Over the past year, especially because of the effect of Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy, many honest questions (and many baseless accusations) have been flying around about libertarianism, foreign policy and Christianity. I wanted to take the time to answer a few of these questions from my own perspective.
Is libertarian foreign policy isolationist? / You libertarians are a bunch of head-in-the-sand isolationists!
Libertarians are broadly defined as people that hold to the non-aggression principle, which is basically paraphrased:
The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence (’aggress’) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory (Murray Rothbard).
How does this kind of worldview translate to foreign policy? It definitely doesn’t automatically mean isolationism - but it could. So some libertarians can be isolationists (at least partly), but most hold to a defence-oriented foreign policy. That is, we do not attack any country unless it presents an imminent, specific and definable threat. Thus, World War II is justifiable to many libertarians, as may be the invasion of Afghanistan - however, preemptive wars such as Vietnam, Iraq or the Spanish-American War are typically frowned upon.
Wars to support alliances would also be unacceptable to libertarians. We broadly support alliances via trade and commerce, but not political alliances which tie us to the internal and external conflicts of others. World War I is an excellent example of the disasters of such alliances.
But more important to this distinction, is actually looking at what defines isolationism. There are two general points required for isolationism:
- non-aggressive, or non-interventionist foreign policy
- protectionism of the economy, culture, language, etc…
Libertarians abhor the second point. We would like to see trade with as many people as possible. We want our cultures to mingle and share with one another. We are generally more internationalist - supporting all kinds of diplomacy and cooperation with other nations.
The economic restrictions of isolationism (and currently favored by both the left and right), are an anathema to libertarians who support free-markets and the rights of individuals (regardless of their nationality) to voluntarily trade with one another. For example, many libertarians are for opening borders and loosening immigration controls - while many isolationist-oriented republicans want immigrant-hiring employers regulated, a border-fence and deportation of illegal immigrants.
So it is possible that isolationism and libertarianism can coincide briefly, but for the most part, these two ideas - especially when examined logically - are mutually exclusive.
One thing I see as an obstacle to the idea of non-aggression, is historical indoctrination. I, for one, have chosen to de-educate myself about the Civil War and World War II. De-education must occur before re-education. It is hard to escape the concept of American heroism in our perceived history, and that must occur before we can objectively determine whether military action is/was justifiable. That’s hard to do. Hindsight is not 20/20. If that is the case, the end always justifies the means. It sort of reminds me of something I recently read on someone’s blog:
“I may disagree with you, but you might be right, perhaps we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq to begin with. But I would hope that we both could still cheer for our side, but that seems unlikely from Colin and you. I don’t really know why.”
Why do people suppose we should “cheer for our side” toward the end of a war they was unjust? It is because statism has become a dominant force in national identity, replacing patriotism. One is encouraged to worship the all powerful state, effectively neutering our own ideas, making us a part of the status quo. A quote from Dan rather on Larry King Live exemplifies this feeling. Regarding his coverage of the Iraq War, Mr. Rather said,
“Look, I’m an American. I never tried to kid anybody that I’m some internationalist or something. And when my country is at war, I want my country to win, whatever the definition of ‘win’ may be. Now, I can’t and don’t argue that that is coverage without a prejudice. About that I am prejudiced.”
I grew up thinking Abe Lincoln was the greatest president this country ever had, and that he freed the slaves, etc. I remember the shock of hearing from my Vietnam vet history teacher in junior high that the “Civil War” was not fought over slavery. That was a shock to me at the time. So its no wonder that people are shocked when Ron Paul says the War Between the States was unnecessary and avoidable. People think, “What’s he trying to do here? Take all the romanticism out of our national consciousness? I suppose next he’s going to tell us that Washington didn’t chop down the cherry tree.”
This is really true. I thought about writing a different article set, and maybe I will later, about how our idea of tradition and history in America is paving the road for fascism. We tend to think the greatest presidents were the ones who disobeyed the law and took over the government with authority and disregard for dissent (Lincoln, Adams, Wilson, FDR, etc…). We glorify these men as though they were heroes when really they broke our laws and undermined the very fabric of our country.
“Why do people suppose we should “cheer for our side” toward the end of a war they [admit?] was unjust? It is because statism has become a dominant force in national identity, replacing patriotism. One is encouraged to worship the all powerful state, effectively neutering our own ideas, making us a part of the status quo.”
I assume you meant to say “admit” in that first sentence. If so, I disagree, I don’t admit that the war was unjust. I do admit that there is a possibility that it was wrong to have invaded Iraq, thus making you correct. However, this is beside the point, because we’ve already invaded. I’m not asking you to worship the state, but rather “cheer for our side” since we are battling the scum of the earth and must win if we want a shot at overcoming global terrorism. We’re in Iraq, get over it and move on! It’s been 5 years, and you guys still can’t seem to realize that the debate over just war (while important) is not the primary issue in regards to Iraq. Even if (it’s more a matter of when now) we win in Iraq, your views on the justness of the original invasion aren’t invalidated. So you can stop hoping we lose because it doesn’t affect the veracity of your argument. It’s dismaying to me that libertarians tend to be illogical on this matter and end up sounding just like “hate America” liberals. It makes you all sound like nutcases, which is one reason Ron Paul never had a chance. Hoping for defeat in Iraq against an utterly evil enemy is not a way to garner sympathy for your views.
Thanks for stopping by again Darius. I actually think you make a fair assessment, and I think your reasons for support are at least logical (although I disagree).
I do want you to realize that my continued disagreement with the war is not hinged on the original invasion, but on it’s continuation. It’s a no-win war, with no real enemy and no real conditions for victory. If you, or perhaps a policy paper you know of, can cite exactly what “victory” means, then we can debate that - whether or not it is worth it.
If the U.S. “wins” in Iraq (whatever that means) that is not my side. I learn more toward the idea of government by the people for the people, not people for the government. We the people by and large do not agree with the Iraq War. So “we” are not in Iraq; the government has preempted a war and has used our protection as a justification. That doesn’t mean I hate America. Come on. Seriously. And if I sound like a nut case to you, its probably because you’re so deep in this propaganda the idea of dissent is tantamount to treason. And of course you try to strawmanify me by suggesting that I’m hoping for an American defeat. The fact is that the government is defeating America by committing US to a war we cannot afford. Sorry, I just refuse to be neoconned. You’ll have to take that argument somewhere else.
Pardon me for misstating your position somewhat. It was unintentional, but even if I had done it intentionally it would have been worth it to lure you into the debate.
Actually, Chris, a majority of Americans supported the Iraq War to begin with. That they now have turned tail and run away from that original position doesn’t make their new position the right one, it just makes them fickle flakes. I didn’t say you hate America, it just sounds like you do when you don’t even want us to beat the most evil forces in the world.
Strawmanify… nice Bushism.
I like it.
I am traveling for the next couple days, so I can’t get into this discussion more… for now.
Darius T wrote:
I can’t speak for the rest of the nation, but the reason I now oppose the war is because the primary reason for invading turned out to be an illusion. There were no WMDs and no active WMD programs in Iraq. It’s not fickleness to change my opinion of the war. Rather, it’s principled.
“Strawmanify… nice Bushism.
I like it.”
That’s actually a Colinism.
I think we should bring our troops home because the Iraqis don’t wants us out of there.
Poll after poll reveals that a vast majority of the people want us to leave. A vote in the Iraqi parliament last year revealed that a majority of lawmakers want us to leave. And now Maliki has come out and said that he wants a timetable for troop withdrawal.
If the Bush junta really believed in democracy, then they would honor the will of the Iraqis. But they don’t. Neither do all these so-called American patriots, who are really just deluded jingoists.
America does not own the world. We do not own Iraq. It should not be our decision whether or not to bring our troops home. It should be the decision of the Iraqis. And they’ve made their opinion known.
“I think we should bring our troops home because the Iraqis don’t wants us out of there.”
Typo: obviously I meant: “I think we should bring our troops home because the Iraqis don’t want us there.”
“Actually, Chris, a majority of Americans supported the Iraq War to begin with. That they now have turned tail and run away from that original position doesn’t make their new position the right one, it just makes them fickle flakes.”
You make a good point here. In fact, I knew you would come back with this. I have to admit that I am one of those “fickle flakes” who was deceived into thinking that Iraq was a grave and imminent threat to the United States. I know we’ve debated whether there was deception involved, and Darius has said and I have weakly conceded that perhaps there was faulty intelligence rather than outright deception that got us into this war. Although that may have initially been the case, there was definitely deception after the war had begun. I mean you had Cheney touting the supposed links between al Qaeda and Saddam well into the war, well after the intelligence community had thoroughly debunked such claims. But nevertheless I, like most Americans, have changed my position on the war. The question is whether I get to blame that on the government. The answer is no. So I have learned the following lessons from Iraq that I hope everyone will take to heart.
1. Don’t trust your government. They never have the country’s best interests at heart. They are sold out to the military industrial complex. To them, war is the health of the state. And as long as there is a military industry there must needs be an enemy to fight, because after all people are relying on those jobs to feed their families.
2. Don’t believe war propaganda. The government will always try to sell the public on reasons they think they will support. The real agenda is always hidden. If they say that we’re trying to spread democracy or that we will be “greeted as liberators” when we invade countries, don’t be an idiot.
3. The government is lying about 9/11. The Bush administration resisted an official investigation for as long as they could. And when the 9/11 Commission report was released they made no mention of the third building that was brought down. Yeah, there were three buildings brought down that day. The third was not hit by a plane. Whether they orchestrated the events of that day or not is debatable. At any rate, they did get their “new Pearl Harbor”. And they definitely knew the country was in danger and failed to act, and they definitely benefited by being able to sell the public on a war they would have otherwise been critical of.
4. Beware of entangling alliances and shill governments set up by the CIA. When the strong man fails to do what he is told, or when the military industrial complex is itching for war, he’s going down. The whole country may go down with him.
5. Don’t believe the government about Iran.
6. Don’t listen to scare-mongering. It is being used to manipulate you. The “smoking gun” is never a “mushroom cloud.”
7. Don’t support any war unless you are absolutely positive you won’t change your mind later. Darius WILL call you on it.
8. Learn to think critically, and exercise your mind. God gave it to you for a reason.
9. Don’t be afraid to ask questions. Don’t feel as though you are not supposed to. Its not that important to be “mainstream”. To be mainstream is to be willingly uninformed like almost everyone else.
10. And last but not least, waterboarding isn’t torture unless you’re a wimp. And being forced to dogpile on other naked dudes isn’t torture. Having your genitals shocked with electricity isn’t torture. And crushing a little boy’s testicles might be torture, but it is within the president’s authority to do so according to John Yoo, president Bush’s legal counsel. That’s all just hypothetical, though, since the US does not torture.
awesome
Chris A:
Amen, Amen, and A-MEN!
Let me know if you ever decide to run for office; I’ll definitely donate to your campaign!
“If the Bush junta really believed in democracy, then they would honor the will of the Iraqis. But they don’t. Neither do all these so-called American patriots, who are really just deluded jingoists. ”
As usual, Don, you’re intellectually dishonest on this point. Bush has been withdrawing troops, but at a justifiable rate. Most Iraqis want the U.S. to leave? DUH!! I want the U.S. to leave too. And now that we’ve wiped out the terrorists, it’s getting near the point where we can set a timetable for majority withdrawal.
So Don, let me ask you this and see if you can be logically consistent: if the Iraqis wanted us to stay, would you then support our presence in Iraq?
I guess the Surge was a really bad idea…
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/17/iraq.afghanistan.ap/index.html
Regardless of all of the sturm, bravado and machismo attached to this war and the glorification of the soldiers fighting over there, as well as the rhetoric concerning a “war on terror” that we must win at any cost, purely on the basis of some ill-defined principle of patriotism, the fact remains that the war will end when the government can no longer afford to wage it. Given the fact that the United States currently has a balance-of-trade deficit of over 800 billion dollars, as well as the fact that the value of its currency is in a downward spiral, IN ADDITION to the fact that most policymakers are in favor of increased economic regulation, we may see the boys coming home sooner than we think.
Oops, Don, you spoke too soon.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080718/ts_afp/usiraqdiplomacymilitary
Darius: There’s no reason for you to be so insulting. You and I happen to disagree about certain political issues. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. There’s no reason for you to come out and, without the least provocation, call me “intellectually dishonest” and to imply that I have trouble being “logically consistent.”
I’m tempted to respond in kind, but I’m not going to do that.
In the future, I will only respond to your comments if you end these personal attacks adn instead stick to the issues.
You’re being intellectually dishonest by saying that Iraq wants our troops to go home but Bush won’t let them, when in fact he is currently pulling troops out of Iraq (albeit at a slow, methodical rate). Thus, you are intellectually dishonest. It’s not a personal attack to point out the obvious error in your argument. I am not implying that you are having trouble being logically consistent, I just wanted to know what you thought if the shoe was on the other foot regarding the Iraqi poll and if you really cared what Iraqis thought or if you only liked what they think if it coincides with your own views. A logically-consistent position of yours would say that we should leave if Iraq wants us to leave and we should stay if they want us to stay. I was wondering if you would agree with that, since you think Bush has to be beholden to the whims of the Iraq people in some poll.
More signs of imminent victory in Iraq… yeah, that Surge was a really bad idea.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/19/AR2008071900505.html
Darius, the surge was (and still is) a bad idea, and I’ll give you 98,239 reasons: 4439 coalition deaths 93,880 civilian deaths, to date, all for the benefit of the big oil companies.
http://akagaga.blogspot.com/2008/06/bush-bears-fruit.html
Seriously, blood for oil?
Leaving aside the silliness of the big oil argument, those numbers are totals for the entire war, not just during the Surge. The Surge was enacted to limit civilian and coalition deaths (as well as further political stability), and it has been an amazing success on all fronts.
Seriously, Darius. You read my link - you even commented. And I guess when it comes to people dying, I don’t think it much matters whether it’s before “the Surge” started or after. They’re still dead.
Millions of people died in WWII, but I don’t know of anyone who would use those numbers to say that it wasn’t worth it. Likewise, consider the alternative: Saddam still in power and still killing thousands of his own people, aiding in the deaths of innocent Israelis, and threatening the lives of countless others.
“Likewise, consider the alternative: Saddam still in power and still killing thousands of his own people, aiding in the deaths of innocent Israelis, and threatening the lives of countless others.”
I wouldn’t call this intellectually dishonest, but I might call it intellectual diversion. Its basically a White House talking point memo. Just when you thought all of America woke up to the fact that the U.S. government did not have the best interests of Iraq in mind when they started bombing them, killing civilians, someone rehashes this discredited argument. Its like, “We couldn’t stand to see Saddam use all those weapons (he got from us) on his own people, especially after he invaded Kuwait. So we used sanctions to kill even more of his people by starvation. And when we still weren’t satisfied that this evildoer had been neutralized, we started a war that killed even more Iraqis still. I mean, someone had to get rid of this evil dictator - even if hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had to die in the process.”
Umm, how did sanctions kill more of his people, pray tell? He was stealing millions (or was it billions) via the Oil-for-Food scandal, so he had plenty to take care of his people. Don’t blame us for his greed.
Let’s use your logic for World War II. Logically, it probably would have been best to just lay down our weapons and let Hitler and Japan control the whole world. Yes, they would have wiped out the Jews (and a bunch of Chinese), but in just pure numbers, less people probably would have died (at least in the near future). All wars have collateral damage, it’s the nature of war.
Chris, may I please give you a warning to not go into WWII please.
*thinks Colin should actually write a WWII article to just get this mess over with
Upon the advise of the all wise Colin, I shall not go into WWII. Plus I’d be winging it something terrible. So we can strike the sanctions comment from the record for now. Nevertheless, the Iraq War has killed more of Saddam’s “own people” then he ever killed himself. So let’s not pretend to be the hero coming to save the Iraqi people from this murderous tyrant. Seriously.
“Nevertheless, the Iraq War has killed more of Saddam’s “own people” then he ever killed himself.”
Wrong again, Chris. You really need to start checking your facts.
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html
It’s difficult to compare the death rates under Saddam vs. the death rates during and after the US invasion. The statistics aren’t available. We don’t know how many Iraqis were dying each year before the invasion, and we don’t know how many are dying today. There isn’t enough evidence to claim that the invasion saved lives or that it cost lives.
My argument is that it is a false argument to use, as the validity or rightness of a war does not depend on the collateral damage (even when it may be foreseeable). After all, if you used that argument, wars like the Civil War or WWII may have been wrong by that logic.
One other thing, Chris, American forces have killed a small percentage of the INNOCENT civilians (not to be confused with insurgents) compared to those killed by terrorists in Iraq.
“Wrong again, Chris. You really need to start checking your facts.”
Maybe you should read that article more closely. It says he killed up to 340,000 Iraqis. Last I heard (and this was some time ago) the Iraqi death toll since the U.S. invasion was over 600,000. Keep in mind this war has only been going on for a few years compared to Saddam’s reign.
The number quoted by akagaga was 98,000 civilians. And if you look at that link (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/), it’s not a site that would be likely to underestimate the number. 600,000 must be counting terrorists or something, that is a way overblown number.
It’s quite possible that the Iraq War has killed killed more Iraqis than Saddam did. Even John McCain admits that the war has killed “hundreds of thousands” or Iraqis. The website Darius referenced says that Saddam has killed between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqis.
A strong case can definitely be made that U.S. sanctions killed more Iraqis than Saddam.
A number of studies have been done on the U.S.-led sanctions. Professor Richard Garfield of Columbia University estimates that between 1991-2002, the excess mortality rate of children under the age of five was 400,000. In other words, 400,000 more children under five died during this period than the previous, pre-sanction period. Though sanctions weren’t responsible for all of these deaths, the data overwhelmingly suggests that they were responsible for a large majority of them.
And that’s just for children under five!
Appearing on “60 Minutes” in 1991, even Madeleine Albright didn’t deny the horrible death toll of our sanctions. Leslie Stahl: “We have heard that half a million children have died . . . is the price worth it?” Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.”
Actually, iraqbodycount.org would not overestimate the number of Iraqis killed. Their methodology is very conservative: I believe they only consider someone to have died if that person’s death has been reported by two major news outlets. So obviously their numbers are going to be lower than the actual number of deaths.
There are good reasons to believe that nearly ONE MILLION Iraqis have died in the recent war: http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12296
The 600,000 figure comes from a study from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and this is between March 2003 and July 2006. They admit the study has a high margin of error, but the low end figure would still be over 425,000.
Antiwar.com? Yeah, like they would be impartial. {rolls eyes}
As for the sanctions… do you truly put the blame on the U.S. for those deaths? Is your moral compass so warped that you blame America instead of Saddam? He could have fed his people if he cared to, but instead he built palaces while they starved.
Again, though, you all miss the point. Collateral damage happens in all wars, and if you start using this flawed logic, then WWII becomes suspect.
First of all, Antiwar.com has a link to the study. I suggest you read it.
Secondly, you’re committing the genetic fallacy. So what if I referenced Antiwar.com? By merely pointing that out, you in no way disprove my argument. The only way to disprove my argument is to actually look at the argument itself–that is, to look at the study, look at the researchers’ methodology, etc., and from that explain why my argument is unsound.
Moving on…
Yes, Saddam could have resigned from office and in so doing ended the sanctions. No argument there. So was Saddam a monster? Yes, absolutely. But U.S. foreign policy was also monstrous. For years, human rights activists reported how the sanctions were devastating the Iraqi people. Yet we kept on starving them. That’s despicable.
Regarding WWII, we’re not talking about WWII! We’re talking about modern U.S.-Iraqi relations!
So your logic can only be applied in certain circumstances? Okay, I just wanted to make sure I understood the rules by which you debate. Now that I know, I will move on.
What’s despicable is that while we had sanctions on Iraq, the U.N. leadership (Annan, Galloway, etc.) was funneling money to Saddam. If we had truly sanctioned Iraq, Saddam would have capitulated. But instead his people suffered because crooks like Annan aided Saddam. Sanctions work if you actually enforce them.
“So your logic can only be applied in certain circumstances? Okay, I just wanted to make sure I understood the rules by which you debate. Now that I know, I will move on.”
What on earth are you talking about?
“What’s despicable is that while we had sanctions on Iraq, the U.N. leadership (Annan, Galloway, etc.) was funneling money to Saddam.”
And what does this have to do with anything? The point is that, although we knew our sanctions were murdering Iraqi civilians, we kept at it. Corruption in the UN in no way mitigates our wrongdoing.
You don’t apply your collateral damage logic to other wars, just Iraq. That’s what I”m getting at.
To use your logic regarding sanctions… so if someone hijacks a plane load of people for ransom, you would be all for paying the ransom. Otherwise, if those people are killed, the blood is on your hands. You might want to think a bit more about that and the repercussions of such a policy (think: planes will start getting hijacked all over the place).
Darius, I’m not trying to be a pain, but are you saying that we cannot allow ourselves to measure wars by their loss of life because it may invalidate sacred cows like WWII and the Civil War?
No, I AM saying that one has to acknowledge where one’s argument applies in other cases. If you’re willing to say that it was wrong for the Allies to fight Hitler because it likely produced more casualties than if they had just conceded to his wishes, then fine. I disagree strongly, but I just want to make sure you understand the full implications of the argument that collateral damage makes a war wrong.
Ok, great. That’s a position I can accept as logical.
“You don’t apply your collateral damage logic to other wars, just Iraq. That’s what I”m getting at.”
How would you know what I think about other wars? I’ve only written about this one!
Moving on…your analogy isn’t at all…analogous to the situation we’re discussing. For one thing, it’s not as though ending the sanctions would have caused a plethora of Saddam Husseins to rise up: in your analogy, if we give into the terrorists, then “planes will start getting hijacked all over the place.”
“I just want to make sure you understand the full implications of the argument that collateral damage makes a war wrong.”
I don’t think anyone here has said that collateral damage makes a war wrong. I personally think that, in theory at least, some wars might be justified even if some non-combatants end up getting kill. In theory, that is.
I don’t. Killing is wrong. There’s no gray area there. In short I would name the following popular American Wars as unjust:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Iraq I
Iraq II
Civil War
Revolutionary War
So you don’t believe in Just War theory? I’m glad you finally admitted it.
Darius
“I don’t. Killing is wrong. There’s no gray area there. In short I would name the following popular American Wars as unjust:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Iraq I
Iraq II
Civil War
Revolutionary War”
Dude, I can’t believe you just played the Revolutionary War card like that! That was totally unexpected. Now you know you’ve got to write an article to back that up. You’re destroying our American religion here! Am I the only one here who cares about that?! I’m not listening! I’m not listening! USA! USA!
Darius,
I personally don’t believe in just war theory. But I think it is a decent line of argument, and can be fairly consistent. And if one is going to make war, it’s not bad place to start.
Chris,
Sarcasm noted. lol…
I would like to take the time to point out, for the record, that I find it amazing that pastors will glorify the revolutionary war (fought mostly over taxes and trade) and then pound the book on the biblicality of taxation. Either the bible is wrong or the revolution was wrong.
You’ve heard pastors do sermons on the Rev. War or taxation? They need to get new material if that’s what they’re talking about.
Also, I’m amazed that a guy who purports to be all about personal freedom would be against the Revolutionary War.
“Also, I’m amazed that a guy who purports to be all about personal freedom would be against the Revolutionary War.”
Didn’t see that coming… I don’t agree or disagree really, but I have to admit that it does seem a bit unAmerican be against the Revolutionary War. But if one has to be unAmerican to be consistent on issues of morality and/or ethics, I see nothing wrong with that. To each his own. And whether you believe it or not, we are fast heading toward a global community where - absent some great public outcry and action - our American sovereignty, prosperity, currency, and way of life will be finished. So if you are going to stop pledging allegiance to the flag, now would be a good time to start.
Personally, there is just something in me that wants to fight tyranny. I know that its not 100% right, but I sometimes feel like I want to revolt against our government the way these guys revolted against theirs. I, of course, temper this feeling with my own principles so I don’t go off the deep end. But I think the founders understood that we would have to deal with those who would subvert our country from within and abuse their power. In my view that’s exactly what is happening in our country. The whole infrastructure is collapsing on itself, and don’t kid yourself into thinking the British don’t have anything to do with that. They are greatly influencing the American political landscape today through people like Al Gore, Felix Rohatyn, and George Soros. They have been masters of this kind of thing for centuries. That’s how empires are sustained after everyone thinks they’re done; it is covert rather than over manipulation. But enough of that. Darius is sure to call me a tinfoil hatter.
*over=overt
Actually, I mostly agree with you. The Europeans have given up a lot of sovereignty (though not nearly as much as the intellectual elite wants, since almost every referendum is defeated by the people). I fully expect that liberals will push a North American Union eventually, just not anytime soon and even then, I doubt that it will pass, since conservatives are still strong enough in this country to fight that kind of legislation off. Actually, a strong America helps hold back the globalization idea, since as long as we’re stronger than everyone else, there is less reason for us to jump into bed with the rest of the world (what is in it for us besides carrying even more of the load?).
As for the Rev. War… I can see an argument for it being unjust. I would say it was not, but that many people involved began it for unbiblical reasons (we are, after all, to submit to the authorities). The war was just, in that it threw off tyranny and economic slavery, but Christians who took part were ignoring Romans 13 and forgetting that if any government should have been violently resisted, it was the Roman Empire. Something can be just AND unChristian. It is just for me to kill a murderer, but it is not Christian (unless he is in the middle of killing anothe person, which would constitute defense of another).
Colin, you would probably love Shane Claiborne, at least what he says about war (he is also a Communist, so you would hate him on economics).
“Actually, I mostly agree with you. The Europeans have given up a lot of sovereignty (though not nearly as much as the intellectual elite wants, since almost every referendum is defeated by the people).”
The Irish have successfully resisted for now. But the elite is looking for another way to override their vote against the Lisbon Treaty.
“I fully expect that liberals will push a North American Union eventually, just not anytime soon and even then, I doubt that it will pass, since conservatives are still strong enough in this country to fight that kind of legislation off. Actually, a strong America helps hold back the globalization idea, since as long as we’re stronger than everyone else, there is less reason for us to jump into bed with the rest of the world (what is in it for us besides carrying even more of the load?).”
Yeah, the Liberals may push the NAU. But let’s not forget Bush’s role via the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. That is the beginning of this thing. As far as Conservatives fighting this, I hope you’re right. I hope the Liberals and everyone else fights it too. However, the so-called web roots far left wing of the Democratic party is ripe with British influence, and the stage is being set for an almost impossible resistance.
Remember this works by problem/reaction/solution. Let me give you some somewhat hypothetical examples.
Problem: our borders are easily breeched, allowing illegal aliens to come and go at will, potentially making it easier for “terrorists”.
Reaction: the public demands the borders be secured.
Solution: the borders are expanded to include the greater “North American Community” where foreign authorities can be utilized in the fight against “terror”.
Problem: the dollar is losing its value.
Reaction: economic collapse and depression.
Solution: integration of Canadian, Mexican, and U.S. economies with one sound gold-backed currency - the Amero.
Watch out for the solutions to the problem and see whether they won’t trend towards the “New World Order” - George H.W. Bush’s words, not mine.