| | Steve just sounds like he's backpedaling to me.
Now, the question becomes whose individual rights. The answer is: those who are paying the tax dollars - the citizens under the jurisdiction of the taxing entity. We pay taxes at the local level to get protection from local threats, we pay taxes at the national level to get protection at the national level, period.
Well, what about if some other country is being attacked by a common enemy? The word 'enemy' is ambiguous in this question. Does it mean ideological enemy or angry with us in the area of foreign affairs, and no more? Then no, our government shouldn't play altruistic robin hood games with tax payer money. But if it is an enemy in the sense that our country is at risk of attack (e.g., Soviet Union during the cold war) - that's different. Send money, send arms, and send military if there is an imminent threat of attack
The Soviet Union never attacked us. So what was the imminent threat? Imminent threat from whom? Who was the Soviet Union attacking?
The rational reason for us to continue our support of Israel is our shared enemy of Islamic terrorists and their supporting states - we should send everything but our military personnel until such time as we see an attack on us is imminent - then we go pedal to the medal.
This just displays the obvious philosophical contradiction. We should only send arms and money when there isn't an imminent attack because that's in our rational self-interests, but we should send troops to Israel only if there is an imminent attack? What was the moral justification then for sending arms and money when there wasn't an imminent threat of attack? If it served our rational self-interests to help Israel and Taiwan because we shared the same values, and we shared a common enemy, but we were never under threat of imminent attack, then when does it all of a sudden become NOT in our rational self-interests to send troops? Money and arms to a foreign nation like Taiwan and Israel in our rational self-interests, but sending troops no longer in our rational self-interests?
The fact is it the question of sending money in lieu of troops is a matter of strategy and empirical analysis, not philosophy. You've already admitted then that foreign interventionism can serve our rational self-interests, you just have a nit-pick over what type of assistance that is. Israel doesn't need American troops to defend itself, it does however need arms and money from the U.S. to defend itself, a massive amount. Richard Nixon sent a massive amount of military aid to Israel during the Yom Kippur war, to the extent that Golda Meir heralded Nixon for saving Israel.
But if it was in our interests to save Israel from destruction, as you seem to now think it was even though American tax payers don't live in Israel or were under threat of imminent attack from these Middle Eastern countries during the Yom Kippur war, then say if Israel had requested one batallion of American troops, what would you say then?
Steve: "Well Israel, we will send you a massive amount of arms and supplies to fight, because your destruction hinders our rational interests"
Golda Meir: "Yes Steve I agree, but we desperately need some man power too, just a battalion, and I think we can beat these scum-bags back to their borders"
Steve: "Oh no no no Golda, that kind of help is not in our rational self-interest, not men's labor, just men's money"
Golda Meir: "But Steve, we will be destroyed! I thought you said it was in your rational self interests to see that Israel is not destroyed? Even Rand thought we were a civilized nation worthy of help!"
Steve: "Well I do think its worthy of help, monetary help, if its destroyed because we didn't send a battalion of troops, then it is no longer a matter of rational self interests. Sorry, I know it's a total contradiction philosophically, but you see, I don't want to be an altruist"
|
|
