an equivalent reason to commit acts of aggression. I wish that you'd deal with 119. I believe those 4 points are devestating to your assertions.
Only the decision to delegate matters on national interest to the government needs to be made by the electorate. Each particular decision need not be decided by plebiscite. Even then, 100% is not required. When a government works inside its constitutional perimeter, it does not need to check back for 100% approval. There is much to be argued here theoretically , but not on this thread which is about concrete issue of foregin policy. The notion of universal consent was argued for example, in
(Pursuit of Liberty). No Treason. The Constitution of No Authority. Parts I-II.
(Pursuit of Liberty). No Treason. The Constitution of No Authority. Parts III - VII
(Pursuit of Liberty). No Treason. The Constitution of No Authority. Parts VIII - XIV
(Pursuit of Liberty). No Treason. The Constitution of No Authority. Parts XV - APPENDIX
Not every war with a petty dictatorship serves the national interest. Some do and some don't. What is argued here is that a war on the Arab dictatorships and monarchies that nationalized our oil in the 50's would have been in the national interest, because it would have maintained our economic independence, -- a pretty clear cut case.
I agree with the implications that you make, that after we crush the dictator we can't just leave. In Defense of Liberty: The Contours of Victory I argue for the restoration of the principles of imperialism, and for reopening the lessons of colonialism. Since our security lies in distant lands, we must learn how to subdue and manage these lands.
The second issue is that of national interest. While we morally can fight any war on dictatorial governments, often we shouldn't. Our involvement in Haiti, Somalia, and the Balkans are examples where we should have stayed out, because there was no national interest at stake. Those we involvements dictated by altruism, correct. But altruism as a motive does not invalidate the right to intervene; it only makes it a mistake.
I will repeat this post on the Intervention thread, where is properly belongs.
War on foreign soil and used with taxpayer money allows for no withdrawal of support for that war by its citizens. Thus it is immoral even if the goals are supposedly just as it forces those who do not agree with those goals to support them by force.
And that is as anti-libertarian as it gets. By the way, Objectivism is not the same thing as libertarianism. The fact that Rand can justify the use of force on foreign soil (if she even does in the article you posted) puts her at odds with libertarian principles.
Altruism is no vice. According to Rand, intervention is justified whenever the invaded nation has no basic freedoms. If it is done for atruistic reasons, the national interest is not served, but the intervention itself is still rightful. Intervention for oil, or in retaliation for the Twin Tower massacre whould clearly serve the national interest, so that point is moot.
The issue of consent as you raise it, is also misplaced. Consent for basic constitutional function of the government is presumed in the very existence of the government. Then, majoritarian consent for specific policies is sought periodically at election time. It is when the government violates your rights by stepping outside of its constitutional perimeter that universal consent becomes a necessity.
Whatever the differences between libertarianism and objectivism -- and I am aware of them, -- a quote from Rand surely qualifies as a libertarian source. For some reason the libertarians today deviate from their own orthodoxy, and the Libertarian Party has foreign non-intervention on its platform. Funny how this abandonment of libertarian principles in search of a pacifist vote did not propel LP anywhere.
Unless consent is forced.
Foreign intervention abroad is not in our constitution. Thus I don't consent voluntarily to supporting such a war effort.
And by the way, altruism is a fraud. I'm surprised that you seek to legitimize it. Even Rand doesn't do that.
I don't see a more equitable mechanism of consent in matters of national interest than majoritarian consent at election time. Do you?
About altruist foreign policy, I agree with Rand. Altruistic intervention is rightful with respect to the nation that is intervened when that nation is ruled by a government that usurped power. It is rightful with respect to us citizens if it is justified by the national interest. It is rightful as long as the government can present a plausible case for the national interest. If that case is falty, then the nation, being a free nation, would vote the government out of office. Till then -- till the election time -- the citizens may agitate against the foreign policy, but they may not legally withhold consent.
I'll probably re-post this, with modifications, on the other thread, where LSJohn should see it.
The problem is you're putting the cart before the horse.
We no longer live in a Republic but a totalitarian dictatorship. the President wages war at the expense of you and I and this is because he hasn't bothered to get our consent before waging war.
In the law, the President cannot act at all unless your representatives declare a formal state of war.
The President is only allowed to move our forces when there is an impending invasion.
I would agree that this might be one of those times. However, one has to wonder why one would stage soldiers in Afghanistan leaving the nation wide open for an invasion.
On the matter of consent. First, the income tax takes all issue of monitary consent out of the picture. The income tax is in fact unconstitutional if indeed it really applies to all American citizens.
Second, it was specifically stated that one could refuse to serve. That's the law. If for instance, the war was to be waged on foreign soil and had no relationship to national defense, the potential soldiers could tell the feds to pound sand.
If the military were only funded for the two years that is demanded by the constitution, every incursion would require consent by those serving. And this is all designed with the fact in mind that all political and military power comes from the people.
I am sorry that this pains you so. Actually no I'm not because you really don't give a rats ass whether or not our military and foreign policy is either constitutional or libertarian in nature. You are seeking "libertarian" principles with which to justify your position. There aren't any.
I've lived under not one but two totalitarian dictatorships and can tell the difference between a dictatorship and a representative government any time. We have an elected government; nobody prevented the voters from voting in Harry Browne.
Here's the question for you. Imagine that the President not only gets a declaration of war from Congress, but also puts this "war on terrorism" to a plebiscite. I think you'd agree that the results of the prebiscite would be 90% pro-war and 10% anti-war. Now, these 10% do not consent to the war. Should we not go to war because of the 10%? How about the rights to self-defense of the 90% -- they choose to exercise them by empowering the government to fight a war? How do you propose the 10% withdraw their consent -- what in practicality they should, under natural law, do?
The fact that 90% of the people would vote to ignore the constitution is not a concern of mine. Obviously all of those who promise to abide by the document either don't know what it says or do not care. So it is a troubling factoid, but it does not change my mind.
Again you are mistaken as you think that this requires legislative action. Otherwise you'd agree that our President is a dictator.
If one can assert power and influence without the necessity of legislation and has the military power to execute the laws he has made up in his head, he is a dictator and the legislature and court system are simply un-necessary relics. They stands as merely a representation of what once was. The military and all federal law enforcement agencies are at the direction of the president. Agencies under his control are empowered through "administrative law" to write their own tickets based on the President's directions.
I've already answered this question. Why ask it again?
How about: stop the 90% from stealing money from me in order to give me protection I don't want? Let me choose my own kind of protection and to pay for it in my own way. Let me assemble with those who agree with me.
I rather suspect that once the 90% discovered that our planes stayed up in the sky and that foreigners didn't hate us, they might decide to join us. But that's beside the point. It's my life. Let me decide how to take care of it.
Our "dictator" barely managed to get elected a year ago and has an opposition party running the Senate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.