PDA

View Full Version : Yes, Gary Johnson Endorsed Humanitarian War ~The Weekly Standard




Thomas
12-14-2010, 03:03 PM
Via Jim Antle (http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/08/rethinking-gary-johnson), I see that there's some doubt among the paleocons that former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson really endorsed the idea that the United States should intervene in a foreign country for the sole purpose of stopping a genocide. Here's what I posted on Monday from my interview with Johnson (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/meet-gary-johnson-ron-paul-2012_520775.html?nopager=1):


A dove in the mold of 2008 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, Johnson says, “I don't think that we should be in Iraq or Afghanistan.” But the extent of his non-interventionism isn’t quite clear. On one hand, he isn’t even sure if U.S. troops should have been stationed in Europe to confront the Soviets following World War II. “I don't think I have the expertise to be able to say that it was good or bad, it just seems to me that today, it doesn’t really seem warranted,” he says. Johnson also says Iran’s nuclear program isn’t a threat to the United States because the principle of “mutually assured destruction” would keep the Iranians from attacking.

On the other hand, Johnson is open, in principle, to waging humanitarian wars. “If there’s a clear genocide somewhere, don’t we really want to positively impact that kind of a situation?” he says. “Isn’t that what we’re all about? Isn’t that what we’ve always been about? But just this notion of nation building—I think the current policy is making us more enemies than more friends.”

Perhaps Johnson just meant we should grant asylum to those being slaughtered? Nope. Here's the follow-up question from my interview:


TWS: So, you think that the United States, even if it weren’t in its own narrow national interest, even if we weren’t threatened by the [other] country, but there was a genocide going on—a clear genocide—it would be the right thing to do to go in and stop that?

GARY JOHNSON: Yes. Yes, I do.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/yes-gary-johnson-endorsed-humanitarian-war_522029.html

MRoCkEd
12-14-2010, 03:05 PM
1. He wants to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He believes Iran isn't a threat. Clearly he's better than every other politician besides Ron Paul on foreign policy.

2. He believes we should support Israel, and humanitarian wars can be worth waging. Clearly he's not a complete non-interventionist.

gls
12-14-2010, 03:39 PM
Does Gary Johnson not realize how deeply in debt the United States is, or does he just not care? I doubt that he's willing to pay the costs for these "humanitarian" (read: imperialist) wars out of his own pocket.

itshappening
12-14-2010, 03:41 PM
is he playing politics? either way he's not of that mold completely and I hope he does run for president to at least see if he catches fire giving most of our views an extra seat at the table

amy31416
12-14-2010, 05:38 PM
1. He wants to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He believes Iran isn't a threat. Clearly he's better than every other politician besides Ron Paul on foreign policy.

2. He believes we should support Israel, and humanitarian wars can be worth waging. Clearly he's not a complete non-interventionist.

Odd that he can't see that Palestine is the country and people being wiped off the map while Israel has no problem defending itself from any of the small threats that it creates.

Either way, I'm not fond of his interventionist policy. Would he at least go through proper Constitutional channels?

klamath
12-14-2010, 05:58 PM
1. He wants to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He believes Iran isn't a threat. Clearly he's better than every other politician besides Ron Paul on foreign policy.

2. He believes we should support Israel, and humanitarian wars can be worth waging. Clearly he's not a complete non-interventionist.

He is a lot better than a lot. Unfortunately if we continue to unilaterally back Isreal we will continue to take on her enemies. If her enemies are attacking us we cannot disengage from the middle east, so intervention will continue.

muzzled dogg
12-14-2010, 06:15 PM
Either way, I'm not fond of his interventionist policy. Would he at least go through proper Constitutional channels?

any ideas???

jmdrake
12-14-2010, 06:36 PM
People are still guilt tripping over not having done anything to stop the Rwandan genocide. Here's what most people overlook. The Rwandans in the long run were likely better off solving their own problem because the Tutsi army was able to put a final end to the Hutu militias marauding in their country. Also according the the Rwandans there is evidence that the French armed the Hutu militias in the first place.

Also, folks are all up in arms (or were) about Darfur. But it was the rebel groups fighting each for so long that kept the fighting going on.

I wish Gary Johnson would make the case that there are better ways to deal with conflicts around the world rather than throwing more soldiers wood on the fire.

Thomas
12-15-2010, 07:11 AM
bump

t0rnado
12-15-2010, 07:38 AM
The President has an obligation to protect Americans before he does anyone else. Who the hell is he to take someone and send them to die for "humanitarianism". There is nothing humanitarian about my money being stolen to buy the bullets in a soldier's rifle and there is nothing humanitarian about an American being killed for a parasitic shithole like Israel.

RyanRSheets
12-15-2010, 07:55 AM
Answering no to the question, as asked, would be political suicide.

Here is how it would be portrayed:

"Do you think we should just sit around while millions of people are savagely murdered?"
"Ain't our problem, so who gives a dick."

I'm glad Gary had the foresight not to step in that hole full of shit.

low preference guy
12-15-2010, 08:11 AM
Answering no to the question, as asked, would be political suicide.

Here is how it would be portrayed:

"Do you think we should just sit around while millions of people are savagely murdered?"
"Ain't our problem, so who gives a dick."

I'm glad Gary had the foresight not to step in that hole full of shit.

He could've said we can help them, but as individuals. We can send money, finance the opposition, but the government shouldn't be picking sides. Then he could say that when governments pick sides, they often do for ideological reasons, like when Obama helped a leftist President in Honduras.

Fredom101
12-15-2010, 08:13 AM
1. He wants to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He believes Iran isn't a threat. Clearly he's better than every other politician besides Ron Paul on foreign policy.

2. He believes we should support Israel, and humanitarian wars can be worth waging. Clearly he's not a complete non-interventionist.

Yet another reason why we don't need politicians. ;)

qh4dotcom
12-15-2010, 08:46 AM
2. He believes we should support Israel, and humanitarian wars can be worth waging. Clearly he's not a complete non-interventionist.

That's not what he said to me when I asked him that question...he is against foreign aid to all countries (the country is broke) though he did talk nicely about Israel

Wren
12-15-2010, 11:04 AM
Why is Gary Johnson even planning on running for president? Does he expect to get any votes in the primary with the kind of platform that he's running on? The only votes I expect him to get are the ones that would have gone to Ron Paul, except by people who prefer Gary Johnson because of his age. IF Gary intends to run purely for his own self-interests and ignore the cause of this movement and what it started, then he is to be treated as a threat because he will end up STEALING votes from RP. If not, and there is more going behind the scenes between him and Ron, I can expect someone informed to at least tell us about it. The concealed smirk on RP's face when CNN recently asked him whether he would run for president or not makes me almost certain that he is going to run.

klamath
12-15-2010, 11:09 AM
That's not what he said to me when I asked him that question...he is against foreign aid to all countries (the country is broke) though he did talk nicely about Israel
I am not so sure he said he was for foreign aid as much as saying we should come too Isreals aid militarily if they were attacked.

Imperial
12-15-2010, 11:12 AM
Even though I would rather Ron Paul run than Gary Johnson, I stridently agree with Johnson on this one. I am a libertarian because I treasure the value of life. If the rights we have are universal, then why should we stand by when those rights are being demolished?

Now, we could say it is not the government's place to do this. However, we already accept the ability of the government to use coercive force in certain instances. We accept its ability to tax, or at least to levy tariffs depending on your views (save the ancaps and voluntaryists here). We do this because the threat of the erosion of positive liberty presented through armed conflict necessitates a response. We can similarly work to protect those who do not have a legitimate force to protect their autonomy.

Does this mean we should intervene in every instance? In an omniscient world where we could clearly foresee all consequences, maybe. But that world does not exist. Nevertheless, if we have a Rwanda style situation, or when millions of Jews are being exterminated, I don't see how you cannot see a threat to somebody's liberty. In that instance, it seems a government would be right in acting.

klamath
12-15-2010, 11:25 AM
Even though I would rather Ron Paul run than Gary Johnson, I stridently agree with Johnson on this one. I am a libertarian because I treasure the value of life. If the rights we have are universal, then why should we stand by when those rights are being demolished?

Now, we could say it is not the government's place to do this. However, we already accept the ability of the government to use coercive force in certain instances. We accept its ability to tax, or at least to levy tariffs depending on your views (save the ancaps and voluntaryists here). We do this because the threat of the erosion of positive liberty presented through armed conflict necessitates a response. We can similarly work to protect those who do not have a legitimate force to protect their autonomy.
Does this mean we should intervene in every instance? In an omniscient world where we could clearly foresee all consequences, maybe. But that world does not exist. Nevertheless, if we have a Rwanda style situation, or when millions of Jews are being exterminated, I don't see how you cannot see a threat to somebody's liberty. In that instance, it seems a government would be right in acting.

This is classic neoconservatism line. I share your respect for life but I think that it is this line that has us involved around the world. It is about making the world a better place. Everybody has their own ideas of what kind of killing justifies US military intervention. Having been to Iraq I can tell you Sadamn commited some serious genocide so did that justify us invading? Maybe not to you, but to many others yes.

low preference guy
12-15-2010, 11:32 AM
Even though I would rather Ron Paul run than Gary Johnson, I stridently agree with Johnson on this one. I am a libertarian because I treasure the value of life. If the rights we have are universal, then why should we stand by when those rights are being demolished?

Now, we could say it is not the government's place to do this. However, we already accept the ability of the government to use coercive force in certain instances. We accept its ability to tax, or at least to levy tariffs depending on your views (save the ancaps and voluntaryists here). We do this because the threat of the erosion of positive liberty presented through armed conflict necessitates a response. We can similarly work to protect those who do not have a legitimate force to protect their autonomy.

Does this mean we should intervene in every instance? In an omniscient world where we could clearly foresee all consequences, maybe. But that world does not exist. Nevertheless, if we have a Rwanda style situation, or when millions of Jews are being exterminated, I don't see how you cannot see a threat to somebody's liberty. In that instance, it seems a government would be right in acting.

people pay for their own protection. you can't steal money to protect people who don't fund the government. do the Rwanda people pay taxes? what if i'm a sick person and need expensive health care? what if i have an incurable disease and want to fund research? you are going to take my money by force to blow it up in Rwanda? you don't even know the details of who is right in the foreign conflict, plus you make them dependent on our assistance. and then you'll get blowback. sorry to say this dude, but you have the mentality of a neocon.

amy31416
12-15-2010, 11:46 AM
Not even to mention that when we or the UN go into an area to "help" during a genocide or whatever, these "good" guys end up raping little girls or boys, using the aide to bribe people with, arming various factions, start up a sex slave trade, etc.

And whatever companies are profiting from the hostilities will probably try to keep them going.

The US military is not capable of being benevolent saviors, that isn't even close to their purpose.

erowe1
12-15-2010, 12:29 PM
Even though I would rather Ron Paul run than Gary Johnson, I stridently agree with Johnson on this one. I am a libertarian because I treasure the value of life. If the rights we have are universal, then why should we stand by when those rights are being demolished?

Now, we could say it is not the government's place to do this. However, we already accept the ability of the government to use coercive force in certain instances. We accept its ability to tax, or at least to levy tariffs depending on your views (save the ancaps and voluntaryists here). We do this because the threat of the erosion of positive liberty presented through armed conflict necessitates a response. We can similarly work to protect those who do not have a legitimate force to protect their autonomy.

Does this mean we should intervene in every instance? In an omniscient world where we could clearly foresee all consequences, maybe. But that world does not exist. Nevertheless, if we have a Rwanda style situation, or when millions of Jews are being exterminated, I don't see how you cannot see a threat to somebody's liberty. In that instance, it seems a government would be right in acting.

1) Do you really think coercive taxation is justifiable?

2) Even if so, how does anything you said support the point you were addressing about whether or not humanitarianism is the role of the government? Supposing there are justifications for coercive taxation, why is funding those things ever included in that? Why can't such things be funded voluntarily? And if that is a proper role of government, then doesn't it follow that other government run humanitarian efforts that don't involve killing people, such as health care for the indigent, would have to be appropriate spending for coercive taxation as well?

jmdrake
12-15-2010, 12:35 PM
He could've said we can help them, but as individuals. We can send money, finance the opposition, but the government shouldn't be picking sides. Then he could say that when governments pick sides, they often do for ideological reasons, like when Obama helped a leftist President in Honduras.

Good answer. Good politicians do more than "just say no". They have to give the voters something to say "yes" to. That said, if we were going with the "war on humanitarian grounds" then the Iraq war was justified to help the Kurds. And after Obama got elected CodePink (CodeFink?) got cold feet on pulling out of Afghanistan on the idea that such a move might be bad for Afghan women. Humanitarian grounds can justify almost any war. And despite what the left would tell you, there's a lot of oil in Darfur.

Bruce
12-15-2010, 01:21 PM
The discussion reminds me of a speech Ron Paul made back in 1999 with regards to the war in Kosovo. Specifically the following paragraphs:


Sympathy and compassion for the suffering and voluntary support for the oppressed is commendable. The use of force and acts of war to pick and choose between two sides fighting for hundreds of years cannot achieve peace. It can only spread the misery and suffering, weaken our defenses and undermine our national sovereignty.

Only when those who champion our war effort in Serbia are willing to volunteer for the front lines and offer their own lives for the cause will they gain credibility. Promoters of war never personalize it. It is always some other person or some other parent's child's life who will be sacrificed, not their own.

You can find a video of the entire speech and a copy of it as submitted to the congressional record over at the C-SPAN video library (http://c-spanarchives.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=596662682). I can highly recommend it.

As for my own opinion, I'll just say, it's a complicated issue that does not have an easy answer.

Imperial
12-15-2010, 01:28 PM
Hey guys, I will answer all of this later tonight but at the moment I have a rhetoric paper due in 2.5 hours. But I enjoy debates like this, and I shall return!

libertybrewcity
12-15-2010, 01:39 PM
It's very contradictory because Saddam Hussein was a genocidal leader.

libertybrewcity
12-15-2010, 01:41 PM
However, this is exactly what the Weekly Standard wants, infighting from the base of the candidates they don't like. They did a story on Gary Johnson's views on drugs a little while ago. They are clearly illustrating to the voters what they want them to see in each candidate. It shapes the debate, and does so quite well.

PreDeadMan
12-15-2010, 04:39 PM
There's nothing humanitarian about my money being stolen to fund any service of government. I never signed any contract to have my money stolen from me why does morality seem to shift when you throw government into the equation? For example stealing is immoral.... but taxing me to pay for x government program is somehow moral and virtuous!... killing is immoral.... when you put on a camouflage costume and kill people you've never met you're a hero and you've done your "country" proud.... see what i mean morality changes when you add the government into the equation.

ChaosControl
12-15-2010, 04:55 PM
Well I do think we should help people in such situations, but I don't know the answer. War is a very last case scenario no matter the situation though.

Imperial
12-15-2010, 06:01 PM
So for those who have criticized my position, I can quickly say that I subscribe to the idea of just war theory. To quickly use Wikipedia to recap what those are:


* the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
* all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
* there must be serious prospects of success;
* the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Murray Rothbard, who I have serious qualms with, nevertheless has a great insight when he says


just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination. A war is unjust, on the other hand, when a people try to impose domination on another people, or try to retain an already existing coercive rule over them

Some people would say these definitions are only applicable to the target nations. However, we have to acknowledge that governments are ultimately human constructs, no matter how naturally they may arise. However, humans have certain natural rights regardless of government. If government exists to protect natural rights, it makes little sense to limit said protection simply because some poor person happened to land in a chronically poor and undeveloped nation torn by war.



you can't steal money to protect people who don't fund the government.

Just pointing this out, but there are tariffs that apply to trade across our borders. I don't think this would be a strong argument though. I have a more fundamental point with it.

You say you can't steal money to protect people who don't fund the government. So the principle of stealing to protect is ok then by inference.

The government consists of arbitrary lines drawn on a map through coercive authority. It is similar to Ron Paul's argument as to why he always earmarks and goes for tax credits- if governments are going to beat us down, we may as well get something back. If mankind must suffer under the coercive authority of government, we can also use it as a tool to fight said coercive authority.



1) Do you really think coercive taxation is justifiable?

In an ideal world I would be a voluntaryist. In the world as it stands I am more pragmatic and accept taxation as a necessary evil. Since government by nature has coercive power and I accept that, then I have to accept taxation. Back to the other guy.



what if i'm a sick person and need expensive health care? what if i have an incurable disease and want to fund research?

You have to weigh the scales here. One person being sick or a small group being sick cannot necessitate sacrifice of the whole with a greater tax burden. If we go off of the idea of Just War theory, we have to consider both potential disadvantages precipitated by our action and alternatives (like the free market). We also have to see that there is the potential for success; in your scenario, an incurable disease is likely going to remain, well, incurable.

And note here I am not arguing for a moral obligation. I am arguing for moral permission. It would not necessarily be immoral to not intervene in a given situation, but it would not necessarily be immoral to intervene in a given situation as well. However, if you could control the parameters in a vacuum you could create situations where intervention is clearly obligated or clearly forbidden. Just war theory serves as a guide for determining the degree of moral obligation or permission in a given situation, although because we are not omniscient it can never be the end all and be all.


uou don't even know the details of who is right in the foreign conflict

Which means the war would not be suitable to conduct. In certain situations we can. Hitler was bad in WWII. Pretty damn clear. Rwanda? Well, look for experts before you charge in like Rambo. If you don't know who is in the right, you probably won't have much chance for success.



plus you make them dependent on our assistance

Another consideration to include. If you make a well-crafted plan, you will avoid nation building and excessive presence after intervention. This necessitates good planning and illustrates the need for good intelligence.


and then you'll get blowback

blowback is a problem. Once again, you need a well-crafted plan to anticipate and have a response to any potential source of blowback. For example, the US should have struck with greater force against Al Qaeda immediately after 9/11 and during Tora Bora to prevent a greater impact from their presence and not piss off everybody there.

But what you do not consider is that blowback occurs from everything you do. For example, if you break up with your girlfriend and call her a rude phrase, she may spread rumors about you.

However, this also means blowback can occur through inaction. Other actors will continually act in reality, so you can be caught in a situation where inaction may cause impacts. For example, if somebody in a bar calls your girlfriend a rude phrase and you do not stick up for her, she may not be very happy later.


sorry to say this dude, but you have the mentality of a neocon.

I am not a believer in a large welfare state, am a big believer in civil liberties, and oppose corporatism. Labels don't really serve much of a purpose though; it just gives us an excuse to categorize somebody and act like their ideas are different because of their label.


2) Even if so, how does anything you said support the point you were addressing about whether or not humanitarianism is the role of the government? Supposing there are justifications for coercive taxation, why is funding those things ever included in that? Why can't such things be funded voluntarily? And if that is a proper role of government, then doesn't it follow that other government run humanitarian efforts that don't involve killing people, such as health care for the indigent, would have to be appropriate spending for coercive taxation as well?

I am a supporter of social insurance, just like FA Hayek is in The Constitution of Liberty. And I agree with libertarian economist Jeffrey Miron that in the short-term, you would cut aid to the indigent last (I ultimately think much aid causes unintended consequences like dependency and obfuscates the market). I don't know if you should say "have to". I think you could say such spending "could" be appropriate, or at least legitimate.

And voluntary funding, like through the free market, would be a great way to avoid the coercive authority of government. My position does not preclude alternatives- it embraces them wherever they can be found.

As far as what the role of government is? Most libertarians or constitutional conservatives would hold government's job is to secure our negative liberties- freedom from, the night watchman state. I agree with the sentiment of that concept and think we should move more towards that. But given the fact that reality cannot work out exactly as we would theorize in a libertarian world (since we are not omniscient) and coercion will not disappear without one government's force, I think it is folly to ignore threats to our autonomy that do not emanate from government- leaning more here towards positive liberty.

But there is no reason why we cannot make a jump towards negative liberty while retaining some vestiges of the current concept of governance in the most extreme instances. The idea of the old libertarian war on private tactical nukes comes to mind- heck no should people be allowed to have their own nuclear weapons!


However, this is exactly what the Weekly Standard wants, infighting from the base of the candidates they don't like. They did a story on Gary Johnson's views on drugs a little while ago. They are clearly illustrating to the voters what they want them to see in each candidate. It shapes the debate, and does so quite well.

Exactly. This is the type of division that we really cannot focus on once we get to elections. If I am too much of a 'neocon' to support Dr. Paul, how many voters do you think you will get who are far less radical than me?

low preference guy
12-15-2010, 07:29 PM
You say you can't steal money to protect people who don't fund the government. So the principle of stealing to protect is ok then by inference.

No, it's not, I don't want to get in the other debate, that's why I restrict my argument to not end up debating whether there should be taxes. Even assuming there should be taxes, the government shouldn't use to stop genocide and Rwanda.


You have to weigh the scales here. One person being sick or a small group being sick cannot necessitate sacrifice of the whole with a greater tax burden.

Wow. You're weighing against "sacrificing the whole"? Are you a communist? Seriously? Individual rights will never last if such calculations are made to make decisions. How ridiculous.

klamath
12-15-2010, 10:04 PM
So for those who have criticized my position, I can quickly say that I subscribe to the idea of just war theory. To quickly use Wikipedia to recap what those are:


Murray Rothbard, who I have serious qualms with, nevertheless has a great insight when he says


Some people would say these definitions are only applicable to the target nations. However, we have to acknowledge that governments are ultimately human constructs, no matter how naturally they may arise. However, humans have certain natural rights regardless of government. If government exists to protect natural rights, it makes little sense to limit said protection simply because some poor person happened to land in a chronically poor and undeveloped nation torn by war.



Just pointing this out, but there are tariffs that apply to trade across our borders. I don't think this would be a strong argument though. I have a more fundamental point with it.

You say you can't steal money to protect people who don't fund the government. So the principle of stealing to protect is ok then by inference.

The government consists of arbitrary lines drawn on a map through coercive authority. It is similar to Ron Paul's argument as to why he always earmarks and goes for tax credits- if governments are going to beat us down, we may as well get something back. If mankind must suffer under the coercive authority of government, we can also use it as a tool to fight said coercive authority.



In an ideal world I would be a voluntaryist. In the world as it stands I am more pragmatic and accept taxation as a necessary evil. Since government by nature has coercive power and I accept that, then I have to accept taxation. Back to the other guy.



You have to weigh the scales here. One person being sick or a small group being sick cannot necessitate sacrifice of the whole with a greater tax burden. If we go off of the idea of Just War theory, we have to consider both potential disadvantages precipitated by our action and alternatives (like the free market). We also have to see that there is the potential for success; in your scenario, an incurable disease is likely going to remain, well, incurable.

And note here I am not arguing for a moral obligation. I am arguing for moral permission. It would not necessarily be immoral to not intervene in a given situation, but it would not necessarily be immoral to intervene in a given situation as well. However, if you could control the parameters in a vacuum you could create situations where intervention is clearly obligated or clearly forbidden. Just war theory serves as a guide for determining the degree of moral obligation or permission in a given situation, although because we are not omniscient it can never be the end all and be all.


Which means the war would not be suitable to conduct. In certain situations we can. Hitler was bad in WWII. Pretty damn clear. Rwanda? Well, look for experts before you charge in like Rambo. If you don't know who is in the right, you probably won't have much chance for success.



Another consideration to include. If you make a well-crafted plan, you will avoid nation building and excessive presence after intervention. This necessitates good planning and illustrates the need for good intelligence.blowback is a problem. Once again, you need a well-crafted plan to anticipate and have a response to any potential source of blowback. For example, the US should have struck with greater force against Al Qaeda immediately after 9/11 and during Tora Bora to prevent a greater impact from their presence and not piss off everybody there.

But what you do not consider is that blowback occurs from everything you do. For example, if you break up with your girlfriend and call her a rude phrase, she may spread rumors about you.

However, this also means blowback can occur through inaction. Other actors will continually act in reality, so you can be caught in a situation where inaction may cause impacts. For example, if somebody in a bar calls your girlfriend a rude phrase and you do not stick up for her, she may not be very happy later.


I am not a believer in a large welfare state, am a big believer in civil liberties, and oppose corporatism. Labels don't really serve much of a purpose though; it just gives us an excuse to categorize somebody and act like their ideas are different because of their label.


I am a supporter of social insurance, just like FA Hayek is in The Constitution of Liberty. And I agree with libertarian economist Jeffrey Miron that in the short-term, you would cut aid to the indigent last (I ultimately think much aid causes unintended consequences like dependency and obfuscates the market). I don't know if you should say "have to". I think you could say such spending "could" be appropriate, or at least legitimate.

And voluntary funding, like through the free market, would be a great way to avoid the coercive authority of government. My position does not preclude alternatives- it embraces them wherever they can be found.

As far as what the role of government is? Most libertarians or constitutional conservatives would hold government's job is to secure our negative liberties- freedom from, the night watchman state. I agree with the sentiment of that concept and think we should move more towards that. But given the fact that reality cannot work out exactly as we would theorize in a libertarian world (since we are not omniscient) and coercion will not disappear without one government's force, I think it is folly to ignore threats to our autonomy that do not emanate from government- leaning more here towards positive liberty.

But there is no reason why we cannot make a jump towards negative liberty while retaining some vestiges of the current concept of governance in the most extreme instances. The idea of the old libertarian war on private tactical nukes comes to mind- heck no should people be allowed to have their own nuclear weapons!



Exactly. This is the type of division that we really cannot focus on once we get to elections. If I am too much of a 'neocon' to support Dr. Paul, how many voters do you think you will get who are far less radical than me?

And who are the experts you call to determine where to deploy the 82nd airborne Division? You mention WWII as a good example and then talk about how a good plan doesn't require long term nation building. We are still in Germany and Japan 65 years later. So what do we do, bomb the hell out of the susposed bad guys and then leave? That right there is a sure way to create even more killing and dispair except with a hatred of us now added. The shites of southern Iraq hate us because they were lead to believe we were going to help them overthrow Sadamn after gulf war one. They rose up expecting our backing and Sadamn BRUTALLY suspressed them. Lots of mass graves in southern Iraq. If you are going in you are going to have to commit or the situation will only get worse.
If I decide to embrace a good well rounded neocon that can manage foreign interventions it wouldn't be GJ.

Imperial
12-16-2010, 07:35 AM
And who are the experts you call to determine where to deploy the 82nd airborne Division?

The president is commander in chief. He can leverage both intelligence and the military to work with creating a feasible plan of attack. But attacking is something the US is good at. It is what comes after that is much harder as you point out.



You mention WWII as a good example and then talk about how a good plan doesn't require long term nation building. We are still in Germany and Japan 65 years later.

Germany and Japan are not good examples of this. We have stayed in Germany because it is now a handy refueling place and it was used to contain the USSR in the Cold War. Japan has had troops for so long at this point because of our conflicts with North Korea and China as a type of trump card. We should have and could have had exit plans for both.


So what do we do, bomb the hell out of the susposed bad guys and then leave? That right there is a sure way to create even more killing and dispair except with a hatred of us now added.

Indiscriminate bombing is self-defeating; even targeted bombing can be disastrous when used poorly (Predator drones anybody?) Afghanistan could have been a good example of what to do, where we blew up Al Qaeda camps and sent lots of special forces and rangers in after the bad guys. Unfortuantely, the Rumsfeld plan of dedicating minimum force possible, particularly at Tora Bora, allowed OBL to get away anyway.


The shites of southern Iraq hate us because they were lead to believe we were going to help them overthrow Sadamn after gulf war one. They rose up expecting our backing and Sadamn BRUTALLY suspressed them. Lots of mass graves in southern Iraq. If you are going in you are going to have to commit or the situation will only get worse.

Very familiar with the situation (read Safe for Democracy by John Prados; it is an excellent description of the ineptitude of the CIA in covert ops). I never said I was in favor of the Gulf War, particularly how it was done.

That is the thing. For everybody who has thrown out an empirical example I generally have agreed with them. The parameters I have established for foreign intervention, when applied honestly, make them EXTREMELY difficult to go to war. Yes, I am a consequentialist libertarian more than most people here. In the real world, my political positions on foreign policy are extremely similar to everybody here.


Wow. You're weighing against "sacrificing the whole"? Are you a communist? Seriously? Individual rights will never last if such calculations are made to make decisions. How ridiculous.

Since you seem opposed to all taxation, you will understand then that increasing the tax burden is a weight upon the general population. I see taxation as an evil that we have to live with; to mince words and act like it isn't that bad is dangerous. That said, I do not mean sacrifice as put people in a living hell; i mean sacrifice as in "Is the tax burden placed upon the whole justified by the activities undertaken". And I say whole because I agree with Hayek that the government should make general rules that do not selectively subsidize or discriminate against groups in most instances.

That said, I do believe in side constraints on what the government can do. There is a reason I am a libertarian. Just because in this one debate I am arguing for positive liberty doesn't mean in 90% of cases I don't advocate for negative liberty (or individual rights if you want to put it that way, although such rights need some definition). I will put it this way- when I see negative and positive liberty diametrically opposed, I generally err to negative liberty. But i will not just never consider positive liberty.

And first you called me a neocon, then you called me a communist. Labels have meanings, so you might want to develop a coherent one if you really want to apply one to me. But labels are also self-defeating, as they are a method of convenient categorization to eliminate nuances between positions. I am a classical liberal or a consequentialist libertarian if you want to call me anything.

klamath
12-16-2010, 10:49 AM
The president is commander in chief. He can leverage both intelligence and the military to work with creating a feasible plan of attack. But attacking is something the US is good at. It is what comes after that is much harder as you point out.

Germany and Japan are not good examples of this. We have stayed in Germany because it is now a handy refueling place and it was used to contain the USSR in the Cold War. Japan has had troops for so long at this point because of our conflicts with North Korea and China as a type of trump card. We should have and could have had exit plans for both.


Indiscriminate bombing is self-defeating; even targeted bombing can be disastrous when used poorly (Predator drones anybody?) Afghanistan could have been a good example of what to do, where we blew up Al Qaeda camps and sent lots of special forces and rangers in after the bad guys. Unfortuantely, the Rumsfeld plan of dedicating minimum force possible, particularly at Tora Bora, allowed OBL to get away anyway.
Very familiar with the situation (read Safe for Democracy by John Prados; it is an excellent description of the ineptitude of the CIA in covert ops). I never said I was in favor of the Gulf War, particularly how it was done.

That is the thing. For everybody who has thrown out an empirical example I generally have agreed with them. The parameters I have established for foreign intervention, when applied honestly, make them EXTREMELY difficult to go to war. Yes, I am a consequentialist libertarian more than most people here. In the real world, my political positions on foreign policy are extremely similar to everybody here.


Since you seem opposed to all taxation, you will understand then that increasing the tax burden is a weight upon the general population. I see taxation as an evil that we have to live with; to mince words and act like it isn't that bad is dangerous. That said, I do not mean sacrifice as put people in a living hell; i mean sacrifice as in "Is the tax burden placed upon the whole justified by the activities undertaken". And I say whole because I agree with Hayek that the government should make general rules that do not selectively subsidize or discriminate against groups in most instances.

That said, I do believe in side constraints on what the government can do. There is a reason I am a libertarian. Just because in this one debate I am arguing for positive liberty doesn't mean in 90% of cases I don't advocate for negative liberty (or individual rights if you want to put it that way, although such rights need some definition). I will put it this way- when I see negative and positive liberty diametrically opposed, I generally err to negative liberty. But i will not just never consider positive liberty.

And first you called me a neocon, then you called me a communist. Labels have meanings, so you might want to develop a coherent one if you really want to apply one to me. But labels are also self-defeating, as they are a method of convenient categorization to eliminate nuances between positions. I am a classical liberal or a consequentialist libertarian if you want to call me anything.
The CIC was Bush and he called it wrong. Is breaking the consitution by not having congress vote on declaring war a good thing? Taking this nation to war is absolutely the most critical decision our government will EVER make. It should not be left up to just one branch of the government contrary to the constitution.
You are mixing actions to fight specific group that have attacked the US with entering into war to stop a genocide. Those are entirely different things. I agree with your assessment of how we should fight Al quada but we should be there to specifically kill those that attacked us and disrupt their ability to wage another attack. I am also a veteran of Bosnia and the bitterness is deep. The killing has stopped there now but I can foresee an outbreak of war there for years if not centuries to come. The people there were still fighting bitterly about what had happened 70 years ago as though it was yesterday. The only difference now is there is a hatred of us mixed into the bitterness.

Imperial
12-16-2010, 11:12 AM
The CIC was Bush and he called it wrong. Is breaking the consitution by not having congress vote on declaring war a good thing? Taking this nation to war is absolutely the most critical decision our government will EVER make. It should not be left up to just one branch of the government contrary to the constitution.
You are mixing actions to fight specific group that have attacked the US with entering into war to stop a genocide. Those are entirely different things. I agree with your assessment of how we should fight Al quada but we should be there to specifically kill those that attacked us and disrupt their ability to wage another attack. I am also a veteran of Bosnia and the bitterness is deep. The killing has stopped there now but I can foresee an outbreak of war there for years if not centuries to come. The people there were still fighting bitterly about what had happened 70 years ago as though it was yesterday. The only difference now is there is a hatred of us mixed into the bitterness.

I don't think we have too many disagreements here. I would agree a declaration of war should be required, or not that a Barbary War style arrangement where Congress is actively involved with approving military actions.

And yes, I agree with your assessment of Afghanistan. In an ideal world maybe we could swoop in and eliminate the Taliban and Al Qaeda in one fell blow. As it stands the Taliban is too entrenched, and our actions only make is stronger, for us to be able to do anything about it. However, Al Qaeda (at the time of the invasion) represented a threat to us and had already attacked us. In that instance, the only justifiable attack was that upon Al Qaeda- an attack dedicated to regime change and knocking out the Taliban would be unjustified because it could never succeed and would cause horrible consequences.

Bosnia is similar- you have a shatter belt essentially where different groups are fighting and nobody is really acting fair to everybody else. However I am not as familiar with that conflict or Kosovo as I should be except to know that abuses have occurred on all sides. I don't really know the degree though, and in certain instances if one side is disproportionately worse than another then in theory intervention might be justifed. But that is pure speculation- i don't have a real world scenario that I would apply that logic to that i can think of offhand.