| | Steve:
John writes, "Should relations between nations of this world operate under the law of the jungle or under some semblance of what is acceptable behavior a la international law?" Sounds nice, who wouldn't want acceptable behavior?
You certainly don't. As evidence by your isolationist views.
He doesn't point out that it is not a good idea to subjugate our nation's sovereignty to any of the existing world bodies, does he?
What does that mean exactly? If you are an American citizen following the laws of this country, are you subjugating your individual sovereignty to the government that passes the laws you are subject to? Once again your whole approach to this like the libertarian party's approach is just a big philosophical mess. You like to throw out words like "sovereignty" without actually giving it a coherent meaning to the discussion. What is sovereignty? Who deserves it? What does it mean to give it up? How is the U.S. giving up its sovereignty to international laws that dictate appropriate behaviors between nations? Do you think passing an international law that says countries cannot initiate force against other countries is giving up your sovereignty? So if you think that is giving up sovereignty, when did you all of a sudden advocate the use of initiatory force?
And the most important thing he doesn't say is that he and his ilk want to us to be the world policeman whether you want to or not - they are on a crusade that you get to pay for. I'm not making this up - it comes right out of his own words.
The most important thing Steve says is that he and his ilk don't want the U.S. government to act in the interests of its citizens. He is on a crusade to strip all means of defense for the U.S. and pull it out of defensive alliance treaties like NATO. It comes right out of his own words. Yet he has no problem with his tax money paying for a murderer's incarceration that did nothing to him. Again, he is a solipsistic philosophical mess.
"...the fact [that] technology and global markets have made this world infinitely smaller than it was in 1776..." is waved around as if it had some special meaning that took us to some world outside of moral principle. Self-defense is self-defense and the time it takes to verify imminent dangers and react to them are the technical aspects of self-defense and pure red herring from John.
Reacting to existential threats, like a group of individuals forming a government to lock up criminals is a means of self-defense. Steve gives no rebuttal here other than I am "waving some special meaning" to the recognition I am giving of a world where dictators and terrorists no longer have the span of two oceans as a hindrance to their thuggish efforts to hurt Americans. He even likens his positions to paleo-conservatives like Pat Buchanan, who thought Great Britain and the U.S. was responsible for the Nazi extermination of 6 million Jews. When you get philosophical incoherence like that, you are bound to start quoting from nut-jobs like Pat Buchanan.
He wants our our government to attack any threat to "trading interests," using military force. And that fuzzy phrase "trading interests" is his code phrase for attacking all tyrants and dictators.
Steve is actually opposed to the U.S. government protecting international trade interests, which means he must be opposed to protecting international trade. I will keep typing that until my fingers bleed, Steve does not think it is moral to protect free trade between nations. Unbelievable. How do you call yourself an Objectivist and be against free trade? If you're not for protecting it, you don't think it has value.
He apparently believes that dictators are always an "existential threat to this country" (his words). Think about that.
Yes please, think about that.
He sees who ever in hell is in charge in Myanmar right now as a threat to the United States of America. That is not a rational position.
Immediate threat to the U.S., no. We don't know what Myanmar's dictators will ultimately do since we can't predict the future, just as you could not predict if letting Charles Manson roam free in America, you yourself could not predict if you would eventually be killed from his actions. Most likely never. Dictatorships like that in Myanmar generally create instability and regional conflict. Dictatorships like that of Myanmars are the ones that start all the wars this world sees. The United States and the rest of the freedom loving nations of this world don't have the resources to get rid of all these tyrants and thus must prioritize which ones are a graver threat to them. That's why local police departments prioritize immediate threats to the neighborhoods they watch over (more resources devoted to solving murders rather than petty theft crimes )Just as people like Charles Manson was probably never an immediate threat to you but your tax money pays for the incarceration of murderers like him, it was in your interests to see that murderers in general be incarcerated. And it is in your self-interest that generally more resources are devoted to capturing more serious criminals than petty thieves. Prioritizing threats is always a rational position, one of which you don't understand.
"All wars are started by dictators, no two free democratic nations have ever gone to war with each other." Right John, you keep making statements like that since you can always twiddle with the meaning of "free" or "are started" to make it look in your mind like it is true. Whose kool-aid have you been drinking?
Not the kool-aid that solipsistic isolationists like yourself and Pat Buchanan have been drinking. This isn't a rebuttal at all, just an expression of incredulity. It's not opinion, but fact. No two free democratic nations have ever gone to war with each other, EVER.
"As long as dictators are given sovereignty and the right to exist..." No one "gives" sovereignty - look up the word's meaning.
So now you want to argue semantics. Well what is sovereignty Steve? Does entering into a free trade agreement with another nation mean that nation is giving up its sovereignty?
For all your posturing you're still an incoherent mess.
|
|
