An Open Letter to Objectivists on Ron Paul

[galtgulch]

I came across this letter to Objectivists on Ron Paul and wondered if it had been read by Objectivistliving individuals.

I have become active in a very small way in the Ron Paul grassroots effort, have met others who are active as well in my corner of the country and find them to be bright, profoundly concerned with the state of our society and the direction in which it is heading, freedom loving and determined to support the movement ignited by Ron Paul's candidacy.

I think that the three "major" candidates for the presidency are all wolves in sheep's clothing and represent a threat to our liberty because of their ignorance of the plight of the country. They simply will not address the causes of our loss of freedom and will only exacerbate the situation and hasten our becoming a tyranny.

Ron Paul has demonstrated his understanding of the Constitution and its limits on government through his ten terms of office as a Congressman. As you surely know he was recently re-elected by an overwhelming 70% in the 14th Congressional District in Texas. He remains standing in the Republican race for the nomination for president and has encouraged his supporters to try to become delegates to the nominating convention to be held in the first week of September in Minneapolis.

There is good reason to believe that Senator McCain does not have enough bound delegates for him to have "clinched"

the nomination as the main stream media would have us all believe. Ron Paul supporters are becoming delegates in every corner of the country and will surprise the world.

I agree with the sentiments expressed in the letter linked below regarding Ron Paul's importance and unique qualities of character and devotion to the cause of individual freedom and adherence to the Constitution. He should be getting the support of Objectivists in the current context as the best candidate to lead our nation at a time when it is so far off course and in such danger of floundering in so many ways.

Please read the letter and if you will visit the websites and see for yourself: www.whoisronpaul.name and www.ronpaul2008.com and www.dailypaul.com

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/baker1.html

Let me know what you think.

Wm

[Wolf DeVoon]

a threat to our liberty because of their ignorance

Sigh.

[sjw]

Please read the letter and if you will visit the websites and see for yourself: www.whoisronpaul.name and www.ronpaul2008.com and www.dailypaul.com

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/baker1.html

Let me know what you think.

Wm

Yes, Bidinitto and Peikoff and their lemmings are an embarrassment to the ideas of reason and individual rights. But it's too late now. Ron Paul has thrown in the towel. He could have run as a 3rd party candidate and kept the momentum going, he decided to keep his congressional seat instead. I think his consistency combined with his Christianity was his biggest problem. The situation called for bold moral outrage, but he had a hard time with that. It's too bad things are so bad that only religious people have a chance at the presidency anymore. If a Thomas Jefferson came on the scene he wouldn't make it as town mayor in this country.

Shayne

[studiodekadent]

Its nice that the Mises institute is attempting to reach out to Objectivists. It certainly beats the attacks on us made by some of their leaders (although admittedly, "Mozart Was A Red" was very funny).

I basically agree that Paul was undoubtably the best candidate. I agree on the basic principle of non-interventionist foreign policy. I would rather that any attempts to spread liberty use "soft power" rather than military force. My basic disagreement with him is his cultural conservatism, yet his federalism should have constrained that governmentally (although Anarcho-Capitalist Feminist author Wendy McElroy would disagree, since Paul was involved with authoring a federal law which defines human life as beginning at conception).

Is he good enough to necessitate writing him in? This is a more difficult position to justify. But I certainly will not doubt that he's the best of the bunch.

Look, it is fair to say that many Objectivists dislike Paul primarily for foreign policy reasons. I disagree with most Objectivists regarding foreign policy, since I think that the dangers from within to liberty are much greater than many Objectivists believe, and in many cases a much more pressing issue.

Part of this may be due to a rationalistic oversimplification of the Objectivist theory of ideas driving history. It can lead to embracing a simplified "clash of civilizations" outlook, which ignores intellectual diversity within civilizations.

Regardless, I wish that the open letter did not have that small indulgence in psychologizing Objectivists, saying it is an "obsession with punishing evil." Also, I don't have a moral problem with revenge (its the 'dark side' of the trader principle) if properly directed, i.e. we take revenge against those that actually attacked us. Also, he did make a mistake by saying that Objectivist morality is based on the NIOF principle, when it is Objectivist politics that is based on NIOF. But these problems do not mean his basic thesis (that Ron Paul is the best candidate by Objectivist standards) is false. I basically agree with it.

[sjw]

Look, it is fair to say that many Objectivists dislike Paul primarily for foreign policy reasons. I disagree with most Objectivists regarding foreign policy, since I think that the dangers from within to liberty are much greater than many Objectivists believe, and in many cases a much more pressing issue.

Part of this may be due to a rationalistic oversimplification of the Objectivist theory of ideas driving history. It can lead to embracing a simplified "clash of civilizations" outlook, which ignores intellectual diversity within civilizations.

Good points. Another reason is more simple: most Objectivists have done time in the public education institution, and are still applying the ideas they were taught, rather than the ideas of rational individualism. Which is why their view happens to line up with neoconservatives' ideas. Another reason is that most people are sheep, whether inside or outside the Objectivist movement, and they are simply playing follow the leader. This is probably the biggest reason why most Objectivists who are anti-Paul are that way. They don't have ideas of their own, they're just parroting Bidinotto/Peikoff. As an Objectivist newbie I had expected to find mostly first-handers in the Objectivist movement, but really it's just a bunch of second-handers who are trying to be first-handers.

Regardless, I wish that the open letter did not have that small indulgence in psychologizing Objectivists, saying it is an "obsession with punishing evil."

The psychologizing gave them too much credit. Perhaps it applies to Bidinotto/Peikoff, but you can't apply it to the whole movement.

Shayne

[Selene]

"...most Objectivists have done time in the public education institution, and are still applying the ideas they were taught, rather than the ideas of rational individualism."

"They don't have ideas of their own, they're just parroting Bidinotto/Peikoff. As an Objectivist newbie I had expected to find mostly first-handers in the Objectivist movement, but really it's just a bunch of second-handers who are trying to be first-handers."

Where do you come up with these assertions without any facts?

Did you "...do time..." in a "...public education institution..."?

And, by your own argument, your reasoning and choices are invalid?

Adam

[sjw]

Where do you come up with these assertions without any facts?

Well, when people believe in the ridiculous, the set of reasons that could explain why is actually quite limited. When a herd of people all make the same error, and an authority or two is spewing the error onto the herd, then the facts are quite clear as to the nature of the herd.

Shayne

[georgedonnelly]

This idea that RP is going to turn the tables and get the nomination is irrational and fairy-taleish. RP had his shot and frankly he blew it.

We need RP in government. He has earned respect. But:

- He's not going to be the Libertarian that wins the Presidency.

- There's an even bigger job here of educating the public.

- Capturing the presidency may help advance AR's political philosophy but it's not a silver bullet.

There is an easy and wrong way, and there is a hard and right way. Shooting for the top as your first move and closing your mind to the facts of the situation is the easy and wrong way. Educating the public, building grassroots, winning congress and then going all out for the presidency is the hard and right way.

It's time for RP-supporters to shift from easy-wrong to hard-right.

And no you can not do both.

Edited March 30, 2008 by George Donnelly

[galtgulch]

This idea that RP is going to turn the tables and get the nomination is irrational and fairy-taleish. RP had his shot and frankly he blew it.

We need RP in government. He has earned respect. But:

- He's not going to be the Libertarian that wins the Presidency.

- There's an even bigger job here of educating the public.

- Capturing the presidency may help advance AR's political philosophy but it's not a silver bullet.

There is an easy and wrong way, and there is a hard and right way. Shooting for the top as your first move and closing your mind to the facts of the situation is the easy and wrong way. Educating the public, building grassroots, winning congress and then going all out for the presidency is the hard and right way.

It's time for RP-supporters to shift from easy-wrong to hard-right.

And no you can not do both.

Given what you know you seem to make sense. But you are paying too much heed to the main stream media who claim, and want everyone to believe, that McCain has clinched the nomination by having enough delegates.

What you don't realize that all McCain has are so called virtual delegates. The actual delegates are being chosen in each state at caucuses and conventions in districts, counties and states. In reality Ron Paul is gleaning many more delegates than you are aware of and McCain does not have enough "bound" delegates and will not have enough to win in September!

So far I have been relying on reports posted on www.dailypaul.com and one may question their validity. Next Saturday I will personally attend a district caucus and observe the process myself. I have already attended a precaucus meeting of folks from three districts and slates of candidates for delegate and alternates have been chosen. There will be still another meeting next Thursday evening (Picadilly Pub on route 140 in Franklin at 8PM) for my district (third Congressional district in MA). I speak with the district coordinator daily and we are recruiting other registered Republicans from a Ron Paul donor list, neighbors and voter lists.

It remains to be seen if we will succeed in our districts and in our state but we will know next Saturday as caucus meetings occur in all ten districts.

It is easy to recruit supporters because we are all in the same boat. People have the proverbial volitional conceptual consciousness which means that if they want to understand they can choose to focus and learn, that is they can be reasoned with.

The broken bell will ring!

Ron Paul will be on the ballot everywhere and will be the nominee of the major party which has 65 million registered voters who will vote for the nominee, not to mention an equal number of independents out there.

galt

[Matus1976]

Ron Paul 2008 is dead all ready, get over it, move on.

Even though I disdained him as a presidential candidate, I'd vote for him in the congress in a heartbeat, I am glad he is retaining that seat. There he will have much more influence over domestic libertarian questions, where his ideas are good, and much less over foriegn policy, where his ideas are the worst.

[UncleJim]

Is Ron Paul the best candidate? Well........ Is he the most rational candidate?

[georgedonnelly]

What you don't realize that all McCain has are so called virtual delegates. The actual delegates are being chosen in each state at caucuses and conventions in districts, counties and states. In reality Ron Paul is gleaning many more delegates than you are aware of and McCain does not have enough "bound" delegates and will not have enough to win in September!

This is the same line of reasoning that said the polls were wrong and RP was the victim of election fraud. Both wrong. Or at least not serious enough to make any difference.

Listen, OL is for Objectivists. Objectivists do not ignore the reality in front of their eyes and substitute it with pleasant dreams. Either face up to reality or take this BS somewhere else, because this is the last place you should be posting it.

And don't try to paint me as an RP-hater, I contributed significant amounts to his presidential campaign.

[sjw]

Is Ron Paul the best candidate? Well........ Is he the most rational candidate?

And in one simple question, UncleJim exposes the deep-seated mind/body dichotomy that runs throughout the Objectivist movement.

Shayne

[sjw]

What you don't realize that all McCain has are so called virtual delegates. The actual delegates are being chosen in each state at caucuses and conventions in districts, counties and states. In reality Ron Paul is gleaning many more delegates than you are aware of and McCain does not have enough "bound" delegates and will not have enough to win in September!

This is the same line of reasoning that said the polls were wrong and RP was the victim of election fraud. Both wrong. Or at least not serious enough to make any difference.

RP's real problem was the fraud that calls itself the media.

Shayne

[Matus1976]

I agree on the basic principle of non-interventionist foreign policy.

How do you agree on this principle with him when you acknowledge your own very limited knowledge of foreign policy? As I asked in a similar thread, would you have supplied emergency aide to Israel in the Yom Kipper war or not? The aggressors against Israel did not attack 'us' yet Israel would have likely been condemned to utter annihilation without that 50,000 tons of weapons and equipment. You said you were not informed enough to make a decision on that scenario, fair enough, but let's imagine that you were informed enough to know in some particular situation, like this one, Israel was surely going to be absolutely destroyed. Your policy is one of non-intervention in foreign policy, what does it matter than you don't know the full details of this historical event? You've all ready made up your mind that if you are not directly attacked, well, you don't particularly care.

Similarly, what if the Soviet Union had attacked Canada in 1979, instead of Afghanastan? Mexico?

Libertarian isolationist foreign policy is clearly fundamentally flawed, it is a focus on particulars (particular nations), and not concepts (a global aggressor bent on worldwide domination) Libertarian foreign policy, including Ron Pauls, would have led to not only the destruction of Israel, but of Korea, Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, all of Africa, all of South America, and, ultimately, the United States, as the Soviet Union invaded nation after nation after nation with the explicit intent on forcibly converting them to communism.

If you admit to having limited knowledge on foreign policy, how can you cite a presidential candidates stance on foreign policy as a primary reason for liking him?

[Brant Gaede]

The United States has seldom had what we may refer to as a non-interventionist foreign policy. The US has been interveining abroad to the extent it had the power and a perceived reason to do so. This will continue. It is a function of state size, power and moralistic impulses.

--Brant

I agree on the basic principle of non-interventionist foreign policy.

How do you agree on this principle with him when you acknowledge your own very limited knowledge of foreign policy? As I asked in a similar thread, would you have supplied emergency aide to Israel in the Yom Kipper war or not? The aggressors against Israel did not attack 'us' yet Israel would have likely been condemned to utter annihilation without that 50,000 tons of weapons and equipment. You said you were not informed enough to make a decision on that scenario, fair enough, but let's imagine that you were informed enough to know in some particular situation, like this one, Israel was surely going to be absolutely destroyed. Your policy is one of non-intervention in foreign policy, what does it matter than you don't know the full details of this historical event? You've all ready made up your mind that if you are not directly attacked, well, you don't particularly care.

Similarly, what if the Soviet Union had attacked Canada in 1979, instead of Afghanastan? Mexico?

Libertarian isolationist foreign policy is clearly fundamentally flawed, it is a focus on particulars (particular nations), and not concepts (a global aggressor bent on worldwide domination) Libertarian foreign policy, including Ron Pauls, would have led to not only the destruction of Israel, but of Korea, Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, all of Africa, all of South America, and, ultimately, the United States, as the Soviet Union invaded nation after nation after nation with the explicit intent on forcibly converting them to communism.

If you admit to having limited knowledge on foreign policy, how can you cite a presidential candidates stance on foreign policy as a primary reason for liking him?

[sjw]

The United States has seldom had what we may refer to as a non-interventionist foreign policy. The US has been interveining abroad to the extent it had the power and a perceived reason to do so. This will continue. It is a function of state size, power and moralistic impulses.

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson

It's not possible to distill foreign policy down to some simplistic dichotomy of "take any action abroad as long as it's rationalizable as being in our interests" vs. "don't let our military step outside of our own borders". Neocons/Objectivists take the first position (which is brazenly collectivist), extreme Libertarians take the other (which is naive). Ron Paul does neither.

The main problem with this subject isn't that it's complex, it's that there is no country on earth that is morally righteous. The US looks great only by contrasting it with even more wicked governments. If the US were morally upstanding, then there are probably a lot of "interventionist" acts that would be quite justified, though they would be undertaken by US citizen mercenaries, as a form of charity and not by the official US government. And the US would require constitutions that actually upheld individual rights, not the ones that it currently allows in conquered nations.

And there's nothing wrong with alliances with other governments, just as there isn't a problem with alliances with other states (that's what the United *States* is supposed to be, as opposed to the monolith that it is) so long as it's not a charity. When it is charity work, then it shouldn't be sponsored by the government, regardless of rationalizations about long-term benefits or "stability in the region" or whatever.

Shayne

[studiodekadent]

How do you agree on this principle with him when you acknowledge your own very limited knowledge of foreign policy?

I am aware of basic principles of foreign policy. I am not very researched in many concrete situations (i.e. "was X the right thing to do during war Y?" These are complex questions that I would find it hard to answer with one forum post).

Your policy is one of non-intervention in foreign policy, what does it matter than you don't know the full details of this historical event? You've all ready made up your mind that if you are not directly attacked, well, you don't particularly care.

In a situation where there is a clear and present danger, then yes I would support acting to remove that danger. Iran is not a clear and present danger. Its got the military strength of a flea.

Libertarian isolationist foreign policy is clearly fundamentally flawed, it is a focus on particulars (particular nations), and not concepts (a global aggressor bent on worldwide domination) Libertarian foreign policy, including Ron Pauls, would have led to not only the destruction of Israel, but of Korea, Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, all of Africa, all of South America, and, ultimately, the United States, as the Soviet Union invaded nation after nation after nation with the explicit intent on forcibly converting them to communism.

Regarding Communism, I think we all know that the fall of any Communist regime is only a matter of time. They are economically self-destructive. Its only a matter of time before any socialist regime collapses.

In addition, I find it hard to see how a war based upon conscription (i.e. Vietnam) was morally justified.

Finally, Japan, Singapore and Indonesia are all anything but western liberal states with individual rights. They didn't even concede the principles of individualism! Singapore is a borderline fascist state with a free trade policy that made it rich, Japan is neo-mercantilist and ethically more collectivist than France, and Indonesia is currently crawling with religious psychopaths (I know, Im from Australia). To act like these three states are or were bastions of freedom is incorrect, at best they were "better than communism."

In addition, how can it not be altruism to spend buckets of American blood on wars to free everyone and everything? After all, during the Cold War, MAD was a severe dampener on anyone advocating open hostilities between the superpowers.

If you admit to having limited knowledge on foreign policy, how can you cite a presidential candidates stance on foreign policy as a primary reason for liking him?

My limited knowlege is of particulars. I can understand principles. And as a basic principle, Non-interventionism seems like a direct implication of the NIOF principle.

[sjw]

Regarding Communism, I think we all know that the fall of any Communist regime is only a matter of time. They are economically self-destructive. Its only a matter of time before any socialist regime collapses.

Actually I don't think most Objectivists get that point, which is partly why they are such knee-jerk interventionists.

Shayne

[studiodekadent]

Regarding Communism, I think we all know that the fall of any Communist regime is only a matter of time. They are economically self-destructive. Its only a matter of time before any socialist regime collapses.

Actually I don't think most Objectivists get that point, which is partly why they are such knee-jerk interventionists.

Shayne

True that. I believe at one point, Ayn Rand condemned some of the anticommunist hysterics, saying that they made people fear the most impoverished, pathetic, weak and feeble nation on earth (this being the Soviet Union).

[Matus1976]

Your policy is one of non-intervention in foreign policy, what does it matter than you don't know the full details of this historical event? You've all ready made up your mind that if you are not directly attacked, well, you don't particularly care.

In a situation where there is a clear and present danger, then yes I would support acting to remove that danger. Iran is not a clear and present danger. Its got the military strength of a flea.

Well, we are not talking about Iran here, we are talking about virtually every nation in the middle east attacking Israel. So, you agree then, if it was reasonable to expect that Israel would have been destroyed, then we were justified in providing support?

Libertarian isolationist foreign policy is clearly fundamentally flawed, it is a focus on particulars (particular nations), and not concepts (a global aggressor bent on worldwide domination) Libertarian foreign policy, including Ron Pauls, would have led to not only the destruction of Israel, but of Korea, Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, all of Africa, all of South America, and, ultimately, the United States, as the Soviet Union invaded nation after nation after nation with the explicit intent on forcibly converting them to communism.

Regarding Communism, I think we all know that the fall of any Communist regime is only a matter of time. They are economically self-destructive. Its only a matter of time before any socialist regime collapses.

Indeed, it's just a question of how long 'a matter of time' is. Is it 10 years? 100 years? 1,000 years? How long would the Soviet Union have continued on, pillaging every nation on earth and driving every productive person into dust before they exhausted their supplies? In this incarnation, it lasted about 3/4's of a century, and it killed 170 million people.

Yet, the only reason it's duration was that short was specifically *because* the United States opposed it at virtually every intersection for the past 50 years. The Soviet Military expenditures in Vietnam alone, at the height of the Vietnam conflict, constituted almost 1/2 of the GDP of all of the Soviet Union. If you find this figure astounding, remember how inneffecient controlled economies are, and note that today, the population which makes up the former soviet union containes 6% of the worlds population and only 3% of it's GDP, while the US, having 3% of the worlds population, constitutes 20% of it's GDP. So US military expenditures in Vietnam peaked at about 10% of GDP, while the Soviet Union, engaging in a covert war, spent more than ten times its percentage of GDP. Every dollar spent opposing the Soviet Union, cost the Soviet Union about $10, and that $10 was a mich higher percentage of GDP for the Soviet Union than $10 was for the US.

As a pinnacle example of this, when averaged out, for every 1 million dollars spent on stinger missiles smuggled into afghanastan, 10 million dollars worth of soviet equipment was destroyed.

Reagens SDI's is essentially what completely bankrupted the Soviet Union, it simple could not afford to build the infrastructure the SID required, even when Reagen offered to give them the technology.

To yap about how communist nations would eventually self implode ignores the fact that they could dominate the entire world, last centuries and kill billions of people before they finally do. Remember the Dark ages spanned some 1500 years, how long do you think a global communist empire would last before imploding if it faced no external opposition?

If Ron Paul / Libertarian esque foriegn policy prescriptions would have been adopted, the Soviet Union would have quickly expanded to dominate the entire world and all of it's resources. If they knew the US's policy was to do nothing unless they were actually attacked, any bloke with half a brain would have realized that they just ought to wait and attack them last. It is only because the US actively engaged and opposed the Soviet Union every single step of the way that it collapsed after 75 years, and not 500 years.

In addition, I find it hard to see how a war based upon conscription (i.e. Vietnam) was morally justified.

World War II also had conscription, was it an unjust war because some of it's soldiers were conscripted? About 50% of soldiers were conscripted in WWII, while about 25% were in the Vietnam War. The Revolutionary War was fought with conscripted soldiers. So, of course, was the Civil War. Were these wares both unjust because they were 'based' upon conscription?

A war can be waged just or unjust regardless of whether the soldiers fighting it were forced to do so.

Finally, Japan, Singapore and Indonesia are all anything but western liberal states with individual rights. They didn't even concede the principles of individualism! Singapore is a borderline fascist state with a free trade policy that made it rich, Japan is neo-mercantilist and ethically more collectivist than France, and Indonesia is currently crawling with religious psychopaths (I know, Im from Australia). To act like these three states are or were bastions of freedom is incorrect, at best they were "better than communism."

I did not emphasize Singapore or Indonesia as bastions of freedom, although economically they certainly are, what I said was

Libertarian isolationist foreign policy is clearly fundamentally flawed, it is a focus on particulars (particular nations), and not concepts (a global aggressor bent on worldwide domination) Libertarian foreign policy, including Ron Pauls, would have led to not only the destruction of Israel, but of Korea, Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, all of Africa, all of South America, and, ultimately, the United States, as the Soviet Union invaded nation after nation after nation with the explicit intent on forcibly converting them to communism

With regards to political and civil liberties they are not. Japan has a constitution which gurantees civil liberties and representative government, even though it's predominant cultural ethic is collectivist, that is irrelevent, as long as people are not forced, at the end of a gun, to be collectivist, than the nation is free within the context of this discussion.

If you think it's no big deal to be 'at best better than communism' then I think you need to read up a little more on the daily lives of people living in Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, etc. It's like saying that 'at best, a scratch is only better than being dead, but it's not the same as being scratch free!'

In addition, how can it not be altruism to spend buckets of American blood on wars to free everyone and everything? After all, during the Cold War, MAD was a severe dampener on anyone advocating open hostilities between the superpowers.

free nations do not start wars, free nations do not breed international terrorists, free nations do not breed virus's which may wipe out humanity, free nations do not kill millions of their own people, etc etc. How could it NOT be in our self interest to cultivate as a long term goal the promulgation and growth, explicitly of market based constitutional democracies? You take a very superficial over simplification of this (helping others) and codemn it as as automatically bad because you can't think of any benefit we recieve. Can you seriously think of no benefit of a world of market economies?

Where our interventionism is more altruisitic than cultivating the growth of long term democratic progress, rule of law, market economies, I would advocate not doing it. Much of our intervention is only of the 'feel good' variety and not only makes no progress in this direction, actually makes things worse in many cases. This is why we need an EXPLICIT over arching goal orientated foreign policy.

How can in *not* be naively suicidal to let a murderous expansionist territory invade every nation on the planet and drag you down to hell as it's final suicidal act?

If you admit to having limited knowledge on foreign policy, how can you cite a presidential candidates stance on foreign policy as a primary reason for liking him?

My limited knowlege is of particulars. I can understand principles. And as a basic principle, Non-interventionism seems like a direct implication of the NIOF principle.

Interventionism in these cases are no different than self defense. It no more constitutes a violation of NOIF than intervening in your neighbors hostage situation does. Any assualt on human rights anywhere in the world is an assault on everyone's human rights (Rand in fact explicitly says this in AS, Rearden says it in his courtroom speech) And opposing someone who violates fundamental human rights anywhere in the world is as much of an act of self defense as it is opposing a murderous rapist attacking your neighbor.

So, I ask again, if the Soviet Union invaded Canada in 1979 instead of Afghanastan, which you have intervened?

[studiodekadent]

Well, we are not talking about Iran here, we are talking about virtually every nation in the middle east attacking Israel. So, you agree then, if it was reasonable to expect that Israel would have been destroyed, then we were justified in providing support?

Define "support." Do I agree with supporting allies to the extent that they are genuine values? Yes. What we seem to disagree on is how much of a genuine value Israel is to the US. Regardless, I will not answer questions on that particular war, since I have not properly researched it.

To yap about how communist nations would eventually self implode ignores the fact that they could dominate the entire world, last centuries and kill billions of people before they finally do. Remember the Dark ages spanned some 1500 years, how long do you think a global communist empire would last before imploding if it faced no external opposition?

If Ron Paul / Libertarian esque foriegn policy prescriptions would have been adopted, the Soviet Union would have quickly expanded to dominate the entire world and all of it's resources. If they knew the US's policy was to do nothing unless they were actually attacked, any bloke with half a brain would have realized that they just ought to wait and attack them last. It is only because the US actively engaged and opposed the Soviet Union every single step of the way that it collapsed after 75 years, and not 500 years.

I never said that there was a problem with opposing the Soviet-backed revolutionaries in other countries. I do accept that the Soviet Union was a clear and present threat, advocating the coercive spread of its philosophy. The context of the Cold War is fundamentally different to the context of the War on Terrorism (Al Qaeda etc are not as powerful as the Soviets, there is no threat of MAD, etc).

World War II also had conscription, was it an unjust war because some of it's soldiers were conscripted? About 50% of soldiers were conscripted in WWII, while about 25% were in the Vietnam War. The Revolutionary War was fought with conscripted soldiers. So, of course, was the Civil War. Were these wares both unjust because they were 'based' upon conscription?

A war can be waged just or unjust regardless of whether the soldiers fighting it were forced to do so.

At least in the modern world (Revolutionary War was a different context), conscription immediately makes a war at least partly illegitimate.

I did not emphasize Singapore or Indonesia as bastions of freedom, although economically they certainly are, what I said was

Libertarian isolationist foreign policy is clearly fundamentally flawed, it is a focus on particulars (particular nations), and not concepts (a global aggressor bent on worldwide domination) Libertarian foreign policy, including Ron Pauls, would have led to not only the destruction of Israel, but of Korea, Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, all of Africa, all of South America, and, ultimately, the United States, as the Soviet Union invaded nation after nation after nation with the explicit intent on forcibly converting them to communism

With regards to political and civil liberties they are not. Japan has a constitution which gurantees civil liberties and representative government, even though it's predominant cultural ethic is collectivist, that is irrelevent, as long as people are not forced, at the end of a gun, to be collectivist, than the nation is free within the context of this discussion.

Indonesia is not a bastion of economic freedom. Singapore is free in two areas: trade policy and foreign investment. However it has a huge network of government-linked corporations (similar to the Japanese Zaibatsu system). It is a mixed economy.

If you think it's no big deal to be 'at best better than communism' then I think you need to read up a little more on the daily lives of people living in Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, etc. It's like saying that 'at best, a scratch is only better than being dead, but it's not the same as being scratch free!'

I never said it was "no big deal." I simply said that it is debateable whether the deal was sufficiently big to justify the resources spent on (and the rights violated in the name of) the conflict.

free nations do not start wars, free nations do not breed international terrorists, free nations do not breed virus's which may wipe out humanity, free nations do not kill millions of their own people, etc etc. How could it NOT be in our self interest to cultivate as a long term goal the promulgation and growth, explicitly of market based constitutional democracies? You take a very superficial over simplification of this (helping others) and codemn it as as automatically bad because you can't think of any benefit we recieve. Can you seriously think of no benefit of a world of market economies?

I never said that it was not in our interests. I simply disagree with your strategy for securing our interests (at least in the context of the middle east).

Where our interventionism is more altruisitic than cultivating the growth of long term democratic progress, rule of law, market economies, I would advocate not doing it. Much of our intervention is only of the 'feel good' variety and not only makes no progress in this direction, actually makes things worse in many cases. This is why we need an EXPLICIT over arching goal orientated foreign policy.

I agree entirely. We should have as the foreign policy of the Western World "a general promotion of enlightenment political values." However, I believe this is best done via "soft power" means rather than forcible means, and I think forcible means should be restricted to retaliation.

Also, I would like to keep any discussion on this topic to the context of the current War on Terrorism. This is the context I am most familiar with. The War on Terror differs from the Cold War, etc.

[Matus1976]

Well, we are not talking about Iran here, we are talking about virtually every nation in the middle east attacking Israel. So, you agree then, if it was reasonable to expect that Israel would have been destroyed, then we were justified in providing support?

Define "support." Do I agree with supporting allies to the extent that they are genuine values? Yes. What we seem to disagree on is how much of a genuine value Israel is to the US. Regardless, I will not answer questions on that particular war, since I have not properly researched it.

That is why I am trying to remove the particulars of this scenario and talk about principles. Lets go up one more level, lets assume that a nation, which you would consider an ally, was attacked by nations which are hostile to our shared values, and that attack was of such a magnitude that every reasonable expectation would lead to destruction of the ally. I am not talking about whether this was the case in Israel, but if any similiar situation arises, what would you advocate be done? The common libertarian mantra is that we do not act unless we are directy attacked. In this case example, we are not attacked. An ally is. What is an ally in Libertarian foriegn policy? We basically don't have any, those are 'entangling alliances'. So do you "support" this ally? What 'support' would YOU provide, my answer, would be whatever was necessary to forestall destruction, withouth causing serious detriment to our own economy or military. Lets say you drop 10's of thousands of tons of weapons and supplies, but our ally is still losing, the enemy is gaining ground quickly. Do you send your military to assist, or not? Or, I should say, is there any scenario where an ally is attacked in which you would support active military engagement of that enemy along side our ally in our allies territory.

To yap about how communist nations would eventually self implode ignores the fact that they could dominate the entire world, last centuries and kill billions of people before they finally do. Remember the Dark ages spanned some 1500 years, how long do you think a global communist empire would last before imploding if it faced no external opposition?

If Ron Paul / Libertarian esque foriegn policy prescriptions would have been adopted, the Soviet Union would have quickly expanded to dominate the entire world and all of it's resources. If they knew the US's policy was to do nothing unless they were actually attacked, any bloke with half a brain would have realized that they just ought to wait and attack them last. It is only because the US actively engaged and opposed the Soviet Union every single step of the way that it collapsed after 75 years, and not 500 years.

I never said that there was a problem with opposing the Soviet-backed revolutionaries in other countries. I do accept that the Soviet Union was a clear and present threat, advocating the coercive spread of its philosophy. The context of the Cold War is fundamentally different to the context of the War on Terrorism (Al Qaeda etc are not as powerful as the Soviets, there is no threat of MAD, etc).

Sorry, you can not have it both ways, either you are principally opposed to 'entangling alliances' and 'interventionism' or you are not. Which is it? It sounds like you are, in fact, NOT, in principal opposed to intervention even when our nation is not directly attacked, and we only differ on what justifies a reaction.

Further, I would ask that you familiarize yourself with the "doomsday curve" because I dont think you, or most people for that matter, have a proper or accurate estimation of the threat that Al Qaeda, and in general anti-west terrorism, holds. The amount of resources and technology required to kill larger and larger numbers of people is perpetually decreasing. While the Soviet union was limited to nuclear weapons, future terrorists will have at their disposal weapons which make copies of themselves. geneticially engineered viruses, synthetic life, artificial life, nanotechnological replicating weapons, etc.

http://doomsdaycurve.com/

In the context of this rapidly accelerating technological growth, the threat these terrorist organizations pose WILL eventually be GREATER than the threat the entire Soviet Union posed. Further down the line, the threat a single individual poses, if we do not adequatly address such things, will be greater than the whole of the Soviet Union. The critical questions are how to address these threats. In an age of nanotechnology and artificial life, burying our head in the sands and pretending like we don't live on the same planet as the people who want to wipe out all infidels do is really pretty suicidal.

World War II also had conscription, was it an unjust war because some of it's soldiers were conscripted? About 50% of soldiers were conscripted in WWII, while about 25% were in the Vietnam War. The Revolutionary War was fought with conscripted soldiers. So, of course, was the Civil War. Were these wares both unjust because they were 'based' upon conscription?

A war can be waged just or unjust regardless of whether the soldiers fighting it were forced to do so.

At least in the modern world (Revolutionary War was a different context), conscription immediately makes a war at least partly illegitimate.

I find this an interesting topic and I tend to agree with you that context is important to consider here. Is conscription *ever* justified under *some* contexts? My background was libertarianism before getting interested in objectivism, my reaction is a visceral NO, BUT, looking at contexts, I don't know. It's hard to imagine our legions of coffee shop hippie moral relativistic bums taking up arms voluntarily against an aggressor nation which will in all likelyhood kill them all. But even in the face of the likely destruction of our own nation, is conscription even in that case justified? I would be interested to hear in what contexts you think conscription would be justified if it ever is.

Virtually every nation of the ancient world subsisted on conscription, in that day, if they did not, they would have immediately been defeated by which ever neighboring nation conscripted more people, and the whole world would have descended into the tyranny of the most conscription and despicable ruler. A nation which had conscription for the purposes of defense (like Athens) was far more just than a nation which had universal and perpetual conscription (like Persia)

With regards to political and civil liberties they are not. Japan has a constitution which gurantees civil liberties and representative government, even though it's predominant cultural ethic is collectivist, that is irrelevent, as long as people are not forced, at the end of a gun, to be collectivist, than the nation is free within the context of this discussion.

Indonesia is not a bastion of economic freedom. Singapore is free in two areas: trade policy and foreign investment. However it has a huge network of government-linked corporations (similar to the Japanese Zaibatsu system). It is a mixed economy.

I do not want to get bogged down in irrelevant particulars, both of these nations are a thousand times freer than the Soviet Union was, in both civil and economic matters. If we had not actively opposed the global spread of communism, these nations would have likely become communist.

If you think it's no big deal to be 'at best better than communism' then I think you need to read up a little more on the daily lives of people living in Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, etc. It's like saying that 'at best, a scratch is only better than being dead, but it's not the same as being scratch free!'

I never said it was "no big deal." I simply said that it is debateable whether the deal was sufficiently big to justify the resources spent on (and the rights violated in the name of) the conflict.

Of course it's "debatable" everything is debatable. You disingeneously downplayed the difference between communist totalitarian hell hole and a mixed economy of Singapore though.

You have all ready acknowledged that the Soviet Union posed a grave threat to the United States, and I imagine you felt it posed a grave threat to freedom in general. You seem to suggest it's ok to "support" other nations which are attacked, but only "soft" support.

What about 'interventionism' ? In many cases, waiting for an outright attack would have meant we lost the fight before it began, and "intervention" was absolutely necessary, ultimately led to far fewer people being killed, and often prevented overt conflicts. Is "interventionism" justified in fighting an enemy?

free nations do not start wars, free nations do not breed international terrorists, free nations do not breed virus's which may wipe out humanity, free nations do not kill millions of their own people, etc etc. How could it NOT be in our self interest to cultivate as a long term goal the promulgation and growth, explicitly of market based constitutional democracies? You take a very superficial over simplification of this (helping others) and codemn it as as automatically bad because you can't think of any benefit we recieve. Can you seriously think of no benefit of a world of market economies?

I never said that it was not in our interests. I simply disagree with your strategy for securing our interests (at least in the context of the middle east).

So you do agree, that in the case of the Cold War, it was right to support our allies against this common enemy? And that, in principle, there are some circumstances which it is just for our nation to support an ally?

Where our interventionism is more altruisitic than cultivating the growth of long term democratic progress, rule of law, market economies, I would advocate not doing it. Much of our intervention is only of the 'feel good' variety and not only makes no progress in this direction, actually makes things worse in many cases. This is why we need an EXPLICIT over arching goal orientated foreign policy.

I agree entirely. We should have as the foreign policy of the Western World "a general promotion of enlightenment political values." However, I believe this is best done via "soft power" means rather than forcible means, and I think forcible means should be restricted to retaliation.

And when those "soft power" methods fail, and our ally is defeated and crushed, do we act in retailation, or not? If our material and financial support fails, do we send in soldiers, artillery, jets, etc, or not?

It's all well and good to hope that a 'general promotion of enlightment values' actually promulgates the spread of those values, but hope, or being 'shining beacons' isnt always enough to stop legions of murderous tyrants bent on subjugating whole nations and killing millions of people. Sometimes, you must ACT.

Also, I would like to keep any discussion on this topic to the context of the current War on Terrorism. This is the context I am most familiar with. The War on Terror differs from the Cold War, etc.

Since we are discussing whether *in principle* interventionism, support, etc, are ever justified, it is certainly applicable to look at historic examples. You have acknowledged that the Soviet Union posed a great threat and that at least 'support' of allies was justified. Had we not delved into dicsussions on the cold war, I do not think you would have conceeded this principle. It is necessary to look at historical conditions and contexts to learn lessons applicable to future scenarios which might be conceptually similiar. The War on Terrorism does not exist in an isolated fog removed from the the cold war, and principles of military action and retailation in general, and when discussing principles I don't think it is reasonable to confine the discussion only to one particular context.

[sjw]

That is why I am trying to remove the particulars of this scenario and talk about principles.

<snip>

Is conscription *ever* justified under *some* contexts? My background was libertarianism before getting interested in objectivism, my reaction is a visceral NO, BUT, looking at contexts, I don't know.

For me this sums up all the arguments I've ever had with Matus. He admits that sometimes, he would put a gun to a young man's head and force him to fight, for the "good of society". He is a complete an total Statist.

Shayne

PS: Regarding Matus' question of whether a rights-respecting government should ever militarily support another rights-respecting government being attacked by a common rights-hating enemy, the answer is of course and emphatically: yes. But since this is not the scenario we have with Iraq, the question is completely irrelevant.

[Matus1976]

That is why I am trying to remove the particulars of this scenario and talk about principles.

<snip>

Is conscription *ever* justified under *some* contexts? My background was libertarianism before getting interested in objectivism, my reaction is a visceral NO, BUT, looking at contexts, I don't know.

For me this sums up all the arguments I've ever had with Matus. He admits that sometimes, he would put a gun to a young man's head and force him to fight, for the "good of society". He is a complete an total Statist.

Oh I thought you had me on ignore. Actually Shayne, for someone so adament perturbed by other people alleging mistating one's position, you do a pretty good job of it. I specifically said that NO I do not think conscription is ever valid. But there are some points which make me think a little bit about this. For example, were nations in the ancient world which used conscription for self defense (only) justified in in using it to fight nations which held its population in perment slavery and total conscription? If they did not do that, virtually every nation which did not have conscription would have been defeated nearly immediately by whichever oppressive neighbor had more conscription, and the whole of the ancient world would have quickly and perpetually descended into the most tyrannical government. Clearly there are some scenarios in which Studio Kadent thinks context is important, e.g., the American Revolution. However, my position is still NO since these contexts are not at all applicable today. So try being a little more intellectually honest in your discussions instead of appealing to emotional over simplifications.

PS: Regarding Matus' question of whether a rights-respecting government should ever militarily support another rights-respecting government being attacked by a common rights-hating enemy, the answer is of course and emphatically: yes. But since this is not the scenario we have with Iraq, the question is completely irrelevant.

That position is not consistent with Libertarian foriegn policy, you have explicitly stated, IF YOU ARE NOT ATTACKED, then it ABSOLUTELY IS NOT 'SELF DEFENSE' to attack a nation which has NOT attacked you. Apparently you have not worked out your position on this quite clearly yet. Having 'allies' which you help to defend, is by ANY reasonable interpretation an 'entangling alliance'

You may disagree if Iraq is a valid self defense endaevor, but that's not what is at issue here, FUNDAMENTALLY, libertarian foriegn policy FORBIDS retaliation against ANY nation which has not explicitly attacked them.