I should think this needs a caveat: as far as I’ve understood Mill he can’t actually be called a libertarian (if that is what Captain Amazing is suggesting, it is not clear whether he states that). Mill was a classical liberal, but at the same time held that we should act, simply speaking, for the greatest happiness of the greatest number (=utilitarianism). That doesn’t cohere well with the idea that people should have an untouchable right to their own property and other libertarian tenets, as I understand these.
I’d like to but what I heard was a radio commentary by Chomsky. I’ve tried unsuccessfully to find a transcript. However while I admittedly summarized his position, I did not misrepresent it.
Nor should anyone be ignorant of the difference between history and current affairs. Since 1991, the United States has consistently been the number one source of opposition to Saddam Hussein. Any nation, group, or person who is opposing Saddam should acknowledge that. It is meaningless to say the US supports Saddam now because it did so back in the 1980’s.
The question I’d like to ask Chomsky (or better yet hear Chomsky answer; he has a habit of avoiding awkward questions) is this: if the United States’ support of Saddam Hussein in the 80’s was wrong, how can the United States’ opposition to Saddam Hussein in the 90’s also be wrong? Doesn’t one of these two opposing positions have to be the right one?
That is actually a good question, but I think it presupposes a simplistic view of foreign affairs. It also depends on the intentions of the US government. If you assume that the US is the good guys and usually act in good faith, you could argue that the US has good intentions but sometimes is forced to make Faustian bargains with evil dictators. That was the premise of the film “Bright Shining Lie,” that we had good intentions in Vietnam but we were let down by corrupt dictators. I don’t believe this for a moment, it is what I would call a limited hangout.
My speculation about the intentions of the US government in Iraq (and I admit it is only speculation) is that we have more evil intentions. We build them up and then we knock them down in a perverse kind of war profiteering. It is not the simple right or wrong scenario you have posed above, but the act of arming and then destroying Iraq is what is evil.
I guess a simple analogy would be a cop who illegally sells a gun to a criminal then arrests him or shoots him for illegally possessing a gun (and I am not talking about a sting operation). If that case went to trial, don’t you think the defense would be able to have the case thrown out?
Morally, does the cop have some responsibility for the fact that the criminal has a gun? That is what disturbs people like me and Chomsky and others is that the US never really takes responsibility for the evil it does in the world.
If Americans really understand the evil of US foreign policy, they would not have been at all surprised on the morning of 9-11. I myself have wondered for years why Americans could even leave the country without being shot on sight.
Not true, as Democrats are only associated as being liberals and Republicans are associated as being conservative. A liberal democrat can be interpreted to mean someone who borders on being labeled a radical, while a conservative democrat can be interpreted as being someone who is closer to being moderate…or possibly even being a bit conservative.
Not all democrats are liberal, or what was said by Daniel Withrow would be true.
Thank you for this post…I have been trying to put this into words that the masses can understand for quite some time now.
My entire life, I have been very outspoken about the fact that I am a Pacifist. All of a sudden, a situation comes along where we actually need to consider taking action. However, the only reason this situation ever came along is because of the US’s foreign policy blunders of the last 50 years.
It almost seems like some sort of Republican scheme to keep the military in business.
Actually, 9/11 did take me by surprise…I’m surprised it took so long. I had been predicting it for years beforehand…it would ony be a matter of time before our “subjects” became so upset with the US foreign policy that they would act.
And they did act. And now we are taking our own blunders out on Iraq.
I love my country…I love my freedom…I love everything about the USA…
Except one thing. I am ashamed of our foreign policy since World War II.
What is it that many of them (us?) do that you don’t care for?
Vanity search tells me that I’ve been questioned, and thus a discussion is bumped.
I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with anyone who’s a Libertarian, I’m saying that, like every group, they have a lunatic fringe. The republicans have the bigoted ignorant types, the democrats have the people who want the state to do everything for everyone, and the libertarians have the militia types, among others.
I was basically extolling a virtue of Libertarianism: the group doesn’t have to agree with one another to agree on the philosophy. It’s a good way to work.
LC