True Globalists (Should) Reject Empire
Deepak Lal devotes some attention to arguing that the United States has the material resources to carry out the imperialist program he suggests. But he never asks why we should trust the state to limit itself to the benevolent program he envisions. Lal undermines his own case by offering many good reasons to favor both trade and peace, intervening neither at home nor abroad. [Full Article]
Comments (20)
"The primary task of a Pax Americana must be to find ways to create a new order in the Middle East. . . . Far from being objectionable, imperialism is precisely what is needed to restore order in the Middle East. . . ."
That's enough for me to dismiss him as a pinhead. This guy seems to have a bloodlust for Muslims, and hopes such bigotry will catch on in America. When he claims that the best way to stop "terrorists" is to do more of the things--and worse--that p*ss them off in the first place, what he really exposes is his desire to see all Muslims either die or be forced into slavery.
I can only imagine the source of his self-delusion about America having "sufficient resources" to pull off this profiteering eugenics scheme. I can guarantee that I for one would do everything I could to prevent any Canadian resources from feeding such a Fourth Reich socialist monster (he himself claims a desire to be like the First Reich--the Romans).
This "moral empire" he speaks of that supposedly could engender a planetary utopia--from what fantasy world does he dream such an empire might emerge? Or are the most "moral" details of them all scheduled to be lost within the 24-hour news-channel war-marketing memory-hole? Seriously, since when is genocidal pretense a character trait of someone who is "cosmopolitan?"
Such are the wraiths who will try always to subvert rekindled ideas of liberty and economic freedom, who inspire for future history books the perverted stories of capitalism gone wrong. All must guard against them as they would against the vilest "common good" leeches.
Published: January 31, 2005 1:21 AM
Every community, once it reaches a certain size, needs a cop, and the community of nations is no exception.
The United States is the only nation able and willing to step into the global law enforcement role.
Published: January 31, 2005 7:04 AM
Mr. Gordon writes "Lal promotes imperialism as a means to counter terror; but it seems that without an interventionist policy, we would not have to confront a terrorist threat." I do not favor America being an empire, nor believe in imposing our values. On the contrary, I believe that our foreign policy should aim at defending America.
However, it is wishful thinking to believe that the threat to America is solely due to our foreign policy. Islam teaches that Dar al Islam is at war with Dar al Harb, and that the world of Islam must defeat and dominate the world of the infidels. Since the Islamists believe that they have a chance for victory, they are once again on the march, in their support of terrorism, their votes in the UN, and (most of all) in ideological insurgency everywhere.
Libertarians have consistently supported their arguments against government by pretending that there are no serious threats. Many continue to argue that Hitler posed no problem, and neither did Stalin. In this way they evade the need to balance liberty and security. America should not aim at being an empire, nor in the counterproductive aim of imposing values. Rather it should advocate that no one has the right to initiate force, but the obligation to resist it. When we do not resist the attacks on America, we incite and enable further aggression.
Published: January 31, 2005 8:44 AM
The United States is the only nation able and willing to step into the global law enforcement role.
America had a much better case for being the global cop in the period of WWI and WWII, because it was the world's biggest creditor nation, and the government also had the honesty to tell its citizens that great sacrifices would be required in order to win the wars - such as greater government control of the markets, curtailed consumption, and strong pressure to lend money to the government by purchasing war bonds. Today however the USA is a debtor nation, and most strange of all (to me), this continuing role as world-police is being sold to the public as if it requires no great sacrifices at all. On the contrary, people are urged to continue travelling by air and buying consumer goods.
If there really was a peace dividend resulting from successfully playing world-cop, then the fall of the Soviet empire would have been followed by balanced budgets and reduced government debt in the west. Once you surrender your power to government, even if it is in the name of a great moral cause, just try getting it back again ...
Published: January 31, 2005 10:04 AM
The citizens of the United States owe nothing to any other people. The US's need to resort to war should be in defense of the territories. But we seem to be involved around the world not on some moral crusade, though it is cloaked in morality, but to preserve access to resources.
Whether Hitler was a threat depends on who you were. He certainly was a threat to the Eastern Europeans and Western Asians. It is obvious that England's and France's concern wasn't some moral concept that the Easterners should be free, but that they did not want Germany as an ECONOMIC giant dominating Europe. If it was pure morality, why didn't they invade after Austria or Czechoslovakia? Why was it only after the partition of Poland and the switching of Russian alignments that England and France took action and declared war on Germany? There is little evidence that Hitler ever wanted to attack England, and even had a level of admiration for England. France was another story, but Hitler would not likely risk invading France and inspire England or the US. It would seem that Hitler could not understand why the Western allies cared. But they did, and was because they could not tolerate an economically dominant Germany.
At the end of the day WWI and WWII were all about economic domination, of Europe and the Empires. Germany coming late to the table, wanted the same economic benefit of dependencies that Britain and France had. I have no illusions that Stalin was expansionary in his own right despite efforts by some libertarians and liberals who portray him as someone who was just trying to make it through the wickets as best he could.
ALL the players were Statists, each having some touchstone of morality for their cause when at the root economics, as always, was the cause. Access and control of resources. Lebensraum, warm water ports, asian and middle eastern oil, empires, and dominance of the European economic landscape.
What was all of this to the US? Why should we have spent one dime on materiel? Intrigues in the orient need not have taken place. We ourselves wanted to obliquely dominate the area, while the Japanese wanted more crude and direct control. Ultimately would it have really mattered who controlled the resources as long as we could trade for our needs? Why was there such a struggle?
But now looking at it from another point of view, when should a people feel threatened by aggressive Statism and collect together to defeat it? Once you do, can a State scale back and become market oriented again? WWII expanded the State in so many ways and it never contracted again. The US essentially took over the vestiges of the old empires, but was it merely pragmatic to do so? With Statism in the form of communism still at hand, could the US and the West afford to build down their own Statism? Sometimes I say yes, sometimes I say no.
The most depressing element of history on up to modern day is the impression I have that the oldest cultures of the planet seem to be the ones that are the most Statist. China, India (to some extent), the Middle East. It would seem that the globe is moving much more toward Statism than away from it. The balance now seems to be some form of quasi-capitalistic (read buried socialistic) Statism of the US variety, socialistic Statism of the European variety, or some fascistic, theocratic, autocratic-monarchic, or communistic form of the Middle Eastern, Southern Asian, or Asian varieties. There seems to be the calcification of superstitions within cultures the longer they exist, not the reverse.
In the end, I don't really see that the US ramping it's Statism and merely trying to superimpose its brand over another brand ideally helps the cause of freedom and individualism. I guess I'd much rather wait until there is a true threat by aggressive Statists. There is risk to this approach, but I'd rather be truly free and risk subjagation than be subjugated to a somewhat lesser degree. Statism is the root of the problem, and it seems to me that the most aggressive Statist entity on the globe right now is the US. We need to build down the State and allow markets to function. We need eventually pull out of all the areas we have troops etc. We need to drastically reduce the level of intervention internally and externally. But we need to be prepared for when real threats arise. We need to preserve property rights and the lives of US citizens. We need to let the vestiges of old empires fall once and for all, even if it means civil wars in those regions. If a new form of Statism arises out of those ashes, then we may need to be vigilant and repel it at that time. But becoming what we once felt we needed to destroy is not a solution. I see little difference in moral crusades around the globe as the function of the US. The goal should always be freedom, markets, individualism and the application of force when absolutely necessary, and abiding collectives on a short term basis to repel direct Statist inroads.
Published: January 31, 2005 10:15 AM
Non-libertarian girl writes, "Every community, once it reaches a certain size, needs a cop, and the community of nations is no exception.
"The United States is the only nation able and willing to step into the global law enforcement role."
Naivety abounds. Without a superpower who could be a global cop, would the "community of nations" necessarily have a smaller "size" than it has now? This makes no sense. This girl is totally unaware of the most basic of problems, namely the Who Watches the Watchmen problem. See e.g. de Jasay's Against Politics on this, as summarized here.
Published: January 31, 2005 11:59 AM
If you want to have free trade, then the world has to be policed. Just as capitalism within a nation requires police.
Without police, people, or nations, will cheat in order to secure advantage for themselves at the expense of those playing by the rules.
Published: January 31, 2005 2:42 PM
The problem with Libertarian Girl's position is that it's not very libertarian at all.
The morally unambigious Manichean "good and evil" concepts as perpetuated by the neo-con hawks of PNAC, coupled with the "clash of civilizations" bromide is not sufficient reason to launch wars and disrupt the lives of other peoples. The U.S. has already lost the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, because as any good military general knows, you do not declare war on a tactic. America is a State entity, confronting an amorphous non-State entity, "terrorism" or "Al Qeada". Thus, States in general cannot combat a non-State entities and are doomed.
Published: January 31, 2005 3:02 PM
Arman, you need to stop worrying about whether what I said is Libertarian and focus on whether its true.
If the U.S. stopped playing the role of world's cop, then all the nations of the world wold have free reign to develop nuclear weapons, and then they'd wind up using them in wars against each other, which would seriously mess up the planet which we also occupy. Furthermore the nuclear weapons would be used to blackmail us.
It's not a paranoid delusion, it's real and is happening. Right now scientists in Iran are busy working on Islamic nuclear weapons.
The only way to keep the world peaceful and safe is for the U.S. to take an active military role. It's too bad if that's not idealistic, but it's the way it is.
Published: January 31, 2005 3:21 PM
[i]If the U.S. stopped playing the role of world's cop, then all the nations of the world wold have free reign to develop nuclear weapons, and then they'd wind up using them in wars against each other, which would seriously mess up the planet which we also occupy. Furthermore the nuclear weapons would be used to blackmail us.[/i]
Let us not forget that the only country to ever use nuclear weapons has been the United States. The U.S. aggressiveness has given other nations a reasonable amount of fear, and it is natural to want to defend themselves. Israel is the only nation allowed to have a nuclear monopoly in the middle East. The sanctioned and shattered Iraq, pre-occupation, didn't even remotely come close to threatening it's nuclear monopoly. And even now in Iran, the advocates of nuclear power are a minority as the recent Murray Polner article on lewrockwell informs. Despite that, Israel and the neo con hawks have had talk of striking Iran.
Like all previous empires the U.S.'s reign will come to an end. This unhallowed belief in eternal empire is unhealthy, to the point where it interferes with ones cognitive abilities to reasonably assess the cost/benefit analysis of this, and nevermind the atrocious belief that a State entity can declare a war on a tactic, "terrorism".
Published: January 31, 2005 3:47 PM
As a non-American, let me interject some clarity:
America-as-superpower is not qualified to be the world's police. Police are trained to use restraint and to protect innocent civilians.
Published: January 31, 2005 4:26 PM
Libertarian Girl wrote:
"If the U.S. stopped playing the role of world's cop, then all the nations of the world wold have free reign to develop nuclear weapons, and then they'd wind up using them in wars against each other, which would seriously mess up the planet which we also occupy. Furthermore the nuclear weapons would be used to blackmail us."
LG, even if this were true, if all nations in the world had the wherewithal, resources, time and will to create nuclear weapons, that in itself would not constitute an excuse to meddle in every nation's business.
I do not think however that your slippery-slope scenario is correct. In the first place, not all nations have what can amount to a incipient nuclear weapons program. Such programs are extremely expensive and quite unproductive. Nations that created such weapons normaly do this out of establishing a balance of power, EXACTLY in the same manner as any citizen arms him or herself in order to deter criminals.
Instead, a world-police is liable to become everybody's favorite target.
LG wrote:
"It's not a paranoid delusion, it's real and is happening. Right now scientists in Iran are busy working on Islamic nuclear weapons."
Maybe, but more likley and especially in light of the evidence, Iran really is developing a nuclear energy program. Iran has oil, and makes sense to SELL the oil instead of burning it to generate electricity.
Even IF they were building nuclear weapons, do you really think they would just USE them? Nuclear weapons constitute a deterrent or defensive weapon. This is what the US and the Soviet Union found out during the Cold War: you cannot use nuclear weapons without receiving a reply in kind!
LG wrote:
"The only way to keep the world peaceful and safe is for the U.S. to take an active military role. "
Well, the US has been darn selective on the kind of enemy it fights, usually those WITHOUT nuclear weapons. North Korea, Pakistan, India, China, Israel... all these countries have nuclear arsenals yet the US chose to attack countries that lack these weapons, had small or relatively weak armies - in sum, the US went for the easy pickings. That is hardly the behavior of a policeman; it is quite the contrary, more akin to how a bully or a thug behaves.
I agree with Arman: The US is buying trouble. The government is putting the cost on the taxpayer, at the same time beating at the hornet's nest. It is a formula for early ruin and unsecurity, and you should see it for what it really is.
Published: January 31, 2005 4:33 PM
Oh no, not anti-Israel talk.
Published: January 31, 2005 10:35 PM
Libertarian Girl,
I would suggest you take a look at Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.
Published: January 31, 2005 11:20 PM
Why do American nuclear weapons frighten me more than Islamic nuclear weapons?
Oh yeah, must be something about the precedent of their use against civilian objectives even when such use was unnecessary to achieve strategic victory.
I do agree, however, that some day soon a tactical nuke or dirty bomb might frame a targeted Muslim nation or phony "terrorist" group. We might even see a carrier group get wiped out at sea (don't want to irradiate that real estate), or something of similar magnitude to really kick this nascent World War into another gear.
Who's up for some serious profiteering? We have the perfect cover: we'll call ourselves "police."
Published: January 31, 2005 11:25 PM
The scariest part is that some people carry the label 'libertarian' and advocate such force.
Published: February 1, 2005 12:05 AM
Have a peek at LG's blog. Advocating war in Iraq, a tax on boob jobs, restricting trade with underdeveloped countries, etc., etc. Doesn't seem like anything approaching libertarianism here.
[Maybe she's just trying to redefine "libertarian" in the same way as "liberal" has been redefined in US usage :-)]
Published: February 1, 2005 6:11 AM
LG wrote,
"Oh no, not anti-Israel talk."
I re-read all posts and cannot find one sentence defaming Israel. Arman states a fact, a single incontrovertible fact, that Israel is the ONLY nation allowed to have nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Is stating facts about the state of Israel engaging in anti-Israel rethoric?
I do not think so.
Published: February 1, 2005 11:08 AM
Of course, David is very correct in refuting Lal's ideas on imperialism. George Washington told us enough about that. But what has been bothering me is that, once rejecting mperialism, we seem very weak and very snug in our our bailwicks and hold to our own precious free market convictions, but we don't seema at all interested in the betterment of the chaos in Africa, the Muslim world, Latin America ,etc. I propose that we get viatlly interested and propose in unison our own solutions and not sit back and let the lower half of the world contnue in chaos and misery. Let's be positive and united in a good program to remedy these evils. Sincerely, Joe Keckeissen in Guatemala
Published: February 1, 2005 1:01 PM
The best way to remedy those evils is just to trade peacefully with those countries.
Published: February 1, 2005 7:39 PM