Quote:
Radar and his compatriots are idealists, trying to instigate the Utopian dream.
Harry Browns libertarian dissertation on wars is childishly simplistic .. and does not even begin to entertain the complex factors that drew nations into major wars during the 20th century.
|
Absolutely false. The Libertarian approach to national defense isn't a "utopian dream". In fact Libertarians seem to be the only people who don't dream of a utopia. We don't promise something for nothing or tell people the government can do everything for everybody. We know the inescapable reality that many don't like to face, that all freedom comes with responsibility.
Not only would a Libertarian approach work, it has worked for hundreds of years. Only when we start military interventionism and take sides on every issue do we make enemies all over the world.
Harry Browne's essay is a thoughtful, intelligent, cogent argument that describes perfectly the folly of getting involved in a complicated web of messy treaties that promise military action. The founding father's and Harry Browne had it right, and those who attempt to use a thinly veiled imperialistic/war mongering attitude by claiming we got into the war for "complex" reasons, are fooling nobody but themselves.
World War I happened after the murder of one man. It never would have happened without military interventionism and America never should have participated in it and had no valid reason to be in it. America violated its neutrality agreement and shipped arms to England. There never even would have been a WWII if America hadn't stuck our noses into WWI.
The U.S. Military has one and only one purpose, and that is to defend American soil and ships from attack. It's not for settling disputes among other nations, providing "stability" in other nations, overthrowing the leadership of other nations that haven't directly attacked america, training the military of other nations, sending humanitarian aid to other nations, be a show of force in other nations, be the muscle of the UN, etc. If the military is used for any of these reasons or any other reason outside defending from a direct attack against America (not American "interests" abroad), it is being used unconstitutionally and is endangering America rather than defending it.
I defy someone to name a war that the US was involved in within the last 100 years that was a valid, constitutional, defense of America other than World War II, which was questionable considering the fact that we provoked Japan. Let me give you a hint...It certainly wasn't Vietnam, Bosnia, Grenada, Iraq (either time), Korea, Panama, anywhere in Africa, etc.