RoR: Forum

Thanks for posting this, Steve.

I usually follow politics up to and including my point of disgust -- a threshold level which is probably different for each thinking human. Once disgusted, I have a few options -- including things like evasion, appeasement, compromise, and going off on some kind of diatribe about how the basic issue is, and always is, between individualism and collectivism (statism).

I had originally thought that Pat Buchanan was a neocon (i.e., a statist). This was back when I went through a sort of Joseph McCarthy-istic diatribe against all neocons -- foreign, but more importantly, domestic. Back then, I suspected every American conservative (especially the ones with Jewish-sounding names) to be a neocon, at least until they could prove otherwise. You read that right. I suspected every conservative politician to be a statist -- until they could prove otherwise. Keep in mind what that means. Since the democrats are statists inherently, if you were a politician in America, you were guilty -- unless you could prove otherwise.

That said, it appears that P. Buchanan is taking on the neocons here -- which I feel is appropriate and of value. Rand said -- in The Lessons of Vietnam -- that it is the job of the philosopher to expose the thinking errors of their own government (actually, the administrators of their government). Public exposure of the errors of the leaders of our country is always important. However, because liars know that other people think, they will deliberately muddle issues in order to throw-off the investigation into their own errors (or are so stupid as to have been brought down a wrong train of thinking -- carrying the nation with them).

In the foreign policy section of Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A (caps intended), the following truisms can be gleaned from an especially astute reading of what it is that is written there (e.g., my marginalia):

=========
-Withdrawal from Vietnam would appease communism.

-There's a primitive dignity, if involved in a war, to finish it.

-It's criminal to kill American soldiers while not using our nuclear weapons.

-In all basic issues, there are no intermediates.

-Conservatives often opt for folksy simplicity.

-In going in to Vietnam, we became guilty of injustice toward ourselves.

-By the standard of justice, it's not morally wrong to invade semi-free dictatorships (or for "more-free" countries to attack us).

-If you do anything whatsoever that supports an enemy during a war, you're a murderer.

-We should send all the military equipment we can to fight for freedom anywhere in the world -- but never send American lives in defense of the freedom of other people.

-We should not ever abandon people who trusted us by working with us to defeat the enemy in their country.

-The "innocent majority" in a criminal country deserve what their government deserves.

-Helping Israel was Rand's first charity donation (unspecified amount of money).

-Palestinians deserve whatever anyone does to them.

-Nobody has the right to socialism.

-The fewer ties we have to other countries, the better off we'll be.

-Rand admitted to not knowing what America's policy toward South Africa apartheid should have been.
=========

Some may argue that some of these are "dated" -- true when Rand spoke, but not true now. I'd be interested to see those arguments. Some will argue that these things aren't entailed from what it is that she said -- effectively attacking my marginalia. If you think thusly, then I would invite you to consider trying to argue the point with me (to see why I think that way).

My purpose for selectively posting these is to -- through dialogue -- see how they relate to this issue. I'm expecting folks to pick and choose from the list (rather than addressing each and every item).

Ed

Post 1

Saturday, August 16, 2008 - 8:51am

Here's Robert Bidinotto's take on the moral principle of "Blowback"

Ron Paul's "noninterventionism" fraud

posted 11/26/07

The Muslim world is not fooled by our talk about spreading democracy and values. The evidence is too overwhelming that we do not hesitate to support dictators and install puppet governments when it serves our interests. When democratic elections result in the elevation of a leader or party not to our liking, we do not hesitate for a minute to undermine that government. This hypocrisy is rarely recognized by the American people. It�s much more comfortable to believe in slogans, to believe that we�re defending our goodness and spreading true liberty. We accept this and believe strongly in the cause, strongly enough to sacrifice many of our sons and daughters, and stupendous amounts of money, to spread our ideals through force.
-- March 28, 2006

There are long-term consequences or blowback from our militant policy of intervention around the world. They are unpredictable as to time and place. 9/11 was a consequence of our military presence on Muslim holy lands; the Ayatollah Khomeini's success in taking over the Iranian government in 1979 was a consequence of our CIA overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953. These connections are rarely recognized by the American people and never acknowledged by our government. We never seem to learn how dangerous interventionism is to us and to our security.
-- April 6, 2006

I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah -- yes, there was blowback. The reaction to that was the taking of our hostages. And that persists, and if we ignore that, we ignore it at our own risk. If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we�re rich and we're free, they come here to attack us because we�re over there.
-- May 15, 2007

Now, who is the author of these statements? Some liberal like John Kerry or Dennis Kucinich? Maybe some anti-American filmmaker like Oliver Stone or Brian de Palma? Or perhaps some militant Islamist from a group like CAIR?

No, the author is America's most prominent self-professed libertarian: GOP presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. And his growing public profile finally merits the small spotlight of my attention.

Dr. Paul (he's an M.D., as well as a congressman) has become the nation's foremost proponent of a foreign policy of U.S. "noninterventionism." This view holds that past American policies abroad have been immorally aggressive against other nations, provoking them to "react" against us in understandable, if not always justifiable, ways. By this interpretation of history, which parallels that of the communists and Islamists, America has been the great disturber of international peace. We are ever creating enemies where none really existed before. We did it during the Cold War; we've done it in the Middle East; we're continuing to do it today.

Dr. Paul's libertarian prescription? If only we'd stop meddling in the "internal affairs" of other nations and bring our troops home, the world would be a better, safer, healthier place. Al Qaeda and other terrorists, having no further reasons to hate us, would either become peaceful or aim their aggressions elsewhere.

Now, I'd like to point out an interesting parallel between this common libertarian view of America's foreign enemies, and the common liberal view of America's domestic criminals.

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.

Ron Paul has become the most visible exponent of that malignant view of America. In my mind, his "blowback" excuse for 9/11 -- and "excuse" is exactly what his "explanation" amounts to -- is sufficient to completely disqualify him for any American public office, let alone for the role of commander in chief of the U.S. military.

For example, Paul repeatedly cites as aggression U.S. government actions that helped to topple and replace the Iranian regime of Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. However, Paul rarely mentions these days (as he did on Dec. 3, 2002) that the U.S. and Britain did so "to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil." Instead, Paul's account of the extremely complex events transpiring within Iran in those days are reduced to a simplistic fairy tale of U.S. imperialism against a "democratically elected leader," a superficial fantasy that grossly distorts the full truth.

For one thing, it was not "Iranian oil" being nationalized, but that of the British company that had drilled for it, and which had it stolen by the Mossadegh regime. Mossadegh refused all subsequent diplomatic efforts by Britain to broker a deal to peacefully regain that expropriated property; indeed, in October 1952, he declared that Britain was "an enemy." Later, this pillar of "democracy" resigned in 1952 when the Shah denied his demands for broader "emergency powers"; he was reappointed by the Shah only when street demonstrations by his supporters threatened to overthrow the government. Back in power, Mossadegh then systematically began to communize the Iranian economy.

All this took place in the context of our Cold War with the Soviet Union, which had been plotting to extend its influence in Iran, via its puppet, the Tudeh Party, in order to gain control that nationalized oil. At the same time, U.S. intelligence agencies and the Eisenhower administration worried that Mossadegh was getting dangerously close to the pro-Soviet Tudeh Party.

Was it therefore unreasonable or wrong for the U.S. and Britain to take action to topple a dictatorial, increasingly leftist regime, in order to regain that stolen property and, more importantly, to protect American national security interests? Can this 1955 action in defense of private property and against totalitarian Soviet expansionism reasonably be blamed as the "cause" of "blowback" much, much later -- such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard takeover of the U.S. embassy in 1979, 26 years later? or the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, 40 years later? or even the destruction of four U.S. airliners, the Twin Towers, and part of the Pentagon in 2001, 48 years later? Or is that "blowback" charge mere excuse-making for Islamist thugs and cutthroats?

The manipulative use, by Paul and too many libertarians, of vague, undefined smear terms such as "interventionist" and "neocon" permits them to blame the U.S. government for virtually anything it does in our legitimate, long-term self-defense, anywhere in the world. Actions to thwart coercive threats, such as forging defensive alliances, are "interventionism." Helping other nations counter a growing peril from a declared U.S. enemy nation (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Iran, etc.) is "interventionism." Sometimes, even trading with adversaries of dictatorial regimes (e.g., trading with Taiwan, an enemy of China) is "interventionism."

The only "moral" alternative they imply, therefore, is a de facto, hunkered-down pacifism: a steady retreat by the U.S. from any interactions in the world -- lest we diss some backwater bully, cross his arbitrarily declared boundary lines, offend him for his subjective notions of religious or cultural blasphemy, or thwart his laughable claims of "national sovereignty."

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. Dictatorships thus have no "rights" or "sovereignty." 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.

Ron Paul (along with those libertarians who agree with him) therefore completely misunderstands the philosophical foundations of individual rights and freedom. The mere fact that he and his backers sanctimoniously claim such lofty language does not mean that they are true defenders of individual rights and liberty. That is clear from Paul's stands not just on foreign policy and national defense, but on such issues as immigration and abortion, where he ironically takes what can only be described as "government interventionist" stands.

For a detailed look at Paul's warped foreign-policy perspective, sample his commentary "The Blame Game," where he declares, "There was no downside when we left Vietnam." No downside? Here he blithely evades the wholesale butchery and the enslavement of millions that transpired after our ignominious retreat from Southeast Asia -- and the consequent, devastating loss of America's credibility, both as a military power and as a reliable ally. Add to this Paul's infuriating use, in the same commentary, of the word "empire" to describe U.S. foreign policy aims -- which claim, contrary to all historic facts, rationalizes the bogus charges raised against America by communists and Islamists, giving aid and comfort to these enemies of the U.S. Add to this also Paul's indiscriminately declared hostility to "war" as such, which (regardless of his protestations) can only translate into a de facto pacifism and isolationism.

Is this foreign-policy outlook realistic? Not since about 1789.

The relentless advance of communication, transportation, satellite, and weapons technology has simply obliterated the geographic "isolationism" that was still largely possible at the time of America's founding.

When a plot hatched in remote mountains in a backward nation like Afghanistan, with conspirators drawn from places like Saudi Arabia, can bring down iconic buildings in New York and Washington, DC --

-- when Chinese rockets can "blind" in outer space the U.S. intelligence satellites that we depend on for our nation's defense --

-- when Iranian rockets and subs can threaten to shut down international shipping lanes, thereby interfering with free trade --

-- when Islamist terrorists and despots can shut down at whim international traffic in a commodity as basic as oil, etc., etc.

-- it is no longer possible to pretend we can draw any meaningful national-defense line at the water's edge. Those days are long gone.

National defense today requires the ability and willingness to project credible power globally, in direct protection of the very trade, travel, communications, and contacts among peoples that Ron Paul and many other libertarians declare to be the pillars of international relations and peace.

Without the forward projection of U.S. military power -- through foreign bases (which implies alliances), naval-carrier battle groups, special ops forces, advanced military aircraft, and first-rate intelligence agencies (which means an effective CIA, NSA, etc.) -- the "foreign-trade-and-travel" model of foreign policy prescribed by Dr. Paul and many libertarians would be revealed for the ridiculous fantasy it is.

Well, then, is this foreign-policy outlook principled?

What "principle" does it cite? A vacuous "noninterventionism" that clashes with the proper defense of U.S. interests and the individual rights of Americans? As his coercive positions on abortion and immigration underscore, Ron Paul doesn't even grasp what the principle of individual rights is all about. His is the traditional, platonic view of "natural rights" shared by many other libertarians, which tacitly equates anti-government positions with pro-liberty positions -- as if they are the same.

They aren't.

Okay, but is Ron Paul dangerous? Not politically: He hasn't a prayer of winning the GOP nomination, let alone the White House (though he could throw the general election to the Democrats if he decides to run as a third-party candidate after the primaries).

However, Ron Paul -- or, rather, what he represents -- is dangerous philosophically.

In an essay titled "The Anatomy of Compromise," philosopher Ayn Rand wrote: "When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side."

Ron Paul's public equation of vital and valid principles -- such as "individual rights," "liberty," and "free markets" -- with intellectual trash-talk about American imperialism, anti-immigrant border fences, the fetus's "right to life," and the de facto pacifism of "noninterventionism," only confuses and discredits those critical principles in the minds of millions. This is dangerous, because it obliterates the true meaning of the key moral principles that should undergird our politics and laws.

The resulting confusion -- if unchallenged -- will set back the cause of reason, individualism, and capitalism for decades to come. And that's not something we can afford as we confront the ongoing Islamist threat to our way of life. To win that war, we require, above all, moral and intellectual clarity. That clarity is something the candidacy of Ron Paul imperils, demonstrated by his following among self-proclaimed champions of individual liberty.

To paraphrase an old joke, then:

Ron Paul is my second choice for President.

My first choice is anybody else.

Post 2

Saturday, August 16, 2008 - 10:34am

"Some of the ROR members have been gung-ho in their recent postings favoring intervention in Georgia"

It's a pissing match between two authoritarian regimes. We have no dog in this fight. Let's stay the hell out of this little war.

Post 3

Saturday, August 16, 2008 - 10:50am

It's a pissing match between two authoritarian regimes.

You win the prize for moral confusion! Congratulations!

Georgia's "authoritarian" regime has:

1) Reigned in corruption and a respect for the rule of law
2) Has a booming economy due to free market principles
3) Has more political freedoms than Russia

Welcome to the club of moral relativists, I hope you enjoy your membership.

Post 4

Saturday, August 16, 2008 - 12:56pm

"It's a pissing match between two authoritarian regimes. We have no dog in this fight. Let's stay the hell out of this little war."

Whether this statement is simply blatant ignorance or an outright lie, its reckless disregard for the truth removes it and the persons who have said and sanctioned it from the realm of objective thought. Objectivism requires one to base abstract judgments on concrete evidence. Here, again, we see the isolationist premise drive a disregard for the true nature of the parties to this war, and further, to an outright lie about the nature of the Georgian government and the true scope of Russia's motives. Be an isolationist if you must. Don't lie about the facts to support your theories.

Note among the isolationists that there is no "moral" outrage against Russian actions - just against those who identify the nature of those actions and who argue for the objective necessity to take action in our self interest. The mere premise of this thread is obscene. If Georgia's peaceful independence amounts to baiting, i.e., provocation, then we might as well say that any woman who gets raped has asked for it.

Words have meanings. There is a limit to friendly disagreement. Dissent implies a disagreement in values and interpretations. Posting a scurrilous and gratuitous attack on Objectivism because it is "funny" is suspect enough. Posting outright falsehoods like that above goes beyond dissent, into careless disregard for the truth, malice, or worse.

To debate such statements implies that they are worthy of response. They are not. I call on those who honestly argue for isolationism as in our self interest to repudiate making false statements of moral equivalence based on lies about victims as in no one's self interest. Georgia is, despite lies which only flow from Russian lips, not an authoritarian regime, and no one here can show evidence that it is. I can talk to an isolationist. I will not talk to a liar.

Post 5

Saturday, August 16, 2008 - 1:37pm

John and Ted:

From wikipedia:

"The parliament has instituted wideranging political reforms supportive of higher human rights standards, because between 1992 and 2003 (before the Rose Revolution of November 23, 2003) the Georgian human rights situation had been complicated. Despite the reforms by the new government, there are still numerous problems concerning respect for human rights in the country. Prisoners are frequently maltreated, journalists are intimidated by the authorities and much of the mainstream media is owned by government supporters. The police are often accused of planting evidence, beatings and the unnecessary killing of suspects."

From Freedomhouse.org, which rates Georgia as "partly free":

"Georgia (2008)

Capital: Tbilisi

Population: 4,500,000

Political Rights Score: 4
Civil Liberties Score: 4
Status: Partly Free

Ratings Change

Georgia�s political rights rating declined from 3 to 4 due to the restrictions placed on political opposition following the November 2007 emergency declaration, and the civil liberties rating declined from 3 to 4 due to the circumscription of media and expression in the aftermath of the November protests.
Overview

Georgians took to the streets to oppose President Mikheil Saakashvili in October and November 2007, turning out in the largest numbers since the 2003 �Rose Revolution,� which swept Saakashvili to power. The authorities violently dispersed the demonstrators, causing hundreds of injuries, and imposed a state of emergency on November 7. The next day, Saakashvili called a snap presidential election for January 5, 2008. The state of emergency, which remained in place until November 16, banned all news broadcasts except state-controlled television and restricted public assembly. Also in 2007, former defense minister Irakli Okruashvili, a onetime Saakashvili ally who subsequently emerged as a principal political rival, was charged with corruption, jailed, and then quickly released. Georgia�s opposition exerted considerable pressure on Saakashvili during the year but remained unable to promote coherent alternatives to the policies of the ruling National Movement party."

Better than Russia? Surely. Better than before the Rose revolution? Yes. A shining beacon of classical liberalism, freedom of the press, and a laissez-faire government that allows liberty to flourish unhindered? Not really.

There are degrees of authoritarianism. This regime, while not as terrible as most of its neighbors, has a ways to go before I would consider it not authoritarian. Any regime which bans all news broadcasts other than government propaganda is, objectively, fairly authoritarian. Any regime that is described using the phrase "authorities violently dispersed" may not be as free as some might wish. Any regime that jails its principal political opponent on dubious charges might have a wee distance to go in obtaining unadulterated freedom.

If you're gonna accuse someone of dishonesty, as some on this site are inordinately quick to do, you might want to do some fact-checking first, and try to look at things from the perspective of those who disagree with you.

Post 6

Saturday, August 16, 2008 - 2:46pm

Freedom House has rated Georgia's freedom of the press as partly free, where as Russia's freedom of the press is "NOT FREE"

http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fop08/MOPFfinal.pdf

But I wonder, do you pick and choose what particular freedoms a country has a greater respect for before you decide it's no longer authoritarian? Would you ignore all aspects of United States' freedoms and say "well I would hardly call a country that puts so much restrictions on the economy as not authoritarian" and then presume to say an invasion of the United States by a far worse government is just a squabble between two authoritarian regimes? And that everyone else should just stay out of that war? The fact is no country is perfectly free, so the only way to morally compare countries is to rate them, and rate their historical trends, and once you do that, it's obvious which country, Russia or Georgia, is preferable here and which one has shown significant promise for future improvements.

http://www.freedomhouse.hu//images/fdh_galleries/NIT2007/nt-georgia.pdf

"Government reforms bore fruit as the World
Bank and International Finance Corporation recognized Georgia as the �best reformer�
in the world in terms of creating a better environment for business."

http://www.globalintegrity.org/reports/2006/georgia/index.cfm

"Yet no one here doubts that Georgia is better off now than when Saakashvili took over in 2003. During that year's Rose Revolution, when Saakashvili replaced Eduard Shevardnadze, Georgia was a failed state, ranking alongside Bangladesh and Nigeria as one of the most corrupt in the world. Its largest export was scrap metal"

Jim thinks he's one upped me by looking at Georgian statistics. Yet once again cherry picking facts where he didn't even previously know any! The hallmark strategy of any isolationist anarchist.

From wikipedia:

"The parliament has instituted wideranging political reforms supportive of higher human rights standards, because between 1992 and 2003 (before the Rose Revolution of November 23, 2003) the Georgian human rights situation had been complicated. Despite the reforms by the new government, there are still numerous problems concerning respect for human rights in the country. Prisoners are frequently maltreated, journalists are intimidated by the authorities and much of the mainstream media is owned by government supporters. The police are often accused of planting evidence, beatings and the unnecessary killing of suspects."

The current government of Georgia is from the Rose revolution, which has significantly cut back corruption in only 4 years.

"One day they fired all the traffic police, who were notorious for doing no work and just asking for bribes. Then two months later new patrol police were hired with new uniforms who don�t take bribes, something that is unique in former Soviet Union. Now there is 65-70% approval of the patrol police, which is remarkable considering the very low position of the police in Georgian culture,"

What do you want for 4 years? That a democratic eden be sprung up in a sea of political turmoil and corruption? In any historical context that turn around towards a stable democracy is astounding, and any salient steps towards a stable democracy should be lauded, especially steps that have been so rapidly taken, almost unprecedented even, and you sit there and ignorantly equate Georgia with Russia as both authoritarian regimes. No Jim, that is just an outright lie or plain ignorance. And now Russia threatens to undo all the progress that was made in Georgia.

From Freedomhouse.org, which rates Georgia as "partly free":

"Georgia (2008)

Capital: Tbilisi

Population: 4,500,000

Political Rights Score: 4
Civil Liberties Score: 4
Status: Partly Free

From Freedomhouse.org rates Russia as "NOT FREE", not partly free, just outright "NOT FREE"

Russia:

Political Rights Score: 6
Civil Liberties Score: 5
Status: Not Free
Trend Arrow

Russia received a downward trend arrow for the Kremlin�s stage-managed parliamentary election campaign, which left very little room for opposition parties to criticize the authorities or take their message to the people.

Overview

"The 2007 State Duma elections marked a new low in the Kremlin�s manipulations of the political process. The authorities sharply restricted outside election observers and ensured that the campaign environment favored Kremlin-backed parties, which won the vast majority of seats. More ominously for Russian democracy, President Vladimir Putin announced that he intended to remain on the political stage after his second term ended in 2008. Putin�s continued tenure would benefit the circle of security-agency veterans he has appointed to top positions in the government and state-owned enterprises and set Russia on a firmly authoritarian course. During the year, the authorities continued to place strict limits on opposition political parties, public demonstrations, the media, and nongovernmental organizations, and failed to launch any serious initiatives to address Russia�s extensive corruption."

Better than Russia? Surely.

Which means they are not morally equivalent.

Better than before the Rose revolution? Yes.

Which means they were on the road of progress towards a full fledged free democratic society, no doubt further reforms would have been made to incentivize Georgia to meet admission standards into the EU, whereas Russia has regressed into a state of Fascism.

A shining beacon of classical liberalism, freedom of the press, and a laissez-faire government that allows liberty to flourish unhindered? Not really.

What country is a laissez-faire government? Not even you think the United States is, and neither do I. So what are you standards? Would you also morally equate the United States with Russia and call our country an authoritative government? Talk about moving the goal post. I didn't know for anyone to give a damn about a country it has to be an ideal utopia of perfect freedom.

If you're gonna accuse someone of dishonesty, as some on this site are inordinately quick to do, you might want to do some fact-checking first

You are being dishonest, and as I stated in a post weeks before you even ignorantly opined on this issue:

So believe me, before you spouted your ignorance and tacit moral argument of equivalence between the two nations, and then after I challenged your atrociously ignorant statements, you then googled freedomhouse.org and looked at the data, only then did you realize they were not morally equivalent, but that you still think Georgia deserves no credit for their reforms.

This regime, while not as terrible as most of its neighbors, has a ways to go before I would consider it not authoritarian. Any regime which bans all news broadcasts other than government propaganda.

Post 7

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 4:48am

John responded to this by posting Robert Bidinotto's Blog's article on Blowback.

That article is NOT up to Mr. Bidinotto's usual standards. There is some very sloppy thinking. It really shouldn't have been posted here in full, because it is mostly an attack on Ron Paul, who has been our only steadfast supporter of Individual rights in Washington - period. I don't agree with Ron Paul's position on abortion and probably on other items as well. But the attack against him is neither logical nor fair.

First, those who mention "blowback" - a term from the CIA - are not saying it is a substitute for choice. When Mr. Bidinotto lumps Ron Paul with sociologists who were attempting to demonstrate that some form of determinism was at the heart of criminal behavior, he commits an awful error that slanders Ron Paul. The socialists were explicitly denying choice. Ron Paul has always supported the concept of human choice and made calls for personal responsibility and laws that recognize this. His blowback remarks were pointing out that there are consequences to playing the part of world policeman and the consequences need to considered. When a person gets bitten by a vicious dog, the dog gets the causal blame, but if the person stuck his hand into the dogs cage, that person shouldn't get their panties in a knot when people point out that might be a consequence. Keep in mind that Ron Paul voted for using Military force against terrorists and added suggestions like authorizing the president to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific terrorists. This man is not claiming that terrorist couldn't help themselves or that we "caused" the attacks on us. That is a vicious misinterpretation by people for whatever agenda they may have.

Bidinotto's article says, "The manipulative use, by Paul and too many libertarians, of vague, undefined smear terms such as "interventionist" and "neocon" permits them to blame the U.S. government for virtually anything it does in our legitimate, long-term self-defense, anywhere in the world." Let's take a look at that. Is it wrong to conceptualize a political position? There are people who want to intervene militarily when we are not under attack (witness many of the response on many of the threads that are about Georgia - which in case you've forgotten, is what this thread was about - not Ron Paul). Evidently not. But it is okay to use the word Libertarian, or liberal, or conservative, or pro-choice, but not Neocon. It is okay to use the phrase Pacificist (next paragraph) but not interventionist. Gee, guess it is about whose ox is getting gored.

And take a good look at the phrase, "long-term self-defense" - that is a phrase you can really hide bushels of sin under. It is almost as bad as "national security." We build weapons and maintain armed forces as long-term ability to defend ourselves, but the actual self-defense can not begin until a specific threat is eminent. Maybe that is what the interventionists want people to forget. If they actually had to create self-defense arguments for military intervention in, say, Georgia, that would be tougher than smearing Ron Paul.

Bidinotto goes on to lump together all military actions as supposedly "interventions," like WW II so as to continue to paint Ron Paul, and thereby, non-interventionists as pacifists. Completely ignoring those who are non-interventionists that believe in a strong self-defense. Note that he doesn't specifically attribute these positions to Ron Paul and I guess it doesn't bother him that Ron Paul gets painted with someone else's brush.

Mr. Bidinotto goes on to say, "Part of the sloppy thinking at the root of "noninterventionist" lunacy is the tacit equation of individual rights with "national sovereignty" and "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." Well, the sloppy thinking belongs to Mr. Bidinotto because it the lack of legitimacy of a foreign government isn't the moral justification or practical reason or the constitutional legitimacy for military intervention. This is child's play to establish - Just answer this question: "Is is acceptable for any, say neocon, commander in chief to launch some form of military adventure in a foreign land, on the basis of some personal whim - given that it is a dictatorship in that foreign land?" If you answer, "No," then you have confirmed that other factors are involved, like the action's constitutionality, the issue of our national self-interest (Rand did not think we should have gone to war in Vietnam, for example, even though North Vietnam was an evil aggressor nation), and the issue of our self-defense requiring the action?

There is much more that's wrong with that article, but I didn't start this post to defend Ron Paul, who should not have been subjected to that kind of attack.

What needs to be addressed are the issues of what would it take to meet rational standards of constitutionality, national self-interest, moral justification and self-defense to make a military intervention in Georgia.

Post 8

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 5:09am

Ted,

You said, "Note among the isolationists that there is no "moral" outrage against Russian actions - just against those who identify the nature of those actions and who argue for the objective necessity to take action in our self interest. The mere premise of this thread is obscene."

One could just as easily say, "Note among the interventionists that there is no "moral" outrage against the call for American sacrifice or the destruction of our economy or the loss of our rights - just against those who identify the nature of those actions and who argue for the objective necessity to NOT take actions unless they are in our self interest and our self defense. That such a thread is needed on an Objectivist forum is obscene."

The only proper purpose of government is the protection of the rights of its citizens. That is NOT accomplished by going to war in foreign lands when our self-defense does not require it. If someone says that Russia and Georgia are moral equivalents they are wrong, if someone implies that you cannot point out any shortcoming or wrong on the part of Georgia without being damned, that is a PC-type attitude and unfair, BUT both positions miss the point - this isn't about Georgia or Russia, it is about America's self-interest and self-defense.

Post 9

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 6:32am

It really shouldn't have been posted here in full, because it is mostly an attack on Ron Paul, who has been our only steadfast supporter of Individual rights in Washington - period.

Inside Washington, and U.S. boarders, yes. Outside, not so much, or it gets very fuzzy very fast. If you don't participate in the global market I can see why Paul would be appealing, but if you do participate, Paul might make one nervous.

Post 10

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 9:38am

Referring to Ron Paul's support of individual rights, Teresa said, "Inside Washington, and U.S. boarders, yes. Outside, not so much, or it gets very fuzzy very fast. If you don't participate in the global market I can see why Paul would be appealing, but if you do participate, Paul might make one nervous."

I remember Ron Paul responding to someone calling him an isolationist, his reply was that he was only interested in isolating the government's interference in people's activities, but that he was the opposite of an isolationist when it came to free trade. With markets having gone global, I much prefer a free market candidate (Paul is the author of a number of books on Austrian Economics). Just as government screw things up when they mess about in our economy, the also mess things up when they mess in global markets and foreign affairs.

To me, support of individual rights takes precedence over everything else - that is the heart of it.

Post 11

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 10:43am

I remember Ron Paul responding to someone calling him an isolationist, his reply was that he was only interested in isolating the government's interference in people's activities, but that he was the opposite of an isolationist when it came to free trade.

He speaks as if there are no threats to American trade interests anywhere at all. It's so naive.

Like a cartoon of the devil opening the door to hell and saying, with a grin, "you're free to trade in there!" As if anyone with any sense would go.

Post 12

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 11:59am

A recurring head-in-the-sandism of isolationists is the premise that every threat is best dealt with by �leaving it alone in its cage.� The unstated premise is that the dog can�t or won�t get out, and the only way to get hurt is by mucking in his business.

Steve wrote: �When a person gets bitten by a vicious dog, the dog gets the causal blame, but if the person stuck his hand into the dogs cage, that person shouldn't get their panties in a knot when people point out that might be a consequence.�

Steve earlier quoted favorably from Pat Buchannan�s book about World War II. The theme of that book is that the allies instigated the war. The premise required to pull this off is that Hitler would have stayed in his cage were it not for the taunting of the allies.

The central and eastern nations of Europe who spent the twentieth century with their throats under the boot of the Russians are right now very concerned about a resurgent Russia. The presidents of several of those nations, I believe Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine and Poland all traveled to Tbilisi to offer support to the embattled Georgians.

Should any of them, or the US, or NATO, go to war right now in Georgia? I doubt we should. I doubt any of those arguing on this forum would say we should.

But we certainly can do better than selling ALL OF THEM down the river by �end[ing] our involvement in NATO� as Steve suggested last week.

None of this gets through to the isolationist, though, because of the premise that the dog is caged and won�t come out unless someone makes the mistake of agitating it.

Of course, the dog can get out. The only question is: Should we let him see us picking up a big stick, or stringing up our sneakers?

Post 13

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 12:06pm

"He speaks as if there are no threats to American trade interests anywhere at all. It's so naive."

What is naive is thinking that one can use "threats to American trade interests" as a principle to replace individual rights and self-defense and not become the devil our self.

Every government on the planet violates individual rights to fairly significant degrees. Europe bent Microsoft over the same barrel that the US had used - a kind of Anti-Trust barrel - and took the stock-holders for millions. So almost every nation can be called a "threat to American trade interests" - and after you throw out the principle of self-defense, that fuzzy logic of 'trade interests' means we should be at war with almost every nation on earth. And we would no longer even remotely resemble a nation built on individual rights.

Post 14

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 12:24pm

Jon,

You should get your facts straight before you start your name-calling. I have not quoted Buchanan's book - I posted a link to an article on his web-site and it is about Georgia - not WW II. I don't agree with Buchanan on WW II but don't let the facts get in your way.

Jon says he "doubts" that we should go to war over Georgia - Well, I'm surprised he has doubts - I don't. I can say with certainty that we should NOT go to war over Georgia. And I have given the principles behind that position. It is the interventionists that leave things in a murky, doubtful state until war somehow sneaks up on them.

He says we should not sell the nations of Europe down the river by leaving NATO. That is a perfect example of why interventionism is altruistic at root. It will sacrifice American lives and fortune on behalf of other countries.

None of this gets through to the interventionist, of course, they are too enamored of beating up on evil with their big sticks, blind to the costs, and too far past remembering that Objectivists are opposed to initiation of violence unless attacked and that rational self-interest doesn't translate into sacrifices to save other nations.

Post 15

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 12:46pm

Again with the altruism. It couldn�t possibly be in our self-interest to maintain security pacts and prevent Europe falling to tyranny�no, it�s altruism to act to prevent that. Let�s see, �Europe�, let�s see, I have my Atlas here, Europe, um, no that�s not part of America, therefore�altruism!

Why do you disagree with Buchanan on World War II? It�s just a strip of Czechoslovakia. It�s just Poland, France. Britain is not part of America. Surely Hitler would have left us alone had we not taunted him by our altruistic helping of Britain.

Where exactly do you disagree with him?

Post 16

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 12:49pm

Steve:

That article is NOT up to Mr. Bidinotto's usual standards. There is some very sloppy thinking.

Every one of your arguments for isolationism is sloppy thinking and not up to your usual standards.

When a person gets bitten by a vicious dog, the dog gets the causal blame, but if the person stuck his hand into the dogs cage, that person shouldn't get their panties in a knot when people point out that might be a consequence.

I would be hesitant to use any analogies comparing human adults to vicious dogs. It shifts the culpability from the initiator of violence to the victim. As if Russians were animals and not human adults, and thus we can't hold them accountable for their belligerence. Instead we should hold ourselves accountable for acting as a civilized nation.

This man is not claiming that terrorist couldn't help themselves or that we "caused" the attacks on us.

Actually he did, and so are you. The analogy of "sticking our hand in the dog cage" is actually a euphemism for "exercising our right to trade peacefully with other nations and enter into peaceful alliances with them". It is no different than legitimatizing a gang of thugs robbing a convenience store by blaming the owner for building his store in such a rough neighborhood. Either we have a right to trade peacefully with nations and enter into diplomatic relations with them, or we do not. And if a fascist nation threatens that relationship, we have a moral right to act.

(Rand did not think we should have gone to war in Vietnam, for example, even though North Vietnam was an evil aggressor nation)

She said that because she didn't think South Vietnam understood the ideals of a free society and thus it wasn't worth defending, but in that very same essay (published in The Voice of Reason) she defended American interventionism in defending Israel from Communist backed Arab nations and Taiwan from Communist China.

So here we have a disagreement over the concretes between me and Rand (which particular nation is worthy of our help for their defense because it serves our interests) whereas you think no nation outside of our own is worthy of our help for their defense because it is never in our interests.

So you can't cherry pick Rand's concrete positions and claim the moral high ground because Rand would agree with you on principle, because she didn't.

What needs to be addressed are the issues of what would it take to meet rational standards of constitutionality, national self-interest, moral justification and self-defense to make a military intervention in Georgia.

Many people who advocate assistance to Georgia do not exclusively call for military action. It doesn't have to be military intervention and we have no idea what the Russians will ultimately do here in Georgia so it is premature to say either way (although it is starting to look like the Tbilisi airlift is convincing Russia to back off). It could just be economic intervention (supplying Georgia, giving them arms and supplies, etc) or diplomatic intervention (putting Georgia on a path to NATO membership if they meet certain milestones for democratic progress, kicking Russia out of the G8 and ending any cooperation with them on a missile defense system, etc).

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/17, 12:55pm)

Post 17

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 12:56pm

Gentlemen, continuing to post on this thread is a form of altruism, giving to much credit to a premise (being free as somehow "bear baiting") which doesn't deserve such serious treatment, and continuing the discusssion in a narrower context than is available in the War in Georgia thread.

Post 18

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 1:17pm

Here is an example of an interventionist's thinking:

"Many people who advocate assistance to Georgia do not exclusively call for military action." Note the weasel words, "Many" and "exclusively" - they tell you what you need to know about the intent to use military action. "It doesn't have to be military intervention [but it could be] and we have no idea what the Russians will ultimately do here in Georgia [let ignorance be our cover] so it is premature to say either way [let chance or others dictate our future].

Post 19

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 1:27pm