Why Non-Interventionism is Wrong

Post Reply New Topic

Hypothetical scenario: Nazi Germany is a country that has secretly decided to take over the world in the guise that it is the supreme country of the world. All the countries of the world practice a non-interventionist foreign policy, except, of course, Germany. Germany attacks the smallest country first, attacking each country one by one by one. No country will help another country because it is not being directly threatened by Germany, nor does it think Germany will attack it next, as they are trading partners. Well, long story short, Germany eventually conquers all of Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and parts of North America, except the United States. Now, Ron Paul is president, and he loves his non-interventionist foreign policy so much that he decided not to attack Germany when they were taking over Europe. Now all that stands in the way of conquering the entire world is the USA. Germany owns 98% of the world's resources and refuses to trade or do business with us, as it seeks total domination. End result, German forces move in and the world's army makes swift work of the USA, as it just does not have the resources to compete with Germany.

This scenario is 100% plausible, feasible, and possible in a world that abides by non-interventionist foreign policy. Alliances and interventionism in times of war are a very important piece of the geo-political strategy in balancing the powers around the world. The reason Germany didn't win in the 1940's was because we colluded with other forces around the world and stopped the spread of this insanity before it went too far. If we were to "mind our own business" like every other country should as you libertarians like to parrot, the above scenario would be a perfect example of what could happen in that type of situation.

What are you saying, Metropolis? Should we police the whole damned world then!?

Absolutely not, but, if we see an indirect threat that might one day very well be a direct threat a certain number of years down the road, then we should be able to collude with our alliance and neutralize the threat.

For instance, right now, in the Middle East, we have forces that directly attacked us on September of 2001. Thus, the natural response is not to ignore the cause of the problem, and only fight the symptom, but to neutralize that cause. In my opinion, the cause is not because we tried to overthrow a government 60 years ago, because this is before most of these terrorists were even born. That's like saying we should give reparations to blacks now, because our great great great grandfathers had slaves. The truth is, there is a serious cultural gap between the US and the Middle East. In countries like Saudi Arabia, their own governments condemn their own people to death for converting from Islam to another religion. If you are caught stealing, your hands are chopped off. If a women is caught without wearing a mask, she is beaten. The nature of these people do not assimilate with our own, and their society needs to restructured so that their people have as much freedoms as we do. Only then will we really be able to trade and be allied with these people. You must remember, before we went into Germany, they were ruthless barbaric Jew killers. After we defeated them, they are one of our greatest allies and have since been a great trading partner. After we had attacked Japan, look what has happened. We are great allies and trading partners. No, I'm not saying to bomb them into peace, I'm saying that we cannot and should not look the other way, when there is an underlying problem that needs to be addressed in these countries so that they can get along with the rest of the world. Until we fix that, these terrorist acts are sure to continue.

But I thought the terrorists hated us because we're over there!? Yes, this obviously plays a significant part in why they hate us NOW, but not why they hated us prior to 2001. We did not have forces in Afghanistan before 2001, save YEARS ago that had dealt with Brezinski and the Cold War, but again, even so, you can scream blowback all you want, but we have a serious issue to deal with in the Middle East and remaining in our own little bubble as terrorist organizations bomb our buildings isn't going to solve anything.

Libertarians often claim that non-interventionism is what originally "made America great". Seriously? Maybe in libertarian fantasy land, but not in reality. It is incredibly naive to think that we can sit idly by while the world goes to hell around us and think we'll be okay. By the time we needed defenses, we'd have lost. America cannot just sit in its own little bubble, pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist, and ignore all of the dictators who want to destroy us.

And another thing: libertarian laissez-faire capitalism is wrong because market failures justify government intervention in the economy, nonintervention leads to monopolies and stifled innovation, and unregulated markets are economically unstable. Markets do not always produce the best or most efficient outcome, redistribution of wealth can improve economic health, and advances in economics since Adam Smith show that people's actions are not always rational.

I won't say anything more about Ron Paul, because he isn't even worth it. Less than 2% of voters support him, and they consist almost entirely of racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist potheads who want to shut down the entire government.

Someone seems to have been reading Socratic dialogues.

First, this:
"I won't say anything more about Ron Paul, because he isn't even worth it. Less than 2% of voters support him, and they consist almost entirely of racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist potheads who want to shut down the entire government."

I am glad you put in that "almost entirely" . Caution is alewasys appropriate. Further, Number 1 Son has rather tended, in his youthful iconoclastic way, to like what Paul comes up with, and he matches none of the descriptors you give us, based on your intimate familiarity with Ron Paul supporters [I am sure you would not come up with that list except from personal knowledge].

------------

That said, if I may join you in the agora: suppose a congabulation of nations, all but one non-interventionist, and that one led by the infamous Sali Berisha III marching out to conquer the world.

You will realize that I am not grinding an axe, merely joining you to see WHICH of us is Socrates.

So if there is a uniform non-interventionist response, the Berishite forces overcome and enslave the planet. Just how bad is that?

After 5 years the conquered nations may revolt and throw off the yoke of the oppressor.

But suppose they don't.

After 15 years Berisha dies [possibly assassinated] The ensuing power struggle fragments the Imperium.

But suppose it doesn't.

After 30 years the globe is rocked by revolution or economic disaster. In place of the monolithic state, we see dozens of territories controlled by local strong men.

But suppose it doesn't and suppose the great disaster does not wipe out civilization and humanity:

In 500 years the planet's governance is NEITHER the peaceable union of nations NOR the great grim empire. It is something - and whether we imagine intervention or nonintervention to one today can predict the world of 2511 AD [that is the year 433 after the fall of Berisha.]

There is [and keep it down, Godwin slingers, this is a valid point] no such thing as a Thousand Year Reich. Nor a free lunch.

Wow, I don't think you could make a more wrong post if you tried.

Nazi Germany happened because the interventionist policies and the entangling of alliances of World War I. If the United States did not get involved in WWI, there probably is no Nazi Germany and no WWII as we know it. How did WWI start? Because some Austrian guy and his wife got shot in Serbia, did 16.5 million people have to die because of that?

You need to familiarize yourself with the term BLOWBACK. Here's an easy example of the consequences of our foreign meddling.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldgbOxDX6DE&NR=1[/youtube]

The Iranians weren't always the Islamic Republic, before the revolution they were one of the most modern and liberal of all Muslim people but our propping up of the brutal Shah caused them to turn to the theocratic Ayatollah. The hostage situation and now the emerging nuclear threat is a direct result of our intervention.

In the 80s, as I'm sure you know, the CIA waged a covert war with the mujaheddin in Afghanistan against the invading Soviets. The Soviets lost, their empire collapsed, and the Taliban & Al-Qaeda emerged as a result. Al-Qaeda means "the base" in Arabic as in the database, Al-Qaeda was less a terrorist than a just a collection of the names of former mujaheddin who wanted to continue the fight against Islamic oppressors around the world. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Osama Bin Laden offered to bring his mujaheddin to the Saudi's to do what he did against the Soviet against Saddam Hussein but the Saudi's sought and got the help of it's western allies which deeply disturbed OBL who, I'm sure along many others of his persuasion, think that non-Muslims should not be allowed on the holy land of the Arabian Peninsula and started turning their attention to the US.

It's sounds as if you've this argument before but reject it for some reason which is completely foolish. We shouldn't police the but we should... Sometimes? Sounds like you just don't want to completely embrace to neoconservative label, but still support the cause.

Also while you are right that monopolies stifle competition, you seem confused on what creates them. It's not the lack of government intervention, it's government intervention that creates them by raising barriers to entry through regulations, selective bailouts, subsidies, etc. Monopolies cannot exist without the government protection.

tl;dr you are wrong

The kind of question you are asking often comes up in domestic disputes where someone (or some agency) intervenes without the consent of the person/s being attacked. But helping someone else or another country defend himself, herself or itself from an attacker when such is actually desired and even requested is not "intervention".

Note: I know nothing about Ron Paul's proposed policy along that kind of line, but I do know today's leaders do quite consciously and directly *interfere* while claiming to only be justifiably intervening.

Oops.

Last edited by leejosepho on 22 Jul 2011, 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

As a colleague famously, obnoxiously, and somewhat unorigiunally said, silence is also language.

Laissez faire is tantamount to aiding and abetting one side. It simply selects the side that involves the least immediate effort.

Are you saying that Nothing is Something?

ruveyn

He's saying Silence isn't Nothing.
(I think)

Nothing is not Something.

Choosing nothing is a choice.

Failure to choose Something is a choice.

Oooh - Double Negatives ain't no good.

Not so much Silence is not Nothing., as Silence has an effect, is part if communication

[at several levels but I will try to avoid getting technical]

Nope. Failure to chose is non-choice. To choose, is to choose something. This rather than that.

ruveyn

St Jerome reminds you -

look at facts, not merely at words.

Fact: To chose is to chose something. This rather than that. It is impossible to chose Nothing. Nothing does not exist.

Your position is to confuse omission and commission.

Now what is culpable omission? When one is legally or morally obliged to do this and the person does that instead. It is not a lack of choice. It is making the wrong or impermissible choice.

Again, the central proposition is that there is no Nothing. Anything that exists is Something ( or other). It is one of the infelicities of our language that the word "Nothing" is the same part of speech as is the word "Something".

ruveyn