Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel W. Koehler who wrote (2833)	5/13/1999 3:06:00 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 13060

Daniel, I gave you a mass of material, and you focus on a rhetorical flourish? Okay, I will see what I can do for you....

To: Daniel W. Koehler who wrote (2833)	5/13/1999 3:12:00 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 13060

Daniel, if you bother to address the actual arguments I made, perhaps I will not merely re-post them: I am an internationalist for the same reason that Britain became an Empire: because we are a trading nation, and there is no international authority to appeal to when things begin to gyrate out of control, so we have to depend on ourselves and our ability to negotiate stabilizing alliances. Also, as long as we have become the "big kid on the block", I think we are right to try to promote our values (ordinarily through non- military means), and to respond to humanitarian crises when we can. We have a lot of influence, and we may as well use it to good purpose; and we have the means to help with reasonable cost to ourselves, and there is an "ethic of emergencies" which demands that those in a position to help do so unless the costs are excessive. go2net.com In the kind of world in which we live, it is fanciful not to take the strategic long- view. If we waited until attacked, it would probably already be too late. If conservative means inert, then you are right that the Libertarian view is more conservative. If conservative means prudent, you are wrong. go2net.com

To: Daniel W. Koehler who wrote (2833)	5/14/1999 9:10:00 AM
From: Daniel W. Koehler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13060

Neocon We were free traders but military noninterventionists for the first 150 years of our history. This century, IMO, internationalist military intervention has gotten us into a questionable World War (the Great War, that is) and several "police actions". Free trade has, however, made us rich as well as our trading partners. In my view, internationalist military intervention is merely a vehicle for further power grabs at the Federal level as well a step toward a one world, government-centric politics. I have no problem with the global economy but I think US military intervention where no direct threat to our country is present is a "no-win" situation. I stress "direct" as the key word. Ciao, Daniel