Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:14 PM
I found this but it is not want you want.
From: Chris Matthew Sciabarra <email@example.com>
To: Philosophy of Objectivism List* <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: OWL: More on "Intervention" and "Interventionism"
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 200310:40:40 -0400
. . . . Speaking of "intervention" abroad, however, one can find Rand quoting approvingly from Arthur Ekirch on the coercive nature of a certain ~kind~ of foreign intervention:
>>In regard to Woodrow Wilson, Professor Ekirch writes: "Wilson no doubt would have preferred the growth of United States foreign trade to come about as a result of free international competition, but he found it easy with his ideas of moralism and duty to rationalize direct American intervention as a means of safeguarding the national interest." (p. 199.)<< ("The Roots of War")
This is why I focused, in my previous post, on the nature of intervention as a ~politico-economic~ phenomenon (especially with regard to how the "mixed economy" globalizes its "pull-peddling"). And it is also instructive that Rand agreed with Ekirch specifically on the folly of the Wilsonian project; this Wilsonian project [making the world safe for democracy by "direct American intervention"] is of ~central~ importance to the current neoconservative architects of U.S. foreign policy.
Of course, Rand's most typical use of "intervention" can be found throughout her writings. See, for example, "The Intellectual Bankruptcy of Our Age":
>>The fundamental principle of capitalism is ~the separation of State and Economics~—that is: the liberation of men's economic activities, of production and trade, from any form of intervention, coercion, compulsion, regulation, or control by the government. . . . A full, perfect system of capitalism has never yet existed in history. Various degrees of government ~intervention~ and control remained in all the mixed, semi-free economies of the nineteenth century, undercutting, hampering, distorting, and ultimately destroying the operations of a free market.<< (emphasis added)
I also did a CD-Rom search for "interventionism." In "The Chickens' Homecoming," for example, Rand clearly takes the "isolationist" side, and repudiates the notion of "interventionism" because it undermines a proper U.S. foreign policy. She writes of the Vietnam war:
>>But a philosophical approach [examining the Vietnam war] would consist of tracing the ideological history of how we got into that war, what influences or interests pushed us in, what errors of our foreign policy were responsible, what basic premises created that policy and how they should be corrected. If such a study were made, it would remind the country that the war in Vietnam was started by President Kennedy, who is the idol of all the anti-war protesters; that the basic premises of our foreign policy were set by another idol, President Roosevelt, and reinforced by the United Nations and by every peace and One-World group ever since: the premises that we owe a duty to the rest of the world, that we are responsible for the welfare of any nation anywhere on earth, that isolationism is selfish, immoral and impractical in a "shrinking" modern world, etc. Such a study would demonstrate the evil of altruistic "interventionism" or "internationalism," and would define the proper principles (the premises of national self-interest) that should guide America's foreign policy.<< (The Chickens' Homecoming)
Semper cogitans fidele,