Editorial
Genuine Military Defense, Anyone?
As much as one may object to Iran's government's efforts to build atomic weapons, the American government isn't supposed to be some kind of meta-police that embarks upon restraining such governments! Certainly spending American taxpayers' funds on conducting military actions against Iran would be going way beyond the proper military role of the American government, which is to protect its citizens' freedom from domestic and foreign criminals.
It bears remembering here that however off-course the American government has gone in its role in the country, the real role it has is to be a government strictly limited to the functions laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, which is to stand ready to defend the country when it is attacked or when there is a demonstrably clear and present danger that it will be − not might be − attacked. So the criteria by which one must judge its conduct, both domestic and international, is whether it amounts to such defense.
Sadly, of course, most politicians and bureaucrats, as well as their cheerleaders in academe and media, don't give a hoot about restraining the power of government. After all, the same rationale that serves to justify its relentless intervention in our lives at home is what is used to rationalize it abroad. (Does it occur to folks that despite some of the rhetoric of restraint associated with the political thought of President Obama, it is modern liberalism's interventionism that removes all principled restraint and leads to the imperialist policies of which this Libyan expedition is a case in point? Obama is, after all, a self-professed pragmatist and that means rejecting all principles as mere ideology!)
I am talking, of course, from the position of someone who has always agreed with President George Washington's warnings about foreign entanglements, made in his farewell address and one implicit in the basic thrust of the American political tradition of limited government. The limitation is not all that tough to grasp: It is self-defense, just as in the case of when people are justified to use force against each other, namely, when they have been attacked, when they encounter an aggressor. This does not include being deprived of someone else's productive work or resources, including Iran's oil. If my neighbor refuses to sell me his produce or labor, I have no right to attack him and try to force him to hand these to me because I want them very badly, even need them desperately. And if he arms himself and his family to the teeth in anticipation, justified or not, of being attacked by local gangs, that too is not cause for me to attack him.
Such is the proper standard of international military policy for a bona fide free society and whether that goes contrary to domestic intellectuals, the community of nations, the UN or whoever else sounds off about it, it makes no difference. None of that is going to make it right and, furthermore, one rotten consequence of it is that all the rhetorical opposition to international banditry is certainly going to sound mighty hallow!
Once a country's government abandons the stance by which its use of force is kept to national defense and nothing else (however tempting it is to breach it), it has lost its moral authority to criticize other aggression around the globe, including that of the Iranian or Syrian government against "its own people." Rogue regimes everywhere, with their rulers aspiring to impose their will upon everyone, will be able to point to the USA and declare, correctly: "Look at the leaders of the free world. See how they butt into all manner of misconduct by their fellow governments so clearly it must be permissible for us to act likewise when we disapprove of what others do!"
Just as the philosophy that demands restraining government domestically is the most radical and sound political idea − just compare it to all the imperialism throughout human history embarked upon by hundreds of regimes − so this insistence that governments keep to their oath of protecting the rights of their citizens is radical, sound and sadly neglected.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by Danny B on 03/29/12 11:31 PM
"As much as one may object to Iran's government's efforts to build atomic weapons,"
These so-called efforts don't exist.
|
Posted by seer on 03/29/12 04:51 PM
As my old buddy used to say: a blind hog will find an acorn eventually. I agree 100% with the defense argument. US Military hegemony has bankrupted the USA. If Iran manged to make one bomb, Israel still has 200. If Iran used its one bomb there would be no Iran left after the blow back. It is hard to find one justifiable war after the possible Revolutionary War. All wars in the 1900's were justified for corporate gain.
|
Posted by oldman67 on 03/29/12 12:07 PM
Too many citizens could care less what our governments domestic and foreign policies are as long as they get their monthly checks and food stamps. Since 49% of citizens depend on the government for some type of assistance this should be no suprise.Instead of doing thier own research they get bits and peices from the corporate controlled news media weather it be radio, television or the newspapers.We know the same people who pushed for both the illegal Iraq War and the bombing of Saddams forces leaving Kuwait as ordered by the UN would not lie to us. The next big prize is not Iran but the rich resources of Africa. Click to view link and the Militarization...
|
Posted by vivek on 03/29/12 07:51 AM
America is a farce. The greatest farce, probably after the Vatican. So, to say that Bill of Rights, COnstitution etc. is a warm fuzzy, but meaningless. The true structure of the US, it's shadowy, freemasonic past (and present), including and especially the quoted Washington, arch-mason... .. the entire discussion is sadly moot.
What we see is far, far from what even the most avid conspiracy theorist can imagine...
Click to view link
Vivek
 |
Posted by rossbcan on 03/29/12 06:17 AM
"Look at the leaders of the free world. See how they butt into... "
We are are a "monkey see, monkey do species". If one is successful by being a bully, all others will be locked into self-defense and, other wannabe bullies will be ambitious, locked into an eternal and pointless "king of the hill" game, where to "win" is to "lose".
... because it causes "politics to have strange bedellows" by aligning all others against the "winner". This is why political alignments ALWAYS end in betrayal, they last only so long as they are "of use". If there is advantage to be gained by backstabbing and betrayal, so be it. The political alignments of states and "we, the people" has long been NOT "of use".
Know them by what they do, to give them a benefit of a doubt and to consider their rationalizations on their terms it to become confused and delay necessary responses. THEIR point is that "might is right" and THEY hold the basic assumption of predators that "it is neccessary to initiate aggression", as it is, by process of elimination when one refuses to add value by honest, peaceful trade.
Civilizations are destroyed by the costs, both economic and loss of "consent of the governed" as psychopathic predators rise to the top and enslave everyone in service of the "pretext to prey" du jour.
As to "defense", it must be asked "of whom and what, for what"?:
Using force to achieve a goal will cause a defensive reaction if the victim is able. This is because his survival (highest goal) has been negatively affected by a loss of property. If the victim is not able to retaliate, he can form a group to retaliate. If the forceful consequences of retaliating are too great, this means the forceful aggressor must maintain a force able to rebuff his victims. Thus forceful methods of goal seeking carry a high cost for both the victim and aggressor. Forceful methods of goal seeking creates social conflict, costing more force to suppress. It is not in the survival interests of the aggressor to use force unless someone else can be tricked into paying for the force required to protect from his victims, such as taxpayers paying for a "defensive" military and police state.
Excerpt from:
Click to view link
