You quoted me out of context. I was talking about the idea that colonialism is more virtuous if we don't gain from it. Rand wasn't big on altruism, as I recall. On either the thread you linked to or one like it, she was quoted as saying that a free country has the right to attack an unfree one, and so the only consideration that matters is whether it's in the free country's interest. That consideration still matters. Their need for a decent government doesn't constitute on obligation on our part to provide them with one.
|
If someone who had never heard of Rudyard Kipling stumbled onto this poem, he could easily take it as a criticism, and a pretty harsh one at that, of imperialism. Reading it, I want say the same thing anti-war protestors in the 60s said, "Hell no! I won't go!" I'd rather stay here in Illinois and post messages on Free Republic. (As an aside, if we do colonize the third world, I hope the people in charge don't read Plato, or that remark could come back and bite me.)
I take it, you agree with Rand that it's the national interest, not altruism, that is determinative for the just invasion. In the case of the third world, we might have a national security interest in some of these places; we, for example, would benefit from getting a say in how most Arab countries are run, as well as, of course, Afghanistan.
Would the Muslim nations benefit from American colonization? If we respect their culture (and we'd be foolish not to), they might; almost any civil structure out there would be an improvement over the sheiks, the Taliban, or the ayatollahs. (Which is the opposite side of Rand's "green light to invade an unfree nation" coin). The thing with objectivism is that it always meshes in nicely with conventional ethics. In the case on hand, an invasion of a Muslim land, which would oppress the legitimate Muslim aspirations, is not only unethical, but is not in our national interest.