| | I agree with Rick here.
The only 2 justifications for occupation are either altruist-collectivist Team America: World Nanny, or Machiavellian/Straussian plunder -- ie. sacrificing self to others, or sacrificing others to self.
If folks in other countries don't accept the human responsibility of securing their own freedom (yes, this is an objective, universal, moral responsibility of humans), then they deserve -- via natural justice -- the consequences. Our moral code ought to involve a continual assassination of brutal leaders, anytime and everywhere we see fit -- but not the multi-national duties of a Billion-dollar Babysitter.
The fastest, best way to teach someone to ride a bike well -- is to take off the training wheels and let nature take its course. Some people need to fall down and hurt themselves more than others do -- but that is not my, or any other taxpayer's, problem.
The argument that: If we don't take care of them now, then they will "take care" of us later -- is a mere "feed-the-crocodile" fallacy (complete with a fear-for-your-lives kicker). It is a new substitution of fear for guilt, but it is still, from my perspective, a collectivist ploy to garner sacrifice.
I disagree with those (e.g. Kurt Eichert) who believe that contemporary world dynamics justify a wholesale dismissal of Rand's 4 main points regarding foreign policy. Kurt has not said this explicitly, but he doesn't need to.
Like Tibor and Michael, I believe that Imperialism (ie. forceful globalism) is not a "national good."
Ed
|
|
