Thursday, April 29, 2004

My brothers notes in his blog aboutLibertarians and the War on Terror and states his disagreement with their views. Like my brother I am not a member of the Libertarian party, nor am I even philosophically within the strictest definition of libertarinism. I am actually what would be called a confederate consitutionalist (Lex Rex) if you were to really get to the heart of the issue, but that is a matter for another post.
My brother, please read his post first, in the samll print on the bottom, is wrong that the classic "isolationism" attitude of the past is not only unattainable, but would also weaken and impoverish our country. My wife, who I agured this with for like an hour after reading and agreeing with my brother is also wrong. The only way to continue our international wealth is to stay out of the political agenda of other nations.
I pointed out the poll a few days back that noted most Iraqis were unhappy with the US liberation and occupation of their nation. Even today I saw a USAToday/CNN poll that says the people dislike the American liberation and occupation of their nation. This means, these people were happy living under a dicator, and it is therefore not our business.
I believe that people are deserving of freedom, and I believe people should fight to bring freedom to themselves.
We should be seen as a client, a customer, and vendor to the world not as a nanny and ATM machine. As long as we continue to fulfill these two functions for the world we will have to host a war on terror. The answer is and always will be POLITICAL Isolationism. In a consitutional confederacy (read your history books that is how this nation was originally organized) states choose to share in your freedom through association. In a imperalist state, people force their nation through military occupation. HMMMMMMM which one do we look like today?

No comments: