Libertarianism and the balance between individual rights and anti-interventionism

[senorsheep]

So that's where I struggle a lot. How can one morally embrace the core principles of libertarianism and simultaneously commit to isolationism even in the face of genocide or other instances of rampant and draconian abuses of human/individual rights around the world.

We belong to an international body that is charged with handling these types of crises. We should address global problems through that framework. If that framework is not sufficiently effective, then we should work with our international partners to make the framework more effective.

[B-Fly]

We belong to an international body that is charged with handling these types of crises. We should address global problems through that framework. If that framework is not sufficiently effective, then we should work with our international partners to make the framework more effective.

Is strengthening the UN's ability to affirmatively and, where all else fails, militarily, confront genocide and other rampant and/or draconian abuses of human/individual rights around the world a common plank in the Libertarian platform?

[senorsheep]

Is strengthening the UN's ability to affirmatively and, where all else fails, militarily, confront genocide and other rampant and/or draconian abuses of human/individual rights around the world a common plank in the Libertarian platform?

I dunno. I don't belong to their party. I just happen to agree with a lot of their basic principles. I wasn't speaking for all libertarians. I was just speaking for me.

I'm willing to entertain proposals to strengthen the UN's ability to respond to global crises, so long as they're effective, and won't compromise our national interests.

[B-Fly]

I dunno. I don't belong to their party. I just happen to agree with a lot of their basic principles. I wasn't speaking for all libertarians. I was just speaking for me.

I'm willing to entertain proposals to strengthen the UN's ability to respond to global crises, so long as they're effective, and don't compromise our national interests.

Got it. I have mixed feelings, primarily based on my distrust of the UN's record on Israel, but I'm open to the discussion.

[senorsheep]

Got it. I have mixed feelings, primarily based on my distrust of the UN's record on Israel, but I'm open to the discussion.

I distrust the UN's record on Israel, too. They'd have to address that and other problems before I'd be willing to grant them more power to pick and choose which battles to fight, and how to fight them. Is there a way to eliminate, or at least reduce, bias and corruption at the UN? Those seem to be pretty basic human problems that are likely not fixable, IMO. So, there's the argument in favor of American cowboy diplomacy. Unfortunately, I think we've proven to be no better at choosing battles and fighting them effectively than the UN. So, then what?

Given these realities, I think the best we can do is to lead by example, and show the world how free democracy can prevent problems like genocide in the first place. Sadly, we are currently doing a piss poor job at being the shining example for free democracy. I guess the first step is to fix ourselves. It makes me sad to think how many new global crises will blow up in the time it will take to sort that out. I wish I had a better answer.

[B-Fly]

I distrust the UN's record on Israel, too. They'd have to address that and other problems before I'd be willing to grant them more power to pick and choose which battles to fight, and how to fight them. Is there a way to eliminate, or at least reduce, bias and corruption at the UN? Those seem to be pretty basic human problems that are likely not fixable, IMO. So, there's the argument in favor of American cowboy diplomacy. Unfortunately, I think we've proven to be no better at choosing battles and fighting them effectively than the UN. So, then what?

Given these realities, I think the best we can do is to lead by example, and show the world how free democracy can prevent problems like genocide in the first place. Sadly, we are currently doing a piss poor job at being the shining example for free democracy. I guess the first step is to fix ourselves. It makes me sad to think how many new global crises will blow up in the time it will take to sort that out. I wish I had a better answer.

My heritage weighs on me here, too. I don't read what you've written as remotely suggesting, for example, that the US shouldn't have joined the fight against Hitler earlier, but I can't help but think of that example and then "smaller" genocides like Rwanda without feeling like there has to be some moral obligation to act.

[senorsheep]

My heritage weighs on me here, too. I don't read what you've written as remotely suggesting, for example, that the US shouldn't have joined the fight against Hitler earlier, but I can't help but think of that example and then "smaller" genocides like Rwanda without feeling like there has to be some moral obligation to act.

Our pre-Pearl Harbor isolationist stance towards Hitler was the wrong play in that set of circumstances. There was little moral ambiguity about what what happening - one clear aggressor was committing genocide against a clear victim class and militarily dominating surrounding countries. There was little ambiguity about what needed to be done to stop Hitler - smash his army, destroy his political regime, and kill him. And we had the means to do what needed to be done to solve the problem. And it was clear that the League Of Nations had no resolve to carry out its function.

In modern day global crises, it's often not clear who has the moral imperative in interfactional conflicts that have roots going back centuries until one side effectively dominates the other. It's often not clear what the correct course of action is. These complicated conflicts usually can't be resolved by simply rolling the military in and smashing infrastructure, or killing one figurehead. And bad guys everywhere have largely figured out the template for thwarting our military occupations. Plus, for all its faults, the UN will usually at least attempt to intervene in some manner when things get too dire, so there is an alternative to US intervention. And, by the way, we've killed our golden goose - we're broke, and we can't even address the needs of our own people.

I appreciate your desire to help people in crisis, but IMO we're just not sufficiently equipped to handle today's Syrias and Yemens and Ethiopias effectively on our own.

[DMT]

Our pre-Pearl Harbor isolationist stance towards Hitler was the wrong play in that set of circumstances. There was little moral ambiguity about what what happening - one clear aggressor was committing genocide against a clear victim class and militarily dominating surrounding countries. There was little ambiguity about what needed to be done to stop Hitler - smash his army, destroy his political regime, and kill him. And we had the means to do what needed to be done to solve the problem. And it was clear that the League Of Nations had no resolve to carry out its function.

In modern day global crises, it's often not clear who has the moral imperative in interfactional conflicts that have roots going back centuries until one side effectively dominates the other. It's often not clear what the correct course of action is. These complicated conflicts usually can't be resolved by simply rolling the military in and smashing infrastructure, or killing one figurehead. And bad guys everywhere have largely figured out the template for thwarting our military occupations. Plus, for all its faults, the UN will usually at least attempt to intervene in some manner when things get too dire, so there is an alternative to US intervention. And, by the way, we've killed our golden goose - we're broke, and we can't even address the needs of our own people.

I appreciate your desire to help people in crisis, but IMO we're just not sufficiently equipped to handle today's Syrias and Yemens and Ethiopias effectively on our own.

[DMT]

The Pentagon's Long Con

https://www.thenation.com/article/tom-dispatch-military-industrial-complex-pentagon-long-con/

[Kevin Seitzer]

I'm reading a biography of Ernest Lawrence, and one of the things that deeply saddens me about the legacy of what otherwise could have been a great scientist is how enthusiastically he endorsed the beginnings of the military-industrial complex, because he thought the flow of money from the government would benefit scientific research, and how he participated in destroying the careers of those, especially Robert Oppenheimer, who opposed the military-industrial-science linkage both on humanitarian principles and on the principle that it would corrupt the scientific research.

[The Feral Slasher]

What a surprise

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/

A confidential trove of government documents obtained by The Washington Post reveals that senior U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.

[The Feral Slasher]

What a surprise

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/

A confidential trove of government documents obtained by The Washington Post reveals that senior U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.

“We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan — we didn’t know what we were doing,” Douglas Lute, a three-star Army general who served as the White House’s Afghan war czar during the Bush and Obama administrations, told government interviewers in 2015. He added: “What are we trying to do here? We didn’t have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking.”

“If the American people knew the magnitude of this dysfunction . . . 2,400 lives lost,” Lute added, blaming the deaths of U.S. military personnel on bureaucratic breakdowns among Congress, the Pentagon and the State Department. “Who will say this was in vain?”

[DMT]

Too bad plenty of people were calling this a disaster even before it began. But of course no one wants to acknowledge we were right. The talking heads, most of whom supported this war in its entirety, remain in their positions of influence. Sickening.

[The Feral Slasher]

Too bad plenty of people were calling this a disaster even before it began. But of course no one wants to acknowledge we were right. The talking heads, most of whom supported this war in its entirety, remain in their positions of influence. Sickening.

If only Bob Kohm could explain to all these insiders that they are naive and clueless and victory in Afghanistan is right around the corner.

[nots]

The first year or so was probably necessary in my non-interventionist mind, but after that it’s been a colossal waste of troops and money. Of course getting Republicans to admit it was wrong under Bush or Democrats to admit that tripling the troops under Obama was wrong ain’t gonna happen.