Noninterventionism: Cornerstone of a Free Society

[Makalakumu]

http://lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory245.html

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]A free society is impossible under an empire. Even the most just war you can imagine is a disaster for liberty and prosperity, as Ludwig von Mises pointed out. An unjust war amounts to murder, mayhem, and mass destruction. And a perpetual state of war guarantees that liberty will never be achieved. James Madison said it very well: [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. [/FONT]
​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Indeed, from a purely consequentialist point of view, America has lost most of its freedom during its wars. Even the American Revolution itself had negative effects – martial law, massive debt that ushered in Hamiltonian control of the new republic, and consolidation of power in the national capital.[/FONT]

​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The War of 1812 resulted in martial law in Louisiana, where people were jailed without habeas corpus simply for criticizing military law. A judge was jailed for issuing a habeas corpus writ.
[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]During the Mexican War the executive branch unilaterally adopted taxing powers over U.S.-controlled ports in Mexico.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Civil War brought with it mass conscription, corporate welfare, the death of real federalism, the suspension of habeas corpus, the jailing of thousands of dissenters, the censoring of hundreds of newspapers, the creation of a national leviathan with such new agencies as the Department of Agriculture, military commissions, and the use of the army against civilian draft rioters in New York.
[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]With World War I, thousands of new agencies were created, millions were enslaved to fight in a royal European family feud, American citizens were jailed for saying things I say every day, income-tax rates skyrocketed into the 70s, and the federal government implemented economic controls that were later brought back in peacetime during the New Deal. In fact, the New Deal was basically the revitalization of the wartime economy from World War I.
[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]World War II saw the conscription of 11 million Americans, the detention of hundreds of thousands of "enemy aliens" without due process, Japanese internment, martial law in Hawaii, a quasi-fascist command economy complete with comprehensive price controls, tax rates above 90 percent, censorship, and the prolonging of Herbert Hoover’s and Franklin Roosevelt’s Great Depression, which didn’t end until the U.S. government stopped consuming 40 percent of America’s income to wage the war.
[/FONT]

​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Cold War gave us drafts, especially during the hot wars with Korea and Vietnam, and surveillance and psy-ops directed against peaceful activists by U.S. intelligence agencies.

With the war on terror we have lost the last remnants of the Fourth Amendment, habeas corpus has taken another beating, we are treated like prison inmates every time we fly, peaceful activists have been spied on, media have been manipulated by Washington, torture has become normalized, soldiers are not allowed to quit after completing their first or even third tour of duty, and Americans’ telecommunications have been exposed to surveillance by the military. [/FONT]

Essentially, what this article is saying is that wars always cost us our basic Constitutional Liberties. Therefore, the key to a free society is non-interventionism. This is essentially the Ron Paul position on foreign policy. Thoughts?

 

[Ken Morgan]

All wars are essentially about survival of the state, to win a war, the state survives, to lose a war the state may cease to exist.

Wars do not have to mean an end to civil liberties, that is simply the choice of those in government decided to make during the war, a choice likely made out of paranoia and fear. Certainly states need to be extra vigilant in a war, as wars are not only fought on far away battlefields; they are fought in the factories, in government offices and in the home.

I think this argument is more about the rise of the nation-state and the ends those in government make to ensure the survival of the nation-state,rather than an opportunity to shackle the liberty of the people for what may be arbitrary reasons.

Unless your nation-state is 100% self-sufficient in every resource it needs, and can maintain an acceptable standard of living for its’people, you are citizens of the world and may need to get involved in world affairs, be it peaceful or military.

What people fall to realize is that the world has never had such a long span of peace as we do now, yes there are some ****** situations out there,but for the most part, the world is quieter than it ever has been in history. That has been brought about by globalization, decreased poverty, war, but mostly by negotiation and diplomacy.

 

[Makalakumu]

Yet, at the same point, the rollback of government power has been reversed from Enlightenment ideals. This is especially apparent during times of war. These liberties don't seem to be coming back...

 

[Big Don]

Noninterventionism: The refusal to help your friend when he is in need. A morally bankrupt political idea.

 

[Makalakumu]

I think there are some problems with your analogies, Don. Interventionism supported "friends" like Al qaeda, the Taliban, and Saddam, so that analogy is rejected.

That said, this article is talking about the subsequent loss of liberty that interventionism has led to. Is helping a "friend" worth selling out your civil liberties at home?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

 

[Makalakumu]

This was funny.

This deduction in reputation is the result of a vast multinational conspiracy aided and abetted by aliens, freemasons, and tinfoil salesmen

Open your third eye to the truth and you too can see the multi-dimensional beings that rule us!

:rules:

I heard it's name was once Kaith...

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Non-Interventionism is an ideal. And as an ideal, it's not a bad thing. Ideally, every country should stick to it's knitting, only fight if attacked, and not intervene in the affairs of other nations.

However, interventionism stopped Soviet missiles from being place in Cuba, pointed at the USA.

Interventionism stopped the slaughter in the Balkans.

Nations which refused to intervene permitted the genocide in Rwanda to continue.

As to the USA, when we intervene in the affairs of other nations, the world points at us and tells us we are not the world's policeman and to mind our own business. When we do not intervene while some despot slaughters his own people, the world points to us and asks us why oh why are we turning a blind eye to the suffering and injustice; as the sole remaining superpower, why don't we take action?

In my own opinion, if military intervention is necessary to protect our legitimate interests and honor our treaties, then I have no problem with it. Otherwise, yes, I think military adventurism is a bad thing.

And I agree that it can and has led to restrictions of liberty and freedom at home, and that's a Bad Thing.

 

[Makalakumu]

Do you ever wonder if the unintended consequnces of interventionism are actually worse then the original problem? It certainly seems that way sometimes...

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

 

[Big Don]

Do you ever wonder if the unintended consequnces of interventionism are actually worse then the original problem? It certainly seems that way sometimes...

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

SIX MILLION Jews and countless others might beg to differ...

 

[Makalakumu]

SIX MILLION Jews and countless others might beg to differ...

Did the US invade Europe for the 2nd time in order to stop the holocaust?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

 

[granfire]

Did the US invade Europe for the 2nd time in order to stop the holocaust?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

If they had stepped up sooner - not necessarily invading though - WWII might have never happened.

Noninterventionism.....

 

[Makalakumu]

If they had stepped up sooner - not necessarily invading though - WWII might have never happened.

Noninterventionism.....

Or perhaps our interventionism in WWI CAUSED WWII. Now, that is an unintended consequence.

 

[granfire]

Or perhaps our interventionism in WWI CAUSED WWII. Now, that is an unintended consequence.

nah, the participation in the war didn't do it.
The crippling peace treaty did....but those where in line with traditional treaties from the past, like the Franco Prussian war of 1870/71, in which Prussia/Germany annexed Alsace and Lorraine, part of the problem of the 1918 'negotiations'

Considering that good old Adolf was warmongering since at least 1936...

 

[Makalakumu]

nah, the participation in the war didn't do it.
The crippling peace treaty did....but those where in line with traditional treaties from the past, like the Franco Prussian war of 1870/71, in which Prussia/Germany annexed Alsace and Lorraine, part of the problem of the 1918 'negotiations'

Considering that good old Adolf was warmongering since at least 1936...

At the time that the US entered the war, both sides had reached a stalemate. If the war had ended on those terms, the crippling reparations would not have been possible. When the US entered the war, they tipped the balence of power and made a clear loser. This is what made WWII inevitable.

Read the great book Wilson's War for more on this thesis.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

 

[granfire]

At the time that the US entered the war, both sides had reached a stalemate. If the war had ended on those terms, the crippling reparations would not have been possible. When the US entered the war, they tipped the balence of power and made a clear loser. This is what made WWII inevitable.

Read the great book Wilson's War for more on this thesis.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

It just shortened the bleeding of all warfaring nations.

Considering that the conflict originated from an Austrian/Serb incident....

Then again, maybe WWI is proof of your theory: If everybody had just stayed out of what was actually a police matter (the murder of the Archduke) and not rattled sabers and such, no war - certainly not on that scale - would have started.

but at the time - unlike in 1870 - Germany was one of 2 in the complex theater of European politics, not one of 3. And towards the end it was pretty much the only one still at war...

 

[Big Don]

Noninterventionism only allows evil to continue. Would you not intervene if someone were beating your child/wife/friend?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Noninterventionism only allows evil to continue. Would you not intervene if someone were beating your child/wife/friend?

Call 911, help will arrive within minutes. Approximately.

 

[Zenjael]

I am not sure how to answer this. I think upon reflection this would be the best course of action for me, but at the same time, I might do otherwise given the situation. I would call 911 if it is warranted, and report the situation. If they tell me the person will take awhile, or no one is available, or if the situation suddenly becomes dire (i.e. legitimately life threatening) I'd drop the phone and do what I could.

I have had the misfortune of seeing someone run over, fatally hurled from a motorcycle, people die from jumping into swimming pools, and heart attacks. A lot of those, actually. Has occurred 4 times where I've either witnessed it's onset, or come across an individual. Considering my Bagua teacher died of heart failure, though I am not superstitious, it has made me a bit so toward my own heart health. I mean, you only need to see how many people die from the organ to get the idea you should prolly take care of it better. I once had a manager at a grocery store I worked at literally keel over and die in the greeting card aisle... in front of my register. Normally I come across the person in critical condition. Only once were they already being attended to by someone, and that person had 0 medical experience. Mine isn't much better, but we did what we could.) among other things. I know that when something happens, I don't even think about it, I just go and try to help. Which is why I don't know what I'd do, and it's given the situation. If it's a dude beating on his girlfriend, she will probably be alright, and a simple call will suffice without me physically getting involved or providing provocation. But let's say someone has a gun or a knife, or I come across a person being mugged or raped, let alone if it were my family... there's no questions asked, the person who's the offender will get the gnarliest strike I can muster.

And oddly, part of me abhors that, as I believe it important to care for the opponent. Oh well, I guess that just means you should put them in the recovery position when you DO knock them out haha. I think I shall meditate on this today to come up with a better answer, at least for myself.

The honest answer is while it's a nice ordeal, till you know the situation, you won't know how to act, or react.

 

[granfire]

Call 911, help will arrive within minutes. Approximately.

well, sometimes it's 60 minutes...or 90....but yeah.


It actually depends.
But it is horrific to see all those hidden camera tests on how people react to a violent situation. Most people walk by, not even bothering to dial 911. And frankly, in this day and age, when nearly everybody has a cell, that is shocking!

 

[Makalakumu]

Noninterventionism only allows evil to continue. Would you not intervene if someone were beating your child/wife/friend?

This may be a good personal philosophy, but when governments do it and control the information, how can you be so sure a society is intervening for benevolent purposes?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk