What Empire Does to a Culture
Does imperialist centralization lead to a flourishing and cosmopolitan culture? I have frequently encountered this argument among friends of liberty. It is a version of the view that liberty sometimes must be imposed on people even if they are not culturally prepared for it. The problem with imposing liberal values by means of military force is that it tends to associate liberal values in the minds of the population with invasion and oppression. One is unlikely to be won over to the cause of women's rights when those preaching on behalf of that cause have stolen your farm, shot your brother, and blown your children's hands off with a land mine; indeed the cause of women's rights is probably in the long run set farther back by such associations. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (42)
Very good read, thank you!
Steven Burda, MBA
www.linkedin.com/in/burda
Published: November 13, 2006 8:53 AM
I think you may be underestimating the degree to which nationalistic tensions candisrupt communities. For example Yugoslavia, as a large collection of south slav peoples worked relatively well whereas the successor states, with the exception of Serbia, have been "ethnicly cleansed" in a horryfing manner, even where (Bosnia, Kosovo & Macedonia) the sate biundaries include more than one group it is not a mixture it is 2 or more quite separate substates.
Taking this into account with your reference to the crushing of Hungary it is worth noting that Hungary had nationalist claims against Yugoslavia, Rumania & Czechoslovakia & perhaps even the USSR. A pro western Hungary forming part of NATO would have been likely to have pushed these claims which would not have made an local cultures safer.
This is not to say Soviet intervention was good so much as that there are gains & losses to everything & in the circumstances it was fairly inevitable.
Published: November 13, 2006 9:09 AM
The logical conclusion of liberalism is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic tyranny of rights.
Published: November 13, 2006 9:31 AM
In a way, it's sad to see how libertarian ideal can turn so easily into support for Empire building. Perhaps one of the reasons why is the hope that libertarian-minded enclaves can exist "under the radar" of a huge governmental apparatus.
The flaw in this hope, though, is of course the tax collector, not to mention the conscription agent...
Published: November 13, 2006 9:57 AM
I tire of having abortion be associated with libertarianism. Nothing could be less libertarian. If the the basic principle of libertariansim is (cruely put) "do what you want, just don't hurt anyone", it is obvious to me that abortion should be banned. The only reason the issue is a controversy has to do with the fact that an unborn baby resides in the womb of his/her mother. While there is a conflict of interest between these two individuals, the right to life certainly trumps any lesser rights of a mother carrying the unwanted child--except in the rare instance when her life is also at stake. The only defense of the practice is to suggest that an unborn child is not quite human. That is, of course, based on an arbitrary defenition of humanity. The same "libertarian" priciple behind abortion could equally apply to dumping a newborn in the trash. While no one is compelled to have children or raise them, they are compelled to refrain from killing them or raising them in a state of neglect. It is a duty of the state to protect children, as they are individuals who are not completely self-sufficient. Children are wards of their parents, but they are not property, nor are they extensions of their parents. Defenders of abortion act as if there is no difference between an unborn child and a hangnail. As if it's all part of one's body.
Published: November 13, 2006 10:44 AM
I tire of having abortion be associated with libertarianism. Nothing could be less libertarian. If the the basic principle of libertariansim is (cruely put) "do what you want, just don't hurt anyone", it is obvious to me that abortion should be banned. The only reason the issue is a controversy has to do with the fact that an unborn baby resides in the womb of his/her mother. While there is a conflict of interest between these two individuals, the right to life certainly trumps any lesser rights of a mother carrying the unwanted child--except in the rare instance when her life is also at stake. The only defense of the practice is to suggest that an unborn child is not quite human. That is, of course, based on an arbitrary defenition of humanity. The same "libertarian" priciple behind abortion could equally apply to dumping a newborn in the trash. While no one is compelled to have children or raise them, they are compelled to refrain from killing them or raising them in a state of neglect. It is a duty of the state to protect children, as they are individuals who are not completely self-sufficient. Children are wards of their parents, but they are not property, nor are they extensions of their parents. Defenders of abortion act as if there is no difference between an unborn child and a hangnail. As if it's all part of one's body.
Published: November 13, 2006 10:44 AM
Qoute from Don Robertson: "Of course, there are those who would ask me, do you favor slavery then? I see slavery existing everywhere today, would be my answer. "Slavery" is a word and an idea. It has nothing absolutely true to do with the reality in which we all live. As the author might point out, who is the slave and who is the master?"
Redefining slavery in order to argue against the Civil War, that's an ingenious rationalization.
Published: November 13, 2006 10:51 AM
Funny stuff, Don. Contradictory, unrealizable,and often inane. But funny.
Oh please, tell us more about how the libertarian ethic is refuted by the need for the Southern government to have retreated.
Published: November 13, 2006 10:53 AM
Second, decouple jurisdiction and legal association from geography; if I live in Mississippi but prefer Massachusetts law, or vice versa, I should be free to sign up with the system I prefer without having to physically relocate."
Roderick,
Why "should" that be the case? If your neighbors are all Alabama Southern Baptists should you be able to trump their sensibilities and adopt the municipal code of Berkeley, and hold a nude Anarchist Book Fair in your front yard? Who's going to protect your "right" to adopt California mores and parade around naked so you're not ridden out of town on a rail and your house burned down?
The solution obviously is for the Southern Baptists to live over here, the Berkeley Anarchists to live over there, and then the issue never comes up. But despite their pretensions to anarchy, this is not what the ancaps actually want, since under anarchy, sexual deviants and other cultural or ethnic minorities will find themselves on the short end of the stick for gainful employment and a decent place to live. So the solution from their perspective is to force everyone to put up with their anti-social behavior rather than having to face its consequences.
Published: November 13, 2006 11:27 AM
"The solution obviously is for the Southern Baptists to live over here, the Berkeley Anarchists to live over there, and then the issue never comes up."
I thought that this was the ancap solution. Wouldn't this arise naturally if people were free to associate/disassociate with whomever they pleased?
"...the solution from their perspective is to force everyone to put up with their anti-social behavior rather than having to face its consequences.
Where do you get this from Reactionary?
Published: November 13, 2006 12:14 PM
Brian,
It follows from Roderick's insistence that he should be able to choose whatever legal code he wants, regardless of where he lives.
In a world without Title VII, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fair Housing Act, chances are that you as a sovereign individual living in Tupelo, Mississippi are not going to be able to import Berkeley, California's Anarchist Book Fair to your front yard. Instead, you are going to have to find a community where such behavior is tolerated, i.e., where the majority of inhabitants don't have a problem with the kind of behavior you see at the Anarchist Book Fair.
Published: November 13, 2006 12:33 PM
"It follows from Roderick's insistence that he should be able to choose whatever legal code he wants, regardless of where he lives."
Ok, then your gripe is with Roderick's position and I think that you would agree that is somewhat dishonest to attribute this position to all ancaps in general.
For instance I would think others such as Hoppe, etc would argue that a wide variety of spatially segregated, culturally homogenous communities would be the result of anarcho-capitalism...
Published: November 13, 2006 1:15 PM
Neil, yougaslavia worked 'well' because of the dictatorship. My granddad once said, that as soon as the dictatorship ends, they start killing each other. It is not a good idea mixing people who do not like each other - and that is exactly what happened there. Because of dictatorship.
Published: November 13, 2006 2:01 PM
"Today we face a similar dynamic, as the US government's attempt to contain the terrorist blowback resulting from its own foreign policy adventures..."
Long sides with the Left's on the cause of the rise of Islamic radicals. But the Left never cared for history, truth or facts, so it surprises me that Long would swallow their swill. The truth is that today's Islamic terror groups came from the Muslim Brotherhood, which was formed after WWI to re-establish the Islamic Caliphate. The Brotherhood has split into several branches such as Al Qaeda, mainly because of methods and geography, but the branches all have the same goal--the violent overthrow of all governments and the re-establishment of the Islamic Caliphate. The only manner in which US foreign policy matters is in our support of Israel, which makes us the Brotherhood's number one enemy.
"And yet such restrictions — from the War on Gels to the War on Habeas Corpus — are embraced, in the spirit of regarding any loss of freedom as justified if it aids, or is alleged to aid, the "War on Terror."
By the "War on Gels," I assume Long means the prohibition of liquids on an airliner. While a stupid idea, I don't see how he can can see that as a terrible blow to liberty. It's more like a nuissance.
As for the war on Habeus Corpus, I assume he refers to the Gitmo detainees. But as many people have argued before, the Gitmo detainees are POW's, not criminals. Please tell me in which war POW's were charged and tried as common criminals.
"The president is elevated in the public imagination to a godlike figure, thus enabling an increasing shift of power to the executive branch." I would love to see some examples of this. Long exaggerates to the point of being ridiculous. If we hold Bush in godlike reverance, I suppose our next step will be to make him emperor for life. Instead, he will leave office in two years like every other elected official.
Published: November 13, 2006 2:08 PM
Examples of local predilections hijacking the empire through its centralized apparatus abound in today's America.
Two that come to my mind are ethanol (Iowa) and the Cuban embargo and travel restrictions (my own South Florida).
Published: November 13, 2006 2:14 PM
Has anyone read "Don Robertson"'s website? Or noted his absurd claims concerning having written the most important philosophical treatise in 1000 years?
The more he posts here, the more he reminds me of the crankish (albeit somewhat more intellectual) Gene Ray of timecube infamy (www.timecube.com).
Keep it up, Don. You are quite amusing.
Published: November 13, 2006 2:21 PM
Don Robertson wrote:
As the freely functioning marketplace is paramount to Mises' view of the world [. . .]
It is not a view of the world. A free functioning market place is the ultimate manifestation of human liberty.
, a disdain of government arises, for government can kill or at least hinder the freely functioning marketplace at any time. As there is government, the tool of government is a specie of morality, so Mises despises morality (as charlatan) even more than government itself.V/i>
Where did you get the idea that government is a moral tool? Your assertion that Mises despises morality begs the question.
The rest of your text is an incoherent diatribe. Little does it have to do the fact that Samuel Clemens fought in the War of Southern Secession with the issue that the author posits, yet you mention it. I would advise you to keep your posts as concise and coherent as possible, and only give cogent arguments, not ramblings that represent non sequiturs more than arguments.
Francisco Torres
The Mexican Philosopher.
Published: November 13, 2006 2:48 PM
The story of most (not all) empires is a mixture of good and bad.
I would argue (although such argumens would mean rather long books) that the Roman Empire meant more bad than good, and the British Empire more good than bad ("but you are British" - yes, but the modern British have been taught to hate their empire and all of their past so that does not make me bised in the British Emprire's favour).
For example, both Empires took over areas where slavery had always been practiced and then expanded it (the Romans accepted that natural law forbad slavery, but held that the "law of all nations" trumped natural law in this, the British had legal judgements against slavery as far back as the 16th century but expanded the pre existing slave trade to become, for a while, the largest slave traders on the planet).
However, the Romans never turned against slavery. Whereas the British did (first the slave trade and then slavery itself, and contrary to the neoMarxists both these things were profitable when the British turned against them) - forbidding slavery not only for themselves, but for others.
The Romans taxed the lands they took over for the benefit of Rome itself, the British (in the long term) tended not do (indeed colonies were often a drain on British finances).
Respect for property (remembering Rothbard's point about correctly defined property rights being the only real human rights) tended to be better under British rule than it was before or after British rule (although this is not true in all cases).
The Roman Empire became (long before it collapsed) a nightmare of taxes and regulations, undermining classical civilization long before the barbarians took over (indeed, as have often been pointed out, this weakening of classical civilization is why the barbarians took over).
However, it should be remembered that in some places (such as East and West Africa) the British Empire was becomming more statist in its last decades (although nothing like the level of statism that occured when these places got independence, just as all the faults of the British Raj in India became worse under "freedom", "free India" became a "permit Raj" indeed).
The spirit of Lugard and Raffles (and so many others) lived on in some places in the British Empire till the very end (much more so than it did in Britain itself) - see,for example, Hong Kong.
As for the "American Empire" (which so many people write so much about)......
Well I know by experience that what I am about to write will make me few friends - however it needs to be pointed out.
George Walker Bush and his allies believe (in my view mistakenly) that President Wilson style "wars for democracy" are sensible. However, this is NOT an "American Empire" as they are quite clear (and I believe that, in this at least, they are telling the truth) that if any democratic government (i.e. any government which was freely elected by the people of a nation under a system of near universal suffrage) asked them to pull out American troops they would do so.
So whilst President Bush may well be misguided (wildly misguided) there is no "American Empire" (an Empire does not pull out its forces just because it recieves a request from a locally elected government).
I do not expect this to be accepted. After all people of many different political points of view have written vast amounts about the "American Empire" so my saying it does not exist is not likely to go down well.
On the matter of individual States leaving the Union:
Here the "American Empire" people seem to be on stronger ground. After all more people died in the war of 1861-1865 than in all America's other wars put together (and out of a population vastly smaller than today).
Also all the governments of the States that tried to leave the Union were elected - and in many of these States free citizens outnumbered slaves.
Finally it is clear that slavery was NOT Lincoln's first concern. In short if a State IN WHICH THERE WERE NO SLAVES AT ALL had tried to leave the Union he would have tried to stop it doing so with armed violence.
However, would President Bush do the same?
Say the State of Alaska (or even the State of Alabama) voted to leave the Union would the Federal government plunge the land in a sea of blood?
The Supreme Court has ruled that (under the treaty by which it became part of the United States) Texas CAN (if the people so wish) leave the Union. If Texas why not other States?
Slavery may not indeed have been Lincoln's real reason for letting loose a sea of blood, but it was vital piece of propaganda for him.
Without the "cause of freedom" using armed violence to keep a State within the Union would be clear wickedness. I rather doubt that President Bush (however misguided he is) would really try and do this - or would be widely supported if he did try.
Published: November 13, 2006 3:32 PM
Neil Craig: I think you may be underestimating the degree to which nationalistic tensions candisrupt communities. For example Yugoslavia, as a large collection of south slav peoples worked relatively well whereas the successor states, with the exception of Serbia, have been "ethnicly cleansed" in a horryfing manner, even where (Bosnia, Kosovo & Macedonia) the sate biundaries include more than one group it is not a mixture it is 2 or more quite separate substates.
I don't see how that's an objection to what I said, since I granted that a central state can sometimes suppress local tyranny. My argument was simply to suggest that an alternative and superior solution to local tyranny is not to amalgamate the local jurisdictions into a more centralised system again, but instead to decentralise still further -- and Yugoslavia seems like a good illustration of that thesis. If in one of the successor states group A holds power and oppresses group B, the best solution is to split group A and group B into separate jurisdictions.
A pro western Hungary forming part of NATO would have been likely to have pushed these claims which would not have made an local cultures safer.
Quote possibly true. Do I need to say I am not a fan of NATO?
Don Robertson: Let's start with where I get lost, the equation of Libertarian ideas with liberal cosmopolitan values.
I don't recall making such an equation in my article.
As the freely functioning marketplace is paramount to Mises' view of the world, a disdain of government arises, for government can kill or at least hinder the freely functioning marketplace at any time. As there is government, the tool of government is a specie of morality, so Mises despises morality (as charlatan) even more than government itself.
But government is apparently more necessary in urban cosmopolitan settings, even as we see Roderick T. Long pine for the liberality of the urban cosmopolitan setting and culture. Perhaps because it has less pretense about the charlatan morality Libertarians disdain?
While I don't think your characterization of Mises is very fair, it's true that Mises did reject the notion of an objective morality. But I of course don't reject the notion of an objective morality (see, e.g., this piece), so it's a mystery to me how this point is supposed to be relevant as a criticism of my article.
But, I think Lincoln was a pigheaded militarist who got more than a half-million killed in an ignoble cause. I cannot see that it was worth a half million lives to "preserve" the Union
This sounds as though you think I'm a supporter of Lincoln! If you think that, you must not have read my article very carefully.
And, here too is where the author seems to make his very well-versed mistake. Engagement of the enemy always tempts defeat, and surely always incurs upon us our losses.
Here too it's not clear to me how this is supposed to apply to anything I said. What is the mistake in question?
Chris S:: The only reason the issue is a controversy has to do with the fact that an unborn baby resides in the womb of his/her mother. While there is a conflict of interest between these two individuals, the right to life certainly trumps any lesser rights of a mother carrying the unwanted child--except in the rare instance when her life is also at stake.
Since when does the right to life include the right to exist in someone else's body?
The only defense of the practice is to suggest that an unborn child is not quite human. That is, of course, based on an arbitrary defenition of humanity.
What is the non-arbitrary principle behind granting full personhood and rights to the fertilised egg, but not to the unfertilised egg?
Reactionary: Second, decouple jurisdiction and legal association from geography; if I live in Mississippi but prefer Massachusetts law, or vice versa, I should be free to sign up with the system I prefer without having to physically relocate."
Roderick,
Why "should" that be the case?
For both moral and prudential reasons. Morally, I believe in property rights. To claim that a resident of community X must relocate to community Y in order to exercise his freedom is essentially to treat community X, rather than the individual, as the true owner of the individual's property. I think Spencer's defense of the right to ignore the state still stands.
Prudentially, the importance of allowing different legal systems to compete in the same geographical area is the same as the reason for allowing competition of any sort: because monopoly leads to informational chaos and abuse of power.
It follows from Roderick's insistence that he should be able to choose whatever legal code he wants, regardless of where he lives.
Only from a rather silly interpretation of what I said. Obviously the actual result is going to come from a negotiation between the individual's protective association and the associations of his neighbours.
RogerM The Brotherhood has split into several branches such as Al Qaeda, mainly because of methods and geography, but the branches all have the same goal--the violent overthrow of all governments and the re-establishment of the Islamic Caliphate.
I've never claimed that U.S. foreign policy is crucial to the motives of the leaders of these terrorist organisations. What I do think is plausible is that U.S. foreign policy is crucial to the motives of ordinary Muslims who have the potential to be recruited into those organisations. Every political movement, terrorist or otherwise -- definitely including the libertarian movement -- generally consists of a core of fanatics (like me) who care about the goals for their own sake, and a much larger following of people who can be motivated to fight for the goals only because they seem them as addressing particular problems in their lives.
As for the war on Habeus Corpus, I assume he refers to the Gitmo detainees. But as many people have argued before, the Gitmo detainees are POW's, not criminals. Please tell me in which war POW's were charged and tried as common criminals.
If they're criminals, habeas corpus should apply to them. If they're POWs, the Geneva Convention should apply to them. This administration refuses to allow either to apply to them.
Published: November 13, 2006 4:01 PM
Long: "...and a much larger following of people who can be motivated to fight for the goals only because they seem them as addressing particular problems in their lives."
You're probably right there, but I would modify it by adding that they're motivated by what the terrorist leadership tells them is the cause of the problems in their lives. For example, Israel defeated several Arab countries in the 1967 war. The US had nothing to do with either side in that war, but the Arab media claims that they lost only because of the US helped Israel. Ditto for the war of 1973.
Currently, most of the Muslim press is telling Muslims that the US is at war with all Muslims and wants to kill them. The Arab media typically accuse US troops of raping girls, giving poison candy to children, using men for target practice, desecrating the Koran and mosques, and theft. If you don't believe me, spend a little time at www.memri.org. None of those accusations reflect US foreign policy, but they're the main reasons young people join the fight against us.
"If they're POWs, the Geneva Convention should apply to them."
The Geneva convention states that it applies only to troops who agree to wear uniforms, don't use civilians as shields, and don't target civilians. The Gitmo detainees failed at every step. Still, the US has given Gitmo detainees Geneva convention protection except for a few minor issues.
Published: November 13, 2006 4:31 PM
Interesting comments.
But, wouldn't something like private property anarcho-cap community include some in which abortion is prohibited and some in which it is endorsed?
In the meanwhile, on all these very difficult social issues, one in which libertarians (properly understood) can differ, reasonably (abortion debate for example), perhaps one could adopt a different solution. Like devolving it to the state level, and such, and localising the issues as most as possible, whether than ban the practices or endorse them legally by means of the federal gov.
Published: November 13, 2006 4:32 PM
Paul,
Good post. I agree with you for the most part. People who started writing about the American Empire were using hyperbole to sell books, and they knew it. But many libertarians wanted to take that hyperbole and show that it wasn't hyperbole, but reality. However, the differences between empires from Greece to the British and what's called the American empire are so great that it seems a little foolish to me to conflate the two. And as you point out, there was a huge difference between the British Empire and the Roman.
Does the fact that the US won't allow states to secede make it an empire, or just a state? Or do libertarians see no difference between empires and mere states?
Published: November 13, 2006 4:42 PM
"Obviously the actual result is going to come from a negotiation between the individual's protective association and the associations of his neighbours."
Of course. Obviously.
Published: November 13, 2006 4:49 PM
"Since when does the right to life include the right to exist in someone else's body?"
Because that's the foreseeable consequence of not keeping your knees crossed, and it's immoral to make a totally innocent party pay the ultimate price for your failure to control your impulses. And this gets back to my point about anarcho-capitalists. They don't really believe in the organic society that would arise in the absence of a central government to protect everybody's rights to indulge in whatever freakish activity the human imagination can think up. That's why they fantasize about "protective associations" that negotiate on their behalf so they don't have to worry about what would surely happen without a federal government and its "civil rights" laws.
Published: November 13, 2006 5:06 PM
"They don't really believe in the organic society that would arise in the absence of a central government to protect everybody's rights to indulge in whatever freakish activity the human imagination can think up."
Well, some of us do. Government protects nothing.
Society can only exist within the gaps left behind by Government. You need to read more Nock and perhaps Hoppe, Reactionary.
On the other hand, admittedly, in a decentralized, anarchistic world some horrible things may happen in some areas. But they do anyway, and better to isolate them than to allow them to become ubiquitous.
Published: November 13, 2006 7:06 PM
Once again, RogerM shows the grasp of the average person for military history/science and the potentitally catastrophic political conclusions that it leads to. Hell, if I was still a statist Neocon, I'd be insulted for dramatically different reasons.
"Israel defeated several Arab countries in the 1967 war. The US had nothing to do with either side in that war, but the Arab media claims that they lost only because of the US helped Israel. Ditto for the war of 1973."
OK, first of all, the IDF was largelly equipped/armed by the U.S. I'm not debating weather or not whe should have, only stating the fact that we did... It's widley known, at least in military circles, that the Arab-Israeli wars were the testing grounds for both armored vehicles and new jets (Vietnam was arguably a parallel "battlefield lab" for different systems and tactics). The largest tank battles between WWII and Desert Storm took place in the Siani and in the Golan Heights. They were fought with weapons GIVEN to the belligerents by the U.S. and USSR speciffically to see who was ahead in R&D.
Published: November 13, 2006 9:04 PM
It's also widley known, even taught in military logistics courses, that without Operation Nickle Grass, the massive resupply airlift by US Air Force's Mobility Air Command, the IDF could not have won in 1973. New M-60s (the tank, not the machine gun) New F-4s all the goodies that the IDF used to beat up on the Soviet-bound Syrians and Undergunned Egyptians in '73...we brough it and mighty fast, so fast that it's counted as one of the Air Force's biggest accomplishments (that's why the statement woulda insulted me as a neocon)
Even today, Israel doesn't issue their troops domestically manufactured rifles because they get free M-16s from Uncle Sam!
Published: November 13, 2006 9:13 PM
CAITM, For the 1967 War, Israel's main provider of arms was France, with other European countries following behind.
The tanks with which they fought the 1967 war were largely British and French (Centurion, and AMX-13), and their first US-made tanks were purchased from the West German Government.
In 1967. Israel had no F-4's, its main fighter was the Mirage IIIC.
US armament of Israel started after the 1967 war (their F-4E's being sent over in 1969, for example)
Published: November 13, 2006 9:46 PM
The American Philosopher is an obvious crank. Don't feed his attention-seeking. Ignore him, and he'll go away. Talk to him, he'll become more prolific in his logorrhea.
What we don't need is being associated with cranks and kooks of all stripes - his presense here gives an opportunity to the statist believers to dismiss the entire libertarian movement as cranks.
Published: November 14, 2006 2:58 AM
Amen, averros, as we are otherwise only patronizing a fool.
As for morality (speaking not to the fool but to those interested in learning something about libertarianism), the non-aggression principle up which libertarianism is based is simply the Golden Rule in its negative formuation -- i.e., don't do unto others what you wouldn't want them to do unto you. Put another way, it's the Hippocratic Oath writ large: First, do no harm; then, do as you will.
And simply put, a society based on such an ethic -- i.e., a system of private law grounded in the non-aggression principle -- would be perfectly capable not only of governing itself, but of doing so peacefully and prosperously, were it but given the chance.
Trouble is, of course, the state won't allow it, which is really all you need to know about is morality.
Published: November 14, 2006 7:21 AM
CAITM: "It's also widley known, even taught in military logistics courses, that without Operation Nickle Grass, the massive resupply airlift by US Air Force's Mobility Air Command, the IDF could not have won in 1973."
Many historians, especially the Israeli ones, disagree. The war was over and won by the time we resupplied Israel. But that's a minor point. The main issue was whether or not Arab young men are responding to US foregin policy when they join terrorist organizations. The answer is no, they're not responding to US foreign policy; they're responding to Muslim propaganda in the media and mosques that lie about history and US policy.
Published: November 14, 2006 8:20 AM
RogerM belongs to the Jimmy Carter wing of historians - if it happened on the other side of the world, more than 4 years ago, it is "ancient history". Of course, if it happened here, in the united states, it is a causus belli in perpetuity.
RogerM believes that overthrowing a sovereign government, then supplying an enemy with WMDs during a war with you - absolutely can't possibly be a reason why people dislike you - it's "just not that important!". Meanwhile, a vague connection to a possible attack coupled with vague assertions that maybe someday someone will have WMDs and when they do, maybe possibly they'd be stupid enough to use them against us calls for immediate genocide, starting NOW!
As you can see, it's an entirely rational point of view...
Published: November 14, 2006 11:13 AM
quasimoto:"RogerM believes that overthrowing a sovereign government, then supplying an enemy with WMDs during a war with you - absolutely can't possibly be a reason why people dislike you - it's "just not that important!".
Why don't Japanese and Germans hate us and send suicide bombers after us? And who did we give WMD's to? And why do Egyptians hate us when we invaded Iraq?
Published: November 14, 2006 11:28 AM
Adem,
I have read and generally agree with Hoppe. I have also seen him condemned as a nazi by a number of anarcho-capitalists. In the end I expect the libertines and radical individualists will carry the day, as token opposition to the liberal empire is a much easier road than the direction Hoppe and a few others are going.
Published: November 14, 2006 11:35 AM
Chris, Granted, Israel was largely Western Euro-armed in '67; but no one can deny that the October War was waged with hardware straight from the U.S.
it's also true that the Israelis don't even issue the Galil anymore because of the free M-16/M-4s comming from Uncle Sam.
above all, U.S. financial aid allows the Israelis to invest much more in Defense than they would be able to and still maintain their Euro-style socialist all-encompasing, all comsumming welfare state.
Furthermore, I'm sure
Published: November 14, 2006 8:15 PM
The reason the Israelis issue the M-16 (according to the Israelis) is that the M16 is a better rifle.
The Galil is heavier than the M16, less accurate, and difficult to accessorise.
Incidently, Israel is replacing the M16, not with a free-US provided rifle, but with the IWI Tavor.
Published: November 14, 2006 8:47 PM
I think the tone of this blog, which has tended to gravitate towards the "who beat who when and with what" mode has tended to validate Spencer's thesis of the cultural militarization of empires which Roderick quotes liberally (in the sense of "lots"). Brutal sports and the vulgarization of sex could be put up there with "hate" media as a manifestation of imperialism as well. This doesn't mean that quietism is good, or that the ideal of the warrior in its initial knightly purity is wrong. What it means is that primal human values are corrupted directly with the centralization of the political communities in which they are expressed...a sort of correlary of Acton's principle. It is refreshing to see an Austrian economist of the Auburn sub-school talking about culture and mass psychology....in spite of Roderick's self-professed distain of "psychologism." Good essay, deserves to be read and widely disseminated!
Published: November 15, 2006 4:44 AM
I have a problem with the idea that a system such as imperialism can change culture. The whole field of cultural economics contradicts that notion. The flow of influence tends to be from religion/philosophy to culture to institutions to economy, in that order. If we consider empire to be a type of institution, then culture would create empire; empire wouldn't create culture.
To claim that empires somehow destroy cultures has the process backwards and it virtually eliminates free will. The arguments in this article don't demonstrate empire causes the destruction of culture; it just shows that some "bad" aspects of culture exist in some empires. In other words, it's just anecdotal evidence, or guilt by association.
Published: November 15, 2006 8:27 AM
Is centralization necessarily civility?
I mean. Mazlow Pyramid shows us that man has physiological needs [eat sex sleep excrete] and will do so no matter how civilized we become. I notice that Mazlows pyramid did not study neurotics.
Civility [Centralization], as too many rats in a cage, eventually leads to uncivility. Empires lead to civility but then choke themselves to death.
It didn't work then and it won't work now.
Published: November 15, 2006 1:22 PM
Nobody would say that empires "create culture" but power certainly can twist culture to its own ends. The Roman Empire didn't create Latin law, language etc. but put these things to use in such a way that they became radically debased. This is what Cicero, Cato et. al. were writing about and speaking against.
Published: November 15, 2006 7:34 PM
It’s fascinating how many of the periods in history when civilisation reached new heights were also periods of political decentralization For example the Greeks in the 4th century BC when the independent city states gave Greece it’s ‘Golden Age’. The rise of the Delian League / Athenian empire followed this soon to be replaced by the Empires of Alexander the Great and Rome. Same thing in US history. The days of the revolution and the Articles of Confederation surely represented a high point, not just for America, in great political thinking. Following the constitution the quality of political thinking and debate has surely declined ever since. Lincoln intellectually was no match for any of the Framers and few, if any, of the modern leaders are able to write or think half as good as Lincoln. Even in Australia we had the same centralization = decline thing, if on something of a less colourful scale than the US experience. Prior to federation in 1901 that joined six of the seven self governing British colonies of Australasia into the Commonwealth of Australia, the colonies were renown for progressive political thinking and reform. Victoria was the first place to bring in the secret ballot and South Australia was the first place to bring in votes for women. You have to remember that the colonies were autonomous and self governing. NSW had effectively been independent for 50 years with it’s own parliament, army etc. The Australian colonies had the highest per capita income in the world at the time. Federation came in and had managed to reduce Australia’s ranking in per capita income scale to near the bottom of the OECD scale for western nations, although it has managed to recover some ground following 20 years of generally pro-free trade policies. Certainly nothing in the history of federated Australia is as politically innovative as the experiments of pre-federated colonial Australia.
Published: November 16, 2006 12:31 AM
Mark:"Nobody would say that empires "create culture" but power certainly can twist culture to its own ends."
The title of the article is "What Empire Does to Culture." The whole point of the article is that empire destroys culture. What does empire replace culture with, except a different culture? Which means that the author thinks empires can create new, but debased, cultures. But this flies in the face of research into culture and economics. Empires are particular types of institutions, and as such, they reflect culture; they don't create it. Of course, there might be some feedback effects. But the degradation of culture that the author finds under empires is not the result of empire, but the cause of empire.
Tim:"It’s fascinating how many of the periods in history when civilisation reached new heights were also periods of political decentralization."
I agree, and wonder why periods of advancement are so short and rare. My guess is that the intellectuals promoting liberty haven't convinced the populace of the their views, while the statists can tap into the public fear of chaos and uncertainty. Real liberty requires a respect for individualism. But the collectivist impulse runs deep in humanity and wasn't effectively broken until the Protestant Reformation. It still dominates most of the world, including Europe.
Published: November 16, 2006 8:35 AM