Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Foreign Intervention

Rate this topic


phareign

Recommended Posts

I am new to this forum, and I do not agree with Rand's views on granting moral justification to interventionalism against amoral countries, because it goes against her reasoning for being an Athiest. There is a philosophical contradiction. I can understand why she does not like collectivist religion, mainly because collectivist religions tend to feel justified to invade other countries on moral grounds. What is the difference? By granting moral justification for interventionalism, are we not just creating another collectivist/statist religion? Is this not another Holy War? Is it morally right to force our moral beliefs on other countries through force? Is that moral? So I think this objection is an example of someone objecting in a moral way. I know her background and how she lived through the Bolshevik Revolution, so really I don't blame her. She has a right to personally believe this, but it just does not go with the rest of the philosophy. If you take that out, it is one of the most sound philosophies ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand why she does not like collectivist religion, mainly because collectivist religions tend to feel justified to invade other countries on moral grounds.

You're wrong, that's not why she didn't like collectivism and religion. The actual reason is that those things are anti-reason and anti-individualism.

What is the difference?

Between fighting for evil and fighting for good? Everything.

By granting moral justification for interventionalism, are we not just creating another collectivist/statist religion? Is this not another Holy War? Is it morally right to force our moral beliefs on other countries through force? Is that moral?

When destroying a dictatorial government, we aren't forcing anything on other countries, we're preventing that government from forcing themselves on individuals in that country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, what? Hold on, what is the contradiction you see between her position on religion (atheism) and her views on when it may be acceptable for a more morally governed country to invade a very immorally governed one (if and only if it is in the more moral country's interest to do so, not an act of sacrifice)? "I can understand why she does not like collectivist religion, mainly because collectivist religions tend to feel justified to invade other countries on moral grounds." This has . . . essentially nothing to do with her atheism or opposition to collectivism. Both the questions of if there are or are not any deities and collectivism versus individualism are necessarily addressed well before questions of politics, like when and if it is ok to invade other countries, can even be started to be asked. Also, you may be meaning something else by religion than what we typically mean, which is muddying the issue. Religion is a system of belief characterized by faith pretty much and tending to involve belief in logic and physics defying things. Not every system of belief qualifies as a religion. Something like, say, utilitarianism perhaps is a system of beliefs, but not a religion in the strict sense as, wrongheaded though it may ultimately be, it isn't a matter of faith. "Is it morally right to force our moral beliefs on other countries through force?" Unlike many other systems of morality, ours is *not* about forcing people to live as we see fit. On the contrary, Objectivism holds that the purpose of government is to forbid people from forcing other adults to live in ways they do not consent to. Under the kind of government we advocate for, anybody would be free to try to live in all kinds of ways we'd see as being totally immoral, just so long as they do not force anybody else to live according to their views. We would only potentially be justified in going in to invade other countries where the governments are not standing up for people's rights to try to live as they see fit, where they are sanctioning some people forcing their ways of life on others, if and only if we replace the government with one which is much better about defending people's right to live according to their own choices.

Edited by bluecherry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to OO.net

I'm not sure how familiar you are with Rand, so -- at this point -- I won't assume too much.

The way you've phrased your post, it sounds like you're saying that Rand did "not like collectivist religion, mainly because collectivist religions tend to feel justified to invade other countries on moral grounds". This is not accurate. To the extent that Rand did not like religion, their propensity to invade other countries was not her primary reason.

To understand Rand's arguments, you need to step back a bit and think about relationships among people, rather than between countries. For instance, is it morally right to force your beliefs on your neighbor? Presumably, you will say "no". However, the problem is that there are times when you and your neighbor might disagree. For instance, maybe his "all things are free morality" tells him that he may help himself to your stuff without asking. In such a disagreement, either you will have to force your morality of ownership upon him, or he will have to force his morality of un-ownership upon you, or some external party will have to do so. You might claim that this is a case where he is using force against you, but that is not really fair: according to his philosophy, everyone must share, and it is you who are using force to prevent him from using what is his. In essence, claiming that he should keep off your property, and enforcing this claim by force, is the imposition of your moral philosophy on him.

Rand defines a morality of self-interest and pursuit of happiness; she also sees man as a volitional needing to have certain freedom of action vis-a-vis other human beings in order to achieve this happiness. This is how she supports her concept of individual rights. Going back to the example, if you agreed with Rand, you would be right to use force (your own, or your government's -- depending on the situation) to stop your neighbors incursions. This is the right and moral thing to do. Importantly, you are imposing your morality upon your neighbor to the extent that you stick up for your notion of rights. If you accept the concept of rights, then nobody may legitimately violate the rights of someone else.

Now, extend the example. Let's say you stood up to your neighbor, and he's a little scared of your skills with a nunchuck, so he stays away from your stuff. However, he takes stuff from the little old lady who live across the street and who complains but can't personally do anything to stop him. If -- for whatever reason -- the cops won't act on the old lady's behalf, it is perfectly legitimate for you to tell him to keep off her property or else. Of course you don't have to stand up for her, and you don't even have to stand up for yourself. That would depend on an evaluation of the various factors involved. However, if you accept individual rights, and you decide it is in your interest to stand up for her (even if it is because you can easily do so and you like her) then it is completely legitimate for you to do so. It might even be legitimate to drive him out of the neighborhood once and for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh wow. This is a new topic. Didn't expect that. I was responding to another thread. This is where I got my information from. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_collectivized_rights It came directly from an article she wrote. This is a specific quote from the letter: "A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them. Therefore, the invasion of an enslaved country is morally justified only when and if the conquerors establish a free social system, that is, a system based on the recognition of individual rights." Hope this helps! Please, take the time to read the whole thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is that different from the Spanish Explorations or the Holy War? Am I still not imposing my own moral beliefs on others through political force? Am I not using moral beliefs to justify violence, like religion? I just don't see how this point fits with the whole philosophy. I thought she hated Libertarians because politics was not the way to spread beliefs, education is. I agree with that. Using your government's force is using the political machine. I don't blame her for thinking this, I think she is completely entitled considering her background. I just don't see how it ties in with the philosophy.

Edited by phareign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh wow. This is a new topic. Didn't expect that. I was responding to another thread.
Yes, I split it into a separate topic because the other one was about whether non-Objectivists with certain specific attributes were immoral, while the question of whether to go to war against non-Objectivists is different.

Am I not using moral beliefs to justify violence, like religion?
Just to be clear, are you saying that if you see one neighbor robbing another and grossly violating their rights, it is immoral for you to step in if the police cannot and if you are able and willing to step in? Just trying to clarify this before I respond to your question of how it is compatible with Objectivism. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is true. This is a great paraphrase of exactly what I was referring to. I initially was responding to a topic where someone posed a question that if someone disagreed with Rand could they still be considered moral. I said yes, and this was my example. I have moral reasons for not agreeing. That's because this is like religion. I do agree with everything else. I really like Objectivism. I also think Politicians pick and choose from philosophy, and unfortunately Rand did not have enough time to refine or defend this statement before it was too late. If she was upset that Libertarians picked and chose from her philosophy, I am sure she would have been just as upset if the GOP did such a thing as well. That is what happened. It's pretty much what George W. said over and over again. That really is not what the war was about, but since he said that over and over it made it OK. I looked up to see her stance on the Vietnam war, and she opposed it because of the draft. If she just followed the core of the statement, she would have been all for it. She did have clauses, but she did not have enough time to fully refine and define what she wrote because she died in 1982. She has personal cause, because she did live through the Bolshevik Revolution. How can anyone just stand by and watch a government kill all those people? It is a personal cause though, and it just doesn't fit with everything else in my mind. You can agree to disagree. That's fine. There are some holes though, and if she herself is switching stances then that tells me she wanted to put more thought into herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, are you saying that if you see one neighbor robbing another and grossly violating their rights, it is immoral for you to step in if the police cannot and if you are able and willing to step in? Just trying to clarify this before I respond to your question of how it is compatible with Objectivism.

No, it would not be amoral for me to do so. But to give my country moral justification to do so on my behalf is amoral. That's religion. That is mixing politics with religion, and I do not agree with that. Objectivism is supposed to be about the individual, not forcing the collective to enforce my beliefs. Philosophy for the individual is OK. Mixing philosophy with politics is not OK. Taking a philosophy and perverting it to serve a political purpose is also not OK, and I don't think Rand would have agreed with that. That is exactly what the GOP did, after she died.

Edited by brian0918
quote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am new to this forum, and I do not agree with Rand's views on granting moral justification to interventionalism against amoral countries, because it goes against her reasoning for being an Athiest. There is a philosophical contradiction. I can understand why she does not like collectivist religion, mainly because collectivist religions tend to feel justified to invade other countries on moral grounds. What is the difference? By granting moral justification for interventionalism, are we not just creating another collectivist/statist religion? Is this not another Holy War? Is it morally right to force our moral beliefs on other countries through force? Is that moral? So I think this objection is an example of someone objecting in a moral way. I know her background and how she lived through the Bolshevik Revolution, so really I don't blame her. She has a right to personally believe this, but it just does not go with the rest of the philosophy. If you take that out, it is one of the most sound philosophies ever.

Her point in that “dictatorships have no rights” comment is a simple one, analogous to whether or not a criminal has a “right” not to be apprehended or arrested. If a man steals something from another, he has no moral grounds to claim the police ought not use force against him because it is retaliatory force. The same with a government, when it denies all rights and enslaves its own people, it cannot then logically claim that it is any rights whatsoever, including a right not to be invaded.

Now you seem to think this means she is saying the US should go on a “holy war” and invade all dictatorships or collectivist counties, but notice that is nowhere logically implied. That is why, if you pay attention to the next words in her text where she explains this, she says: Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent “rights” of gang rulers.

In other words, since rights are not collectivized, a dictatorship cannot claim the moral sanction not to be invaded. A non-”not to be invaded” is not the same as a positive “ought to be invaded.” Remember in this essay, she is attacking the notion of collectivized “rights.” The point she is making is that there are no collective morals that would cancel out an actual free nation's survival and freedom due to the supposed “right of self-determination of nations” or “national sovereignty” or “territorial integrity” of a dictatorship. The premise is that the free must sacrifice to the criminals because of some mystical notion of morality applying intrinsically to governments which is allegedly "higher" than or "above" the lives and liberty of those involved.

As far as when a free nation does have a moral obligation to invade a dictatorship depends solely on the self-interest of a free nation. A rational moral code of self-interest informs us of the individualist approach to foreign policy. That which will keep Americans free should be the standard of the free nation's politics, which in foreign policy requires only that the government use retaliatory force against external aggressors as the means to which maintaining the security and liberty of American citizens is the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is part of the Objectivist philosophy is really true, then Spain had every right to invade the Americas and decimate the native population. The Aztecs were brutal, cruel leaders who sacrificed their own citizens to their gods in massive quantities. The temples ran with blood. According to Ayn Rand, they did not have rights. The Spanish empire felt justified to do this because of the way they interpreted the bible. I went to Spain, and I don't speak Spanish well but you don't need to be fluent to understand the paintings and the symbols. They are very graphic. It seems to me the Spanish took a very literal interpretation of Revelations and applied it to themselves. They represented the lady with the 12 stars. It is quite clear, you see that crown almost in every church. Is it moral and right to decimate an entire population because their leaders are immoral and you are moral? Is the GOP not using philosophy Ayn Rand wrote to justify our own actions? Sort of like how the Spanish twisted Christian philosophy to suit themselves? Is that what she really meant? But in fact, our invasions have absolutely nothing to do with morality, we just say it does, and has everything to do with economics. The same goes with Spain. They just wanted the gold. I just think making such statements and applying them to the entire collective is very dangerous, and not unlike collective religion. I read the books, and I saw the you tube videos. I read Jeff Britting's book, and watched the documentary he worked on. I went to see Anthem at the Long Center, and I listened to experts there. I have a right to believe that this aspect is not congruent. With everything else she writes and says, she seems to be against mixing morality with politics as far as a collective goes. Collective enforcement of religion is bad. It stifles creativity and science. It limits the human mind. I agree. Freedom is just something people need to want for themselves, and the best way to spread freedom is through education and being concerned with our own nation so other nations have something to shoot for. People want to be free. People who live in un-free nations will naturally want to be free after seeing all the benefits a free nation provides, and just by being a great example we can inspire them to fight for it or for leaders reform their constitutions. Just like how Roarke was an example in of himself, the same with John Galt. Roarke inspired others by producing and worrying about himself. It is Toohey who wanted to use the collective to enforce his interests, not Roarke. The EU is a great example of being a great example, they are just doing what they are doing and nations are becoming Democratic so they can reap those great benefits. Unjust nations reform their national policy to join the EU because they want to. The people in these nations chose to do this because the EU is setting a great example, like Roarke did in Fountainhead. There are no wars, and no one is forcing anyone to join the EU. They want to. Isn't that a better way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, what is this "foreign intervention", anyhow? Isn't that just attempting to get things outside the country to be better?

Sure, why and for whom? So, right off, if "foreign intervention" means that government officials can use force to obtain values, then I say "No way!". I accept and broker no compromise on principle, and the government ought to stay out of the evaluation business altogether, domestically and internationally. That simplifies the problem a whole lot.

Government officials can use force to do their job: protecting the right of self-determination of individuals. Now, if any individuals cause the rights of individuals to be violation, then it would be moral for me or any other individual to ask our government officials to intervene to prevent the violation. And, it certainly is easy to identify foreign provocateurs.

That pretty much sums up the argument. If you think it okay for individual rights to be trampled for a bit while other details of government get in order, I disagree -- without essential respect for the right of self-determination, our society is doomed in the long run.

- ico

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Spanish were not a shining example of morality in the sense of protecting individual rights, just based on their religious beliefs. They invaded central America for conquest, spreading Christianity through force and stealing gold.

The EU is not a great example of anything but collectivism, cultural subjectivism and irrational policy, both foreign and domestic. There might be some decent beer there though.

Removing a dictatorship is not forcing anything on the people of that country - it is actually removing the force that has been restricting the individual rights of those citizens. And doing so is not a moral duty; it is a choice made in the self-interest of the nation removing the dictatorship. I also don't think most people here would argue against the idea that the wars carried out in order to "spread democracy" were not really to the best interests of America and the rest of NATO (or have not been carried out in such a fashion). Saying the wars were carried out because of economics is a bit absurd because wars do not produce anything - they are in fact destruction of wealth, in the attacking country and the defending country. Wars could be waged economically, in terms of money spent per kill or buildings destroyed per cost of bomb, but they don't produce any wealth.

Lastly, what America et al. do in terms of warring currently is not necessarily what an "Objectivist" government(s) would do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, what is this "foreign intervention", anyhow?

- ico

There are in general two ways foreign intervention is used:

1) in the context of stopping or preventing genocide in a country where the government is carrying out that genocide or where a government fails to protect the victims and keep order (common examples are the Holocaust; Hutu vs Tutsi in Rwanda; Khmer Rouge in Cambodia; Muslim vs Christian in the Balkans);

2) in the context of removing a dictatorial government in some country (e.g. Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq).

There's a lot of academic articles both for and against intervention no matter the context or consequences (intervention as controlled by the U.N.), but I argue we should only intervene when it's in our (Canada or America, NATO in general) self-interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am new to this forum, and I do not agree with Rand's views on granting moral justification to interventionalism against amoral countries, because it goes against her reasoning for being an Athiest. There is a philosophical contradiction. I can understand why she does not like collectivist religion, mainly because collectivist religions tend to feel justified to invade other countries on moral grounds. What is the difference? By granting moral justification for interventionalism, are we not just creating another collectivist/statist religion? Is this not another Holy War? Is it morally right to force our moral beliefs on other countries through force? Is that moral? So I think this objection is an example of someone objecting in a moral way. I know her background and how she lived through the Bolshevik Revolution, so really I don't blame her. She has a right to personally believe this, but it just does not go with the rest of the philosophy. If you take that out, it is one of the most sound philosophies ever.

One thing you need to keep in mind is that countries should act in foreign affairs only when those actions can be in our self-interest. The same concept that applies to the individual. This is a differentiation many people fail to make. What she poses is that we have the moral justification, i.e. the right to intervene in these countries. That does not automatically mean that we should, every time one pops up. If you look at her other writings regarding foreign policy you will find that they are consistent with this message. When various wars were brought up in discussion, she more often than not suggested that we not intervene, or at the very least not on the irrational premises and reasons that were given as justification. (The related articles by Yaron Brook and Elan Journo on how these false premises and philosophies effect things like the Rules of Engagement for our soldiers is an excellent extension of how this plays out) I believe Peikoff elaborated on this once in one of his podcasts, stating that she believed that it would have been better to let Russia and Nazi Germany dog it out in World War 2 before we got involved over there.

In other words, severely weakening them both. (This doesn't apply to our war with Japan, for what should be obvious reasons). You can also find some great articles by the two aforementioned authors regarding how appeasement to Nazi Germany by Europe when things were building up to World War 2 is exactly what allowed for things to play out the way they did. If they had not appeased Hitler, then things would never have gotten as bad as they did. You will also take note that, and I believe this is in the book Ayn Rand Answers, that she states that we should follow the basic blueprint of foreign policy set forth by our founding fathers, which was no entangling alliances, and so on and so on, essentially what people understand today as old school non-interventionism. The only difference is that she has injected the proper moral principles into this equation, which allows for certain actions and analysis that would not be present within the original founder's foreign policy. Obviously she doesn't advocate simple ideological intervention. You need only look at the last few decades to see how such a policy has devastated the American position globally, and resulted in various attacks on our country or military installments or new enemies for us which we now must find a deal with today. Many of these actions were not, when properly analyzed, in our countries long term self-interest.

In other words, I believe that the foreign policy she set forth, properly understood, is not contradictory and exudes the same ideas of rational self-interest and objective analysis promoted on the individual level in her ethics. If you wanted to discuss whether the application of these ideas of hers by the Ayn Rand Institute regarding the modern day foreign policy theater are correct, thats an entirely different matter. As an example, I for instance do not agree with some of the suggestions on how the matter should be handled in the Middle East elucidated in Elan Journo's book. However that is a contention of application, not necessarily the ideas that give rise to the application. The same can be said about several others extended areas Objectivism has dealt with where there is still contention between Objectivists.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is fun. I appreciate all the feedback by the way.

Police in our country usually do not outright use force. They handcuff criminals, read them their rights, and take them to jail. Then they wait for a trial where they are proven guilty by a jury and if they are they are sentenced to prison. Or at least that is the way it should work. I am not denying that some police use excessive force, but this is against the constitution and our laws.

That is exactly my point, she probably did not mean this at all. Regardless, this is what happened. Politicians, specifically the GOP, twisted around her words and they are engaging in a holy war for morality. They will not stop until we are all free, whether the nations or the people in the nations want freedom or not. She was very outspoken against Libertarians twisting her words around, so I don't think she would have appreciated this if she had lived to see it. If anything, I am defending her.

Regardless, it is still not OK to use collective forces to enforce non-collective rights. The early Christians believed that they too were enforcing non-collective rights. In fact, these rights were holy and ordained from God. Christians are the firmest believers of rights, and they will give you God and Jesus whether you want Him or not. To come to God has to be something an individual wants to do, it shouldn't be forced on a nation. It needs to be from the ground up. The individuals in a nation need to want it. Rights are the same way. There is nothing wrong with inspiring other nations to want to fight for their rights by providing an excellent example of what rights are. Until our policies of interventionalism, the US did this quite well. We spread Democracy through selfishness. We completely changed the face of Europe. The United States was the first Classical Liberal Democratic nation, and now nearly all first world countries are. We did not go over to France and liberate them, we just provided a great example and they liberated themselves because the people saw how great freedom is. The same is true for all the European Nations. We even changed the country that owned us at one time, Great Britain. We are great producers and we provided goods and services other nations needed, and by seeing what we were doing they decided to do this for themselves. This was done all through selfishness. Sometimes, being selfish is more kind. It is a paradox, true. It is not supposed to be that way, but shoving your wealth in other nation's faces is the kindest way to spread Democracy. They will naturally want that wealth and freedom for themselves. We were so much more kind when we were selfish. To me, I thought that was the object of Objectivism. Also, our nation became a super power because states wanted to be a part of the Union. The Union offered a lot of great benefits and the states chose to join. If freedom is so great, people will want it and they themselves will choose to fight for it. They do not need a liberator. All they need is a reason to be liberated. If we worry about ourselves, then we are providing the world with an excellent reason for liberation.

This is not what Ayn Rand wrote. She wrote we have a moral right to invade other nations because their home nations are not honoring the rights of individuals, so they as a nation do not have rights. Of course we have a right to defend ourselves, but that's not the philosophy in question here. If these nations are attacking us, then we should defend ourselves. Vietnam posed no threat to our national security, and I believe that is one of the reasons Ayn Rand was against the intervention. Of course we were fighting that war for freedom, to free Vietnam. So why would she be against that? I really just think she didn't have enough time to think this through, and because she went against herself regarding Vietnam later on that shows me that she would have liked the opportunity to further clarify what she meant. She shouldn't be damned for writing a paragraph, especially when she never really had the chance to fully explain herself in the first place. From what I know of her, I am sure she would have. I think this article in particular was in retaliation against anarchist libertarian hippies who were twisting around her words. They took one thing she said and ran with it. She was writing for that audience. Not the GOP. She would be just as upset if the GOP twisted her words. I know what audience this was intended for, and I understand why she wrote it. For the most part, it is a great article. We do need objective rules and courts. It is the only way we can function as a free society.

All in all the best and kindest way to spread Democracy is through selfishness. It works quite well. We as a nation need to be more like Howard Roarke and less like Ellsworth Toohey. To be like Howard Roarke as an individual but not a nation does not make sense to me. We need to change the world through making the best products, building the best buildings, having the brightest innovations, and establishing a sound system of Democracy for ourselves that other nations want to employ. America is just much kinder when we are selfish. We inspire other nations to be like us. We give individual people dreams and goals. They need to fight the wars and lead the revolutions against their rulers, not us. That way is just much better. I heard Ayn Rand was inspired to come to the US because she watched Metropolis, and this later inspired her to write Fountainhead. We need to keep building great buildings, and keep showing the world what freedom is so they will want it for themselves. We need to keep making movies, and writing books. And lay off the bombings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She wrote we have a moral right to invade other nations because their home nations are not honoring the rights of individuals, so they as a nation do not have rights. Of course we have a right to defend ourselves, but that's not the philosophy in question here. If these nations are attacking us, then we should defend ourselves. Vietnam posed no threat to our national security, and I believe that is one of the reasons Ayn Rand was against the intervention. Of course we were fighting that war for freedom, to free Vietnam. So why would she be against that.
These two aspects can be reconciled as follows: though we may have the right to go to war, it does not follow that we should. There is a huge cost to war: mainly the cost of lives lost and ruined. That should give us much pause. The dictators in the world have relinquished any claim to be protected from us; but, we should be stopped by the cost -- in particular the lives of our soldiers.

Now, if some folks were on a moral crusade and wanted to go finish of some dictators with a fully volunteer force -- and if that really makes sense (not to be replaced by an equivalent dictator), then more power to them. Again, it would be stupid to do so if the risks are large. So, having the moral right to do something, does not mean one must do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is part of the Objectivist philosophy is really true, then Spain had every right to invade the Americas and decimate the native population. The Aztecs were brutal, cruel leaders who sacrificed their own citizens to their gods in massive quantities. The temples ran with blood. According to Ayn Rand, they did not have rights. The Spanish empire felt justified to do this because of the way they interpreted the bible...Is it moral and right to decimate an entire population because their leaders are immoral and you are moral?

This is not at all what Rand was saying. Let's pull that quote of hers up again:

A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them. Therefore, the invasion of an enslaved country is morally justified only when and if the conquerors establish a free social system, that is, a system based on the recognition of individual rights.

Now notice what she says. The country has no national rights, which means that the dictator is not a legitimate form of government and has no right to rule. However, the individual people living under the government still have their own individual rights. Thus, it would be wildly immoral to come in and just start slaughtering everyone. What would be morally acceptable is coming in, deposing the dictatorship, and establishing a government which respects the rights of its citizens. Nowhere in there is there room for what the Spanish did, and the Spanish did not even attempt to establish something that Objectivism would view as legitimate.

Now, your other concern, about whether or not this avenue is the best way to bring change to a country, is very well taken. Oftentimes, deposing a dictator does not do anything for the freedom of the country's inhabitants. If the country's culture does not have the right philosophical currents, it is nearly an impossible task to instill a rights-respecting government. I agree with this statement of yours:

Freedom is just something people need to want for themselves, and the best way to spread freedom is through education and being concerned with our own nation so other nations have something to shoot for. People want to be free. People who live in un-free nations will naturally want to be free after seeing all the benefits a free nation provides, and just by being a great example we can inspire them to fight for it or for leaders reform their constitutions.

What is important to notice about Rand's stance here is this: freeing the citizens of a foreign country is not the primary reason for invading it. We need a government in order to protect our own rights. That is the sole purpose of government; to protect the rights of its citizens. To that end, the only time it is required of our government to invade another country is when that strategy serves to protect our rights as citizens. It's not primarily about the oppressed peoples, but about the threat their leaders pose to us. Thus, Rand's stance is not an edict to go out and spread freedom and individual rights wherever they are lacking, through invading other countries. That would be an altruistic endeavor. Rather, she is simply highlighting the fact that we are not wronging the dictators of a country if we do decide to invade it. They do not have the right to be dictators in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that in a Objectivist country, with Objective laws, there is not taxation nor conscription. This I think would mean that there would have to be a very good reason for people to volunteer their wealth and lives in a war. It would likely have to be a country or a group within a that represented by deed a clear and present danger and no other means would deter or contain the threat that country or group represented.

I think many people make the mistake of holding a government as synonymous with the people of a country this is not the case. Because of this I dislike calling the president the leader of the country, the president is only the leader of the government.

I am pondering the case where citizens of a Objectivist country have purchased, built property in another country, then that property was confiscated like the Oil fields in Iran. Would that represent enough of reason to go to war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this statement Dante. I think this is exactly what she meant. I believe this because it is congruent with her stances on Vietnam, WWII, and other statements she publically made after she wrote the article in question. However, from reading this thread and looking at the world in general one can only assume that this is not what people understand.

Quotes from the article:

It is saying that a free nation has the right (if they so choose) to liberate nations. It does not say "only if" those leaders pose a threat to our freedom, but to purely liberate if we as a nation choose to do so because it is our right. She does say it is not a duty, but that it is a nation's right. This can be taken the wrong way. The right is the condition. Not the threat of loosing rights.

This is saying it is OK to invade a slave country only if we establish a free social system. They do not need to pose a threat to us, or be doing anything to us at all. This is completly alturistic. All they need to do is violate the rights of their citizens, and if we choose to liberate them (not because it is a duty, but because it is our right) it is OK if we establish a free system.

This is an important quote just because it fully explains her audience and why she wrote this article. She is debasing the liberal argument of national rights. She does not feel that communist and socialist countries have rights, because they violate the rights of citizens. Her argument is that nations in of themselves do not have rights, but only individuals have rights. I will paste that next. I do have a problem with this statement though in the context of this article, because if nations do not have rights and only individuals have rights, then why do some nations have a right to invade just because it is their right? Meaning, that nations themselves should not have the right to invade other nations just because other nations are evil. It may be true that nations that rob individuals of rights have no rights, but then again that doesn't grant rights to other nations to invade them when they pose no threat. I am OK with saying that if such nations are invading us or pose a serious threat to our individual freedom, then abolishing their government is OK because the nation in question has no national rights, but only if such a nation is attacking our individual freedoms. But that is not the point of this article. This needs clarification.

I agree with this, but I agree with this both ways. I do not believe that by being a free nation all of a sudden the nation collective rights that citizens do not have, only the citizens have rights. There are no collective rights. By saying a nation has a right to invade, one is imposing collective rights on a nation. Perhaps the representatives of citizens have a right to pass a vote in congress to invade another country if their individual rights are threatened, but this is not clarified. This was not Vietnam. There was no vote in cogress, and it was not an act of war. The nation in of itself did not pose a threat to our own personal individual rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're missing the point to some extent. We may have the right, but not the obligation, to invade countries in certain circumstances. This is a conclusion though in politics. Politics is derived from ethics. Before getting to politics, in her ethics Rand has already stated first off that she is opposed to the idea of duty and that of altruism (in the sense of sacrificing your own best interests to that of others) and that of forcing others into sacrificing their best interests to you (after all, that wouldn't be in your best interest really anyway.) It is not reasonable to conclude this one political statement can support altruism because it is derived from a context of egoism and how to support that. Also, this one statement about how one government may interact with foreign entities is only established after we've already stated the purpose of any government to begin with, it's reason for existing, is to protect the rights of its own citizens, and nothing else. So it isn't reasonable to forget about that either. Rand's whole philosophy is interconnected and it is basically quoting out of context to try to take her one statement on a late political conclusion and figure "maybe this could be open to use for supporting altruistic endeavors." Anybody who is an altruist has no need to use Rand to support their cause really, there are plenty of other real altruists they can quote if they are looking to put the responsibility on somebody else; trying to bend Rand to meet your own altruistic motives is just needlessly trying to paint your enemy as your ally.

Now, as to "collective rights" as a nation, given that 1) this is the politics of an egoistic system where 2) the government only exists to protect the rights of its citizens and where 3) the citizens delegate their rights of self-defense when possible (meaning, when the cops can get there in time) and retaliation to the government to act on their behalf, the government acting on the behalf of its citizens when it may go invade some other country to further the interests of its citizens is not acting on rights that it magically gained that the citizens never had. It is making use only of the rights that were delegated to it by the citizens in order to have them best taken care of (removing potential bias, getting better trained professional to handle it, et cetera.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is saying it is OK to invade a slave country only if we establish a free social system. They do not need to pose a threat to us, or be doing anything to us at all. This is completly alturistic.

It's not altruistic. Liberating others from tyranny, and allowing them to become trading partners, is a perfectly selfish endeavor.

It may be true that nations that rob individuals of rights have no rights, but then again that doesn't grant rights to other nations to invade them when they pose no threat.

Why, what's wrong with removing a tyrant by force?

I agree with this, but I agree with this both ways. I do not believe that by being a free nation all of a sudden the nation collective rights that citizens do not have, only the citizens have rights. There are no collective rights. By saying a nation has a right to invade, one is imposing collective rights on a nation.

Individuals have the right to oppose tyranny and fight for justice, on principle. The government is merely the tool individuals use to exercise that right.

If I didn't have a government to do this for me, I would have the right to go over to North Korea right now, and put a bullet in Kim Jong Il's head. I would have that right even if he's not a direct threat to me, simply because he deserves it. As it stands, I have a representative government to enact justice on my behalf, so that right is delegated to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is saying that a free nation has the right (if they so choose) to liberate nations. It does not say "only if" those leaders pose a threat to our freedom, but to purely liberate if we as a nation choose to do so because it is our right. She does say it is not a duty, but that it is a nation's right. This can be taken the wrong way. The right is the condition. Not the threat of loosing rights.

Keep in mind that Rand has a particular definition of dictatorship. Characteristics of dictatorship by her definition are: one party rule, execution without trial for political offenses, nationalization of private property, and censorship. (Personally I'd alter point two a bit, but that's a tangent.) It's not merely a place where the leader(s) is a jerk. Yes, the quote does not say "only if," but as I recall last I read that essay, a nation would only have a right to invade a dictatorship. There is no implication that the US has a right to invade France, for example, but there is a right to invade North Korea. I can't think of a scenario where it would be in anyone's self-interest to invade a country that doesn't pose a threat, but the point is that if a country is a dictatorship, a free country has a right to invade it.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...