I cannot fathom the level of united states involvment in other countries. The IMF subsidizes third world dictators so they can buy some munitions from first world military contractors. In the process the IMF also micromanages the investments into the local economy of the debtor country. This second part of the process ensures that the debtor country's people see little to no progress (unless they are in with the ruling clique). I can understand the logic of funding dictators in the first part (and I completely disagree with it) but why the need to go so vicious on the second part?
And why the hell is it that the United States as a country is so damn ignorant about the nature of our foreign policies? I am curious to see what you guys have to say about it.
And another thing, I understand that there are a few Objectivists here who may not be aligned with the Ayn Rand Institute but why is it that those affiliated with that institution are so jingoistic in their foreign policy views? Is it to make them more distinct from the general definition of a libertarian? I have to say it seems that the Ayn Rand Institute is nothing but an organization of Atheist Neo-cons.
I can't stand Objectivists. Somewhere along the line, everyone thinks they are Galt, and that whatever their self interest may be, is rational because that is how they feel.
I don't buy the notion that Rand has done so much for libertarianism either.
The ARI position on war and imperialism stems from the idea that every virtuous person within a dictatarship would attempt to escape, revolt, or commit suicide. Those people that just try and live their lives are guilty of "supporting" the dictatarship, and thus have no rights. The general view of rights is different than most libertarians as well. They see rights as deriving from the proper social context, rather than being principles that must always be respected. Its a logical mistake, as well as an incorrect application of Rand's ideas, but St. Peikoff approves.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
liberty student: I can't stand Objectivists. Somewhere along the line, everyone thinks they are Galt, and that whatever their self interest may be, is rational because that is how they feel. I don't buy the notion that Rand has done so much for libertarianism either.
I was once an Objectivist. Her most famous novel, Atlas Shrugged, was so radical that it shook me loose of the conservative mindset that I had before I began reading page one. I never marched lockstep with every word she wrote but it certainly opened a new world of ideas for me. Then, via Googling her name, I came across others who were somehow influenced by her thoughts - libertarians. It is also through her I first heard the name Ludwig von Mises. She did not agree with him on praxeology, but had respect for his mind and considered him more of a positive influence than a negative one.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
Most Americans believe in the false idea that because we are the "land of the free and home of the brave" what our government does is always morally superior than what the rest of the world does. Why would someone want to hurt Americans? We are just trying to bring liberty and democracy to the rest of the world! We'll just ignore all of the abuses and atrocities that are either committed or sanctioned by the US government. It's this moral superiority that most Americans buy into that creates a sort of wall between logic and dogma in peoples heads. Logically the actions of this government have created nothing but suffering around the world but in the dogmatic minds of the people who refuse to acknowledge that we are trying to bring peace and security to other countries. They are just to stupid and backwards to recognize the infinitely superior life style and government we Americans have.
I've come to the conclusion that most Americans are functional retards.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
Deist:I understand that there are a few Objectivists here who may not be aligned with the Ayn Rand Institute but why is it that those affiliated with that institution are so jingoistic in their foreign policy views?
It's because ARI is a cult, and does not follow the philosophy of objectivism. Rand herself, in her later years, routinely contradicted her own philosophical premises after she became such a superstar that no-one was able to question any of her false conclusions. She exacerbated this by purging her circle of anyone who tried, which effectively meant anyone capable of independent critical thought. The only one who survived the process, by virtue of his utter lack of capacity for independent critical thought, was Leonard Piekoff, who went on to form the ARI.
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
wombatron:The ARI position on war and imperialism stems from the idea that every virtuous person within a dictatarship would attempt to escape, revolt, or commit suicide.
There's a kernel of truth to that, and it does justify forceful liberation of a totalitarian country, but the problem is that it assumes that all virtuous people would weigh the cost of so acting against the benefits of it the same way, and that not acting is defacto proof of a lack of virtue. This is one of her conclusions that violates her own premises.
When I say it justifies liberation, it does not mean that it justifies anything and everything that might be done to effect it, nor does it justify "regime change" to one of the liberator's choosing, nor forcing anyone to pay for it.
You might be interest to know that the ARI is opening Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights which will focus solely on civil rights and economic matters.
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
histhasthai: wombatron:The ARI position on war and imperialism stems from the idea that every virtuous person within a dictatarship would attempt to escape, revolt, or commit suicide. There's a kernel of truth to that, and it does justify forceful liberation of a totalitarian country, but the problem is that it assumes that all virtuous people would weigh the cost of so acting against the benefits of it the same way, and that not acting is defacto proof of a lack of virtue. This is one of her conclusions that violates her own premises. When I say it justifies liberation, it does not mean that it justifies anything and everything that might be done to effect it, nor does it justify "regime change" to one of the liberator's choosing, nor forcing anyone to pay for it.
Exactly.
This is interesting as far as Imperialism and the Ayn Rand Institute is concerned. The link I just found is about how the United States should wage war on Iran. When I checked out the history of the Ayn Rand Institute they have had a core group of members that have wanted to go to war with Iran since before the present Iraq war. Here is the link:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=15873&news_iv_ctrl=1553
liberty student: I don't buy the notion that Rand has done so much for libertarianism either.
I think a lot of people became libertarians because of Rand--I know I did, although I never became an Objectivist. Rand and Objectivism didn't exist in some little corner by themselves, but were firmly entrenched as part of a larger conservative-libertarian freedom movement. Furthermore, I think Objectivism logically and inevitably leads to anarcho-capitalism, although I'm sure there are plenty who disagree with that conclusion.
Deist: And why the hell is it that the United States as a country is so damn ignorant about the nature of our foreign policies? I am curious to see what you guys have to say about it.
I don't know if I can say for sure, but I think there are certain reasons why we're so ill-informed about our foreign policy. For one thing, Congress has traditionally left foreign policy to the President and his administration, so there's been comparatively less oversight and attention brought to it. And this has been compounded by the alleged need for security ("national defense"). Add on top of that a general apathy by the public for things that happen outside the U.S. in small, generally insignificant countries, and the result is very little public scrutiny of foreign policy. There may indeed be other factors, but these all seem to be important contributing factors.