Saturday, August 9, 2014

Where liberals and libertarians agree

Is that we have seen the source of all evil in the world, and it is the United States.  Well, libertarians only point to America's intervention in such unjust causes as Iraq, Vietnam, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan.  The US is OK as long as we ditch this notion of being anyone else's keeper.  Sure we can trade with them where commerce is concerned.  But let's dispense with this idea that we owe them anything that might cost.

Liberalism, of course, like any revolution seeks to tear down the society it's seeking to reform. And this is best done by convincing everyone that is nothing righteous, no not a thing, in our horrible nation - which is why we need to great reformation to set things straight.

So it's always odd when a proud self identified conservative who despises libertarianism accepts the premise that if there is suffering in the world, it's our fault.  That view is, of course, a mixed bag to people in other countries.  Of course they're willing to let the US kick itself in the butt over things.  But there is also a bit of resentment, as a friend from Nigeria once pointed out, over this notion that the rest of the world is incapable of sinning unless America makes it happen.  It's sort of the evil twin of exceptionalism.  We're so righteous because we declare our nation the cause of all suffering (while obviously being above the causes ourselves).

Anyway, thought it was strange to see this view accepted by someone who ostensibly rejects the two main sources for this view.  Perhaps it's because there is no mention of the endless suffering in the world that doesn't somehow link itself to US shores, however loosely.  I guess if I didn't focus on the suffering of the world outside of US policy, I'd assume all suffering in the world must be the result of US policy.  And that might have nothing to do with anything other than that tendency to adopt the modern notion of aid in advancement of the agenda. 


  1. You forgot to put sarcasm quotes around "conservative" up there.

    And you're exactly right. Let's see one reply Shea put up...

    "Long before Bush and Cheney arrived with their bombs, the Jews and Christians of Iraq were facing genocide from their Muslim countrymen. "


    Yep, there he is advocating that there were no faults in the MidEast until we went in there. By far the best smackdown of this view was from TMLutas:

    The whitewashing of Saddam's regime and the very real problems he was causing is disgusting. One of the giveaways is the scare quotes put around the word liberated. Saddam's regime was pro-genocide, pro-rape as political punishment, and pro-chemical weapons.

    Christians in Saddam's Iraq were slaves who negotiated a better deal than they might have otherwise. What happened is that they were liberated, and immediately forces attempted to re-enslave them. Your advocacy of one form of slavery above another would be permissible if that were all that was possible. Actual freedom should be plan A.

    In a US context, it would be like being against the 13th amendment because of the rise of the KKK. That's not a moral position to take.

    And that's exactly how Shea is acting.

    It's even funnier when he posts today "Fighting a Just Culture War". It's like having Sherman suddenly giving a speech about how we need to fight a "just war" even as you can look behind his podium and see miles stretching back of scorched earth. The man is a joke.

  2. Yeah, that smackdown made me hang my head in shame, not because I buy into it, but because of the fact that the nation I am part of is so willing to buy into it. I'm still trying to make out the whole Just Culture War post.


Let me know your thoughts