Replies

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.

If you think that the Rand quote is out of context, you should explain why. I posted the entire article in Defense of Liberty: Just Intervention; it is from Ayn Rand institute and reaches the same conclusions in theory that Peikoff reaches here, and the argumentation in the article is close to what I presented, and relies on Rand, whom it quotes. So do me a favor and explain on that thread where Ayn Rand Insitute quotes Ayn Rand out of context.

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.