Replies

Both Rand and I say that the decision to intervene should be based on two facts: (1) that the foreign government does not protect natural rights; and (2) it is in our national interest. If France fails to protect individual natural rights (e.g. by failing to punish the muggers) then, in a therotical extreme, it becomes a rogue nation meeting test 1. If protection of American citizen assets abroad becomes a form of corporate welfare, then our intervention would fail test 2. But the governments that nationalized the oil companies assets were dictatorship and a good argument can be made, particularly in hindsight, that preventing them from doing so would be in the national interest. So, an equally good argument can be made for intervention in Arabistan just for the oil interests.

Now, of course, we have some retaliating to do for a clear-cut case of mass murder. Any form of military intervention in the countries involved (none has a representative form of government) would meet both Rand's tests.

I will post the article that puts the Rand's quotes in context in a munite. You may want to carry the discussion over there.

But the governments that nationalized the oil companies assets were dictatorship and a good argument can be made, particularly in hindsight, that preventing them from doing so would be in the national interest

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.