| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Ron Paul's "noninterventionism" fraud |
| 2007-11-27 |
| Robert Bidinotto, "Binidotto Blog" The same sort of arguments advanced by many libertarians, such as Rep. Paul, to "explain" the anti-American actions of foreign terrorists, also have been offered by liberals to "explain" the heinous acts of common criminals. Read any sociology or criminology text, and you'll find endless laundry lists of "causal explanations" for crime: poverty, neglect, poor parenting, lousy schools, poor "socialization," inadequate pre-natal care, hunger, disease, bullying, racism, police brutality, social stigmatizing, untreated psychological disorders, victimless-crime laws...you name it. And in both cases -- foreign and domestic -- it's always American culture, society, and/or policies that are the toxic "root causes" underlying the actions of those who attack us. Just as many libertarians like Paul treat the actions of al Qaeda and other terrorists as "blowback" for the sins of American society against them, liberal social-science professionals treat the actions of home-grown criminal thugs as "blowback" for the alleged sins of American society against them. These bloody acts are never the terrorist's or the criminal's "fault" (responsibility), you see; rather, they are all our fault, for "driving him" to do his dastardly deeds. You may remember that during the Cold War, precisely the same sort of "explanations" were offered by liberals and, later, by left-libertarians such as Murray Rothbard to lay the blame for Communist aggression at the West's (especially America's) doorstep. It was our imperialist provocations around the world that were "driving" the Soviet bloc to "respond" by conquering and butchering millions, building weapons of mass destruction, constructing the Berlin Wall, etc. It was our economic and cultural "imperialism" that was driving indigenous peoples everywhere into the arms of the communists. I defy anyone to draw a rational, meaningful distinction between such "explanations" for criminal or terrorist aggression, and "excuses" for it. After all, "causal explanations" for human actions aim at exonerating the actor for committing them, by treating those acts as if they were not under the actor's conscious, volitional control, but as if they were instead deterministically driven "responses" to external provocations or "causes." Just as I reject the liberal "excuse-making industry" that denies volition and rationalizes the acts of criminals, I am totally fed up with the disgraceful foreign-policy perspectives of those libertarians who portray the United States as the causal agent of every evil on earth -- thus rationalizing the atrocities of foreign terrorists and despots. . . . . . . Part of the sloppy thinking at the root of "noninterventionist" lunacy is the tacit equation of individual rights with "national sovereignty" -- and also the equation of "economic interventionism" (against peaceful individuals) with "political interventionism" (against despotic regimes). Philosophically, these twin equations are completely bogus. Only individuals have rights or "sovereignty"; and only those governments that recognize the individual rights of their own people have any legitimate claims to exist. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —" Dictatorships thus have no "rights" or "sovereignty." "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Likewise, the concept of economic "interventionism" -- developed by the Austrian school of economics to describe coercive governmental interference with free individuals in the marketplace -- cannot be equated with political "interventionism" against governments, especially against dictatorships. . . . |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #7 American overthrows less moral countries? As far as I can tell the Netherlands is not on any serious defense department lists, neither is Thailand. I think you need to reevaluate your terminology. The US does not like people slaughtering their own people. Sometimes we do nothing about it, and that confuses people, and other times we come down upon the dictator like the hammer of God. This randomness causes many dictators (such as Chavez and Zimbabwae's Bob) from going to the extremes they otherwise might because they don't know what the triggering mechanism is. THat works for me as it's cheaper than taking out every dictatorship and keeps the slaughter down. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-11-27 22:59 |
| #6 I will admit that there are times were that is called for Gee, it's so nice of you to admit that. Have a cookie. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-11-27 18:33 |
| #5 Which country that was trying to overthrow its evil dictator did America help, Evan? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-11-27 18:13 |
| #4 I think America is suffering under the delusion that it is the best and most moral country and can there for police and govern the less moral countrys. I will admit that there are times were that is called for but in this case the whole situation was brought up by the stupid desision to try to help a suffering country overthrow its evil dictator. That just showed that things are never so bad they cant get worse. |
| Posted by: Evan 2007-11-27 18:09 |
| #3 Lots of folks out there using labels on themselves that simply aren't accurate. Andrew Sullivan calls himself an "economic conservative who is a social liberal", and it turns out that he is, when all is said and done, a leftist and social anarchist who doesn't like paying taxes. Ron Paul calls himself a libertarian, but it turns out that he is an anarchist who indulges in the leftist "blame America first" mentality. W calls himself a conservative, but engages in Keynesian economics. Hillary Clinton pitches herself as a moderate Democrat but her policies consist of the worst and most far left (redundant?) parts of the New Deal and the Great Society, with some of the ugliest parts of postmodernism thrown in for extra flavor. We need a better truth detector when it comes to labels. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2007-11-27 18:08 |
| #2 Non-interventionism can also come from disgust with the world. I'm not a non-interventionist but part of me is and that part grows every day. The part of me that says pulling back will only work for a while, then we have another big nasty bloodbath like WW2 wins out every time. So far. But I tell you the disgust has grown much faster during the War on Terror. Much faster. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-11-27 11:41 |
| #1 Non-intervention comes from laziness and fear. Too damn lazy to do foreign relations even national security outside the borders. Like Bush says "its hard work". To fearful of exposing the weakness of being lazy and non-confrontational. Relying strictly on defense and internalization is what has led to collapse of many societies. |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2007-11-27 09:56 |