Interventionism

[Justin]

On 2004-10-22T14:59:26-0400, John Kelsey wrote:
> 
> >From: Tyler Durden <camera_lumina at hotmail.com>
> >Sent: Oct 19, 2004 10:23 AM
> >Subject: US Retardation of Free Markets (was Airport insanity)
> 
> >More than that, some of the countries we've been kicked out or prevented 
> >from influencing have been modernizing rapidly, the most obvious example is 
> >China and Vietnam. Bolivia is interesting to watch.
> 
> So, Taiwan and South Korea seem like rather obvious counterexamples.
> 
> (Not a fan of interventionist foreign policy, FWIW)

I'm torn on Interventionism, and I suppose everyone is in some way.  I
believe that no matter how "oppressed" someone is, they can still
accomplish great things.  Based on that alone, there is little reason to
intervene in other countries' societies even if their governments are
perpetuating discrimination.

I also think it's a mistake to say that the U.S. has been so successful
because it's a democratic republic.  Wasn't it the spirit of those who
rebelled against British rule, rather than the particular form of
government they established, that was critical in establishing the U.S.
as a progress-oriented nation?

A semi-free society that has fewer economic regulations will have more
companies, and more capital that can be directed to pay people to do
research or to fund development of abstract ideas into usable
technologies.  However, even though economic deregulation aides
progress, is that a justification for rebellion or for war?


Consider Saudi Arabia.  Ignore the House of Saud's ties with the Bush
family, for a moment.  I hope everyone will agree that Saudi society and
government discriminates significantly in its treatment of men vs women.

Hopefully everyone will also agree that there are some, though certainly
a minority, of both men and women in Saudi Arabia who do not like their
rights under sharia and under the monarchy.  They want some guarantee of
equal rights, at least equal treatment by government (in matters of
divorce, voting, women's travel w/o closest-male-relative's permission,
etc.).  Ignore the "dress code" -- abaya and all that -- of Islamic law.
I'm interested in more substantive rights, rather than purely social
(non-government-enforced) discrimination.

1) Do individuals in that minority have a right to equal treatment by
government?

2) Does the fact that they are not numerous enough to foment a rebellion
mean they don't have that right?

3) Is there something inherently different about
equal-treatment-by-government, vs a discriminatory system under sharia,
that makes aiding a rebellion "good" or at least "neutral" in an
absolute moral sense?  Can intervention be justified?

4) If (3), can secondary considerations (oil access, "friendly
democracies" in the middle east, etc.) nullify any moral right to
intervene on behalf of an oppressed minority?

5) If (3), do a people with the means to displace discriminatory
governments have a _duty_ to do so?  (whether the U.S. has the means,
given that any military operation will increase government debt, is
debatable.)


If the U.S. has a right to invade other countries based on
government-enforced discrimination, do they have a right to invade the
U.S. based on democracies' tendency to produce a population rendered
brain-dead by the media and by demagogues?  How does the U.S. tendency
to create world-leading corporations mitigate the fact that many of its
citizens are vegetables?

Do I have a right not to live in a society where people are brainwashed
by the educational system, by media, and by government?  Because in such
a society, there is really no democracy.

-- 
The old must give way to the new, falsehood must become exposed by truth,
and truth, though fought, always in the end prevails.  -- L. Ron Hubbard