Berkeley City Council Doing Its Anti-Democracy Bit

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Either the defeated country is absorbed or they get to have a standard army back immediately following surrender.

Just checking, is that in the Constitution?

No, the Constitution just says the only valid use of the U.S. military is for defending America. That doesn't mean defending defeated enemies. That doesn't mean starting unprovoked wars like the one in Iraq. It doesn't mean provoking others into war either. It doesn't include anything other than defending America.

America was created to escape the tyranny of imperialism, not to practice it. This means the option of absorbing other nations into an empire is out. Therefore the only valid option for a DEFENSIVE military is to leave the defeated country and let them figure out how to defend themselves after we're gone.

Actually, unless another country attacks ours and then retreats home, our army should never fight any wars outside the borders of America and we should never have any military bases outside of our own borders unless such an extremely unlikely event actually occurs.

[deadbeater]

Originally Posted by Radar

No, the Constitution just says the only valid use of the U.S. military is for defending America. That doesn't mean defending defeated enemies. That doesn't mean starting unprovoked wars like the one in Iraq. It doesn't mean provoking others into war either. It doesn't include anything other than defending America.

America was created to escape the tyranny of imperialism, not to practice it. This means the option of absorbing other nations into an empire is out. Therefore the only valid option for a DEFENSIVE military is to leave the defeated country and let them figure out how to defend themselves after we're gone. That's how some countries view America.

An example of how good ideas get fucked up. America may not control a country per se but it does more or less control the country's GDP and the means of production. Imagine a Warren Buffett-type replacing Uncle Sam as the icon.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Radar

No, the Constitution just says the only valid use of the U.S. military is for defending America.

No it doesn't. While the Constitution mentions the common defense, defensive warfighting was not a shibboleth of the Founders. Indeed, the Constitution says essentially nothing about how foreign policy shall be conducted -- and a moment's thought will show you it shouldn't.

Lying in the service of antiimperialism, radar, is just plain ridiculous. Especially when we are the premier nonimperialist great power. It becomes ridiculous through lack of necessity.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

No it doesn't. While the Constitution mentions the common defense, defensive warfighting was not a shibboleth of the Founders. Indeed, the Constitution says essentially nothing about how foreign policy shall be conducted -- and a moment's thought will show you it shouldn't.

Lying in the service of antiimperialism, radar, is just plain ridiculous. Especially when we are the premier nonimperialist great power. It becomes ridiculous through lack of necessity.

Yes it does way that and I haven't lied. The phrase "Common defense" is repeated twice; once in the preamble describing one of the purposes of creating the Constitution and another in Article 1, section 8 when describing the limited powers of Congress. The phrase "Common Defense" defines and limits the role and scope of our military as being solely for the defense of America and for nothing else. It limits the war making powers of congress to being solely for the defense of America.

This isn't a lie. The liars are those who deny it. Also, your claim that America isn't an imperialist nation is laughable. America's government has saught to control other nations through bribes (foreign aid), threats, coercion, "nation building" (aka launching an illegal invasion and propping up leaders or dictators that are friendly toward the goals of the American government), using the U.N. as a tool, etc..

Neither America's military, nor it's wealth were created to "fill in the gaps" in places around the world that are lacking these things. America's military has one and only one purpose and that is to defend America from being attacked or invaded by hostile foreign armies. End of story. Anything else is a lie. Any use of America's military for any other purpose including peace keeping missions, humanitarian aid missions, enforcing UN resolutions, and any pre-emptive actions are 100% unconstitutional and illegal. They are a gross misuse of the military and anyone who orders or takes part in such actions is guilty of treason.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Radar

Yes it does way that and I haven't lied. The phrase "Common defense" is repeated twice; once in the preamble describing one of the purposes of creating the Constitution and another in Article 1, section 8 when describing the limited powers of Congress. The phrase "Common Defense" defines and limits the role and scope of our military as being solely for the defense of America and for nothing else. It limits the war making powers of congress to being solely for the defense of America.

This isn't a lie. The liars are those who deny it. Also, your claim that America isn't an imperialist nation is laughable. America's government has saught to control other nations through bribes (foreign aid), threats, coercion, "nation building" (aka launching an illegal invasion and propping up leaders or dictators that are friendly toward the goals of the American government), using the U.N. as a tool, etc..

Neither America's military, nor it's wealth were created to "fill in the gaps" in places around the world that are lacking these things. America's military has one and only one purpose and that is to defend America from being attacked or invaded by hostile foreign armies. End of story. Anything else is a lie. Any use of America's military for any other purpose including peace keeping missions, humanitarian aid missions, enforcing UN resolutions, and any pre-emptive actions are 100% unconstitutional and illegal. They are a gross misuse of the military and anyone who orders or takes part in such actions is guilty of treason.

False Wacko.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Radar

The phrase "Common defense" is repeated twice; once in the preamble describing one of the purposes of creating the Constitution and another in Article 1, section 8 when describing the limited powers of Congress. The phrase "Common Defense" defines and limits the role and scope of our military as being solely for the defense of America and for nothing else. It limits the war making powers of congress to being solely for the defense of America.

I thought you'd try this one. But you run aground on the question of what the common defense truly is. Who, being an American and having business in foreign parts, would exclude American business interests from inclusion under the common defense rubric regardless of where those American business interests are? American interest has always been more or less global and globalized. In practice there is no definable endpoint to where the common defense of Americans and of American interests lies. This is particularly true in nations where property rights are not secure from official cupidity -- and these nations are numerous. They do not secure property rights well, which leaves it to our government's protective function to cover for our nationals, on the assumption somebody has to or the economy goes to pot and everyone's poor, because no one can do business if his gains are euchred from him. In the fourteenth century, this happened to the Chinese iron smelting industry -- it was wiped out inside of ten years and it never returned. It took the laissez-faire of Europe to make a success, and a general prosperity, of large scale efficient smelters.

Your approach is only workable in the absence of any other nation over the entire Earth -- and for that matter, the complete absence of foreigners, as well. Is this even clinically sane? The vehemence with which you adhere to this suggests intense xenophobia -- your whole "screw the rest of the planet, they don't get to be free or wealthy as far as I'm concerned -- if I'm concerned at all" attitude, that is. One can scour your posts for any interface with other lands, languages, or cultures, and come up with -- zero. Strategically, this is unconscionable, and that calls for reading between your lines, to diagnose what's behind the screen of words. What I'm seeing isn't pretty.

The clauses containing the term common defense do not limit the role and scope of our military -- as the whole, every last syllable, of historical precedent demonstrates. You pointedly avoid acknowledging this reality. What does that say about you? I say you worship the golden calf of bullheadedness. Fortunately, I do not.

They are a gross misuse of the military and anyone who orders or takes part in such actions is guilty of treason.

A bullheaded eccentric who yells "Treason! Traitor!" at every second opportunity is guilty of ranting each time he does so, and can make no defense -- not even a Constitutional one, particularly if you actually are a strict constructionist, at which point you have to confine your definition of treason to the Constitution's: if I haven't made war upon the United States, I am innocent of treason; if I haven't given aid and comfort to America's enemies, I'm innocent of treason. Since I cannot be sanely imagined to have done either, you do the math. You rant, and your narcissistic personality makes you thoroughly unfit to do politics -- it keeps you from exercising judgement. Really, by your reasoning, every government employee anywhere at any time who ever formed or executed policy from 1776 onwards is "guilty of treason." Hard to credit, putting it mildly.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I thought you'd try this one. But you run aground on the question of what the common defense truly is. Who, being an American and having business in foreign parts, would exclude American business interests from inclusion under the common defense rubric regardless of where those American business interests are? American interest has always been more or less global and globalized. In practice there is no definable endpoint to where the common defense of Americans and of American interests lies. This is particularly true in nations where property rights are not secure from official cupidity -- and these nations are numerous. They do not secure property rights well, which leaves it to our government's protective function to cover for our nationals, on the assumption somebody has to or the economy goes to pot and everyone's poor, because no one can do business if his gains are euchred from him. In the fourteenth century, this happened to the Chinese iron smelting industry -- it was wiped out inside of ten years and it never returned. It took the laissez-faire of Europe to make a success, and a general prosperity, of large scale efficient smelters.

Your approach is only workable in the absence of any other nation over the entire Earth -- and for that matter, the complete absence of foreigners, as well. Is this even clinically sane? The vehemence with which you adhere to this suggests intense xenophobia -- your whole "screw the rest of the planet, they don't get to be free or wealthy as far as I'm concerned -- if I'm concerned at all" attitude, that is. One can scour your posts for any interface with other lands, languages, or cultures, and come up with -- zero. Strategically, this is unconscionable, and that calls for reading between your lines, to diagnose what's behind the screen of words. What I'm seeing isn't pretty.

The clauses containing the term common defense do not limit the role and scope of our military -- as the whole, every last syllable, of historical precedent demonstrates. You pointedly avoid acknowledging this reality. What does that say about you? I say you worship the golden calf of bullheadedness. Fortunately, I do not.



A bullheaded eccentric who yells "Treason! Traitor!" at every second opportunity is guilty of ranting each time he does so, and can make no defense -- not even a Constitutional one, particularly if you actually are a strict constructionist, at which point you have to confine your definition of treason to the Constitution's: if I haven't made war upon the United States, I am innocent of treason; if I haven't given aid and comfort to America's enemies, I'm innocent of treason. Since I cannot be sanely imagined to have done either, you do the math. You rant, and your narcissistic personality makes you thoroughly unfit to do politics -- it keeps you from exercising judgement. Really, by your reasoning, every government employee anywhere at any time who ever formed or executed policy from 1776 onwards is "guilty of treason." Hard to credit, putting it mildly.

Common defense doesn't mean defending American "interests". It means defending America. No more, no less. The American military is also not here to defend the economy. The furthest America was to go in defending American interests was to defend our ships from pirates. When you choose to do business in other nations, you are gambling. You are taking the chance that you will be able to do business without having your business stolen from you. If they are stolen from you, the American government isn't here to protect your poor investment choices.

My approach works with a planet full of nations and is not isolationist or xenophobic in the slightest. It welcomes trade and friendship with all nations and keeps us from entering into alliances that require the use of our military. These are the same principles that George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc. shared.

The phrase "common defense" defines and limits the role and scope of our military to being solely for the defense of America...not America's foreign interests, not the American economy, etc. The truly insane are those who think it has any other legitimate use.

I've traveled the world many times over while serving in the Navy and since then. I speak 4 languages. I have a better understanding of global trade and of the opinion others hold of America than you are likely to ever have.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Radar

I have a better understanding of global trade and of the opinion others hold of America than you are likely to ever have.

If so, why doesn't it sound like it?

Foreign Policy and Liberty: A Manifesto – by way of a rebuttal.

Radar’s trying to claim a primacy he simply doesn’t have, and especially not in foreign policy. He can’t engage and defeat tyranny in foreign parts, what with insisting, in effect, that it’s not our responsibility. How he therefore expects tyranny to depart and libertarian democracy to arrive becomes a question he’ll never answer, bobbing and weaving and assiduously prostituting his integrity to protect his narcissistic self image.

His priorities are thereby backward: they should be his integrity first, then his self image. But a narcissistic personality can’t do that – and this will become clear as radar disputes the point. I’m very glad my mind is not so crippled, so trammeled; to be that way would disgust.

I think I’ve got a better answer.

Much depends on how important you think human liberty is. I regard it as about the supreme secular value, for with a broadranging set of individual rights, secure property rights, and an orderly but fluid social order, such as we find in the United States in particular and England and Europe to rather lesser degrees, a calm and prosperous society is assured. Nothing is absolute, but the record shows doing things this way does things well.

Assigning this supremacy to human liberty, I turn to the question of how liberty is gotten. Very often, the answer is spoken from the cannon’s mouth, by “reeking tube and iron shard.” Slavemongers and tyrants rarely give up without a shooting match, right? There is a human instinct to dominate the environment, and dominance in politics is just one more manifestation of this. It causes people to fight like mad dogs for power and privilege. Some people cannot be satisfied with any power or privilege less than absolute; their personalities range from the ambitious to the sociopathic. These people are intolerable to the rest of us, and require to be denied power by any means necessary or imaginable if the rest of us are to have good and prosperous lives. That same instinct to fight like mad dogs for power lives as strongly in the breast of those without overweening ambition, and can be harnessed to defeat the threat the overambitious and sociopathic present.

So if removing tyranny is somehow, whatever way just not our business, then whose business is it, for all love? Liberty is good for humans, is it not? Are not the nations of the Earth inhabited by humans (as a rule)? If human liberty is so important, and libertarians say it is, does it very much matter what group of humans does the liberation of any group in fetters? I can’t see that it does: you don’t have to be native born to a given patch of land to cause it to become a place of freedom, and legitimately so. Remember how much aid we got from France – an absolutist monarchy at the time – during the Revolution, and remember how decisive that aid was. The French contribution to the success of the American insurgency was enormous – not only a good-sized army, but a fleet to match. That’s a lot of louis d’or. Human liberty gained with aid is not less than human liberty gained without.

With the interconnectivity of today’s world, the idea that entangling alliances should be shunned as you would shun murder simply doesn’t work. It’s not Constitutionally objectionable either, but was a matter of policy. Nor is there only one degree of entanglement, come to that. With trade, however, inevitably comes interdependence and with interdependence a broader notion of the commonweal. I have this broad notion; radar shows he does not – and he doesn’t think I should have it either, that I might be more like him. Ho. (Shouldn’t I be the best me, rather than a secondhand radar?) So furiously does he rage against what he thinks are entangling alliances that it is clear his idea of a solution to the problem is an America that doesn’t interact with other nations. I can’t think of anything worse for business. Bad for business is bad for thee and me. It appears he thinks economics is sufficiently separate from politics and manifestations of politics that you can deal in the former without any doings in the latter. A moment’s reflection will show this is not so, never was so, and hasn’t a likelihood of ever being so.

Even the occasionally dubious practice of foreign aid is not wholly to be eschewed, as evil or even as too expensive. An absolute refusal to do foreign aid would have meant no Marshall Plan, and no Marshall Plan would likely have yielded a Communist Europe, with all the tyranny, poverty, and nastiness that would imply.

Put briefly, you can’t fight tyranny – which is important – if you haven’t got money.

That tyrannous, oligarchic regimes can find ways to siphon off aid money goes without saying, but does not invalidate the above. We can and do still aid the Contras of our time, as we of course should, being human beings after all.

So, assuming as I do that we are the freedom people, where do the troubles of the freedom people come from? Do democracies regularly get in shooting wars with other democracies? Have democracies ever shot at other democracies? Where do our troubles come from? Do they not spring from places of no democracy? Are not terrorist movements engendered in undemocratic failed states? Point out on the globe which states are failed states – you won’t find a democracy among ‘em. You won’t find security of property rights either.

Property rights get messed with generally in the name of organizing scarcity – in this case a scarcity of wealth. Whether this is only perceived or it is actual, it is a view that there is somewhat less wealth to go around than there are people to surround with it. Some political philosophies are based around dividing it up as a sort of ration and distributing it – a scarcity, organized.

And it’s stultifying, stagnating, and without creativeness.

That is where socialism in any of its variants from Stalinism to Swedishism falls right on its face. Socialists get all excited about wealth disparities and how some people are bad off. Trouble is, the solutions Socialism finds for the badly off are all anti-wealth. What?!

Your choices boil down to two: you can create wealth, or you can organize scarcity. In an organized-scarcity system, to rise in the world, to improve your station, one way or another you have to cheat the system, either by defrauding it or by rigging it. Concentrating on a system to create wealth, on the other hand, places no such requirement – the improvement gets spread around in and by mutually beneficial transactions.

Non-democracies have fewer mutually beneficial transactions in their economies, of course.

So there you have it: if you aren’t a capitalist democracy, you ain’t shit. Become a capitalist democracy in full, and you’re both golden and in clover. Look at those Chinese, emerging from the dark night of that narcissist Mao Tse-Tung. How many years does the Communist dynasty have left?