Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I agree that Hillary (and most Democrats and Republicans) could do with a little review of Hayek. It would also help if the people who claim to believe his ideas would also apply them more consistently. Hayek doesn't stop at the water's edge.

But what would I know?

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at January 22, 2008 08:33 AM

You are too subtle Jon. Let me be more blunt. This piece brings to mind one of the great ironies of this blog. On the one hand many posters, here, argue against the intrusion of government in people's lives using Hayek like justifications, a stance I agree with. Yet, many of those same posters argue that same government is somehow capable of solving other peoples problems overseas. Is there a dichotomy here.

Posted by Jardinero1 at January 22, 2008 09:14 AM

Quite clearly 'overseas problems' stemming, say, from dictators and totalitarian regimes are a result of the people of those nations selecting dictators and totalitarian regimes. Atrocious thieving murderous government for benighted nations is obviously the natural order, therefore nothing should be done to try and ameliorate that situation. Ever. And most certainly not when the dictators threaten the security of other states.

Let me hide under this rock here. Then everything will be OK.

/clueless isolationist mode off

Posted by Crispytoast at January 22, 2008 09:38 AM

Non intervention is not the same as isolationist.

I too see the foreign/domestic intellectual hypocrisy here.

Paul

Posted by Paul Breed at January 22, 2008 09:47 AM

Yet, many of those same posters argue that same government is somehow capable of solving other peoples problems overseas.

That reminds me of a retort to the saw "Violence doesn't solve anything"; while it may not solve anything it sure does accomplish a great deal.

Posted by Brian at January 22, 2008 10:09 AM

Be careful, Paul, of making subtle distinctions or you will find yourself the subject of an ad hominem attack.

The question I have for such an obvious humanitarian as Crispytoast is how far would he carry his interventionism? There are a lot of despotic regimes out there threatening their neighbors. Where do we draw the line? Who gets left out from our assistance?

What of our so-called allies? Why do they get a free ride? Why don't we pursue the enablers of the despots like the Russians and the Chinese. Aren't they the real problem since they provide comfort and support to the dictators and totalitarian regimes.

Posted by Jardinero1 at January 22, 2008 10:10 AM

Ah yes, "non-interventionist". Just the worst part of isolationism, the collective abdication by a great, powerful and worthy nation of any notion of responsibility towards others.

Posted by Crispytoast at January 22, 2008 10:12 AM

Yes, Jardinero, you are correct. It's more ideologically pure to just say 'screw them all', rather than try to make decisions and prioritize and help where you can.

Posted by Crispytoast at January 22, 2008 10:15 AM

Crispytoast:

Under a rational system of governance, if you wish to help the people oppressed by atrocious thieving government in benighted nations

...you will not be stopped.

Posted by Simon Jester at January 22, 2008 10:16 AM

Be careful, Paul, of making subtle distinctions or you will find yourself the subject of an ad hominem attack.

"The Russians"? "The Chinese"? Those sound more like broad, sweeping ethnic stereotypes than "subtle distinctions."

As someone with a Russian middle name, I'm compelled to ask, how am I providing comfort and support to dictators and totalitarian regimes? Details, please.
Posted by Edward Wright at January 22, 2008 12:31 PM

How would it help our economy to stop foreign aid to countries that openly defy us and hate us, and drop taxation down?

Posted by Steve at January 22, 2008 12:54 PM

One comment in the article caught my eye:

The sentimentalist cannot wrap his mind, or his heart, around that datum. He (or she) cannot understand why “society” shouldn’t favor “cooperation” (a pleasing-sounding arrangement) over “competition” (much harsher), since in any competition there are losers, which is bad, and winners, which may be even worse.

I think this is an important insight. Somehow, the idea of competition in capitalism has gotten an unfair bad rap, while "cooperation" in socialism has gotten a ridiculous good reputation. We need to work to reverse these reputations.

People see companies failing and people losing ("loosing--" heh) jobs and think "that is bad." People see (mostly false) security in socialism and think "that is good."

However they are wrong. First of course is the obvious historical evidence that shows capitalism is much better at producing things for everybody and so everybody is better off in the long run, even if businesses fail and people lose their jobs. But the following argument is just as important and maybe even more compelling on a personal and short term basis. If your company goes under and you lose your job, this might be painful but it is not "bad--" in fact, it is good. This is the market's way of saying to the individual "what you are doing is wasting your time--go and find something more useful to spend your time on." I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't want to spend my life working in a useless job--I want to be productive and useful. Capitalism helps people spend their lives in productive and useful ways instead of unproductive and useless ways. Socialism does the opposite--it tries to put individuals in less productive and less useful jobs, and it tries to remove incentive and opportunity to move to more productive and more useful jobs.

I had a similar discussion with a friend about public school teachers. It seems, at least in Albuquerque, that public school teachers are pretty much never fired. Albuquerque Public Schools is one of the largest public school districts in the nation (most other cities our size have many school districts). Surely there are a few teachers each year that should be fired. But the point here isn't that the teachers that should be fired are bad and useless individuals. It's just that perhaps they shouldn't be, believe it or not, teachers. How many teachers work for APS each day, disliking the kids, disliking the job, but liking the security of a government job that is almost impossible to get fired from? How many disgruntled APS teachers would make great accountants, great day care administrators, great car salesmen, great store managers, great restaurant owners or who knows what else, if only they got fired from teaching?

Of course, now I'll probably learn in the near future that capitalism has decided I should go find something more useful to do with my time...

Posted by Jeff Mauldin at January 22, 2008 12:58 PM

The flip side of Jon's point is that if intervention abroad is sometimes justified abroad, it is also sometimes justified at home.

Posted by at January 22, 2008 01:28 PM

The flip side of Jon's point is that if intervention abroad is sometimes justified abroad, it is also sometimes justified at home.

Most people who want the government to intervene to protect Americans abroad also want the government to protect Americans at home. (Most people who support the military also support the police.)

So, I don't understand your point unless you're saying that if the government does one thing (defense), it must do everything. Most people recognize options other than totalitarianism and anarchy, however. The notion of a legitimate but limited role for government goes back hundreds of years (and was the guiding principle recognized by the Founding Fathers).

Posted by Edward Wright at January 22, 2008 01:56 PM

Foreign aid can be said to be equivalent to welfare.

Rejecting national sovereignty as an excuse for bad behavior might *sometimes* be equivalent to rejecting state's rights as an excuse for bad behavior at home.

Posted by at January 22, 2008 02:04 PM

Intervention goes beyond using the military, or at least, using the military in its traditional role.

If we look to the U.S. federal government to solve problems abroad, we might well look to the U.S. federal government to solve problems at home.

The federal government has a mixed track record at home and abroad -- there are good reasons to tone down the ideology and look for pragmatic non-ideological solutions to particular problems.

Posted by at January 22, 2008 02:17 PM

Ed,
"Altruistic" foreign intervention is often justified on the same grounds that "altruistic" domestic economic intervention is justified. We are a strong nation with lots of resources, the argument goes, so why can't we end poverty? We can afford it after all, and isn't it our moral obligation, etc., etc.

If I believed that all the US military was doing was truly "defense", I wouldn't have a problem with it. Just as if all police were doing were protecting the rights of citizens (as opposed to doing occasional night-time, no-knock raids to *suspected* drug users), I wouldn't have a beef with them either.

The problem is that as soon as you start down that slippery slope of humanitarian intervention abroad, the question legitimately becomes, why not at home?

Me, I think neither are that intelligent. Sure, there are bad regimes out there that oppress their people. But the US government has no more moral obligation to do something about that than they do to make sure that there is a chicken in every pot and a car in every driveway at home.

But I don't exactly expect to persuade anyone in this crowd to change their minds, I'm pretty sure that everyone here is already decided one way or another.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at January 22, 2008 03:15 PM

Limited government is better than both socialism or anarchy. I believe this. No governemnt at all results in an ancient institution called tribalism. This is humanity's default organizational structure in the absense of any larger governemntal structure.

Talk to any entrapeanear who has tried to start any kind of business in a tribal society and you will hear horror stories of armed men exacting tribute, tarrifs and payoffs every 20 miles or so as the businessman tries to export goods or ideas outside the very local community.

The opposite end of the spectrum doesn't work either, obviously. If all human beings were perfectly altruistic and were purely motivated in all their actions to help one another, and to work hard to help one another, pure communism (the kind where governement is supposed to simply fade away) might work.

Therefore, it is not a matter of whether communism, or capitalism is better, its a matter of where you draw the line. I draw the line at somewhat limited government than we have right now.

In the same sense, I draw the line with regard to international intervention at: Somewhat limited intervention. What does this actually mean? It means that, in general, we keep are military out of other people's business, but that their are exceptions. One obvious exception is if an ally specifically asks us for help. There maybe other exceptions as well. This is not simply an idealogical question. This is also not a very satisfying answer for those were prefer ideological absolutism.

Posted by Chris G at January 22, 2008 03:27 PM

As far as 'other exceptions' are concerned. What right did the French have to intervene in the British Civil War (that we call the revolutionary war). Britin specifically asked to French to stay out of it.

YET, the French intervened, and without that intervention, the US might not exist at all, even though the French were merely acting in their own best interests. You can't convince that the world is never a better place when one military intervenes in affairs of another nation. It is more compicated then that.

All we can do is learn from the past (avoid Vientam-esk situations, consider Korea-esk situations) and try to elect leaders that can do the same.

Unfortunately, Iraq didn't fit very well into any previous molds, even if you do buy into the conspiracy thoeries (which I don't). It will have to be a learning experience.

Posted by Chris G at January 22, 2008 03:48 PM

"Altruistic" foreign intervention is often justified on the same grounds that "altruistic" domestic economic intervention is justified.

Jon, I didn't say "altruistic" intervention. No one, on either side, claimed that US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq was altruistic. It was justified on grounds of national security.

Whether you think that justification was correct or not is another matter. There are many people who are opposed to "altruistic" invasions who think the national security grounds were strong enough to justify going to war; there are also many who think they weren't strong enough.

That is one of the frustrating things about Ron Paul. By making Iraq the poster boy for his non-interventionist policy, he alienates many people who are non-interventionists in principle but disagree on this specific case.

And whatever you say about Ron Paul, he really is principled (at least on this point). He opposed the "altruistic" bombing of Kosovo, which many of the people who now calling themselves non-interventionists applauded because it was their party ordering the bombing. (I happened to be in his office when the bombing started.) Yet, many of those people are among his new fans.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 22, 2008 04:29 PM

What right did the French have to intervene in the British Civil War (that we call the revolutionary war).

Just as a point of information, the English Civil War was actually about 130 years before the American Revolution.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 22, 2008 04:32 PM

I think we could far more to bring about reform and change in places like north Korea by staying out and just providing an example of success.

The sort of intervention I'd like to see is to carpet bomb North Korea with pictures of traffic jams and overflowing grocery stores with the words capitalism works. To quote the anonymous indian immigrant interviewed a few years ago on some MSM news program...

Q:Why do you want to live in the U.S.?"

A:"I want to live some place where the poor people are fat."

I also agree you can't argue non-intervention at home and intervention abroad.

Posted by Paul Breed at January 22, 2008 04:55 PM

Ed,
BTW, the "altruistic" bit was just because I was having a brainfart trying to remember what the commonly used term was, but now I remember: humanitarian intervention.

You're right that I disagree that invading Iraq was justified on national security grounds. Iraq wasn't a threat, and wasting hundreds of billions on the invasion and occupation have probably done far more damage to our national security than any minuscule good it might have done. I'll give a pass on Afghanistan, because I wasn't here when it happened, so I don't really have anywhere near as good of info on it.

As for Kosovo, you know I opposed that one too. I've been consistent wrt to non-interventionism since I was 16. I do agree though that a lot of the people who share my views about Iraq, might not be of the same opinion had it been Gore that invaded.

There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around. :-)

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at January 22, 2008 05:13 PM

Post a comment