Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Has American Foreign Policy Contributed...

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Dave, I thought you would provide arguments such as these, and here's why they don't qualify.

A temporary diplomatic relationship is not a moral sanction - sending Hussein weapons to fight Iran was not a moral sanction; having a trade relationship with China is not entirely a moral sanction.

Ambivalence toward Communist dictatorship is not a moral endorsement of their existence. Even during the Cold War America has traded with USSR, and you won't say that America gave USSR a moral sanction, would you?

The point is that there's no denying that American foreign policy has been contradictory and ambivalent most of the time. But this is far from saying that America has publicly and enthusiastically supported an immoral government and praised its brutal activities.

Oh and by the way, Mobutu's reign in Zaire (Congo) was far better than the alternative Lumumbu. You will find this pattern repeated over and over again in America's foreign policy, where an out-of-context look at America's friends suggests sanction of immorality, but the past history of which shows American support for the better alternative. That's why I'm sort of surprised you'd be putting forth examples like Zaire, because it's so obvious that the alternative, Lumumbu supported by the USSR, would be disastrous for the entire African continent, and thus for American sphere of influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] A temporary diplomatic relationship is not a moral sanction - sending Hussein weapons to fight Iran was not a moral sanction; having a trade relationship with China is not entirely a moral sanction.

Ambivalence toward Communist dictatorship is not a moral endorsement of their existence. Even during the Cold War America has traded with USSR, and you won't say that America gave USSR a moral sanction, would you?

The point is that there's no denying that American foreign policy has been contradictory and ambivalent most of the time. But this is far from saying that America has publicly and enthusiastically supported an immoral government and praised its brutal activities. [...]

[boldface emphasis added]

I am still fuzzy on the sanctions issue (which is one reason I still consider myself a student of Objectivism here).

Questions, for anyone:

(1) What would constitute "moral sanction" of one government by another? More broadly than government, what would constitute moral sanction by anyone of anyone else?

(2) Does contradictory or ambivalent behavior absolve a person of sanctioning the immoral?

For example, if a supposed Objectivist, a Mr. X, says he opposes libertarians but then becomes a public speaker at a forum libertarians organize, is not Mr. X sanctioning libertarians? Do his earlier or later disagreements with libertarianism absolve him of the charge of sanctioning the enemies of Objectivism?

(3) What does the term moral sanction say that sanction doesn't say? Is it possible to sanction in other ways?

I do occasionally hear government officials speak of "legal sanctions," but in that case "sanction" means punishment. I also occasionally hear politicians say "This is legally sanctioned," and they mean it is okay under the law. My dictionary lists usages which are contradictory: Sanction as support, and sanction as punishment. Both however do involve an evaluation of the propriety of someone's behavior.

(4) I would say a behavior must be public to be a sanction, but does it have to be enthusiastic -- or can it be merely tepid or even implicit?

(5) Does "the end justifies the means" principle, if it is one, absolve an individual of the charge of sanction? If so, under what circumstances, but not others?

P. S. -- A question for Free Capitalist: Are there no instances in U. S. history of the U. S. government -- or any of its representatives -- sanctioning other governments which violate rights? For instance, did the U. S. government at no time publicly and enthusiastically praise Marcos, dictator of the Philippines? Did President Franklin Delano Roosevelt at no time sanction the blood-drenched regime of Stalin? Not even when Roosevelt sat around a table with him, smiling, shaking hands, and complimenting "Uncle Joe," one of the worst monsters in history? Did President Reagan at no time sanction the mujihadeen of Afghanistan as "freedom fighters"?

My understanding of "moral sanction" is that it means saying -- in words or actions -- that the person you are dealing with is a moral person. It is a stamp of approval, implicit or explicit. Correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burgess I agree with your definition that "moral sanction" means that you believe the person you're dealing with is a moral person. But that does not mean that every person you deal with ought to be a moral person. Most governments of the world are rather immoral. Does this mean we should practice isolationism and build up walls around North America, bomb Canada and settle their land, and maintain the continent in utter isolation of the outer world? Or is it okay for us to deal with less than moral governments, without giving them moral sanction? Dealings with a government doesn't necessarily imply a moral sanction for it. Why would one want to deal with one immoral government? In order to help it destroy another immoral government, for example, as in the case of Iraq vs Iran. We did not say, "Saddam, buddy, you are building a great state here so here's a bunch of missiles for your protection against enemies." We said, "Saddam, good job fighting Iran, so here's a bunch of missiles so you can do our job for us, and not have to spend American lives."

A moral sanction of a government would be something akin to our treatment of Israel - continuous support even despite tremendous world pressure to do otherwise, annual financial and military contributions to its economy and military even when there's no pressing need to do so, intermingling between Israeli and American intelligence forces, many public statements by Israeli officials about friendship with America, many public statements by American officials about friendship with Israel and right to existence thereof, etc. Now that's true friendship and moral sanction by both countries of each other's moral right to exist. We extend a similar relationship to Europe (or at least try to, despite their best efforts to make us angry), but that's about it.

We used Pakistani forces during the War in Afghanistan, and even thanked them publicly for their help, but a year or two later I started hearing stern comments from the Bush Administration that Pakistan better get its act together in terms of immoral behavior. We aided the mujahedeen in Afghanistan not because they were a bunch of swell guys, but because they were fighting an even worse threat. Israel, on the other hand, isn't currently fighting anyone (worth mentioning), but we still aid them because they are a bunch of swell guys; our attitude towards them is that we will not let them be overrun by their enemies (something you cannot say for any dictatorships we've aided over the years). That's what I perceive to be the difference between mere diplomatic relations and a moral sanction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Went away for a week, and gosh things just kept happening here.

A temporary diplomatic relationship is not a moral sanction - sending Hussein weapons to fight Iran was not a moral sanction; having a trade relationship with China is not entirely a moral sanction.

Ambivalence toward Communist dictatorship is not a moral endorsement of their existence. Even during the Cold War America has traded with USSR, and you won't say that America gave USSR a moral sanction, would you?

I don't think the minimal relationship that existed between the USSR and the US is comparable to the relationship between the US and Red China. So I would say that at least in my lifetime the US has not given a moral sanction to the USSR, by actively favoring the dictatorship. As to whether or not that particular definition of "moral sanction" holds any weight, if you accept that definition, then you have to accept that the US government is rather immoral, since we at best actively support regimes that we know to be evil. The US has three choices in dealing with any government: active support (as with the UK, Japan etc), active opposition (as with N. Korea, Iran) and minimal involvement (which would describe our relation to Senegal or Tanzania, for example).

A moral government should support the good, not the evil, especially when there is the viable option of withholding support from either of the two leading sides. I suppose it might not constitute "moral sanction" to support an evil regime, but given how Rand castigated libertarians (who are at worst philosophically ungrounded evaders) it seems to me that defining moral sanction as actively announcing a positive moral evaluation of a person is putting too fine a point on the term. The actions of the government should mean something.

Oh and by the way, Mobutu's reign in Zaire (Congo) was far better than the alternative Lumumbu. You will find this pattern repeated over and over again in America's foreign policy, where an out-of-context look at America's friends suggests sanction of immorality, but the past history of which shows American support for the better alternative.

That's correct: in fact, it is relatively unusual for the US to support a worse government (the Shah would be an exception). Now, note that your question was not about whether Americ ever supports a bad government over a good goverment, but simply whether the US has sanctioned dictatorships. It has. Maybe excuses can be made in certain cases, like the lesser of two evils that was Vietnam, but it was not necessary for the US to arm Hussein to attack Iran. It's not as though there was a chance that Hussein was going to sweep away the army of mullahs and liberate Iran so that it could have a free and rational government. The last thing he needed was an actually better government next door to him.

The problem with US irrational policy towards Congo / Zaire was that it extended vastly past the immediate need to be rid of Lumumba, for almost 40 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a link to a post to Arthur Silbur's Light of Reason Blog. I have been critical of Silber in the past but I am starting to think that he often (not always) has a point. One of his contentions is that the Moslem antagonism towards the US has not been *solely* due to the different Ideologies of each respective culture, ie the death worshiping culture of the Middle East and the life affirming culture at the heart of the West. He and others have suggested that Moslem death worship* in conjunction with* America's interventionist foreign policy over the past 50 years have led to the rise of modern terrorism. America has propped up one dictator or set of dictators after another. Thus it is not hard for Middle Eastern power lusters to stir anti-American sentiment. All they have to do is show a connection between the people that have oppressed them and American support.

I was at first originally suspicous of this line of reasoning but I recently attended a talk given by Yaron Brook, The Morality of War. Brook described how the altuistic Just War Theory has come to dominate American foreign and military policy since WWII (and actually he showed how it even existed in that war which could have been won earlier if America's greatest general hadn't been so handcuffed, ie Patton.) While Silber doesn't get specifically into the philosophical core of America's foreign policy, he is very good at pointing out its concrete failures and the anti-reason and reality avoidance epistemology of its advocates and implimenters. I have come to believe if Ameirca had remained political isolationists, the spread of Islamic terrorism would not have reached the severity it has today.

Here is one of his posts. There are links to all his voluminous writings on this subject all over his site. You may not agree with everything he says but he does make some interesting points. There are many Objectivist blogs that disect the irrationality of the Left. Silber spends his time vivisecting the irrationality of the Right which I have come to realize is more important. I have seen this in myself and in many Objectivists that I have read here and all over the net (especially Trasinsky at TIA), namely accepting far too many premises of and granting far too much lattitude to the Neocons.

Incidently, Yaron Brook was asked during the Q and A if he agreed with Robert Trasinsky's support of Bush's Grand Strategy of Freedom as a watered down version of essentially the right policy, namely a colonial solution. He answered in one emphatic word; "NO". He went on to say that Trasinsky is a great guy but that he felt Trasinsky and other Objectivists have swallowed some of the altruism that the NeoCons have been serving. He did not believe that spreading "freedom and democaracy" had any chance of succeeding. He said that in 5 years if Iraq isn't plunged in a civil war (which he said might be a good thing), Iraq may very well be a client state of Iran. There are similarities between Brook and Silber allthough Brook is far more explicitly in favor of massive retaliatory force. Silber is far too sensitive.

Anyway, its good food for thought.

http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P2403_0_1_0

They all, irrespective of the soundness of his metaphysics, are correct in their judgements. The problem is that nothing America does is acceptable to Islam's backwardness. It is important to remember that as hard to believe as it may be Moslems are convinced of their moral superiority. They never question the Koranic doctrine which impels them to go forth and conquer the world. At the risk of being thought simplistic: The only solution to the Islamic plague is the complete nuclear annihilation of the Moslem world. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave,

The US has three choices in dealing with any government: active support (as with the UK, Japan etc), active opposition (as with N. Korea, Iran) and minimal involvement (which would describe our relation to Senegal or Tanzania, for example).

I think what you're trying to say here is, that the three alternatives are: moral sanction with active support, moral opposition with active hostility, and neutrality. But, if I did indeed accurately explain what you meant to say, this trichtomy is a false one. Why can't we actively support an evil government without giving it moral sanction? I just don't see the link between close relations and moral endorsement of a government. Why does simply supporting a lesser of two evil governments necessarily imply that we are morally supportive of its existence?

Now, note that your question was not about whether Americ ever supports a bad government over a good goverment, but simply whether the US has sanctioned dictatorships. It has.
Not entirely. I would be the last one to argue that America has never sanctioned a dictatorship - such a claim would ridiculously fly in the face of the facts and would be disprovable with almost no effort at all.

What I said was something similar, but not the same: America has never morally sanctioned a dictatorship.

it was not necessary for the US to arm Hussein to attack Iran
But, don't you see that it makes no difference here whether what you say is true or not. Maybe they made the right military choice, or maybe they didn't. What does it matter? Neither alternative implies a moral sanction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FC, the one way in which America does provide a moral sanction to dictatorships is our participation in and support of the United Nations. Our membership in that corrupt organization has helped all sorts of brutes maintain the illusion that they are the legitimate, government representatives of the slaves they rule. We ought to get America out of the U.N. and get the U.N. out of America with all possible speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't we actively support an evil government without giving it moral sanction? I just don't see the link between close relations and moral endorsement of a government. Why does simply supporting a lesser of two evil governments necessarily imply that we are morally supportive of its existence?

Okay, what would be come examples of moral sanction of government that you think the US has engaged in? Taking your characterization of moral sanction at face value, what facts count as evidence of moral sanction, as opposed to regular sanction? My argument about dictatorships is admittedly circumstantial, precisely because the government does not make clear moral evaluations of others except the occasional condemnation (e.g. of Iran, Libya, Cuba) and therefore I would contend that based on overt actions especially words, we have not given moral sanction to anyone. My argument is that actions such extending Favored Nation status to the dictatorship of Red China is prima facie evidence of one of two things: either approval of the morals of that dictatorship, or else evidence of the lack of moral standards by our own government. It seems to me that this is a "Fact and Value" kind of issue. The US government has been excessively tolerant of dictatorships, but I suppose that thanks to the miracle of evasion, this does not necessarily mean that the government actually actively approves of the moral values of these evil dictatorships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an example of what I mean, take our dealings with China vs. our dealings with Taiwan. Which of these two, would you say, do we simply have many dealings with, and which of the two do we morally sanction?

Harry Binswanger once wrote on HBL that he tried to boycott Chinese-made goods years ago, but stopped simply because it was impossible to do. In much the same way I explain our policy toward China in general. But we send tanks and missles to Taiwan, though it is relatively negligible on the world scale, for the explicit purpose of protecting it from the Chinese behemoth with hundreds of millions of armed and starving Chinese soldiers at its door.

Or take Israel, again a negligible country on the world stage. Who would miss it it were gone? No one would, except Americans. That's why we send it so much moral, financial, and military support, though we don't have to, and though the whole world hates us for it.

That's the kind of support I classify as a moral sanction. I don't expect a moral consistency from America, and they certainly missed an opportunity of extending a moral sanction to very worthy countries that needed it from the US, but were overrun from the lack of it (Chiang Kai-Shek in China, Korea, Vietnam, etc).

But while the appropriate moral sanction is not always consistent and is often lacking, inappropriate moral action I find to be absent from my understanding of American history. I suppose it is possible to dig out some exceptions, but I speak in general - I don't think there are obvious and clear-cut cases of America's moral sanction of evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

[Mod's note: Merged with earlier thread. sN]

I have been debating with some folks about Dr. Peikoff's Oct 2, 2001 full page ad in the NYT "End States Who Sponsor Terrorism". I received violent opposition to his ideas and some passages, in particular:

"Fifty years ago, Truman and Eisenhower surrendered the West's property rights in oil, although that oil rightfully belonged to those in the West whose science, technology, and capital made its discovery and use possible."

were chastised as being a 'crock of (exrement)'.

Apparently, the notion of property rights by birthright is strongly accepted by many who disagree with Dr. Peikoff's view.

I was also directed to read this lengthy history of US-Middle East relations going back a century, at the CATO Institute: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html

I found the above an interesting read. It is a chronological account of all of the US intervention in the region and I must admit, we have been involved almost continuously since WWII.

It is argued that the US started to manipulate governments in the region for the sake of securing our oil supplies there. SoCal and Texaco oil companies were heavily involved in the early stages of discovering and extracting oil, and perhaps gained some additional support from the US Government in securing their interests there.

The natives of the region began to feel manipulated and oppressed and gradually, the rise of Islamic fundamentalist ideas grew in this hotbed of poverty and oppression. The expected response--hatred of those in power over them--in this case, the US, because it is powerful and in control of the oil resources, coupled with any local propaganda blaming the US for their sorry economic state (even though the Sheiks were probably the ones hoarding the profits and helping to oppress their own people), fed the growing hatred and distrust for the west. The outcome was the eventual rise of Islamic terrorism.

In reading the historical perspective of the linked article, I can see that our involvement and effectively, takeover of some of the governments in the region (the installation of puppet leaders like the Shah of Iran, etc) might stimulate a righteous and militant backlash from the people.

So it seems that Dr. Peikoff's claim that the oil is our property by right of our technological efforts to find and extract it, is one of the points that came under strongest attack.

The other point under attack was the killing of people in the interest of protecting American interests.

Now, for me, it would be cut and dried if we did nothing to provoke the Middle East in the way that this article I linked to has documented. It's a very long list! However, with the facts listed in the historical account of the situation (assuming it is true), I find it harder to morally defend the US' actions both then and now. It appears that our actions there have caused this backlash, and now we want to end their nations' existences because we have determined that they have no right to retaliate against us for our past aggressions/repression of their people.

Some questions need to be answered in order to determine which party is morally at-fault:

When US oil companies first entered the Saudi area, was the economic relationship aleatory or was it a fair exchange? Did the Arab leaders simply not think at first that the oil was worth anything and sell the rights to it too cheaply? Or did the leaders know implicitly that they had a veritable gold mine and demand full compensation? Did the oil companies pay that compensation to their satisfaction?

It also seems that we were concerned about other nations, particularly the USSR, coming in and exploiting the oil supplies in the region, so the US began military operations there in an attempt to avert the threat. It seems that things took off from there, gradually getting us in deeper until we ended up in the quagmire that we face today.

If our actions in the Middle East are to blame for the rise of hatred against us, then are we morally correct to defend ourselves in an offensive action? It seems that the kind of military action Dr. Peikoff calls for is at issue with those who read and commented on the article.

I am realizing that this matter is not so simple and cut and dried as a lot of the writings by Objectivists seem to portray it. It is extremely complex, in fact. And it seems the US is the big bully in the Middle East for the past 60 years and that history of meddling with affairs in the region has come back to bite us.

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying the picture, but I hope I have conveyed the concerns accurately enough.

So where do we stand as a nation? Do we pretend we're innocent and just destroy our enemies, even if they are somewhat justified in their hatred of the US? This has got to be one of the most important moral issues of all time.

Let's discuss it...

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have hit on the essence of the problem. It is not an issue of civilization vs. primitivism or of a simple defense against an unprovoked and unexpected attack.

The problem is that the US seems to harbor two contradictory goals in its foreign policy. We want to be a global imperialist power able to further our political interests with military force, yet we refuse to accept the implications of being a global imperial power. The US has to pretend as if all foreign policy is either justified as a defensive military action (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) or as altruistic protection of a third party (Somalia, Kuwait, etc.) We refuse to accept the fact that being an imperialist power requires waging war and using force for political goals beyond military defense or humanitarian reasons. It means using force to occupy countries which harbor useful natural resources. It means using force to prop up puppet or colonial regimes to pacify unstable regions.

This is why both the democrats and the neo-cons have failed in their foreign policy. The democrats believed international cooperation was the key, but never managed to get everyone to cooperate via world organizations like the UN. The neo-cons believe that if everyone is westernized then peace will result, but that force, rather than cooperation is the means to that end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have hit on the essence of the problem. It is not an issue of civilization vs. primitivism or of a simple defense against an unprovoked and unexpected attack.

The problem is that the US seems to harbor two contradictory goals in its foreign policy. We want to be a global imperialist power able to further our political interests with military force, yet we refuse to accept the implications of being a global imperial power. The US has to pretend as if all foreign policy is either justified as a defensive military action (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) or as altruistic protection of a third party (Somalia, Kuwait, etc.) We refuse to accept the fact that being an imperialist power requires waging war and using force for political goals beyond military defense or humanitarian reasons. It means using force to occupy countries which harbor useful natural resources. It means using force to prop up puppet or colonial regimes to pacify unstable regions.

This is why both the democrats and the neo-cons have failed in their foreign policy. The democrats believed international cooperation was the key, but never managed to get everyone to cooperate via world organizations like the UN. The neo-cons believe that if everyone is westernized then peace will result, but that force, rather than cooperation is the means to that end.

I agree that the contradictory goals of US foreign policy are partly to blame here, but the real questions I have are about the complexity of our proper response to the issue, as of 9/11/2001. It seems that we're not entirely without blame for instigating the hostilities that led to that attack and the other acts that preceded it.

I'm not so certain that we can just "end states who sponsor terrorism" as Peikoff so simply states. It seems as if he sees the problem from too simplified a perspective. Does he consider the consequences of a major retaliation like he proposes in the Middle East? It is easy to say "let's destroy, utterly, the enemy" but has he thought out what North Korea, which has ties to Iran, would do? What about the Soviet response? China? And at the very least, a major attack would cause termoil beyond imagining in the oil industry here. The industry operates on such a thin reserve that a war in Iran cutting off that relatively small percentage of overall production might have catastrophic effects on the market here in the US as well as abroad. It seems that there is a wide spectrum of issues that we have to think through, thoroughly, before we act.

The problem is that we're in so deep now, that we have little choice left. The problem won't go away if we pull out and attempt to ignore it. I'm afraid we will have to do something on a scale that Peikoff recommends, but either way, the results may not result in a safer America.

I was reading another article with an interesting account of US/Israeli relations. It seems to indicate that we use Israel as a weapon and watchdog and it's angering the Arab world greatly: http://www.isreview.org/issues/15/blood_for_oil.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the contradictory goals of US foreign policy are partly to blame here, but the real questions I have are about the complexity of our proper response to the issue, as of 9/11/2001. It seems that we're not entirely without blame for instigating the hostilities that led to that attack and the other acts that preceded it.

I'm not so certain that we can just "end states who sponsor terrorism" as Peikoff so simply states.

Because we (the US) also has, to some degree, sponsored terrorism? To the extent that this is true, I'd agree that the solution isn't as simple as, say, nuking the Middle East. But, this may be an entirely different issue from 9/11. Even if (questionable) we have indirectly sponsored terrorism at some time before, this doesn't necessarily limit America's proper response (of defense), and it certainly wouldn't justify Al-Qaeda terrorist actions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We want to be a global imperialist power able to further our political interests with military force, yet we refuse to accept the implications of being a global imperial power. The US has to pretend as if all foreign policy is either justified as a defensive military action (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) or as altruistic protection of a third party (Somalia, Kuwait, etc.)
The U.S. does not have to pretend that its actions are defensive; by and large they are. You seem to imply that defending an oil-well that was discovered and run by U.S. citizens and that is supplying oil to U.S. citizens is not defensive.

The U.S. does fight with a hand tied behind it's back, and these restraints are the U.S.'s self-imposed standards of "goodness". I don't see this as pretense though; I think American citizens genuinely think they would be evil if they went into Iraq looking for WMDs, could not find them, and left a year later, without making a strenuous effort to create a democracy in Iraq. I think American's genuinely think it would be wrong for the U.S. government to have laid down a constitution for Iraq.

In essence, you're right in identifying a dichotomy that pulls the U.S. in two directions: it wants to act in its self-interest, but not too much. The problem is with the second part of the dichotomy.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that the US seems to harbor two contradictory goals in its foreign policy. We want to be a global imperialist power able to further our political interests with military force, yet we refuse to accept the implications of being a global imperial power. The US has to pretend as if all foreign policy is either justified as a defensive military action (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) or as altruistic protection of a third party (Somalia, Kuwait, etc.) We refuse to accept the fact that being an imperialist power requires waging war and using force for political goals beyond military defense or humanitarian reasons. It means using force to occupy countries which harbor useful natural resources. It means using force to prop up puppet or colonial regimes to pacify unstable regions.

Could we agree on the definition of "imperial". Last time I checked it was the conquest of land for permanent incorporation into an "empire" (e.g. the British Empire, the Ottoman Empire, The Roman Empire.)

Are you using a "nouveau" definition?

Does this mean that if I occupy a country for reasons that are just [e.g. self-defense], but the country happens to have natural resources in it, that we have the opportunity to be labeled an imperialist?

Which natural resources does Afghanistan have?

I think the practice of using force to prop up regimes has mixed results. The outcome of fighting by proxy a "cold war", where national defense was a proper end, but we didn't have the moral nerve to heat it up.

In some sense I agree with you that previous foreign policy and today's foreign policy is flawed, but the "well, we deserve some of the blame for it" argument shouldn't cause us to pause from advocating or executing a proper foreign policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. does not have to pretend that its actions are defensive; by and large they are. You seem to imply that defending an oil-well that was discovered and run by U.S. citizens and that is supplying oil to U.S. citizens is not defensive.

In the strict sense of a US national defense, it is not defensive. US citizens take on a share of risk when investing in a foreign country. Economic claims can likely better be handled by international law than by use of force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the strict sense of a US national defense, it is not defensive. US citizens take on a share of risk when investing in a foreign country. Economic claims can likely better be handled by international law than by use of force.

I'm not sure what this means. Can you explain it or maybe provide an example?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vladimir, isn't the whole idea of law based on using force? Otherwise who would back up the verdicts reached, and how would they be enforced? The only difference I can see is that you would get much more support in a case where a ruling favored you, but I doubt any international courts are interested in defending the United States's affairs, if you look at how things are these days...

How would what you are suggesting be different from bringing these issues to the UN? I do not think international courts work much better than the UN does unless all parties agree voluntarily to submit to the decisions reached; do you see many middle-eastern countries do that?

Edited by Maarten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the strict sense of a US national defense, it is not defensive. US citizens take on a share of risk when investing in a foreign country. Economic claims can likely better be handled by international law than by use of force.
I'm fine with the idea that a country may make clear that it will not use force to defend its citizens' property that is outside its geography. However, international law is not the answer unless you imply an international force that will enforce such law. Law without government is meaningless; it's analogous to the libertarian idea of domestic law in the absence of government. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term "imperial" was used by those responding to my post of Dr. Peikoff's article in the NYT, so I can only guess at what the definition was, but if I were to take an educated guess, I'd say they are referring to the classic meaning, as in, we take over nations and put in puppet leaders to do our bidding.

One question that was posed was how does Peikoff conclude that 'appeasement' has led to contempt?

As for the rights to the oil, where is the deed to the property rights to that oil and who, exactly, surrendered these rights? There is probably a complicated answer to this, but not one that the critics are likely to accept.

Others went on to find fault with Peikoff's historical accuracy.

The opinion expressed in response to the article was that the oil belongs to the people who live above it, not some colonial power thousands of miles away.

Quoting Peikoff's article:

"Our Presidents had no answer. Implicitly, they were ashamed of the Declaration of Independence. They did not dare to answer that Americans, properly, were motivated by the selfish desire to achieve personal happiness in a rich, secular, individualist society."

Someone responded in a rather ascerbic way:

"LOL. The declaration of independence includes a number of "injuries" that the King imposed upon his colony, among them "He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people." Now, to put it in laymens terms, this means that the king stole the resources from the people and took away their livlihood. To say that we should have continued plundering their lands for oil is somehow supported by the declaration proves a complete and negligent lack of understanding of the document. It's actually quite sick."

There is an irony in the nature of the Declaration of Independence and the way in which Peikoff mentions it as an aid to developing his argument. I can see the respondent's point here.

In general, I am led to suspect that Peikoff's article may not have been historically accurate, and that he uses certain facts that may not be in historical context, to support his arguments.

That matter aside, we face the present day dilemma of defending our nation. Now it can be argued that all the manipulation of these governments, the installation of puppet leaders, the military presence and so on, was in defence of the property of oil. Perhaps we are talking intellectual property here, and not so much physical property? That distinction could be important in deterimining what we are defending and if we are morally justified in doing so.

My understanding is that private oil companies took a risk by investing in those foreign nations' potential oil reserves. Is it proper for the US government to step in and protect those private investments with public tax money, and at the same time endanger all US citizens at a potential target of retribution?

And what about Al Quaeda? Why wouldn't its actions be justified, if it was composed of a body of persons who had suffered directly or indirectly because of US interference in their countries, assuming that this organization is working on behalf of damaged parties and not for its own internal reasons, such as 'killing infidels'?

For a long time, I have been in total agreement with the Objectivists of the past, but lately, some of the issues raised in opposition to Objectivist's current views are difficult for me to disagree with, or to provide a solid argument against. Can anyone clear my thinking up with regard to this matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term "imperial" ..., we take over nations and put in puppet leaders to do our bidding.
You seem to be saying that it is better for a country to have an autocratic ruler who does whatever he feels like than it is for it to have an autocratic ruler who does what he and someone else feel like.

In any case, the typical situation the U.S. has faced when putting such autocrats in power is a "best of all evils" type of situation. Do you think, for instance, that Cuba is the model, where an uncontrollable dictator replaced a controllable one?

One question that was posed was how does Peikoff conclude that 'appeasement' has led to contempt?
Even a basic reading of the daily news will demonstrate this. Look at stories about Iraq. Have you seen stories about US troops arresting a person for attacking a convoy, and his mother saying to him -- in Iraqi: "Don't worry, we'll contact XYZ and have you out in a week". Have you read about a country called North Korea. They keep advancing their nuclear program, and the U.S. raises it's own threat level by calling their threat "serious", "very serious", "extremely serious". They simply laugh and sell arms to Iran. Speaking of which, take Iran; they keep advancing their nuclear weapons program, saying that they just want peace, and they also think Israel should be wiped off the map. And the US responds how: again by words, and by providing police-protection to their visiting ex-President when a major US university asks him to speak.

I do not think the U.S. can even conceive of the extent to which the bad guys of the world have a good laugh at its expense. If I was a bad guy's adviser, I would honestly have to give him the advice that he did not have to worry about the U.S. as long as he kept saying he wanted peace while preparing for war; and, if the U.S. did react with something like sanctions, it would be inconvenient, but countries like France and Russia and China would be happy to break the sanctions quietly. To the world's bad guys, the U.S. is -- typically -- a joke.

Once in a blue moon, the U.S. will do something like Vietnam or Iraq, but the odds are definitely in favor of the bad-guys. For that matter, Sadaam must be kicking himself. If he had only given in for a three months, and let in a flood of U.N. inspectors to roam freely, he would still be in power. (The irony is that Sadaam too probably thought he had a WMD program that need to be hidden.)

As for the rights to the oil, where is the deed to the property rights to that oil and who, exactly, surrendered these rights?
Are you implying that the deed to those property rights was stolen from some place where they had been safely stashed? In not, then by this logic, you should leave the US and go back to whence your ancestors came; or start paying reparations and give up your vote and be governed by Red-Indian law.

Others went on to find fault with Peikoff's historical accuracy.
It's better that you tell us what you think, without phrasing it like this. I know there are some sad forums on the web where the discussion is all about how ARI's people are wrong, without much discussion on what is right: a form of "nihilistic-objectivists", if you can handle that oxymoron.

In general, I am led to suspect that Peikoff's article may not have been historically accurate, and that he uses certain facts that may not be in historical context, to support his arguments.
If this is what you suspect, then do some research and post your findings here.

My understanding is that private oil companies took a risk by investing in those foreign nations' potential oil reserves. Is it proper for the US government to step in and protect those private investments with public tax money, and at the same time endanger all US citizens at a potential target of retribution?
So, let's get this right: are you making the argument that if a U.S. based company had done all that the U.S. did in the middle-east, using private money, then you'd be fine with it? You're saying that the model to follow was a company like the "British East India Company"? If that's your only objection --- if you're speaking of a situation where the U.S. has reached the ideal free-market state -- then, I would not disagree.

And what about Al Quaeda? Why wouldn't its actions be justified, if it was composed of a body of persons who had suffered directly or indirectly because of US interference in their countries, ...
The Al Quaeda wants their evil gang to replace the current evil gang. In your opinion, will the Al Quaeda gang likely allow more, less or the same amount of individual rights as the gang they replace?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the rights to the oil, where is the deed to the property rights to that oil and who, exactly, surrendered these rights?
The problem with this question is that it's sensible and relevant only in a civilized society that respects property rights and actually uses deeds. The land was for all intents and purposes unowned, with no clear government after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and then a succession of British-imposed kings. But the (British) Iraqi Petroleum Company was granted the right to explor for oil in Kirkuk, and they found plenty. In that historical context, that's all the deed that is necessary. This property was then confiscated by the Baathist government in 1972. The important fact to keep sight of was that this buried resource was completely unrecognised by the natives, and in no way constituted part of their livelihood or means of survival. If the Kurds had the technological means to drill for oil, had any clue what oil was about, and had actually been pumping out oil to sell on the free market, then it would have been quite wrong for a British company to come in and take this land and technology. But in fact, the land (particularly, the part a mile down where the oil is) was completely unknown to the natives. And therefore, they did not lose anything -- they never owned it in the first place. Hopefully, this clarifies how the situation with the British king's plundering of the US and a British companies non-plundering of oil are entirely different.
My understanding is that private oil companies took a risk by investing in those foreign nations' potential oil reserves. Is it proper for the US government to step in and protect those private investments with public tax money, and at the same time endanger all US citizens at a potential target of retribution?
The simple answer is, no, because tax money isn't proper. Let's suppose, though, that the military were entirely voluntary (which, it turns out, it is not) and financed non-coercively. Then hypothetically speaking, the US would have been justified in sending troops to some place where an American oil company had its assets nationalized (Bolivia, Peru and Cuba for example). However, as far as I know, the US government hasn't done anything significant along military lines to protect US foreign property for decades.
And what about Al Quaeda? Why wouldn't its actions be justified, if it was composed of a body of persons who had suffered directly or indirectly because of US interference in their countries, assuming that this organization is working on behalf of damaged parties and not for its own internal reasons, such as 'killing infidels'?
And if pig had wings... The fact is that Al Qaida is working to impose a fascist Islamic theocracy on much of the world, and to kill the infidels. It would not matter one whit whether they happen to aid a starving widow in the process. The US has not "interfered" in any country in a manner that causes suffering that calls for relief by Al Qaida terrorism. We did, frankly, really screw up by supporting the Shah of Iran over democracy, but that has no relationship to Al Qaida (Al Qaida is Sunni, Iran is almost entirely Shiite, no love lost there). So what US interference are you talking about that causes suffering of the masses?
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...