The other day, I made some comments to someone about how I disagreed with Mitt Romney's statement that we need to do something about Iran for the security of the world. This person commented that we, the laymen, know too little about global politics, and that we should allow those who know more than us to make decisions. Well, I countered with some comments that probably sounded very arrogant; it probably sounded like I think I know as much. I wrote the following email, to state that my opinions are not based on an arrogant ignorance, but instead, on a thoughtful consideration of history, and listening to those who know more than I.
It probably sounded very arrogant for me to suggest I know enough to say that we shouldn't be doing things for the security of the world. However, it doesn't take much reading to understand that many of the things we do are morally reprehensible. While I don't think individual morals always apply to a national or world view, I do think that themes are the same: treat others with respect, and treat them as you would like to be treated. Considering this, and a little history of our foreign activities, quickly leads to the correct conclusion that we should not let world security motivate our foreign policy.
A friend of mine who is somewhat knowledgeable and supportive of our activities in the middle east, disagreed with my views of combating bad governments with free trade by saying that it is not possible to anticipate what the effects of our actions might be, so it's impossible to say that free trade would discourage non-us friendly activities. I agreed fully that it is impossible to anticipate the effects of our actions, so it makes more sense NOT to be involved in manipulating foreign governments, no matter whether the goal is to improve the security of the world, or simply to maintain the availability of oil.
As for the moral issue, according to the Iraqi Liberation act of 1998 (or 99), the number one the Sadaam regime should be displaced is that they attacked Iran without reason in 1980. We actually encouraged and financed this action. Condemning a country for doing what we encouraged them to do is completely wrong. Furthermore, the fact that we provided weapons to both sides of the conflict surely prolonged the war, and caused the loss of many more lives. If only one side of the conflict was supported, it could then be argued that we did some good in our support, but with both being assisted, that is irrational.
We continued providing weapons to Iraq almost up to the point that we went to war with Iran, in 1990. The reason Iraq was able to invade Kuwait in the first place was that they had a powerful military, due to our generous donations of military equipment. So, not only did our assistance provide Iraq with the ability to invade Kuwait, it made Iraq a much stronger adversary during our conflict with them.
While many Israel supporters will argue that Israel can take care of itself militarily, Golda Meir expressed different views during the Yom Kippur war. It was suggested to her by some of her advisors that Israel conduct preemptive strikes to deter the attacks by the few arab countries. She said, though, that if Israel conducted preemptive strikes, the U.S. would not provide the resupply Israel would need in order to carry on through the end of the war. This, and other similar incidents, show that Israel does rely on us for assistance. If Israel did not have our support today, in the name of world security, they would be forced to work harder at achieving diplomatic solutions, rather than jumping into military action.
So, the fact that we tend to support one regime or country for only a few short years before switching sides and condemn actions that we encouraged and supported, and the fact that our actions tend to prolong and encourage military actions, resulting in more people killed and lives destroyed, should show that we have no business trying to control other countries. There are many more examples, enough to fill volumes, that demonstrate these same recurring themes. These themes make it obvious to me that we should worry about our own security, rather than the world's. It is hard enough to maintain the security of our own country. I think the problem is what you have suggested before: that people are so arrogant that they ignore the historical facts, and believe that their ideas are better than those of their predecessors, that they base their foreign policy on what is popular, and, additionally, that they are scared to do what is right, that is, to practice non-intervention.
I hope that shows that my boldness is not based on thinking I know more than our country's leaders; in fact, I know very little. But, I do know that my thoughts are generally correct, since they seem to be in line with those of many people, such as Cato scholars, Ron Paul, Thomas Jefferson, and many other freedom fighters.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Friday, December 14, 2007
What is our major malfunction?
One of the biggest problems facing America, and possibly the root of all of the political problems, is our reliance on government. Whenever something bad happens, the immediate response from the people is, "the government has to do something." For instance, when a bridge collapsed earlier this year, people expected the government to do something. When hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, people looked to the government to fix the problem.
This attitude causes a number of problems. Reagan said, "government is not the solution, government is the problem." He knew that when the government gets involved in something, it inevitably becomes less efficient and less effective. So, as we continue to invite the government into new areas of our lives, things begin to be much less efficient. While you may say we can handle a little less efficiency, if you take a look at communist countries of the past, you will see that the government's inefficiency will effectively bankrupt a country. It's much easier to move toward socialism than away from it. It's like a black hole. As we become more socialist, we will have problems, like those that we may soon see in government provided health care. The government will be expected to fix these problems, and more money and effort will be thrown at them, regulating even more, actually worsening the problems.
When we invite the government to act to fix problems like bridge collapses, we create a problem that may not actually exist. For example, I only know of one major bridge collapse that was not caused by external forces. So, if one collapses every 20 years or so, is that a problem? No! There is inherent risk in everything. It is not possible to build structures without the possibility of failure. If one uses infrastructure, one needs to accept the risks involved. So, for the government to spend money making the bridges safer is not necessarily a responsible way to spend my money.
When we ask the government to intervene, especially in time of a disaster, rather than encouraging responsible solutions, we encourage a race, and whoever can produce the first bill throwing money at the problem wins free publicity, catapulting them higher up the political food chain. This just helps hide the real issues; instead of defending why they voted to send more money to fund a war they disagree with, they can say they do care, just look at how much money they spent saving the people.
Today, I saw an interview of a professor of political science at Columbia University. He stated that it would be irresponsible to have a government that allowed people to take care of themselves. He said today, people won't take care of themselves, so we can't have a government like we did yesterday. Well, I have a little more faith in people than that. I know that if we get away from our reliance on the government, we will all step up to the plate and start producing, and our children will learn about self-reliance, rather than becoming sponges on society.
This attitude causes a number of problems. Reagan said, "government is not the solution, government is the problem." He knew that when the government gets involved in something, it inevitably becomes less efficient and less effective. So, as we continue to invite the government into new areas of our lives, things begin to be much less efficient. While you may say we can handle a little less efficiency, if you take a look at communist countries of the past, you will see that the government's inefficiency will effectively bankrupt a country. It's much easier to move toward socialism than away from it. It's like a black hole. As we become more socialist, we will have problems, like those that we may soon see in government provided health care. The government will be expected to fix these problems, and more money and effort will be thrown at them, regulating even more, actually worsening the problems.
When we invite the government to act to fix problems like bridge collapses, we create a problem that may not actually exist. For example, I only know of one major bridge collapse that was not caused by external forces. So, if one collapses every 20 years or so, is that a problem? No! There is inherent risk in everything. It is not possible to build structures without the possibility of failure. If one uses infrastructure, one needs to accept the risks involved. So, for the government to spend money making the bridges safer is not necessarily a responsible way to spend my money.
When we ask the government to intervene, especially in time of a disaster, rather than encouraging responsible solutions, we encourage a race, and whoever can produce the first bill throwing money at the problem wins free publicity, catapulting them higher up the political food chain. This just helps hide the real issues; instead of defending why they voted to send more money to fund a war they disagree with, they can say they do care, just look at how much money they spent saving the people.
Today, I saw an interview of a professor of political science at Columbia University. He stated that it would be irresponsible to have a government that allowed people to take care of themselves. He said today, people won't take care of themselves, so we can't have a government like we did yesterday. Well, I have a little more faith in people than that. I know that if we get away from our reliance on the government, we will all step up to the plate and start producing, and our children will learn about self-reliance, rather than becoming sponges on society.
On Immigration
I don't know much about the issues surrounding immigration. They aren't as black and white as other issues, such as foreign and economic policies are. There's one thing I do know for sure, though. While "amnesty" for illegal immigrants may not be a good idea, penalizing people who where brought to the U.S. at the age of two, attending twelve years of school in the U.S., is not a good idea, either.
Here's one example of where we have gone wrong. I have a friend who was illegally brought to the U.S. by her parents at around two or three years old. In school, she studied her butt off, and got something like a 4.5 on a 5.0 scale in high school. When she was 17, she had her own apartment, and was working full time. Unfortunately, even though she worked very hard, there was no way for her to go to college after graduating, due to her immigration status. In fact, she couldn't even get a good job, because we felt the need to hold her accountable for what her parents did over 16 years previous. But you know what? She's never bitched about how she was screwed, never griped that America owes her anything. She just accepted it, and kept on.
She's still in the U.S., and still not a citizen. Before you judge, you should know: she is a soldier now, and has been serving for almost three years, doing more than most of you, for a country that wanted to kick her out. Hopefully she will be a citizen soon; we owe that much to someone who worked her butt off all her life, and is now serving our country in the army.
So, before we put everyone who came here illegally under the same blanket, we need to step out of our arrogant comfort zones, and take a look at the lives we may be affecting. It's simply not right for us to send someone away who has been allowed to make America their home. It's nothing short of embarrassing the way we sometimes treat people.
Here's one example of where we have gone wrong. I have a friend who was illegally brought to the U.S. by her parents at around two or three years old. In school, she studied her butt off, and got something like a 4.5 on a 5.0 scale in high school. When she was 17, she had her own apartment, and was working full time. Unfortunately, even though she worked very hard, there was no way for her to go to college after graduating, due to her immigration status. In fact, she couldn't even get a good job, because we felt the need to hold her accountable for what her parents did over 16 years previous. But you know what? She's never bitched about how she was screwed, never griped that America owes her anything. She just accepted it, and kept on.
She's still in the U.S., and still not a citizen. Before you judge, you should know: she is a soldier now, and has been serving for almost three years, doing more than most of you, for a country that wanted to kick her out. Hopefully she will be a citizen soon; we owe that much to someone who worked her butt off all her life, and is now serving our country in the army.
So, before we put everyone who came here illegally under the same blanket, we need to step out of our arrogant comfort zones, and take a look at the lives we may be affecting. It's simply not right for us to send someone away who has been allowed to make America their home. It's nothing short of embarrassing the way we sometimes treat people.
Monday, December 3, 2007
How have we forgotten?
I keep hearing talk about how we need to stay in Iraq in order that the lives lost there won't be lost in vain. While I don't exactly agree with the war in Iraq, I do agree that no life should ever be lost in vain.
But what about the many lives lost during the Revolutionary war? Have we forgotten the sacrifices made in the pursuit of freedom? Have we forgotten the lives that were lost in fighting against communist regimes? Have we forgotten the lives lost because of socialist regimes trying to keep control of the people? Have we forgotten the evils of socialism? Have we forgotten how bad life was in communist Germany? How have we so quickly forgotten?
We need to ensure that none of these lives were lost in vain, by remembering why they were lost. We need to remember the lives that were sacrificed to make our country free, and ensure that they were not sacrificed in vain, by continually fighting for our freedom. We need to remember the lives that were taken because of socialism, and remind ourselves that socialism is evil; IT DOESN'T WORK!!
There is nothing new under the sun, and those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. If we don't remember our history, that's okay. We'll definitely remember it next time, when, instead of being the one who looks in from the outside, we are the one experiencing it firsthand.
But what about the many lives lost during the Revolutionary war? Have we forgotten the sacrifices made in the pursuit of freedom? Have we forgotten the lives that were lost in fighting against communist regimes? Have we forgotten the lives lost because of socialist regimes trying to keep control of the people? Have we forgotten the evils of socialism? Have we forgotten how bad life was in communist Germany? How have we so quickly forgotten?
We need to ensure that none of these lives were lost in vain, by remembering why they were lost. We need to remember the lives that were sacrificed to make our country free, and ensure that they were not sacrificed in vain, by continually fighting for our freedom. We need to remember the lives that were taken because of socialism, and remind ourselves that socialism is evil; IT DOESN'T WORK!!
There is nothing new under the sun, and those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. If we don't remember our history, that's okay. We'll definitely remember it next time, when, instead of being the one who looks in from the outside, we are the one experiencing it firsthand.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
