What an Entangling Alliance is

But what about Rand's words on Vietnam being a foreign entanglement? How do they fit in here? Here are the words:

... never sacrifice American lives for somebody else's freedom.

If you want to help, watch our foreign policy and see to it that no administration, Republican or Democratic, ever puts the United States into this position again. Start a movement for George Washington's principle of "no foreign entanglements." The present problems were created by an irrational policy, which is at least fifty years old. You must attack its root and cause.

That was back in 1969, at the Ford Hall Forum.

Her argument extends beyond Vietnam. She took a dig at a full half-century of US foreign policy (1919-1969). On a scale with total interventionist on one end and total isolationist on the other, she comes down on the isolationist side of the spectrum.**

Is her argument a good one? Is it still relevant and acceptable today? If not, is it her facts or her information set (some new world-dynamics change things) or is it her logic (she's been wrong all along) that explains the discrepancy.

Ed

**Rand confirmed her relative isolationism five years later, in 1974, at the Ford Hall Forum: "The fewer ties we have with other countries, the better off we'll be."

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/09, 2:40pm)

Post 21

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 2:43pm

Steve:

immediate military action against all government deemed to be illegitimate.

You really want to defend this statement? Really? And you expect me or anyone else to believe this is a fair conclusion? Really?

This does not give me the impression that you're objective or reasonable on this topic. If this is what you consider a fair representation of other's ideas, I can't expect to have a real exchange of ideas with you.

Post 22

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 3:14pm

Steve:

John, Michael put up a list of countries. And he has been forthcoming on his explanation of why the understanding of "threat" and "self-defense" need to be looked at in light of new technology.

Apparently you ignored my posts because I said the exact same thing. But it's not just because of new technology, that alone in a vacuum is not a threat, it's new technology combined with dangerous regimes willing to use that technology, that poses a long-term threat to the civilized world. France with nuclear weapons is not a threat, it depends on the nature of the government that holds those weapons.

I haven't heard you say who you want to do what to.

Did I give you an exhaustive list of what kind of foreign policy actions should be taken to any number of dictatorships? No, I didn't think that was necessary in formulating the concepts, I was only trying to argue principles and provide some concretes to those principles. You took some of those concretes and argued those interventions could not have been for selfish reasons. I largely agree with Michael Dickey. You took those concretes and argued that by being for the Iraq war must intrinsically mean I'm an altruist. You believed there were no self-interests involved in the invasion of Iraq and was instead purely for humanitarian reasons, and I don't agree with that assessment at all. I believe as a corollary there is a humanitarian benefit to the Iraq war, but that was not the primary reason for the war. George Bush did not invade Iraq because he wanted to help the Iraqis have better schools and nicer hospitals, he did so because he believed they posed a threat to the United States. I think he thought these humanitarian benefits to Iraqis as a corollary were a nice thing, and no doubt he takes pride in that, but that was not his primary motive.

We agree, I believe, on Iran. Iraq is history.

So was the Soviet Union history, so please tell me why I was an altruist for favoring the war in Iraq? You are the one that used my historical examples as an argument I was an altruist.

If I remember correctly you advocate military intervention in Georgia

I don't know what to ultimately do in Georgia since the situation there is changing week by week. Direct military confrontation with Russia is out of the question since the costs would be too high. Supplying Georgians who are fighting Russians is not out of the question. We've done it before with great success. I believe I have given my opinions clearly on Georgia.

Where else do you believe that trade interests are threatened such that we should intervene?

Threats come from any number of sources varying in severity, and depending upon the nature of those threats, it is not always in our self-interests to use outright military confrontation. To combat these threats, forming military alliances with Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan...to give a few examples, is consistent with protecting free trade between civilized nations. We benefit from those alliances because we are able to project an even stronger and bigger defense to aggressive nations, nations that do not share our values, totalitarian nations that if left to squash other civilized free nations will only be emboldened to continue their murder spree. Countries that are relatively free countries with whom we trade with which has resulted in a great increase in our wealth, democratic free countries that do not start wars and share our values, and are instead threatened by tyrants and totalitarian nations, are worthy of an alliance, because they are not the only ones threatened by tyrants and thugs, we are too, and thus we recognize common interests in combating these threats. North Korea would be one that definitely tops the list for threatening our trade interests in the Pacific. Russia threatens our trade interests with Europe, etc.

You don't like how my principles are applied, tell us what would be different were we applying your principles.

Absolutely. I'll give you one example. You favor the immediate withdrawal of America from NATO. Even though all NATO countries share some of the same risks from the same threatening nations such as Iran and North Korea who routinely helps nations like Iran build missiles.
(Edited by John Armaos on 9/09, 3:17pm)

Post 23

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 3:51pm

Joe,

"...immediate military action against all government deemed to be illegitimate." That was my understanding of Michael's position. I should have left either the "all" or the "immediate" out of that statement because in a post not too long ago Michael stated that resources, if nothing else, would prohibit going after all illegitimate governments at once. I have been trying to understand his position since it has a great deal of merit - but I want to find the connection to Objectivist principles that give rise to moral government.

My concern isn't with going after this or that illegitimate government, or the "all," or the "immediate." It is in having some statement of principle to apply that can be used judge the rationality of any proposed invasion. Something that is legitimate under our constitution (with or without a modification of some sort), and would be in our self-interest, and that is proper for a government that is based upon defense of individual rights. To go forth invading nations it would be a good idea to have a standard to work from.

My understanding has always been that self-defense was the principle that governed the use of physical force - whether by me, or by the police, or by the military. Clearly self-defense is there when we have been attacked with massive force. What about minor attacks?

What if it's a threat... how serious... how far into the future... how certain are we it will manifest?

What then is the statement of a principle that guides us in a prudent examination of the risk, the margin of error and the timing for projection of military force? That is what I was looking for.

I have been frustrated by two things. Lots of name calling and lots of arguments that weren't in a productive form and explanations that never gave me what I still believe we need to have to be a moral nation of laws.

I think that there is good stuff to learn here, but that we can't to it with the kind of arguments that have gone on.

Let me know if this post gives you the impression that I'm objective or reasonable on this topic. If not, I'll understand your unwillingness to continue.

Post 24

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 4:17pm

Steve, this post was much more reasonable. Thank you.

And if you want to avoid some of the non-productive features of the debates so far, avoiding this kind of sweeping and incorrect summary might help, as would specifying where you find agreement. It's nice to know that you find some merit in the ideas of the other participants, but maybe examining the common ground more clearly might help.

For me personally, I find certain words or phrases don't communicate ideas, but obscure them. Self-defense, when it comes to foreign policy, is one of them. A nation is a group of individuals. Where is the "self" in self-defense. Some take it to be the nation itself, and only resisting threats to the whole nation is moral. Some view it as the rights of the citizens, but only while they reside in their own borders. Others may view it as the lives of the citizens, but not their right to free trade. And on and on. If you use these words to argue that some courses of action are immoral, you better have a clear understanding of them and their justification. For instance, if I said "self-defense" is not the proper standard of foreign policy, do you have a solid argument for why it is? Or are you simply stating something you think might be the case?

One example I've heard many times is "clear and present danger", like the book. Or "clear and imminent threat". These are taken as the standard for when we can react. But they're assumed, not proven. They also don't say who the danger or threat is to.

Post 25

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 4:51pm

Joe,

This does seem to be the right area. This discussion 'feels' different. Non-defensive.

There are a number of phrases that can be described as very incomplete in themselves - along with "Self-defense," we could include "our self-interests," "National self-interest," and "National security," and "trade interests," and "threats."

I think "national security" should just be thrown out - to many sins committed under that vague phrase.

The "interest" phrases are good starts because they link to a rational egoism as opposed to altruism - or at least keep us oriented more that way than not.

"National self-interest" has the same problems you mentioned for "self-defense" - can a nation have a meaningful self-interest apart from its constituents and what would it look like?

I like self-defense because one of our primary goals is to restrain government actions given that it is the most likely violator of individual rights, since individual rights is a the root of the reason for having a government and because self-defense arise directly out of individual rights.

I agree with the problems of just leaving self-esteem floating, without answering the questions you posed: self-defense of the nation itself, not self-defense of individuals? or self-defense of individuals, but only inside the borders? Which rights are being defended, the lives of the citizens, but not their other rights?

When you ask the question of what standard is proper for foreign policy, there is the question of what the purpose of foreign policy and what is its form? After all, what is there in the constitution that provides much in the way of foreign policy structure or powers?

Post 26

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 5:38pm

Steve, I agree with your laundry list of vague phrases. I was going to actually point to "threats" as one of them, although possibly for different reasons than you (not sure). I find it interesting that threat has multiple meanings.

1.) Someone threatens you. They say they'll use force against you.
2.) Someone is a threat to your safety. A murderer running around is a potential danger, even if they aren't targeting you or telling you that they'll attack you.
3.) A very dangerous group who has the capability of doing serious harm.

For instance, some thugs may threaten the US by saying they'll kill us. But often they're not considered a "threat" because they don't appear to have the means to back it up. Are we talking about the capacity to do harm, or the intent to do harm, or the verbal warning to do harm?

But we can talk all day about what's wrong with these. Suggesting an alternative is more difficult. Instead of trying to come up with a short phrase that answers everything, I think it's better to start with describing the kinds of things we would include as possible grounds for action. Here's an example list, whether you agree with them or not.

1.) A group who declares an intention to do us harm, whether or not we think they can back it up.
2.) A group that actually attacks our military or government.
3.) A group that attacks American citizens anywhere in the world.
4.) A group that prevents foreigners from trading with us (either by embargo, theft, arrest, death, or nationalization).
5.) A nation that harbors any of these groups.
6.) A nation waging an unjust war where American casualties are possible.
7.) A nation that is hostile towards, whether they've directly made a move or not (we don't have to wait for them to strike, which will only happen when they have the advantage).
8.) A nation that indirectly attacks us by supporting a third party.

I give this list as something to think about, but I think there's a lot more issues than this when it comes to foreign policy. Here are a few thoughts:

1.) The federal/national government must make decisions about who we will use force against outside of our borders. They can't simply leave it to citizens to decide, as their actions would invite war on everyone. If the government says they won't support Georgia, but they'll allow citizens to, you can imagine an army being raised and trained and armed here and sent over. Properly, Russia would see this as our government harboring an army that is attacking them. This sort of decision needs to be made for everyone. Consequently, I don't think we have the option of each of us deciding which wars we will support. We need a unified solution. Some other conversations revolved around funding a war, with the suggestion that those in favor of it should pay for it. Fair enough. But that doesn't solve this. We need a method of making a unified decision (which is what I consider the central role of government) because you can't fully opt out of it.

2.) We need to be careful about what we think the implications of a moral policy like "self-defense" are. For instance, if some group kills an American citizen, it doesn't necessitate we go to war, even if it may justify it. I believe moral principles should guide our understanding of the choices we have, but we must still decide. And that's going to be very much grounded in the specific context and conditions of the event. So if we formulate a list of conditions for the government to act, it doesn't necessitate that the government must act in any particular way. If we don't keep this in mind, then every condition that does in fact justify an action will seem to lead to endless concurrent wars. And in the face of that alternative, it's far too easy to narrow the list down to only the most dangerous where we absolutely must act. We need to identify what kinds of things it is at all legitimate to respond to, and not make any unwarranted assumptions about whether we'll respond or not.

3.) We need to identify principles so we can foresee long term consequences. It's easy to look at Georgia and say "this isn't worth risking American lives over". But we also don't want to be constantly attacked, but only a little at a time, each time thinking it's better to appease them in this one situation. The "we don't negotiate with terrorists" principle is quite brilliant in understanding that short-term calculations can set bad long term trends. This is particularly important when the US appears to so much of the world as a paper tiger. On another post, you mentioned flying so many planes above a Russian naval exercise that the sky goes dark. Showing we have unbelievable power is only half of the equation. You also need the will to use it. You can't listen to Democrat politicians for long before you conclude we lack any will at all. I think this was one of the reasons the Iraq war went so poorly. When you have half of the political "leaders" in this country promising we'll surrender if the insurgents can just kill a few more soldiers, you have a recipe for offering them the hope they need to keep fighting. So principles must be more than simply evaluating short term costs/benefits. They must take a long view.

Post 27

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 7:33pm

Joe,

I just finished posting a long reply on the Jurisdiction thread and feeling disappointed - I felt you didn't grasp what I was saying and no value was forthcoming. It is GREAT to see this post from you that has the kind of value I've been looking for.
----------

Threat is about risk - and there should be many concepts in the area of risk estimation that can help us sharpen our understanding of threat.

1.) Someone threatens you. They say they'll use force against you.
2.) Someone is a threat to your safety. A murderer running around is a potential danger, even if they aren't targeting you or telling you that they'll attack you.
3.) A very dangerous group who has the capability of doing serious harm.

In number 1 we have an identified attacker, the threat is of the use of force, but we don't know the severity, likelihood, capability, motivation, etc.
In number 2 we have an identity for the source of the threat, but it isn't targeting us (probability of threat being realized at the target is low) but the severity of the threat (amount of damage is high - on a personal scale), lastly, we can assume that the authenticity of the threat is high in the sense that he has murdered before therefore might again.
In number 3 we have a group described as dangerous - I'll assume that is a measure of the authenticity or the threat, it is said they have the capability - whatever that capability is will also go towards quantifying what is meant by "serious" harm.

So, here are some threat properties:
- Probability of harm,
- Identified source of the attack,
- Measure of severity (degree of harm),
- Certainty of target identity,
- Probability of an attack based upon nature of attackers, their history and their known resources and capability,
- Motivational features of attacker as they modify likelihood of the target identity (they hate us or just hate all western countries),
- Motivational features of attacker as they modify probabilities of attempt being made.

I agree that a short phrase won't be helpful - at best it can start us down a road, like a goal or a purpose, but we can't make decisions with it.

We want to be able to do these things:
- Identify threats as such,
- categorize them by severity (both as triage and to weigh the appropriate interventions),
- categorize them as to when they might come into being.

Understanding the degree of certainty of things like target and motivations help us set a margin of error (i.e., take no chances where certainty is high, seek more info when we don't know, plan the interventions)

What is the purpose of examining threat? From some of the above we pick out being able to choose the type and scale of intervention (maybe a set of alternatives). This implies that a threat - at a certain threshold - is justification for some action. This is never necessary with the case where we have been attacked. Attacked is easy, the threats need this work. In your words, we are working up "grounds for action"

That takes us to the question of kinds of action. And how to categorize these so that it would helpful. This is more difficult area.

1. Declare warning to host country and monitor changes
2. Initiate small military action against individuals hiding in illegitimate state
3. Initiate medium, but temporay, military action against individuals hiding in illegitimate state
4. Initiate large military action against individuals hiding in illegitimate state
5. Request extradition from legitimate state
....
....
etc.
n. Declare and launch major war effort.

--------------

What we want to do is refine the set of threat attributes and then link each measured threat to specific response.

I'll knock off for now, but pick this up tomorrow.

Post 28

Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 3:29pm

That you can't get there from here doesn't mean that you can't get there, (and maybe you can't) just that you have to try a different route.

I made a clear distinction between defensive alliances and alliances with the express purpose of attacking a third party. It was this type of alliance which the Founding Fathers opposed. Steve continued to deny this distinction:

"What is clear is that entanglement is tied deeply to some future sacrifice on the part of America."

What if the US and Britain, by allying, could have gained territory from Spain? Perhaps the US could have participated in an embargo, and seized Florida without shots being fired? There would have been no future sacrifice entailed - but the Founding Fathers would have opposed it anyway.

It is possible to oppose specific modern alliances on many grounds. It is not necessary, in order to oppose them, to deny a valid distinction, and to use a term that the Founding Fathers used, because they used it, but not in the way that they used it.

Post 29

Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 6:14pm

Ted,

I'll just stop using the term "Entangling" because you have decided to lock it's only acceptable meaning to what your historical survey has revealed - fine. From now on I'll just say that I'm opposed to any alliance of any kind that requires American to behave altruistically - to sacrifice, or creates obligations in the future that would not be in our national interest. And that we should also keep track of the total obligations outstanding because at some point we might need to get out of some old obligations to ensure we could meet new ones. I oppose those altruistic treaties that require us to spend our national wealth to help other nations, or the global economy, or victims of disease or natural disasters. I oppose those treaties that are called mutual defense, but are really us defending someone who could never defend us and who we would not go to war for without the treaty.

Post 30

Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 6:35pm

"Entangling Alliance" bad, Alliance that is entangling, acceptible.

Actually, the fault lies with the Founding Fathers for using the term - a nonessential - for describing the kind of alliance they (primarily Washington) warned against. There is nothing wrong with saying that an alliance would be entangling if it were with a power that would get itself into a war. A good example would be that between the Kaiser and Austria that lead up to WWI. Austria wanted a war, and the Kaiser gave them a blank check. But the desire to cloak an isolationist argument in the prestige of Washington's terms is misleading in part because his own choice of words was unfortunate for posterity's understanding.

Post 31

Friday, September 12, 2008 - 6:48am

I'm not going to stop using the term: "Entangling Alliance" or, for that matter, Rand's version: "Foreign Entanglement."

Someone once said that words are like spectacles, they obscure whatever it is that they don't make more clear. That's a good point. "Entangling" is an adjective that describes the noun "Alliance." It qualifies the subject so that you are talking about a subset of alliances -- rather than all alliances. There is no good reason to stop using the qualifier simply because it has historical baggage. It has an objective meaning and that's all that matters. Other interpretations are obfuscations.

It's exactly what Rand went through with the word: "Selfishness." Detractors said (in a pitiful, whiny voice): "But ... but ... but selfishness has historically meant trampling on others! So you must mean that now (because history, rather than objective reasoning, is what it is that should be used to interpret others' words)!"

That's social metaphysics.

Ed

Post 32

Friday, September 12, 2008 - 6:58am

Ed, the phrase is used because Washington said it. He is endlessly quoted as having said it. And he did not mean what those who so quote him want him to have meant by it. The attraction to a phrase, regardless of its meaning, is a fetish, a mantra, or a prayer. By all means, keep praying. No one here will stop you.

Post 33

Friday, September 12, 2008 - 12:09pm

Good for you Ed. I sanctioned that.

I quit using the term only to gain a moment of peace. My arguments that there is a functional meaning, apart from historical use, were not well received. I've just reread Ted's article at the top of this thread and I agree with every single sentence in it - except for this one: "Their [founding fathers] context was radically different from ours." Different, yes, radically, no - we have the same need today to ask ourselves if an alliance would be in our self-interest.
-----------

The contemporary use of the term is represented by Wikipedia's description: "The diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense, has had a long history in the United States."

Ted, Wikipedia points out that Washington is falsely credited with the first use of the "entangling" adjective. And he was not the first founding father to discuss the problems with this kind of alliance - rather he was first in making non-interventionism American policy. Paine was the first of the founding fathers to speak of the concept, Washington made it American government foreign policy and Jefferson was the first to associate the adjective "entangling" with alliance.

-------- Wikipedia Quote on Non-interventionism --------------
Thomas Paine is generally credited with instilling the first non-interventionist ideas into the American body politic; his work Common Sense contains many arguments in favor of avoiding alliances. These ideas introduced by Paine took such a firm foothold that the Second Continental Congress struggled against forming an alliance with France and only agreed to do so when it was apparent that the American Revolutionary War could be won in no other manner.

George Washington's farewell address is often cited as laying the foundation for a tradition of American non-interventionism:

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."

John Adams followed George Washington's ideas about non-interventionism by avoiding a very realistic possibility of war with France. Many Americans were clamoring for war and Adams refusal and persistence in seeking negotiation would lead his political rival Thomas Jefferson to take the presidency in the next election.
------------- End Quote ------------

Jefferson, in his Inagural Address, said, "About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights..."

Post 34

Friday, September 12, 2008 - 12:18pm

In many respects, it would be worth one's time to read Paines writings - while written for that time, and in some respects topical, yet they reek of long-ranged principled thought that pertain as much today as then... Common Sense, The Crisis letters, and The Rights of Man are timeless in so many parts...

Post 35

Friday, September 12, 2008 - 3:05pm

Ted,

You are like the hecklers who called Rand -- and still call Rand -- a cut-throat, Nietzschean Subjectivist, because they accuse her of meaning something different for a word she is using ("selfish") -- i.e., the old and commonplace meaning -- even after she defined what she meant by it. I can't defend myself by defining "entangling" because you won't let me get that far. Instead, I'm tarnished by using it in the first place. You made up your mind long ago.

It's an Argument from Intimidation.

Ed

Post 36

Friday, September 12, 2008 - 5:00pm

Ed, the whole point is that using "entangling alliances" is an appeal to authority, and a false one. It's like a communists going around saying Ayn Rand thought "life is the standard of morality", and therefore government can do anything to help those who need it.

I think people should be clear with their words and definitions, and should avoid misleading their audience. Using the phrase "entangling alliances" is used frequently by isolationists to imply all alliances are necessarily bad, and that if you disagree you're disagreeing with the founding fathers. It is not neutral language. It's not used for clarity, but for intimidation. And as Ted and I have noted, it's used incorrectly.

Is there some other, clearer way to communicate your position? There must be. But instead, you're wedded to a language that has emotional implications and insufficient clarity.

If someone called you something insulting, like a racist, but claimed they had a definition different from common use, wouldn't you think it was inappropriate? Even if, by their definition they were making a factual statement, isn't the use of that word intended to confuse the audience, make false implications, and generally try to intimidate? Even if you don't want to argue that it is the intended purpose, doesn't it accomplish the same thing?

Clarity is obviously not the purpose here. Smearing people through implication is the only benefit to insisting on using language. So let's not pretend for a minute that you're the one who's being intimidated.

Post 37

Friday, September 12, 2008 - 6:39pm

Ed, Ted, Joe,

There are two problems here: 1) Nothing in our history makes the principles behind the concept wrong for applying today - they are the principles of the founding fathers. 2) The smear label of "isolationist" is frequently used where is does NOT apply.

I don't think that the historical load attached to the phrase takes it very far at all from the meaning that today's non-interventionists intend. I still do not see that the founding fathers were examining our young country's self-interest in terms very different than some of today's non-interventionists. Yes, the situation in Europe has changed in many ways, and our nation is no longer that small collection of colonies. But the principles, and the reasons behind their objection to entangling alliances stay valid today.

Someone who wants to argue in favor of a particular alliance can simply say this is not an entangling alliance as the founding fathers meant, it is an alliance that IS in our national interest and if they were alive today they too would advocate for it.
---------

To call someone who does not advocate interventionism and who is opposed to alliances that would obligate us to act against our interests an "isolationist" is not a clear or proper use of language and is often used to smear people.

Here is the description from Wikipedia:
--------------------
"Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:

1. Non-interventionism � Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
2. Protectionism � There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

Isolationism is not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries. This "libertarian isolationist" view is best defined as a policy of nonparticipation in foreign political relations, but free trade and affability to all people."
----------------

Post 38

Friday, September 12, 2008 - 7:13pm

Joe,

We've been at this point before. It was when I was trying to define the term "NeoCon." I remember you had the same issue with me then as you do now. There is a reason that Rand didn't capitulate to other folks who said that her use of the word "selfish" was either intentionally, or unintentionally, confusing. I believe that I am motivated by the same reason here. However, like before, I'm at a loss regarding what value it is that you're aiming at when you challenge my attempts to define and use words which happen to make folks cringe.

You say:

Using the phrase "entangling alliances" is used frequently by isolationists to imply all alliances are necessarily bad ...

The implication being that -- if I use the phrase -- I'm trying to obfuscate (because isolationists have done that). You continue:

Is there some other, clearer way to communicate your position? There must be. But instead, you're wedded to a language that has emotional implications and insufficient clarity.

Why mustn't people like me try to define and use these emotionally-charged words? Yes, I agree that there is insufficient clarity. That's why I try to define these words (rather than dismiss discussion of them outright). You go on:

If someone called you something insulting, like a racist, but claimed they had a definition different from common use, wouldn't you think it was inappropriate? Even if, by their definition they were making a factual statement, isn't the use of that word intended to confuse the audience, make false implications, and generally try to intimidate? Even if you don't want to argue that it is the intended purpose, doesn't it accomplish the same thing?

Yes, yes, and yes. But if their term for racist is the right one (corresponds best to reality), then -- after humans make the progress required for integrating the new definition -- then they should be able to use the term with impunity. The only thing holding them back from using it is the temporary lack of mutual understanding of the term. You conclude:

Clarity is obviously not the purpose here. Smearing people through implication is the only benefit to insisting on using language. So let's not pretend for a minute that you're the one who's being intimidated.

But that in itself sounds like the Argument from Intimidation. In order for you to see what it is that I mean, here's Rand on the Argument from Intimidation -- with my interjections in brackets:

It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea [e.g., "entangling alliances"] without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: �Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea."--VOS, 139

Let me emphasize that the Argument from Intimidation does not consist of introducing moral judgment into intellectual issues, but of substituting moral judgment for intellectual argument.--VOS, 143

When you say that when I attempt to define/use certain words (entangling, neocon, etc) then that must mean that I have got to be smearing people, or that I have got to be aiming at obfuscation or dissemble, then you are attacking my character in reaction to the very use of the buzzword.

At least it appears so to me.

Ed

Post 39

Friday, September 12, 2008 - 7:44pm