RoR: Forum

Here’s an example of an isolationist’s thinking:

‘When a rabid dog gets out of its cage, so long as you run faster than your friends do, everything will turn out just fine.’

Post 21

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 1:43pm

Just to clarify, in one of my posts, I suggested that the Russian attack might have been encouraged by the failure of moral will exemplified in the U.S. failure to call the Chinese dictators on various issues. Please do not take this as any endorsement on my side for either Russians or Georgians. I suspect that when all the facts are known (yeah, right, as if) the Buchanan analysis will be pretty close to the mark.

I support secessions in general. If people want to seceed from a state, why not? State's only (alleged) justification is the services they provide. They don't own the citizens - or whoever they declare to be a citizen.

At the same time, there is an uncomfortable degree of nationalism bordering on racism behind both the secession and the responses by both Georgia and Russia. What about the non-ethnic Russians in the breakaway regions? There are reports of native Georgians being the targets of various kinds of attacks, just for being Georgian in origin. This kind of rabid nationalism seems to generally lead right into ethnic cleansing. See "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning." by Chris Hedges for a detailed description of how this happens.

One solution might that used in Vanuatu under joint British/French/Vanuatuan rule, in which there were three authorities, each with its own court system, and a set of rules and procedures for setting up joint courts when various parties to a case selected different venues. Let the ethnic Russians set up their own courts and the Georgians theirs, and let the two sides collaborate in choosing a joint tribunal or whatever as necessary. Works in arbitration.

Post 22

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 2:05pm

The Facts are Their Enemies.

"Forced exile, starvation, slavery and murder are on the same level of violations as tax and spend policies? Are you serious?"

When you begin with the premise, and then have to work backwards to the facts, this is the mess that you get into.

"I support secessions in general. If people want to secede from a state, why not? State's only (alleged) justification is the services they provide. They don't own the citizens - or whoever they declare to be a citizen."

Supporting secessions in general means this, and only this: support for civil war in general. If secession has any meaning, it means the establishment of a new separate sovereignty. What happens when two sovereign entities disagree? The answer is a three letter word.

"One solution might that used in Vanuatu under joint British/French/Vanuatuan rule, in which there were three authorities, each with its own court system, and a set of rules and procedures for setting up joint courts when various parties to a case selected different venues. Let the ethnic Russians set up their own courts and the Georgians theirs, and let the two sides collaborate in choosing a joint tribunal or whatever as necessary. Works in arbitration."

Absurd. Again, we get the presumption that the forms of free society are already in place, that the disagreement is not over essentials - whether the rule of law even applies - but over some hair-brained libertarian jurisdictional sharing scheme might be the "answer." THE RUSSIANS DON'T WANT TO SHARE.

And besides, this is not about ethnic Russians being "oppressed," it's about the ambitions of ethnic Ossetians (Ever heard of them? - No? - The concrete facts don't matter here?) being used as a vehicle for Russian expansionism. Mother Russia will let you have your local ethnic enclave, just kiss the dictator's ring. No different from the mob setting up a petty street thug to rule his block, so long as he pays the boss.

Over and over again, you isolationists prove that you don't know the facts, that you'll make up the facts, and that facts just don't matter - you have your floating ideals - and the one thing you won't accept is being called on it. The facts are your enemies.

Post 23

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 2:51pm

Steve:

"Many people who advocate assistance to Georgia do not exclusively call for military action." Note the weasel words, "Many" and "exclusively"

What's weaselly about them? I don't get it. I'm only establishing that 1) There is not a consensus on what concretely intervention should mean to those who call for intervention as opposed to you that calls for ZERO intervention in ANY context with ANY concrete action 2) My words are a recognition of a benefit-cost analysis approach to any particular strategy to intervention since we are not an omnipotent nation (we could also just send a nuclear strike into Moscow, but that would be suicidally stupid). The fact is the philosophical principles that should guide a proper foreign policy are not falsified because there is a disagreement over particular strategies and tactics in that intervention.

What I have a problem with is isolationists acting as if we are gung-ho blood thirsty militant brutes that presume the United States is omnipotent and can do anything. And while there are some that carry that attitude, that's not mine. There is a rational approach that can be used here and it shouldn't be guided by context-less intrinsicists by either side of the debate. The problem here is you think no nation outside of our own is worthy of our help for their defense because it can never be in our interests.

"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]

Steve you're just being disingenuous. I'm only recognizing we do not have omniscience (do you?) so therefore I'm saying our actions should be guided by what Russia decides to do. Right now the Tbilisi airlift seems to be working since Russia announced it will withdraw its forces tomorrow (ultimately I don't know if they will, I can only hope the strategy used will work, do you have a crystal ball that says Russia will honor their word tomorrow?) Explain to me how recognizing the reality we are not omniscient as weaselly?

.so it is premature to say either way [let chance or others dictate our future].

I am not saying let chance dictate our future, I'm saying let us take a rational approach in response to Russian actions. That's not chance, that's using a reasoned method for deciding what is the best available strategic option there is in response to the reality we are given.

Post 24

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 2:58pm

And besides, this is not about ethnic Russians being "oppressed," it's about the ambitions of ethnic Ossetians

Which I'd like to point out the moral hypocrisy of Russia which gave no such courtesy to Chechnyan ambitions. Russia has no moral high ground here to claim they are helping Ossetians out in their quest for self-determination since they squashed Chechnyan ambitions.

Post 25

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 10:11pm

Teresa,

Pay attention - no where do I say or imply moral equivalency in that statement. Either you are ignorant of what "moral equivalency" means (and I can tell by your usage that this is NOT the case), or you were flat out not paying attention and shot from the hip without thinking, or you chose to be dishonest.

I said, "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."

I said that the measure of violations of individual rights is above a certain level, not that they are the same. I am clearly saying that without self-defense you have no moral compass to guide your actions. I'm saying that 'threats to trade interests' isn't a substitute for the principle of self-defense. Nothing in there says that some nations are barbaric, hideous nightmares of human injustice deserving of NO moral consideration and not in any way legitimate governments. Nothing in there says that some governments aren't mostly acceptable places to live and mostly civilized despite engaging in violations of individual rights in less severe, but still significant ways, like trade protectionism, for example.

I'll be curious to see if people actually debate the principles instead of making false accusations.

I'll be very curious to see if you have the honesty to admit that your accusation was in fact not warranted.

Post 26

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 10:36pm

John says, "The fact is the philosophical principles that should guide a proper foreign policy are not falsified because there is a disagreement over particular strategies and tactics in that intervention."

I'm saying that those advocating interventionism have NOT supplied any principles that effectively guide us in WHEN to intervene since they have thrown out the concept of self-defense.

John is saying "...you that calls for ZERO intervention in ANY context with ANY concrete action", but that is NOT true. I use the principle of self-defense to determine WHEN to take military action - that gives me a principle whereby I can analyze ANY context and ANY concrete action.

Rational debate means understanding terms you use and using them appropriately - unlike where John calls all his opponents in this debate "context-less intrinsicists."

Another good feature of a rational debate is actually getting the other side's argument. John says, "The problem here is you think no nation outside of our own is worthy of our help for their defense because it can never be in our interests." John, I think that a rational morality has to be founded upon rational self-interest. "Worthy" is a term you are using in the context of moral justification of an act that is sacrificial (spending our fortunes and lives to save another). I have also argued about constitutionality and the proper role of government being limited by protection of OUR individual rights (self-defense means 'self')

Post 27

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 8:41am