The
Future of Freedom Foundation| The
Future of Freedom Foundation |
08/21/08
|
|||||||||||||
|
June 18,
2007 Conservatives love to use this line to mock the idea that government can do constructive things for you. Nothing gets a bigger laugh at conservative gatherings. The sentence has two meanings. First, it makes fun of the notion that politicians have your interests at heart and truly wish to serve them. Not so, according to the subtext; politicians are self-serving meddlers. Second, it implies that even when politicians are well-intended, they aren’t to be trusted. Why? Because (1) they can’t really know our best interests as individuals, and (2) even if they knew them, they wouldn’t have enough information to serve them. Good intentions aren’t enough. It’s a double-whammy against government solutions. It gets a laugh because we can picture the scene: a pushy politician insisting on helping someone, and that person hurriedly shutting and locking his door to keep the interloper out. That’s a good attitude to have about government, so why do conservatives refuse to apply it consistently? They see through the state’s propaganda only selectively, say, on the minimum wage or welfare or gun control. But: •
They’re happy when politicians tell recreational drug manufacturers,
distributors, and consumers, “Hello. I’m from the government
and I’m here to help you.” This last case is particularly striking. The Bush administration is trying to force a “democratic” welfare state on Iraq and Afghanistan, and most conservatives couldn’t be more enthusiastic. Imperialism always entails using military might to lift up a foreign population — at least in the eyes of the imperialists. It’s “Hello. I’m from the government and I’m here to help you” writ large. When conservatives criticize domestic political meddling, they rightly demand that the policy be looked at not from the politicians’ point of view, but rather from the receiving end. Good advice. Why don’t they see this principle in foreign affairs? Executors and aficionados of America’s imperial actions say they have only good intentions. They just want to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqis and the Afghans and, perhaps soon, the Iranians. When the intended beneficiaries resist — conduct an “insurgency” — they are called ingrates and terrorists. MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson provides a good example of this sort of shoddy thinking. In commenting on Oliver Stone’s anti-war ad, which features an American soldier saying that the Iraqi people don’t want U.S. troops in their country, Carlson said that that was the weakest reason for withdrawing the troops. Those are the people who are killing our troops; why should we listen to them? he asked. That’s a rational argument? U.S. troops are occupying Iraqis’ country and killing innocents in the process. Many Iraqis don’t like it so they resist the occupation violently, or support those who do. For Carlson, that very resistance is the reason we shouldn’t take the Iraqis’ wishes seriously. That makes as much sense as saying that the complaints of a victim of eminent domain are not relevant to whether his land should be taken without his consent. Contrary to Carlson, that the Iraqi and Afghan people object to the occupation is a persuasive reason for withdrawing the U.S. troops. But another reason would apply even if they did want the troops there: the U.S. intervention can’t be carried on without coercing the American taxpayers. Who would pay voluntarily? You don’t create freedom (even if that were the true intention) by violating freedom. Logic 101.
Gary D. Barnett is president of Barnett Financial Services, Inc., in Missoula, Montana Tibor Machan holds the R.C. Hoiles Chair in Business Ethics and Free Enterprise at Chapman University’s Argyros School of B and E and is a research fellow at the Pacific Research Institute and Hoover Institution (Stanford). He is an advisor to Freedom Communications. His most recent book is Libertarianism Defended, (Ashgate, 2006).
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. Visit his blog “Free Association."
Scott McPherson is a policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Samuel Bostaph is head of the economics department at the University of Dallas and an academic advisor to The Future of Freedom Foundation
Anthony Gregory is a policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation
James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy (Palgrave, January 2006) and Terrorism & Tyranny (Palgrave, 2003), and is policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation
Benedict LaRosa is a historian and writer and serves as a policy advisor to The Future of Freedom Foundation
Bart Frazier is program director at The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email. |
The Surrender of Conscience to the President What Exactly Did Gerald Ford Heal? Mr. President, the CIA Is Already Talking to Syria Bush and Chavez: A Marriage Made in Hell Shssh! Don't Tell Americans How We Treat "Enemy Combatants" The Pentagon's Power to Jail Americans Indefinitely Our Patience on Iraq Should Be Exhausted Once Again, Gun Control Doesn't Work Bush War Policy Comes Crashing Down Presidential Politics and Foreign Policy Immigration Policy Reveals What We Are Must History Always Repeat Itself? Complete Archives for The Future of Freedom Foundation  |
|||||||||||
