Posted on 10/20/2001 7:27:01 AM PDT by annalex
Where do you see "might makes right"? This war is popular: the popular consent of, say, 90% could be easily obtained. The reason there is no declaration of war is as you mentioned yourself, is that there is no particular nation we are at war with. The congress nevertheless did pass some sort of thing that empowered the President to do what he does.
The problem for you is not that the president can't prevail politically about this war, but that, like in any war, there are some who don't agree with it, no matter how closely he adheres to the Constitution. I pointed out to you that there is no reasonable mechanism to seek 100% popular consent in foreign policy. If you see such mechanism, kindly point it out.
[tex-oma] did [point out the flaws in the article] and you ignored them.
I responded in #14, to which she had nothing meaningful to say. Thinking that perhaps it was my fault, I clarified myself in #32.
you have just justified the terrorists
According to Rand, it is rightful for a nation that is ruled representatively, to wage a war against a government that usurped power. The terrorist represent no-one but themselves and wage a war on civilians.
our concessions to the USSR were not technically errors, but the result of willful blindness and the influence of communists and communist sympathizers in our government and media.
Agree and agree. Thank you.
Doesn't make it any less of a representative government by popular consent. What sheeple want sheeple get.
It is possible that many woud think it just to invade us, but I doubt that they would do so because they read Rand.
I think annalex has correctly identified the minimal requirement for the legitimacy of government (as viewed from without): the majority of the citizenry approves of it -- how stupid or ignorant that approval may be is irrelevant in the context of the resolution heading this thread.
Now, to get to my own view of the question of intervention, the nature of the government in the country in question is relevant only if the motivation for intervention is altruistic, and if the motivation is altruistic, the intervention is always wrong. No matter how altruistic our citizenry on individual level, altruism plays no legitimate role in the function of our government. If a group of altruistic fellow citizens decides to pool resources to hire mercenaries to accomplish altruistic goals in another country, they should go for it, but of course under current U.S. law that would be a violation of the Logan Act whereby our government has reserved the sole authority to make foreign policy decisions and take foreign policy actions.
Our national defense should be the only consideration in interventionist decision-making IMO -- and I do NOT mean merely our perceived national interest.
The only moral basis for intervention must be the self-interest of our own people. Any other basis implies a series of arrogant assumptions, that imply a pretense of Godhood, the full implications of which simply will not scan.
The hardest lesson to get across to those in power is that which teaches the proper restraints on the exercise of power.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Everytime you try to justify your position with popular support. Feh.
This war is popular:
This isn't a war.
The congress nevertheless did pass some sort of thing that empowered the President to do what he does.
No they did not. They could not do that unless they changed the constitution. They passed a meaningless resolution and the President has taken power he was never given.
The problem for you is not that the president can't prevail politically about this war, but that, like in any war, there are some who don't agree with it, no matter how closely he adheres to the Constitution.
What other people think and do is not my problem, no. For a person who is particularly brilliant, I am surprised you made such an assanine comment. There isn't a measure called "close" as far as I know regarding the constitution and the law. That's like saying "almost stealing" or "almost pregnant." You either adhere to the law or you do not.
I pointed out to you that there is no reasonable mechanism to seek 100% popular consent in foreign policy.
It's not necessary. What is necessary is that the constitution be obeyed. It is not. 90%, 100% or 0% the Law (Constitution) is what makes an action justified or not and if you do not like it, then the law should be changed, not ignored. The government, by ignoring the constitution renders itself illegitimate.
If you see such mechanism, kindly point it out.
I did. Obey the laws. According to Rand, it is rightful for a nation that is ruled representatively, to wage a war against a government that usurped power. The terrorist represent no-one but themselves and wage a war on civilians.
Rand should be mocked viciously for her idiotic and non-sensical comments. Power has been usurped here in America. Thus according to Rand the terrorists were justified. In fact according to her, more justified than if it had been a nation that had attacked.
The reason her entire article is hogwash is she assumes that any nation is in a position to judge another. Two dictatorships with common borders may attack each other at will because both are "usurping authority."
The only time aggression can be used is in response to or in anticipation of a credible act of aggression by another nation.
Perhaps that's clearer. I can't think of a better way to say it at the moment.
This is another one of your "might makes right" statements for which you do not want to take responsibility.
The constitution may be changed. If the sheeple want bad government then they need to get off their butts and propose amendments.
The constitution, if adhered to, protects us all from sheeple. They can wish for some other type of government all they want but that does not change the law.
You are under a serious delusion annalex. That delusion being that agreement is necessary to run the nation. First of all, the nation doesn't need the government to run anything. The idea that things need to be "run" have arisen from the various and sundry illegitimate beaurocracies that have developed in the past 80 years.
There was nothing originally in the constitution (and still isn't) that required any agreement by anyone. And certainly nothing in the constitution that would allow for forced consent of some action.
The Constitution designed a very small government that organized commerce between the states and set up a national defense and a court system to settle disputes.
None of that involves me and you. Or at least it shouldn't. That the federal government is involved in our life in any way at all is proof that it is usurped its powers.
Thus, under Rand's hand-wavy arguments, we are ripe for invasion and such would be justified. Because Rand did not deal with the matter of what makes the invader any better than the supposedly "rogue" government.
Not in any meaningfull way that is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.