Recommended Posts

I believe that Dennis Prager has some fans on this forum. So perhaps someone here can help with a question raised by an article he contributed a few months ago to National Review.

Prager takes the position that because of "America’s strength and willingness to use it," the U.S. is a great "force in history for liberty and world stability."

Prager asks us to "Imagine that, because of the great financial and human price, the mayors and city councils of some major American cities decide that they no longer want to police their cities. Individuals simply have to protect themselves."

The result, he says, would be that "the worst human beings would terrorize these cities, and the loss of life would be far greater than before. But chaos would not long reign. The strongest thugs and their organizations would take over the cities."

"That is what will happen to the world," he says, "if the United States decides — because of the financial expense and the loss of American troops — not to be the 'world’s policeman.'”

Now here's the question. When an American city government sends its police out on rounds, it pays them from tax funds collected from citizens/property owners within its city limits. It may be that some residents there pay a higher portion of those operating costs, but the point is that all services are performed and all revenues are collected within the same geographic parameters.

Yet in moving to the world stage, we see a disconnect. Clearly, for example, the residents of Afghanistan are not being taxed to finance the American-uniformed world policemen in their neighborhood. I don't know where precisely Prager thinks our global cops should best be deployed, but even if it is only in half of the foreign countries they currently occupy, shouldn't the residents of those countries be taxed to share the burden U.S. citizens presently bear alone to provide for "liberty and world stability"?

Current_US_military_deployments.png

And how would that work exactly? Would U.S. Treasury present a bill to the Karzai government for $500 billion? Would Karzai in turn assess that sum from his people (about $16,000 per capita in a country with a GDP per capita of about $1,000)? Or should the IRS attempt to collect it directly from the Afghans, as Great Britain once taxed colonial America to pay for the French and Indian Wars?

Or do we just write off this debt as one of America's altruistic gifts to to the poor and benighted of the world? Or, to be consistent with our principles, declare it was all spent in our rational self-interest to rid the world of collectivists and mystics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yet in moving to the world stage, we see a disconnect. Clearly, for example, the residents of Afghanistan are not being taxed to finance the American-uniformed world policemen in their neighborhood. I don't know where precisely Prager thinks our global cops should best be deployed, but even if it is only in half of the foreign countries they currently occupy, shouldn't the residents of those countries be taxed to share the burden U.S. citizens presently bear alone to provide for "liberty and world stability"?

That is why the analogy/comparison/metaphor is unwarranted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a totally free market perspective assuming a free and prosperous country (say: the United States) the true trading partners of the business interests in the free country are the people of the world not the governments of the world. It would be in their interest to protect the rights and freedom of their potential customers in any country. The natural and unalienable rights of people know no boundaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a totally free market perspective assuming a free and prosperous country (say: the United States) the true trading partners of the business interests in the free country are the people of the world not the governments of the world. It would be in their interest to protect the rights and freedom of their potential customers in any country. The natural and unalienable rights of people know no boundaries.

Actually most trading is done business to business not person to person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a totally free market perspective assuming a free and prosperous country (say: the United States) the true trading partners of the business interests in the free country are the people of the world not the governments of the world. It would be in their interest to protect the rights and freedom of their potential customers in any country. The natural and unalienable rights of people know no boundaries.

Actually most trading is done business to business not person to person.

Fine. Every individual on earth who trades anything (labor, skills, manufactured goods) is a "business". A trader is operating a business. Traders can collaborate and incorporate. Free of government interference and privilege seeking and corruption natural rights apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine. Every individual on earth who trades anything (labor, skills, manufactured goods) is a "business". A trader is operating a business. Traders can collaborate and incorporate. Free of government interference and privilege seeking and corruption natural rights apply.

Excellent.

Thomas Paine's natural, state of nature, approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a totally free market perspective assuming a free and prosperous country (say: the United States) the true trading partners of the business interests in the free country are the people of the world not the governments of the world. It would be in their interest to protect the rights and freedom of their potential customers in any country. The natural and unalienable rights of people know no boundaries.

Let's consider this.

From a totally free market perspective, would it be proper for the government of Free and Prosperous Country X to send its warships to bombard (or threaten to bombard) the capital city of Unfree Foreign Country Y, whose government has refused to permit the business interests of the Free and Prosperous Country X to engage in trade with the people of Unfree Foreign Country Y?

And from a totally free market perspective, would it be proper for the government of Free and Prosperous Country X to tax all of its people in order to finance the cost of this military campaign to open up Unfree Foreign Country Y? Or should such costs be borne solely by those businesses in X who would find it "in their interest to protect the rights and freedom of their potential customers" in Y? Or perhaps be borne in large part by the newly freed "potential customers" in Y?

In short, does the need to "protect the rights and freedom of . . . potential customers in any country" justify a World Police force?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like you primarily have a problem with how the operation is financed. I also don't believe in involuntary taxation.

I envision the minimal government of a pure capitalist and free country being paid for services rendered and by voluntary contribution. I have no problem with free riders btw (there will always be a bell curve). Free individuals should not be restricted in the planning the demise of organized human predation in whatever the most efficient and effective means turns out to be.

As to how to get from here to there (in the United States) I'm in favor of amending the constitution in some way so as to prevent liars from holding any kind of office or job in the government. Congress or a citizen voter jury could impeach a government office holder or official for life by convicting them of perjury. Because I believe in markets I believe if individuals knew exactly what the people they vote for believed in they would make, on average, good choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a totally free market perspective assuming a free and prosperous country (say: the United States) the true trading partners of the business interests in the free country are the people of the world not the governments of the world. It would be in their interest to protect the rights and freedom of their potential customers in any country. The natural and unalienable rights of people know no boundaries.

Let's consider this.

From a totally free market perspective, would it be proper for the government of Free and Prosperous Country X to send its warships to bombard (or threaten to bombard) the capital city of Unfree Foreign Country Y, whose government has refused to permit the business interests of the Free and Prosperous Country X to engage in trade with the people of Unfree Foreign Country Y?

And from a totally free market perspective, would it be proper for the government of Free and Prosperous Country X to tax all of its people in order to finance the cost of this military campaign to open up Unfree Foreign Country Y? Or should such costs be borne solely by those businesses in X who would find it "in their interest to protect the rights and freedom of their potential customers" in Y? Or perhaps be borne in large part by the newly freed "potential customers" in Y?

In short, does the need to "protect the rights and freedom of . . . potential customers in any country" justify a World Police force?

Francisco,

It seems as if there are two questions:

(1) How should the government of the United States be funded? And,

(2) Should the United States adopt an isolationist foreign policy or be actively involved in foreign affairs.

If we assume for a moment that the United States government were funded by a totally just method, then only the second question would be relevant and it is my opinion that it is in the interest of the people of the U.S. to selectively promote liberty throughout the world. There several reasons for my view:

(a) Free foreign countries make better trading partners.

(b) Free countries are more likely to be our allies and less likely to be our enemies as our interests coincide.

© Free countries could be a place of refuge if the government of this country were ever to fall into despotism.

Right now, if the U.S. fails, there is almost no place on earth to which the citizens of this country could flee. Most European countries are not too bad with Switzerland being my first choice, but it couldn't absorb a significant fraction of the population.

If your main objection is to the method by which the U.S. government is funded, that is a whole other discussion.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like you primarily have a problem with how the operation is financed. I also don't believe in involuntary taxation.

I envision the minimal government of a pure capitalist and free country being paid for services rendered and by voluntary contribution. I have no problem with free riders btw (there will always be a bell curve). Free individuals should not be restricted in the planning the demise of organized human predation in whatever the most efficient and effective means turns out to be.

So far, so good. But, financing aside, there can still be an ethical/political problem with diverting public resources for private advantage.

Suppose, for example, in a society with minimal government, a citizen with political influence is able to get police patrols doubled in his neighborhood by having fewer police patrols in other neighborhoods. The effect is that public resources, generated by voluntary collections from the whole community, are now more narrowly focused on benefiting a particular segment of the community.

Now, let's return to the issue of a nation's military as world policeman. Presumably the function of an armed forces is to protect the lives and property rights of the citizens and funders of the those forces. In the case of an outright invasion, no one would dispute deploying all available soldiers and weapons to defend the nation's territory.

But consider a less clear cut case. What if Citizen A from Free Country X takes a vacation in distant Unfree Country Y? Suddenly and without just cause, Citizen A is jailed and tortured. What if diplomacy fails, and the only way to secure A's release is for Free Country X to send its entire fleet and air force halfway around the globe to threaten or physically compel A's release? What if the conflict drags on for years at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of dollars? Even though the billions are voluntarily collected and the lives are voluntarily given up, would the citizen/funders of Free Country X be out of line in wondering whether it's their obligation to rescue every helpless tourist?

Another example: Suppose the majority of stockholders in the Acme Croquet Mallet Company are citizens of Free Country X, and suppose Unfree Country Y suddenly and without just cause seizes the mallet factory that is located there and permanently nationalizes it? Are the Acme Croquet Mallet Company stockholders entitled to command the entire armed forces of Free Country X to save their investment? Ten of billions to save a million dollar factory?

Another example: What if the Faultless Mousetrap Company in Free Country X decides that it can sell 20% more products overseas if the dictatorship of Unfree Country Y is toppled? Wouldn't it be in the interest of Faultless to lobby the Congress and President of Free Country X to devote the nation's armed services to that purpose, even if it meant Free Country X's borders became a little less secure?

Thus, no matter how the military is financed, there are problems with a World Police in theory and in practice. Anyone who believes it is in the interest of a government "to protect the rights and freedom" of their citizens' potential customers in any country, has to be prepared to build the military to gargantuan proportions so as to enable it to invade any country on the planet at a moment's notice. But such an undertaking may paradoxically make the "free and prosperous" country much less free, less prosperous, and less safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a totally free market perspective assuming a free and prosperous country (say: the United States) the true trading partners of the business interests in the free country are the people of the world not the governments of the world. It would be in their interest to protect the rights and freedom of their potential customers in any country. The natural and unalienable rights of people know no boundaries.

Let's consider this.

From a totally free market perspective, would it be proper for the government of Free and Prosperous Country X to send its warships to bombard (or threaten to bombard) the capital city of Unfree Foreign Country Y, whose government has refused to permit the business interests of the Free and Prosperous Country X to engage in trade with the people of Unfree Foreign Country Y?

And from a totally free market perspective, would it be proper for the government of Free and Prosperous Country X to tax all of its people in order to finance the cost of this military campaign to open up Unfree Foreign Country Y? Or should such costs be borne solely by those businesses in X who would find it "in their interest to protect the rights and freedom of their potential customers" in Y? Or perhaps be borne in large part by the newly freed "potential customers" in Y?

In short, does the need to "protect the rights and freedom of . . . potential customers in any country" justify a World Police force?

Francisco,

It seems as if there are two questions:

(1) How should the government of the United States be funded? And,

(2) Should the United States adopt an isolationist foreign policy or be actively involved in foreign affairs.

If we assume for a moment that the United States government were funded by a totally just method, then only the second question would be relevant and it is my opinion that it is in the interest of the people of the U.S. to selectively promote liberty throughout the world. There several reasons for my view:

(a) Free foreign countries make better trading partners.

(b) Free countries are more likely to be our allies and less likely to be our enemies as our interests coincide.

© Free countries could be a place of refuge if the government of this country were ever to fall into despotism.

Right now, if the U.S. fails, there is almost no place on earth to which the citizens of this country could flee. Most European countries are not too bad with Switzerland being my first choice, but it couldn't absorb a significant fraction of the population.

If your main objection is to the method by which the U.S. government is funded, that is a whole other discussion.

Darrell

I've dealt with the financing issue in my response to Mikee above.

I've also attempted to show the practical difficulty in fulfilling the promise of protecting every citizen's life and property--and especially potential customers--abroad.

If it is in the interest of the "U.S. to selectively promote liberty throughout the world," then wouldn't it likewise be in Switzerland's interest to do the same?

But Switzerland, someone might answer, does not have the resources to send armed forces into over a hundred foreign nations.

Based on the lessons of the past decade, neither does the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many things are not purchased because one does not have the means. But I agree with Dennis Prager, I believe the United States has been a force for good in the world, perhaps not with the present administration. However, I don't think he, nor I, characterize this force for good as a "World Police". Simply by honoring our treaties with other democratic countries and looking out for our interest does not mean we are trying to force a set of laws on the rest of the world. Continuing to use the "World Police" is a straw man. Also, your pretense that a small number of people are receiving a benefit at the expense of many, in my previous post I indicated in my free capitalist society the opposite case would be true. The costs would be paid by the people who were willing to pay for it and benefit directly or indirectly. Like I said before, I don't care about free riders.

Whenever I think about it I am deeply offended that a regime like the present one in North Korea can exist. If it can exist there and no one is willing to do anything about it it can exist anywhere. Generations of people living as slaves to an insane dictator. This fact alone, the unwillingness to act to correct a monstrosity, damns the human race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Whenever I think about it I am deeply offended that a regime like the present one in North Korea can exist. If it can exist there and no one is willing to do anything about it it can exist anywhere. Generations of people living as slaves to an insane dictator. This fact alone, the unwillingness to act to correct a monstrosity, damns the human race."

Does the regime in China still qualify as a totalitarian dictatorship? If so, do we object to its existence on that basis alone, or is it necessary for one or more of the leaders to be "insane?"

Would you say that China is no longer a totalitarian dictatorship rather that it is on the spectrum of being a "mixed economy" as is the USA?

How high do the taxes on income (from whatever source derived) have to be in order for a country to be considered unfree? What if half of the adults pay no income tax and 100% of the taxes on income come from the top 40% are they still free?

Is it still true that the greatest threat to our own freedom is from our very own central government. Do we wait until our first amendment rights to speak and write are forbidden before we are considered to no longer be free? How close are we to that?

I am far less worried about an invasion from any other country in the world than I am worried about our own government bailing in to my retirement account to bail itself out.

I am only free after taxes now as long as I fulfill the regulations to maintain the license granted to me to work in my profession.

Meantime the individual mandates which to me are unconstitutional are approved by the Courts and promise to just keep coming.

Only hope is exponential growth of SFL and YAL and the like.

As T. Jefferson once said and I paraphrase: If you think that you can remain ignorant and free, you wish for something that never was and never will be.

He spoke in an age in which women could not vote or do many things and slavery was still a reality. How did he expect even free people at the time to overcome their ignorance? Please tell me the shortest list of books necessary at a minimum for people to read and understand in order to restore our liberty today.

gg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've dealt with the financing issue in my response to Mikee above.

I've also attempted to show the practical difficulty in fulfilling the promise of protecting every citizen's life and property--and especially potential customers--abroad.

If it is in the interest of the "U.S. to selectively promote liberty throughout the world," then wouldn't it likewise be in Switzerland's interest to do the same?

But Switzerland, someone might answer, does not have the resources to send armed forces into over a hundred foreign nations.

Based on the lessons of the past decade, neither does the U.S.

Francisco,

I didn't find your arguments about the difficulty of protecting U.S. citizens or citizens of foreign countries very convincing. The U.S. is able to exert a great deal of influence on foreign countries without going to war. The simple threat of war or other reprisals is usually enough to obtain the desired results. The results are not always immediate; the hikers in Iran were imprisoned for years before they were released, but they were released.

I don't know if "world's policeman" is the correct term. I wouldn't expect the U.S. to expend unlimited resources on every kidnapped person. However, it is in the interest of the U.S. to make sure the shipping lanes are generally safe and that other countries don't attack our allies. It is also in our interest to expend some effort to ensure the safety of individuals. If other countries see that we are willing to go to great lengths to protect innocent people, they will be less likely to harm our citizens or the citizens of our allies.

Of course, it is also in Switzerland's interest to promote freedom, but Switzerland is much smaller than the U.S. With a population of 8 million, they have a population roughly equal to the state of Virginia. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. is one of the more populous countries in the world and that is part of our strength. However, it is also the case that countries such as China and India with much larger populations than our own are rapidly developing and that could limit our ability to provide a defensive umbrella to the free world. That is actually a somewhat frightening reality that we may have to deal with in the not too distant future.

There are several steps that the U.S. could take to improve it's position:

(1) Encourage people in this country to have more children in order to increase our population.

(2) Increase immigration for the same reason.

(3) Increase freedom at home in order to strengthen our economy (besides it being the right thing to do).

(4) Encourage relatively free, allied countries to increase freedom and increase their populations.

(5) Ally ourselves more strongly with relatively free countries such as India.

(6) Encourage freedom in places like China and the Muslim countries in order to reduce the threat level from those countries.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many things are not purchased because one does not have the means. But I agree with Dennis Prager, I believe the United States has been a force for good in the world, perhaps not with the present administration. However, I don't think he, nor I, characterize this force for good as a "World Police". Simply by honoring our treaties with other democratic countries and looking out for our interest does not mean we are trying to force a set of laws on the rest of the world. Continuing to use the "World Police" is a straw man. Also, your pretense that a small number of people are receiving a benefit at the expense of many, in my previous post I indicated in my free capitalist society the opposite case would be true. The costs would be paid by the people who were willing to pay for it and benefit directly or indirectly. Like I said before, I don't care about free riders.

Whenever I think about it I am deeply offended that a regime like the present one in North Korea can exist. If it can exist there and no one is willing to do anything about it it can exist anywhere. Generations of people living as slaves to an insane dictator. This fact alone, the unwillingness to act to correct a monstrosity, damns the human race.

You are aware you are advocating altruism ("unwillingness to act") and collectivism ("damns the human race")?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many things are not purchased because one does not have the means. But I agree with Dennis Prager, I believe the United States has been a force for good in the world, perhaps not with the present administration. However, I don't think he, nor I, characterize this force for good as a "World Police". Simply by honoring our treaties with other democratic countries and looking out for our interest does not mean we are trying to force a set of laws on the rest of the world. Continuing to use the "World Police" is a straw man. Also, your pretense that a small number of people are receiving a benefit at the expense of many, in my previous post I indicated in my free capitalist society the opposite case would be true. The costs would be paid by the people who were willing to pay for it and benefit directly or indirectly. Like I said before, I don't care about free riders.

Whenever I think about it I am deeply offended that a regime like the present one in North Korea can exist. If it can exist there and no one is willing to do anything about it it can exist anywhere. Generations of people living as slaves to an insane dictator. This fact alone, the unwillingness to act to correct a monstrosity, damns the human race.

I say "World Police" because "World's Policeman" is the term Dennis Prager embraces in his defense of the idea that the United States should perform the role of keeping foreign criminals in check: "The world needs a policeman. The world in no way differs from cities needing police."

Perhaps you can distinguish your position from Prager's by establishing, for example, that you don't think the Marines should invade Ruritania in order to make it a better market for American products.

As for preventing "a small number of people [from] receiving a benefit at the expense of many," I do not see why that is any more likely to be the case in a "free capitalist society" than in a mixed economy. Most people are too busy to devote much of their time to politics. Some individuals, however, can afford to hire a large team of specialists who do nothing all day long but make sure that elected officials vote the right way.

I look forward to a day when all costs are "paid by the people who were willing to pay for it and benefit directly or indirectly." But there is no reason to suppose that no man will ever fail to resist the temptation to get the government to foot the entire bill for his pet project. If the government of Ruritania refuses to allow any competition with state-owned telecommunications, it would certainly be less costly for the owners of Intercontinental Telephone and Telegraph to get the United States government to stage a coup there than for Intercontinental to cover the entire cost of having a private army to do it.

Having a Constitutional prohibition on lying will be no more effective than having a prohibition on interfering with the right to keep and bear arms. The judge in every case where the government is on trial is hired and paid for by the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've dealt with the financing issue in my response to Mikee above.

I've also attempted to show the practical difficulty in fulfilling the promise of protecting every citizen's life and property--and especially potential customers--abroad.

If it is in the interest of the "U.S. to selectively promote liberty throughout the world," then wouldn't it likewise be in Switzerland's interest to do the same?

But Switzerland, someone might answer, does not have the resources to send armed forces into over a hundred foreign nations.

Based on the lessons of the past decade, neither does the U.S.

Francisco,

I didn't find your arguments about the difficulty of protecting U.S. citizens or citizens of foreign countries very convincing. The U.S. is able to exert a great deal of influence on foreign countries without going to war. The simple threat of war or other reprisals is usually enough to obtain the desired results. The results are not always immediate; the hikers in Iran were imprisoned for years before they were released, but they were released.

I'm glad the mere threat of war usually does the trick. This, I am sure, explains why the U.S. very seldom sends its troops abroad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

I don't know if "world's policeman" is the correct term. I wouldn't expect the U.S. to expend unlimited resources on every kidnapped person. However, it is in the interest of the U.S. to make sure the shipping lanes are generally safe and that other countries don't attack our allies. It is also in our interest to expend some effort to ensure the safety of individuals. If other countries see that we are willing to go to great lengths to protect innocent people, they will be less likely to harm our citizens or the citizens of our allies.

Of course, it is also in Switzerland's interest to promote freedom, but Switzerland is much smaller than the U.S. With a population of 8 million, they have a population roughly equal to the state of Virginia. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. is one of the more populous countries in the world and that is part of our strength. However, it is also the case that countries such as China and India with much larger populations than our own are rapidly developing and that could limit our ability to provide a defensive umbrella to the free world. That is actually a somewhat frightening reality that we may have to deal with in the not too distant future.

There are several steps that the U.S. could take to improve it's position:

(1) Encourage people in this country to have more children in order to increase our population.

(2) Increase immigration for the same reason.

(3) Increase freedom at home in order to strengthen our economy (besides it being the right thing to do).

(4) Encourage relatively free, allied countries to increase freedom and increase their populations.

(5) Ally ourselves more strongly with relatively free countries such as India.

(6) Encourage freedom in places like China and the Muslim countries in order to reduce the threat level from those countries.

Darrell

I'm not sure what a country that does not collect taxes would do to "encourage people in this country to have more children." Give them a gold-plated "Hero" badge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even "keeping the shipping lanes open" is a dubious use of US naval forces although one I'm most likely to embrace. After all, if a shipping lane is closed another tends to open, maybe at the price of a little more fuel or time, but that price would be generally borne so it wouldn't be so much of a competitive issue.

I didn't begin to understand, in spite of my intellectual independence from an extremely young, age how I was being raised to be an instrument of state policy or policies as were all my classmates. My critical thinking didn't begin to go deep enough and I'm still trying to obtain an individualism I should have had out of the starting gate. Such was and is the nature of state education. It's so culturally ingrained even most private education only mimics it.

--Brant

hot for teacher--at least we had that until she was sent to jail pregnant with our first child

oops!--wrong identity!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what a country that does not collect taxes would do to "encourage people in this country to have more children." Give them a gold-plated "Hero" badge?

Nothing. The idea you don't need children to take care of you in your old age because the government will do that job for them--the government provides the insurance--means you don't have children or as many. Such is the progeny of the welfare state in all the advanced economies I can think of.

Now, greater wealth from the free economy would also mean less need for children so the natural course of things--children not being needed on the farm any more--is fewer children. Over-population has a lot to do with poverty--and ignorance or religious nonsense. Go away and come back in a thousand years and there will likely be considerably fewer humans than today. People will still have children for the natural biological impulses and reasons and because, like horses, they like to have them around.

--Brant

great changes they are a-coming; history is accelerating

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you drunk?

While I'm frequently humorous I'm basically deadly serious and at this time and in the circumstances of my life I've no time for or interest in flame wars or attacking people. What I address is the ideas as they are posted as I find of interest. As for drinking, I don't. It's too hard on my throat, even wine. Beer is too carb caloric.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many things are not purchased because one does not have the means. But I agree with Dennis Prager, I believe the United States has been a force for good in the world, perhaps not with the present administration. However, I don't think he, nor I, characterize this force for good as a "World Police". Simply by honoring our treaties with other democratic countries and looking out for our interest does not mean we are trying to force a set of laws on the rest of the world. Continuing to use the "World Police" is a straw man. Also, your pretense that a small number of people are receiving a benefit at the expense of many, in my previous post I indicated in my free capitalist society the opposite case would be true. The costs would be paid by the people who were willing to pay for it and benefit directly or indirectly. Like I said before, I don't care about free riders.

Whenever I think about it I am deeply offended that a regime like the present one in North Korea can exist. If it can exist there and no one is willing to do anything about it it can exist anywhere. Generations of people living as slaves to an insane dictator. This fact alone, the unwillingness to act to correct a monstrosity, damns the human race.

I say "World Police" because "World's Policeman" is the term Dennis Prager embraces in his defense of the idea that the United States should perform the role of keeping foreign criminals in check: "The world needs a policeman. The world in no way differs from cities needing police."

Perhaps you can distinguish your position from Prager's by establishing, for example, that you don't think the Marines should invade Ruritania in order to make it a better market for American products.

As for preventing "a small number of people [from] receiving a benefit at the expense of many," I do not see why that is any more likely to be the case in a "free capitalist society" than in a mixed economy. Most people are too busy to devote much of their time to politics. Some individuals, however, can afford to hire a large team of specialists who do nothing all day long but make sure that elected officials vote the right way.

I look forward to a day when all costs are "paid by the people who were willing to pay for it and benefit directly or indirectly." But there is no reason to suppose that no man will ever fail to resist the temptation to get the government to foot the entire bill for his pet project. If the government of Ruritania refuses to allow any competition with state-owned telecommunications, it would certainly be less costly for the owners of Intercontinental Telephone and Telegraph to get the United States government to stage a coup there than for Intercontinental to cover the entire cost of having a private army to do it.

Having a Constitutional prohibition on lying will be no more effective than having a prohibition on interfering with the right to keep and bear arms. The judge in every case where the government is on trial is hired and paid for by the government.

Your assumption appears to be the human behavior evident in a society where individuals are subjected to unprincipled coercion in every aspect of their lives will still be displayed when the coercive element is removed. You believe that basic human nature is mean spirited, self serving, grab whatever you can grab. How are you different than the liberal academics that believe human beings need to be forced to be good? You don't like the force applied to you personally, but you can't see anything good happening when the force is removed from everyone else. I believe differently, people in general will behave rationally unless coerced. Coercion in human relations is toxic, produces cynicism and uncooperative behavior. I think humans naturally cooperate for mutual gain given free choices. If you don't think trying to create a government where only honest people can govern or administrate is an answer, what do you propose? Otherwise I don't see a purpose in this discussion. The creation of the United States in the first place created an environment of astonishing human progress and wealth creation for quite a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many things are not purchased because one does not have the means. But I agree with Dennis Prager, I believe the United States has been a force for good in the world, perhaps not with the present administration. However, I don't think he, nor I, characterize this force for good as a "World Police". Simply by honoring our treaties with other democratic countries and looking out for our interest does not mean we are trying to force a set of laws on the rest of the world. Continuing to use the "World Police" is a straw man. Also, your pretense that a small number of people are receiving a benefit at the expense of many, in my previous post I indicated in my free capitalist society the opposite case would be true. The costs would be paid by the people who were willing to pay for it and benefit directly or indirectly. Like I said before, I don't care about free riders.

Whenever I think about it I am deeply offended that a regime like the present one in North Korea can exist. If it can exist there and no one is willing to do anything about it it can exist anywhere. Generations of people living as slaves to an insane dictator. This fact alone, the unwillingness to act to correct a monstrosity, damns the human race.

You are aware you are advocating altruism ("unwillingness to act") and collectivism ("damns the human race")?

--Brant

I'm sure you regard yourself as the cream of the crop regarding evolved humans. Would you contribute $100 to the overthrow of the regime in NK, if it would be replaced with a government at least as good as SK? No risk to yourself personally, just a hundred bucks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The softie, Brant wrote:

While I'm frequently humorous I'm basically deadly serious and at this time and in the circumstances of my life I've no time for or interest in flame wars or attacking people.

From Rand, Ayn:

PLAYBOY: What about force in foreign policy? You have said that any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II . . .

RAND: Certainly.

PLAYBOY: . . . And that any free nation today has the moral right -- though not the duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other "slave pen." Correct?

RAND: Correct. A dictatorship -- a country that violates the rights of its own citizens -- is an outlaw and can claim no rights.

end quote

I will stop with the quotes there. Shoulda, Coulda, Oughta. What if Israel had satellite weaponry unknown to the rest of the world? Well, just one more quote.

From the AP and UPI:

Today, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea and several other dictatorships were hit by small, mysterious asteroids that seem to have destroyed all their nuclear material without harming civilians.

The President, in a news conference, said it seems to be a strange coincidence. The Israeli ambassador declined comment except to say with a smile, “We decline comment.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many things are not purchased because one does not have the means. But I agree with Dennis Prager, I believe the United States has been a force for good in the world, perhaps not with the present administration. However, I don't think he, nor I, characterize this force for good as a "World Police". Simply by honoring our treaties with other democratic countries and looking out for our interest does not mean we are trying to force a set of laws on the rest of the world. Continuing to use the "World Police" is a straw man. Also, your pretense that a small number of people are receiving a benefit at the expense of many, in my previous post I indicated in my free capitalist society the opposite case would be true. The costs would be paid by the people who were willing to pay for it and benefit directly or indirectly. Like I said before, I don't care about free riders.

Whenever I think about it I am deeply offended that a regime like the present one in North Korea can exist. If it can exist there and no one is willing to do anything about it it can exist anywhere. Generations of people living as slaves to an insane dictator. This fact alone, the unwillingness to act to correct a monstrosity, damns the human race.

You are aware you are advocating altruism ("unwillingness to act") and collectivism ("damns the human race")?

--Brant

I'm sure you regard yourself as the cream of the crop regarding evolved humans. Would you contribute $100 to the overthrow of the regime in NK, if it would be replaced with a government at least as good as SK? No risk to yourself personally, just a hundred bucks?

There are several things I could say to this--and I've already deleted two--but I'll just let it pass.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now