Members of BTM have a lot to say about freedom and liberty for Americans-- and a complete resistance to passing judgment on coercion and oppression in other parts of the world... that is, unless that coercion and oppression can be attributed to the US government. Why is this so? We condemn, and rightly so, the anti-libertarian excesses of our current administration, but should not the plight of those oppressed by other governments in other parts of the world also be worthy of our attention?
I am posting this in response to those who would mock McCain's for suggesting that in the 21st century we should not tolerate one country invading another. The idea is that the US is no better than Russia because we sent our military into Iraq to dismantle the government of Saddam Hussein, and into into Afghanistan to respond to the attacks of 9/11. But it is a mistake to equate the US with Russia. Who can deny that Russians (and now Georgians) can only dream of having the relative amount of freedom that we enjoy; I think it takes a great deal of willful obstinacy not to see that. It is clear to me what McCain was talking about when he made that comment: It is not okay for the Russians to re-create the Soviet Union. It is not okay for them to force their totalitarian form of government onto their more liberal neighbors. We care about freedom, do you understand? We do not want those who enjoy freedoms today to be enslaved tomorrow.
I think there is a world of difference between the US and Russia, between the US and the Taliban, between the US the opportunistic militias from Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia waging war against our troops in Iraq. I think that Russia is entering a phase of expansionism that will bring misery and oppression to neighboring countries. I think that Islamic fundamentalism is likewise, evil and coercive. Aren't these things plainly obvious to others here as well? Of course America is not perfect, but we are far FAR better than any of these autocratic regimes. When we intervened in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was not to enslave people and take away their freedom, in fact for the past six years we have been trying to accomplish exactly the opposite. I am not defending the war in Iraq; we should not start any war that is not in self defense, and you can't make people free if they don't desire it with all their souls. However, WE ARE NOT THE BAD GUYS HERE.
Perhaps there is an unconscious strategy at work among libertarians bent on casting the US as the evil oppressor of the world. Maybe you think that if we paint our government as ugly as possible, it will convince Americans to reject it. Bad idea IMHO. Not only are you lying when you say that we are the most evil imperialists in the world, I think you are shooting us in the foot. Do you want the libertarian party to be the party that hates America and everything we have stood for in the last 200 years or so? That would re-write the two world wars and the cold war to cast us as the bad guys? That would deny that we are indeed relatively free compared to those who live under communism and Islamic theocracy, and that we inhabit the higher moral ground in many respects? If you keep on like this, Americans will drop us like a hot potato, and we will be no freer than we were before.
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 151 reads
****
>>"I really dont believe our government went into Iraq to help free the people of Hussein"
Making sure the Iraquis had a democratic constitutional government was not the reason we removed Saddam Hussein, but it did become our responsibility once we had done the deed. I think the main purpose of the war since the removal of Saddam has been to get rid of the terrorists and the militias that have been destroying the lives of the people of Iraq.
>>"I dont think that it is our government(via every Americans $$ and name)'s obligation to track and try to conquer all of the many evil doers and corrupt systems of the world"
I agree. We should only go to war to defend this country.
>>"I believe people should have the choice, what they wish to support or neglect. It all goes back to the whole limited government and minimal taxes thing to me, people will be more generous to causes when they have more of their earnings to go around."
I believe the same thing. I don't think we should try to force anything on anyone. We have every right to complain when our government uses our tax dollars for military purposes other than self defense. It is wrong to do that, because it amounts to theft. It doesn't follow, though, that a government that has abused taxpayers in this way is necessarily using its military might for evil, as the Russian government is most certainly doing in Georgia. If the EU were to step in and help the Georgians fight off the Russians, would that make the EU as evil as the Russian government? Just because they are not fighting in self defense? They would certainly be doing wrong by their taxpayers, but they would be on the right side of the fight for freedom in Georgia, wouldn't they?
It is about time someone made this point.
Your point is very valid, the view "that in the 21st century we should not tolerate one country invading another" is stupid, short sided, and utopian. We do not live in a utopia, there never could be one nor can there ever be a utopia, because we all as human beings share different views, interpretations, and opinions. That said, those whom seek tyranny of thought, property, thought, and/or religion should not be allowed to succeed. Sometimes it takes a war to prevent that tyranny to spread. I agree with you about almost all of what you said above. Now you say, 'OK so what is it you don't agree with?' I would say that you are right in suggesting that Americans are not complete "evil tyrannical oppressors", but we(our government) is heading that direction. Some of the threats we have presented to many other countries are in fact oppressive by nature, fear that we will use force. Our country is on the edge of being the tyrannical oppressor that Great Britain once was. While we may oppose this we must use extreme caution that we to not travel to far in the opposite direction of those ideas. We must use wisdom and reason to contract our oppositions so as to not destroy our point and position when teaching the masses.
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true." -Terry Goodkind
>>"Some of the threats we have presented to many other countries are in fact oppressive by nature, fear that we will use force."
Isn't it the tyrannical governments that fear us the most? Is that necessarily a bad thing? Yes, we should be very careful about how we use our military might. But let's also be clear about the values that we stand for. Let those who would destroy those values fear us. Why not? That's how it should be.
Yes they should fear us for the virtues we stand for, they should fear that their own people might adopt those virtues. They should fear true liberty, because it takes the power from the elite and moves it to the masses. They should fear ever attacking us, for in the day they do they will be eliminated.
If we, though, attack based on a moral principle, even that of freedom for the people of the state we invade, we become the oppressors. Freedom, and liberty, may very well be a natural, or a God given, right to mankind; but freedom and liberty is not ever realized till earned. Let me put it this way. Our government has it's issues and problems, there are many instances where liberty and freedom is horribly ignored and even scoffed at. Now imagine this: Another state (country) invades our land to free us...think of the consequences. Will they be welcomed? Or will things happen like in 9/11? (Note: I don't think that is what 9/11 was about, but it was for similar reasons - i.e. someone didn't like something about a part or all of America) The whole reason for the invasion is lost to the sorrows of the war. The moment we step foot in another land for a moral or humane reason we become immoral and inhumane by the nature of the action. WE become the crusaders of the old catholic church fighting for our beliefs by ending the lives of those we oppose.
- Michael
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true." -Terry Goodkind
>>"If we, though, attack based on a moral principle, even that of freedom for the people of the state we invade, we become the oppressors."
How would this apply to Georgia, in my hypothetical example with Europe stepping in to help them fight off Russia? If one country is being invaded by another, and a third country steps in to help them, does that third country become an oppressor either of the country that asked for their help, or of the invading country? How handy for expansionists if no one is to be permitted to form an alliance and small defenseless countries can just be picked off, one by one.
>>"The moment we step foot in another land for a moral or humane reason we become immoral and inhumane by the nature of the action. WE become the crusaders of the old catholic church fighting for our beliefs by ending the lives of those we oppose."
Humanitarianism was not the rationale in either in Afghanistan or in Iraq. It was in Bosnia, though, as it is any time we send in our military to put an end to genocide. Does this rule apply to individuals as well? Does an individual (with no special authority, that is, not a cop) become "immoral and inhumane" if he kills someone to defend an innocent person? Suppose you, as an individual, went to Darfur with a sub-machine gun to take out some Janjaweed militia men as they set about raping women and cutting off the limbs of children, would that make you immoral and inhumane?
To me what is immoral is the state taking our money and using it for reasons other than defense of our country. What Clinton did in Bosnia was immoral in that sense. But I don't really get how using force to defend innocent lives is in itself immoral.
It's a little different to come to the aid of a free nation, I did not advocate not helping Georgia. I don't have all the answers, but I do understand the difference of aid to a nation versus invasion. Aid to Georgia versus attack on Iran. I hope that clarifies my position.
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true." -Terry Goodkind
It sounds like you have a heart of gold but I couldn't disagree with you more. Call me cynical but I really dont believe our government went into Iraq to help free the people of Hussein, do you really really believe the same government that tested agent orange(and a host of other deadly chemicals,diseases etc.) on its own men really gives a hoot about Iraqis and their freedom?? I agree with you that empathy is a great character trait and often quote MLK "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" However, I dont think that it is our government(via every Americans $$ and name)'s obligation to track and try to conquer all of the many evil doers and corrupt systems of the world, esp since we have plenty right here. There is the option like just about any other program we have via the government to make an independent organization to complete hero missions, you know like they did with blackwater. I do think people should care about things that happen outside of their own bubble of comfort like hunger,genocide etc, but it cannot be forced on everyone here to participate in. I agree with the idea that morality/values should not be forced on people, in our case outside of using force on someone without reason or infringing upon someone else's rights. This is just my personal opinion on the matter and I hope it isnt offensive. I do what I can to support organizations that are doing good humanitarian work and do some myself. But I believe people should have the choice, what they wish to support or neglect. It all goes back to the whole limited government and minimal taxes thing to me, people will be more generous to causes when they have more of their earnings to go around.
Like I said, you sound like you have a good heart, so I understand your concern.
"free thinkers are dangerous, and beautiful"