Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Are American interventionists evil?

Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 1:09:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Simple question. I've noticed how people whom without shame or remorse, fanatically support the classic American interventionist approach tend to share similar vile traits, such as manipulative and deceptive behaviour. This is true for most of them, be they liberal or conservative. Look at the Democrats Hillary and Jim Webb - save for a few political differences, mostly in the social segment, they could easily be mistaken for a lunatic Republican. Had you not known what party they belong to, judging by mere facts pertaining to their personality (e.g., Hillary's apparent manipulative and lying behaviour), you'd easily say they fall in the same group as well-known lunatics like G. Bush - namely in the Republican circle.

I say they're evil or quite close to being so. What say you? :)
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 10:13:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Interventionists by definition are evil. It's not enough for them to violate the homestead principle at home, but they want to attack people's freedoms abroad as well.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 10:27:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 10:13:39 AM, Wylted wrote:
Interventionists by definition are evil. It's not enough for them to violate the homestead principle at home, but they want to attack people's freedoms abroad as well.

No, it's entirely consistent with homesteading. For example, before American influence, there was no coca-cola in many countries. This meant that the consumers of the country were unowned from a caffeine beverage perspective. Coke and Pepsi wanted to put those unowned resources to active use by selling appropriate beverages to them. A similar analysis could be applied to a range of US-owned businesses extending to other countries, from mining to smartphones.

As Anthony de Jasay wrote:
" [if] taking first possession of a thing is a feasible act of his that is admissible if it is not a tort (in this case not trespass) and violates no right; but this is the case by definition, i.e., by the thing being identified as "unowned." Taking exclusive possession of it is, in terms of our classification of possible acts, a liberty, and as such only a contrary right can obstruct or oppose it."

The US does not intervene in areas where trade is flourishing. It only intervenes in communities where freedoms of industry expansion are blocked by foreign "governments" and warlords of various kinds. It is, with its presence, allowing homesteading to occur freely.

The alternate view to the one presented in the OP is that resisting American intervention is evil.