Defense of Liberty: Just Intervention

"The only time aggression can be used is in response to or in anticipation of a credibly suspected act of aggression by another nation."

I can't think of a better way to say it at the moment.

Why in hell would you want to? You've already nailed it!

Well said, and we largely agree. I think one has to objectively, though reluctantly, acknowledge that our government, even as currently manifested, does represent the majority of the citizenry's vision of what it should be/do. That it has managed to do so unConstitutionally is not relevant, IMO, to the subject of this thread, which I have already stated is IMO fatuous given that the resolution states "...IS morally justified" rather than "may be morally justified."

Outside the context of this resolution, I don't see how one can argue with a straight face that our government has NOT routinely usurped power from the people.

I have to go along with Demi on this one, though.

Yeah, well, me too; I guess I'm just nit-picking over the meaning of "usurp" as used by Rand, when, in fact, I think the whole idea of moral justification hinges not upon the nature of the government against which intervention is contemplated, but upon the existence of self-defensive necessity. If a government is already immoral, what difference does it make whether its intervention itself can be otherwise morally justified?

Rand is often off-the-edge, and it appears to me that it is because objectivism is largely incompatible with morality (on an individual level, which is the only thing that counts in philosophy, 'cause who's ever going to be up to "philosophizing" a group?

You brought up the issue of popular consent to foreign policy. My thesis is that it is not necessary as long as the government is produced by competitive elections. For a while it seemed that you figured that foreign policy should be by universal consent, and for that reason I asked you various 90%-10% questions. Now that you finally clarified your position for me (took a while, didn't it?) we can discuss it. So, no, I never justified my position with popular support, I was merely pointing out to you the fallacy to build a foreign policy on concrete consent to a particular action. the role of consent is to validate the government through elections, and let it do foreign policy in between times.

All right. Now, you position seems to be that foreign policy is valid when it is constitutional. Since foreign invasion is not in the US Constitution, it is never constitutional. This is not in a direct contradiction with Rand's or mine views. Rand's and mine thesis is that if a government invades a dictatorship, then its actions are rightful with respect to the nation being invaded. It still remains to be seen if its actions are also rightful with respect to its own citizens. As you point out, if our govenrment acts outside of the constitutional boundary, then the invasion may be just (rightful with respect to the invaded nation), but illegitimate with respect to us. Agreed.

There is no direct contradiction here because the article speaks in abstract about what a nation -- any nation -- may or may not do militarily. It gives a general answer: in order to be honest with its own citizens the government must follow national interest. This is so far as the natural law, and generally libertarianism go.

I would agree with you that our government would be better off if it followed the letter of the constitution. However, if the interpretation of the constitution is such that is forbids a foreign intervention regardless of national interest, then we have a bad constitution that ought to be changed. Specifically, the analysis in the article shows that foreign invasion should be legitimate for a representative government if the enemy is not governed representatively and our government sees a national interest in pursuing the invasion.

Clearly, a "credibly suspected act of aggression by another nation" qualifies as a national interest, and when such is seen, a foreign war waged on the enemy's soil should be authorized by the Constitution. I would argue that defense of property of American citizens (corporate or not), who suffered a nationalization by those tin pot third world dictators, might qualify as a national interest as well, for example, when the alternative is dependence on foreign oil.

"What sheeple want sheeple get" [...] is another one of your "might makes right" statements

You misunderstood it. The point of it was that we have a government that represents the governed.

On the rest of that post, we seem to be in agreement that no day-to-day consent is required for foreign policy.

The point of it was that we have a government that represents the governed.

Even this is false. It's not true. Unless the government is protecting their rights they are not being represented. Pretending that they like this is just another way of saying that might makes right.

Question. A plebiscite is taken and the majority view is that private firearms should be banned. The government bans private firearms (by passing, first, the requisite constitutional amendment). Did the government represent the population?

Did the government represent the population?

But you fail to remember the fundamental problem. It is not the government's job to represent the wishes of the voters. It is to represent the law and protect their rights. The representatives are there to represent the rights of those people. Not their wishes and not their designs on everyone elses freedom.

At least that's the way its supposed to be in a republic. I don't know what you have in mind but so far it isn't remotely libertarian nor is it constitutional.

Let me try this another way. I have no right to stip you of your rights.

This republic is endowed with powers that are delegated from me and you.

If I haven't got the right to take away your rights, then it is impossible for me to delegate that very authority to somebody I elect. The collective does not become stronger in that regard. Thus, every so-called action by the government which supposedly acts on your authority when in fact you didn't have that authority and couldn't possibly have delegated to anyone, is illegitimate.

You cannot give away what you don't already posess. Thus, the government which accepts power which nobody could give it, is an utter fraud. No. The government does not represent a population which "votes away its rights."

It merely pretends that the power it was "given" is real. All such power excercised is fraud and force.

Excellent thinking/posting on this thread.

Is it possible to establish criteria (and objectively apply them) which would make a country eligible for moral intervention from without solely on the basis of the nature of its government which would not "qualify" every country in the world?

Dawg? There will never be a solution to humankind's desire to modify universal law. From the very first time the monkeys agreed among themselves to off the old man so younger, stronger monkeys could perpetuate and strengthen the breed we have had a continuous experiment with man's role in nature.

The argument between you and the statists and authoritarians with whom you and other thoughtful libertarians disagree has always been about, "...which came first, the chicken or the egg?" and the egg wins everytime, but always gets fried by the guy what owns the chicken.

With so many lawyers running around it is only natural that some dolt insists on writing clauses to a practice which used to be done in secret.

In other words, there are those who like to suggest that treachery and dishonor is a new facet of American intelligence collection and use. There have always been Wilsons and Pollards; the difference was that prior to 1975 a few less civilized monkeys among us offed them and if we were lucky we neutered their breed. Did we have a natural right? Yes.

I agree on your #70 and #71: the government may not remove the right of self-defense from its citizens. But I asked a different question: did the government that banned guns and followed the constitutional process in doing so, represent its population? The answer seems to be, yes.

I understand Rand's method of determining legitimacy of a national government when looking from outside to be very broad, and different from the standard of legitimacy we as libertarians try to exact from our government. This is, I believe the crux of our disagreement: Rand and I believe that a government is legitimate enough to (a) wage just intervention on rogue governments, and (b) to be immune from intervention only if it represents its population and protects their basic individual rights to life, property and civil freedoms. In this broad sense our government, as well as all industrial democracies that come to mind, are "legitimate enough". A Saudi government that equates religions other than Islam with criminality is, for example, not "legitimate enough".

You are correct when you point out that according to a strict libertarian standard most if not all of the governments today are illegitimate with respect to the natural law. For example, gun rights don't exist nearly everywhere in Europe, but it is not a burning issue in Europe either -- they just don't think gun rights are important. Thir governments, albeit illibertarian, represent the wishes of their population and when interests are in conflict seek consensus. That is good enough for Rand and me to allow them, as roughrider put it in #9, "to be a nation".

You are desperately trying to justify Empire.

Not desperately. I believe that the United States should stop being skittish about the term, and call itself what it is, an empire. I believe that the West in general made a grave mistake in the 50's and 60's when it dismantled the colonial system; that brought misery to the "sullen people" that were the colonies, and it destabilized our economic policy -- through dependence on foreign oil -- and now is destabilizing our defense. The sooner the United States openly assumes the role of an imperial leader in the Middle East, the better off individual rights will be, here and everywhere else.