Non-interventionalism without Exception?
An excerpt from a personal conversation that sprang from an article at the Ayn Rand Institute titled "New Ideal". I thought those here would find it interesting.
More than a few times when I was younger I inserted myself into situations where smaller or weaker kids were being picked on, beaten, by bigger kids. Yes, I put my welfare at risk to intimidate the thugs from beating the crap out of someone. Yes, on occasion I took my licks and gave them too (always ended up on top). I did this for no other reason than I couldn't walk by, turn a blind eye, to someone being victimized.
I get what the gist is with this article contends, truly. But what kind of people would we be if we could stand idlely by and watch comparatively helpless people be annihilated, butchered and dragged back in time by well armed thugs and do nothing, when we are strong enough to step in? What does that say about us to us?
I do subscribe to Jefferson;s non-interventionism for the most part. I have no desire to be the world police. I do not think its our place to get involved in every civil war everywhere, particularly when it come to profit motives. I think that will be our downfall. However, there are barbarous things happening in the 21st century that should have been extinguished two or more centuries ago. With instant communication permeating the world we can't not know of them, if we're not seeing them real time. And, when you know, particularly when you can actually help, how do you in good conscience not step in?
More than a few times when I was younger I inserted myself into situations where smaller or weaker kids were being picked on, beaten, by bigger kids. Yes, I put my welfare at risk to intimidate the thugs from beating the crap out of someone. Yes, on occasion I took my licks and gave them too (always ended up on top). I did this for no other reason than I couldn't walk by, turn a blind eye, to someone being victimized.
I get what the gist is with this article contends, truly. But what kind of people would we be if we could stand idlely by and watch comparatively helpless people be annihilated, butchered and dragged back in time by well armed thugs and do nothing, when we are strong enough to step in? What does that say about us to us?
I do subscribe to Jefferson;s non-interventionism for the most part. I have no desire to be the world police. I do not think its our place to get involved in every civil war everywhere, particularly when it come to profit motives. I think that will be our downfall. However, there are barbarous things happening in the 21st century that should have been extinguished two or more centuries ago. With instant communication permeating the world we can't not know of them, if we're not seeing them real time. And, when you know, particularly when you can actually help, how do you in good conscience not step in?
I always view intervention as an economic evaluation, but not in the monetary sense. Before deciding to get involved in someone else's business, you need to consider the long term result that occurs in your interest. Indifference to radical Islam's ventures in other lands does not go well for us, as world conquest is their goal. If we ignore their ventures elsewhere, they grow powerful and become a bigger problem we will eventually have to deal with. You also have to pick your fights. Eisenhower chose to stay out of Hungary's uprising in 1956, as he saw the result as a likely very dangerous clash with the USSR. Reagan, recognizing the increasingly fragile condition of our biggest enemy, chose to confront the USSR on behalf of its Eastern European vassal states, and the collapse accelerated,to the benefit of the world economy.
I know this is an area where my Conservatism deviates from Objectivism.
There is a difference between an individual carrying arms into battle vs their supporting the protests and people who would. (So long as it is voluntary.)
While it wasn't at the forefront of my awareness at the time I served, I'm glad I stood to act should something which warranted our involvement arose. Conversely, I'm also thankful that nothing was tasked when I served that would have put my life more at risk than usual in the Navy.
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
http://newideal.aynrand.org/putting-a...
Odd. I'll see if I can find it again.
It reminds me of these stories I'm reading about refugees who want to come to the US because their country completely disrespects their rights. I want to be a helper, but the solution cannot be for everyone to come to the countries like the US that don't have those issues. But going to those countries and trying to fix them doesn't work either. So I don't have easy answers. During my lifetime, though, to my non-expert view going and fixing their countries does not work. We spent all this money on Iraq, and it's not fixed. Latin America and Africa are better than they were, but my impression is the level of improvement seen in countries where US intervened is not higher than other countries. It seems to me like it doesn't work.
But US is the de facto police of the world. When someone uses chemical weapon or invades a country, people expect the US to respond. Why us? That's a philosophical question. When the attack happens, like the gas attack in Syria, the US returns a proportional response regardless of who's president.