1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/8463/palins-intellectual-bipolar-disorder/

Palin’s Intellectual Bipolar Disorder

September 4, 2008 by

I just watched this clip of Sarah Palin from the Republican convention last night. I just don’t get how people can cheer and cheer over such obviously conflicting ideas.

One the one hand, she assails Obama as favoring big government, more taxes, more control from Washington, and everyone goes nuts denouncing government. Then only a few sentences later, she is blasting Obama for not favoring war enough, for wanting to give people too many rights, for not wanting military victory over the entire planet. People cheer that too.

Do these people not realize that the same government that controls from Washington is also the institution that she is proposing have a world empire? Do these people not realize that global military occupation costs money that comes out of the pockets of American citizens? Do they not realize that a government that cares nothing about the rights of foreigners is not going to have much respect for the rights of its citizens either?

I know it’s an old problem, and nothing has changed since the Cold War days, but the intellectual bipolar disorder of the conservative mainstream is still very difficult to comprehend. It’s no wonder that smart people conclude, even from watching this one clip, that the whole thing is a racket.

{ 35 comments }

Dick Fox September 4, 2008 at 8:49 am

Oh Jeffery, Jeffery, how you disappoint me. There is so much to criticize with the Republicans and you choose national defense. Need I remind you of the great loss of life and the devastating economic loss after 9/11? You may want to build a bunker and hunker down with your family but that is not what most of us want to do.

We want a world of non-aggressive democratic republics with open free markets. If you want to criticize the Republicans for betraying that vision, which is why they lost control of the House and Senate BTW, then I am with you. But attack our national defense and we part ways.

Palin put excess profits taxes on oil companies and she has done a few other things that give me a slight chill but she is by far the best of the four running. Give the Republicans some credit for at least having the rhetoric of smaller government and open markets. They are a far cry better than the Democrats. Hopefully the Republicans will continue to understand the truth of why they are losing the American people and they will return to liberty and freedom not only in their convention but also in their governing.

But talk about New Deal disasters! The Democrats stay it clearly, redistribution and massive Fascist government controls. When the time comes which will you choose? Ron Paul is out of the running.

magnus September 4, 2008 at 9:32 am

Give the Republicans some credit for at least having the rhetori of smaller government and open markets.

Absolutely not.

They use that rhetoric to put people off their guard, and then use the complacency to do the exact opposite of their rhetoric.

This is neo-conservatism, aka moderate Republicanism. It is run by Trotskyites who used to call themselves Leftists, but have repackaged themselves as conservatives. This modern phony-conservatism is as cynical and deceptive as it gets.

We want a world of non-aggressive democratic republics with open free markets.

No, Republicans want to be the center of a global empire, with a bunch of disarmed client states providing us with cheap goods.

What exactly is the “homeland”, by the way? As opposed to what? The provinces?

Inquisitor September 4, 2008 at 9:52 am

So Dick, would you say you’re a socialist on national defence? I’d have to conclude you would. It is of course true, that Palin is the best of the candidates. Hell I wouldn’t even mind her in control of Sweden, my own country, given how much other options suck…

Haas September 4, 2008 at 10:01 am

So dick, you support a party that is leading your country into fascism because it has ‘some small government rhetoric’? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!

Dan Mahoney September 4, 2008 at 11:05 am

Not sure it’s “our” national defense Palin (and the Mad Bomber McCain) is interested in:

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/04/palins-evangelical-faith-drives-pro-israel-view/

Brent September 4, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Well, guys, it isn’t so much that republican policies actually provide national defense… but it is the “rhetoric about national defense” that makes republicans so super!

Curio September 4, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Mr. Fox,

I realize you are already taking a beating here, but you do not seem to be well versed in the machinations of the military industrial complex. So I will provide a couple of brief “sound-bites” for you to chew on, which may give you a good direction to start researching.

The US spends more than all other countries combined on defense. That’s right, more than China, Russia, all of Europe, the middle east, etc. COMBINED. Most of this spending is not for combating the type of “terrorist” style warfare that is the new enemy; rather it is cold-war era nuclear submarines and stealth bombers and operating bases in dozens of nations around the world.

The attacks on 9/11 were orchestrated by a small group of thugs who were primarily of Saudi origins. True, there were terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, but there are terrorist training camps in dozens, perhaps hundreds of countries. Destroying Afghanistan does nothing to prevent more. And what does Iraq have to do with us being attacked? Nothing. What of Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber? Get a few more like-minded people together and you have the same ability to attack us as the 9/11 terrorists. Whom does the US go after in that case? Is spending trillions of taxpayer dollars (and borrowed, “created” dollars) going to prevent it anyways?

You bought into the party line. It’s not about defense from attack. It’s about money supporting a military industrial complex. I urge you to read Eisenhower’s farewell speech on the subject. Chilling.

george bush jr. September 4, 2008 at 1:22 pm

My favorite would be the people holding up the SERVICE signs mocking those who do public service. The true republican view cannot be hidden behind props!

Dick Fox September 4, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Inquisitor asked:

So Dick, would you say you’re a socialist on national defence?

I am not sure what you mean here but I will give it a shot.

No, I do not consider myself a socialist concerning national defense. The government is simply one more producer in the economy. Now the greatest strength, and the greatest weakness, of the government is its power to coerce. Because of this empowering government should only be done when no better alternative is available.

What our Founding Fathers understood, something many Libertarians and Modern Austrians (notice the capitals) do not, is that to defend our nation against other nations that would do us harm we must use our collective resources to support not just equal force but force so great that tyrants will be deterred from attacking us.

So a national military is not socialism but a cost to maintain our economic and personal freedoms.

If I were king I would limit the government to security and enforcing contracts (including fixing weights and measures).

Som September 4, 2008 at 2:05 pm

I wish Sarah Palin would stop giving speeches and just sit there and look pretty. She can do her feminine waves to the crowd, her poses, her flashy bright smiles, and shake a few hands, but that’s all she should do getting in office and throughout the presidency.

I’d much prefer to have an attractive president that ONLY does her best to look good in front of the camera. I grow weary of these wrinkled ape looking presidents destroying our country (well, pretty much everything) with their pipe dreams of remaking the world in their vision.

Sometime in ancient china, when there was a sort of parliament and emperor as the country’s government, the emperor was just a figurehead with virtually no power at all. He was there just to have a face for the country and government, where the parliament generally ran things.

Mrs. Palin, would you please be our hot ancient Chinese empress of America??

Ireland September 4, 2008 at 2:59 pm

The government is simply one more producer in the economy.

Nope. Government is the consumer. If it were a producer, we’d be buying it’s services (or not) on a free market. As it really is, the government has to forcibly take taxes, then consume them while trying to reach whatever it’s up to.

Inquisitor September 4, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Mr Fox, thank you. So you are a socialist on this matter. Good to know. It is true that the minds of conservatives (and even classical liberals) stop working when it comes to defence, and gone with the wind goes any economic rationality they might possess. I think since only the government can provide this valuable service, perhaps it should do so in other areas too, because it’s so great at being in business. :)

Inquisitor September 4, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Good point Ireland. In one sense it is a consumer, forcing its vassals to provide it with resources to cater to the whims of its autocrats. Insofar as it is a producer (of dubious credentials), it is a legal monopoly, with all the attendant… benefits (e.g. calculational chaos).

Inquisitor September 4, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Good point Ireland. In one sense it is a consumer, forcing its vassals to provide it with resources to cater to the whims of its autocrats. Insofar as it is a producer (of dubious credentials), it is a legal monopoly, with all the attendant… benefits (e.g. calculational chaos).

josh m September 4, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Dick: “…to defend our nation against other nations that would do us harm we must use our collective resources to support not just equal force but force so great that tyrants will be deterred from attacking us.

What is the evidence that “tyrants would attack us” in the absence of a government standing military?

And assuming that “tyrants did attack us,” what is the evidence that voluntary cooperation, i.e., the free market—being that it solves the problem of scarcity for every other human need under the sun–would not be able to address the need for defense “against tyrants” as well ?

Dick Fox September 4, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Curio wrote:

I realize you are already taking a beating here, but you do not seem to be well versed in the machinations of the military industrial complex.

Curio,

How do you know what the military is working on? Do you work for the government? For that matter how well do you know me and my knowledge?

Apparently you did not comprehend my post. Let me share with you a little anecdote. One night I rode with a friend of mine who was a Deputy Sheriff to see what he faced. About 3:00 am we received a call from a bar that there was a bar fight. He immediately called for backup from all the cars he could get. He explained to me that if he arrived with one or two cars the chances of being attacked were great, but if they arrived in mass, armed to the teeth, and without a smile, the fighters would be pussy cats. When we arrived there were 5 cars and 10 deputies. He was absolutely correct. The fight stopped immediately and not one person got out of line.

The point of this story is that if our nation wants to stay out of a fight we have to be the “baddest “kid on the block. I have no problem with our military spending because any nation will think twice about attacking us. Compared to our welfare spending the money we spend to defend ourselves is insignificant and also consider that a huge part of the military budget is actually welfare in the form of subsidized health care, housing, food, child care, on and on. Less than half of the military budget is actually spent on defense.

Now, 9/11 was not an attack by a nation. It was an attack by a rogue group affiliated with other Islamic Fascists who are attempting to do what the Koran says and convert the world to Islam by the use of the sword. To stop this we have to let these people know that they will not win. That means we go after their leadership no matter where it is.

We do not just have Special Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are all over the world and if you had paid attention right after 9/11 you would know that. We have dealt with terrorists in the Philippines, in Africa, in South America, and other places you will never know about.

Granted, we have done a lot of bad things as a country in the past, but unlike nations of the past we are not a colonial power. We have sent our military to die in other countries and as Colin Power has said, “All we ask for is a plot of ground to bury our dead.” Our country is unique in the history of the world because we are not taking land for ourselves. That ended in the early 20th Century after Teddy Roosevelt and his band of thugs were turned out of politics. As long as we keep the ideals of freedom and liberty reflected in our founding documents then we will remain the best hope for a world at peace.

Dick Fox September 4, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Ireland wrote:

The government is simply one more producer in the economy.

Nope. Government is the consumer.

Okay, you are correct. I should have said, “Ideally the government should only be one more producer in the economy providing a service.”

Dick Fox September 4, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Inquisitor wrote:

Mr Fox, thank you. So you are a socialist on this matter. Good to know. It is true that the minds of conservatives (and even classical liberals) stop working when it comes to defence, and gone with the wind goes any economic rationality they might possess. I think since only the government can provide this valuable service, perhaps it should do so in other areas too, because it’s so great at being in business. :)

Sorry, but you are wrong. There are many other ways the we could attempt to protect our country and there are may others who do supply some level of security. The problem is that the government is only supplier that can fullfull the requirements.

Your definition of socialism is a little suspect.

magnus September 4, 2008 at 4:08 pm

And assuming that “tyrants did attack us,”

Tyrants did attack us. These particular tyrants are called “the government.”

Unfortunately, a key part of the attack by these tyrants was to convince a large number of people that they were not, in fact, attacking, but were instead offering benevolent “services.”

Even more unfortunately, some people continue to fall for this obvious lie.

Dick Fox September 4, 2008 at 4:49 pm

josh m wrote:

What is the evidence that “tyrants would attack us” in the absence of a government standing military?

As they say, “All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten.” Every playground has its bullies. If you don’t believe that do this little experiment. Put a sign in your front yard that says, “No one in this house has a weapon” then see what happens.

Dick Fox September 4, 2008 at 4:56 pm

magnus wrote:

Tyrants did attack us. These particular tyrants are called “the government.”

I feel your pain but don’t be fatalistic about this. Realistically we need government. Anarchy does not work because man is sinful. So, as an Austrian in the Mises tradition, I believe that we need to work toward the best society we can. We need to show others that with cooperation, meaning free markets and personal freedom, everyone is better off. Call it Natural Law if you want but this simple truth is critical to a civilized society.

Curio September 4, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Mr. Fox,

There are more damaging aspects to the military industrial complex than simply being the “baddest kid on the block”.

For one, the level of corruption involved is enormous. The department of defense, which sucks the majority (not all) of dollars for defense, takes more taxpayer money than any other department. It is also the worst managed, from a financial perspective. They cannot account for the money that is being spent, and even the Fed’s own watchdog agency, the GAO, viciously criticizes the lack of accountability and financial mismanagement at the DOD.

Secondly, the economy created by the defense industry is so huge and powerful that it influences decision makers in Congress, Dems & Repubs alike, to go against the interests of our society (and foreign societies) in favor of supporting their own agenda.

Further, I am fully aware that we have special forces to deal with “terrorists” in the Philippines, Africa, etc. The critical questions are WHY are we there, and whose definition of “terrorist”? These are very, very important questions and go much deeper and darker that the party line will tell it (i.e. to “liberate” people or “spread democracy”).

You state that the US is not colonial nor taking land for itself. Consider supporting (by military force) “US friendly” puppet governments that help to serve the interests of US businesses? Although not land, it is a taking of resources (cheap labor, oil, etc.) nonetheless.

I understand fully the need for a powerful military, but the current system is absolutely out of control and does more damage than it does good. While your anecdote paints a clear, valid picture, the analogy does not fit when applied to the current US military/defense system.

Curio September 4, 2008 at 5:30 pm

Ireland:

The “government is the consumer” indeed. Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed, General Dynamics, etc. are the producers.

Mr. Fox seems to have fallen for the myth that the US is involved in other country’s affairs in order to defend itself. On the contrary, the US is not typically welcome in those other countries by the inhabitants, but only by the oppressive governments whom have been aided by the US. And the sole reason the US is in those countries is due strictly to resources. The recent Georgia/Russia conflict is a shining example.

The reason the “terrorists” desire to attack the US is not due to religious fanaticism, as some would lead us to believe. It is because they despise what the US has done to their people either directly or indirectly, ostensibly fighting for “freedom” and “liberty” while essentially stealing/exploiting their resources. The violent resource grabs did not end in the early 20th century. It simply became more sophisticated and more insidious.

Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia. Iraq. Nicaragua. El Salvador. Panama. Etc. None of these countries were ever a threat to the US, yet they were invaded and attacked by the US. Is that the type of defense that is keeping the US safe? Is that the best use of our money that the US gov is taking from us? To kill people in foreign countries who have not done anything to us, nor even have the ability? And some people think the “terrorists” simply hate the US due to religious reasons?

Jason September 4, 2008 at 5:41 pm

Ok, I would like to offer my opinion on this. Mr. Fox, the problem is not so much that we do not need government. I think your definition of government is suspect. A strong state is not equal to strong government. The problem is not Government or No government, but monopoly of Government. Let me ask an obvious question. Why must a government tax it’s members? Does enforcement of contracts require an organization to have a monopoly doing so? If two or more organizations compete to enforce individuals contracts with one another, neither forcing payment from there customer, then this is good government. What I read you saying is that “we” must have a “strong” military at all costs. When society is free, and there is no coerced payment, the military will be as strong as society feels it should be and no less. If the military gets aggressive and invades property rights and violates contracts, members simply withdraw payment and there reign is over. Sorry about all the questions, but I find questions facilitate thought.

Jason September 4, 2008 at 5:58 pm

I think libertarians are so used to saying “I hate guvament!”, that they forget the fact that the state is not equal to government. A consistent body of law arises from the enforcement of contract over a long period of time. This “law” is not legislated down from kings, senators, representatives or whatever and forced down on the masses. Rather it is created voluntarily. Then and only then, the law reflects the true wishes of the populous. Then the law serves the people enforcing there contracts. It is not necessary for the enforcement of the law, for an organization to have a monopoly on this. The policemen that went to the bar you speak of interfered and really did nothing. The bar owner could have kicked him out himself or paid someone to do it, or heck someone might do it for free. As long as they are both off the property and neither one wants assistance, let the fight continue.

Michael W. McKinney Sr. September 4, 2008 at 5:59 pm

Finally, someone that listens with reason and common sense. I can’t believe that people believe what is said without analysis or reflection. Our politicians don’t even think about what they are saying before saying it. After all, what’s the point? For no matter what they say, they can either “unsay” it later, or deny that they even said it at all …EVEN WHEN IT’S RECORDED!

When the Pied Piper plays, and the rats follow, what happens to us rats that see through the guise?

C. Evans September 4, 2008 at 6:33 pm

Dick Fox wrote:
“I feel your pain but don’t be fatalistic about this. Realistically we need government. Anarchy does not work because man is sinful. So, as an Austrian in the Mises tradition, I believe that we need to work toward the best society we can. We need to show others that with cooperation, meaning free markets and personal freedom, everyone is better off. Call it Natural Law if you want but this simple truth is critical to a civilized society.”

I would argue that man’s sinfulness is the best argument against the State. If you create an institution with a monopoly on coercion and violence which is then controlled by sinful men, what do you think the outcome will be? It will only excerbate man’s sinful nature, giving him opportunities and resources to indulge his lust for power, control, and money. The reason we anti-state libertarians are so opposed to the State is that we believe the State is a criminal gang; it does not suddenly transform into a magnanimous protector when war breaks out. Moreover, the State may even be the instigator of said war, such as Roosevelt’s manuervering of the Japanese to attack the US so he could drag the country into WWII.

I agree with your statement, “We need to show others that with cooperation, meaning free markets and personal freedom, everyone is better off,” but this is impossible with the State. The agents of the State will not submit to natural law or any law since they have the power to make laws which they exempt themselves from. For instance, politicians lie to us all the time, but if we lie to a federal officer or a police officer, we can be imprisoned. If I steal my neighbor’s car and sell it to feed my family, I can go to jail, but the State robs us through taxation and gives the money to whomever it wants. If I murdered someone, I would face the death penalty, but the State can murder anyone it wants, foreigners or its own citizens and get away with it. We will never be free as long as the State exists.
Mr. Fox, your view of the State is what separates you from the radicals on this website and something you should give more thought to. If you believe, as we do, that the State is a criminal gang, then why would you trust it to protect you? Why would you think that any crisis in which the State compels us to give up more freedom and more money just happened randomly? Why would you think that the build up of a great military is to protect you rather than the State’s own agents from attacks which it may provoke? If you do trust the State to protect you, clearly you don’t see the State as a criminal enterprise; it’s just inefficient at some things.

I think I speak for many regular visitors to this website when I suggest reading Hans Hermann Hoppe’s Democracy-The God That Failed or The Myth of National Defense. I would also recommend any of his speeches in the Media link of Mises.org. Especially enlightening is Robert Higgs’ speech The Siren Song.

juandos September 4, 2008 at 8:26 pm

Do these people not realize that global military occupation costs money that comes out of the pockets of American citizens? Do they not realize that a government that cares nothing about the rights of foreigners is not going to have much respect for the rights of its citizens either?“…

Well Jeffery Tucker, how much does it cost the taxpayer so that government can pander to the parasites in this country with Constitutionally questionable nanny state programs?

Maybe you should read the following: Not Yours to Give by Davy Crockett

Jim Fedako September 4, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Sure, my father-in-law, when speaking of McCain, said that “McCain is going to appoint justices who are strict constitutionalists.” I replied, “What makes you think that McCain, someone who has no respect for the constitution, is going to appoint justices who do?” He just shook his head.

Like Groundhog Day, each election is an opportunity for folks to forget the past and to begin to live it anew.

Bruce Koerber September 4, 2008 at 10:41 pm

Why does it matter who is in the limelight? The vanity of the ones closely tied to the unConstitutional coup does nothing but increase the likelihood of more ego-driven interventionism in a frenzy of self-aggrandizement. The unConstitutional coup loves all of this because it increasingly severs the connections with any restraint and any rule of law.

Warmongering and stirring up fear and suspicion, and lying and counterfeiting are the thematic arousers for the happy ignorant. What a great sight for the unConstitutional coup to behold!

The forces of equilibrium will wash away these fallacious schemers and their blind followers. What a great sight that will be for all, in the name of liberty and justice.

Art Thomas September 5, 2008 at 9:10 am

C. Evans,

I second your well put arguments.

Justinian September 5, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Very interesting thread. Dick Fox, I think you make as good a case as can be made for the current military, or militaristic policies. And Mises also thought that the state was needed to supply military services on the ground that there was no market for these services; but didn’t say why.

As an Australian, the best example I can think of for state provision of defence services was in world war two. The Japanese were rampaging down south-east Asia, killing and committing atrocities, and coming straight for Australia. There was no question what they intended to do when they got here. They were stopped, for the first time, by Australian troops meeting them in New Guinea. This seems to me to be a clear-cut argument for the core function of the state, and its monopolistic supply of military services, because I can’t think how private provision might have met that same challenge satisfactorily.

But still I don’t think these arguments adequately answer the Rothbardian critique, nor justify the current American imperial posture, with troops in 130 countries. Look at the last century. States killed well over a hundred million people so you really have to ask, what was the problem that was so bad that that was the solution? For example, about 3,000 people died in 9/11. If we add up all the deaths from terrorist plane hijackings, car bombings, restaurant bombings and the like since the 1970s, what would we come to? 10,000. Yet the various invading and occupying militaries in Iraq have killed at least 100,000 civilians in just the last few years.

So I think that the solution of the state always tends to be much worse than the original problem it was intended to solve, and it is the populations mere habit of accepting it as part of the landscape that is the real reason for its existence, rather than that it is necesary and desirable.

Ken Fulk September 5, 2008 at 11:56 pm

Wow.. talk about creative paraphrasing.

Please.. if you’re going to rebut her speech, at least have the decency to actually quote it correctly.

“…she is blasting Obama for not favoring war enough…”

What she actually said: “Victory in Iraq is finally in sight, and he wants to forfeit.”

“…for wanting to give people too many rights…”

How do you justify generalizing from “Al-Qaeda terrorists” to “people”.

Here’s what she actually said: “Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America… he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights?”

“…not wanting military victory over the entire planet…”

I’m sorry.. I can’t find this in her speech anywhere. Did you just make that part up?

Dick Fox September 6, 2008 at 8:20 am

Jason, C. Evans and other,

In large part I agree with you. Governemnt must be controlled because of the sinfulness of man, but that does not negate the fact that sinful men are also in society as a whole.

I believe that most here to understand a need for government, but wish to limit its power. This is exactly where I stand. I do not believe there is a perfect government but I do believe that a liberal, constitutional, democratic republic is the best government.

As I stated before I believe that the government basically has two functions, protect the nation (defend the constitution if you will) and enforce contracts. The why of a large military is easy. Other hostile militaries mave massive amounts of resources to commit to weapons to use against us. Unless we are prepared with counter measures we are doomed.

But as I have attempted to point out I believe that having the strongest military in the world will actually prevent war not initiate war. Just look at the world from Durfar to Haiti, Maylasia to Colombia, the world is looking to us for help. I believe that our principles amke us the only country in the world who can actually take on this role. I have no problem with a Pax Americana under the principles of all men created equal.

That said it should be obvious that our biggest challenge then is keeping our domestic government from stepping over its limits domestically. If this is controlled the foreign involvements will actually take care of themselves.

Throughout the history of our nation forces have been moving us more and more beyond enforcing contracts to actual state control. This is where our efforts should be, to maintain both economic and personal freedom, the two actually being one.

Now Jason asked, “Why must a government tax it’s members?” Well, a government must tax to exist. The whole reason for the Constitutional Convention is because the Aritcles of Confederation did not give the government the power to collect taxes. But directly to your statement a government does not need to tax its members. The Founding Fathers of our Constitution established a system where they could gain revenue to maintain the federal government without direct taxation of the people. I still believe in this system and believe that the 16th Amendment was the worst thing that has happened to our country, another little gift given to us by that moron Teddy Roosevelt (I think there was an ignoratnt gene loose in the Roosevelt family tree).

Curio September 8, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Judging by the softer tone of your latest post, I am assuming you have either learned some things or you are simply tired of this thread. I hope it was the former. I mean no offense, simply to enlighten, which I feel compelled to do after reading some of your misinformed statements. At any rate I enjoy the discussion and hope you feel the same.

You state that you wish to limit the power of government in one breath, yet you condone the gov to continuing its policy of global military domination. The spreading of military bases across the globe and the sheer size of the defense budget are one of the primary reasons the government is so powerful and will continue to be. I agree with the premise that a nation needs to be able to defend itself, however as I alluded to earlier our government has grotesquely overstepped this role.

According to the Pentagon, the US military has over 700 “active sites” outside the country, to the tune of at least hundreds of billions of dollars. These include vast, permanent infrastructures in a variety of countries, most of which have little or no ability to attack the US. Whether you are aware of it or not, colonization is essentially what is occurring (funded by you and I) under the rationale of “defense” but in reality to further the US’s “interests” which are resources. The result of this, and will continue to happen, is guerilla warfare and “terrorism” such as 9/11. The strongest military in the world cannot/did not prevent that. That attack was directly related to the US military being based in foreign countries to further its “interests” as opposed to being there for defense of the homeland.

Because of this, I strongly object to the statement that “our principles make us the only country in the world who can actually take on this role” as you state. That may be the case if by “our principles” you mean yourself and myself, and others who think like us, but “our principles” are not the same as how the federal government acts. The federal government only responds if it is in the “interests” of the US, which have nothing to do with humanitarian needs or moral obligations. Further, the federal government endangers the “homeland” by engaging in military expansion to foreign countries under the premises I have outlined above (not to mention what happens to the inhabitants of those countries).

But don’t take my word for it. You really should take the time to research what the federal government does in these cases, rather than getting the info from the popular media and/or pundits and partisans. I know, because I once thought exactly the way you do on this issue, until I opened my eyes. Much of it you can find out from the government itself, if you know where to look.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: