Isolationism, George Washington, & US Foreign Policy - Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

[Mark1101101]

In February 2003, before the invasion of Iraq in March, the Ayn Rand Institute published an essay by Ridpath called

“America Needs a Leader Like George Washington.”

It was one of dozens of articles that the ARI published between 2001 and 2003 urging the initiation of that war. You can read a review of it here:

... ARIwatch.com/GeorgeWashington.­htm

As for what Ayn Rand -- not the ARI -- says about World War II, see

... ARIwatch.com/AynRandOnWWII.htm

[objectivistathlete]

@Mark1101101 Thank you for posting that. Many of our fellow Objectivists seem to be completely clueless regarding foreign policy. Though their philosophical groundwork is correct, they do not understand the facts when it comes to the Middle East, and thus frequently lead us down the wrong path.

[Seiku]

Is there any example of a situation in history where we, the United States, suffered unintended consequences by not getting involved. Basically, where has our isolationism harmed us in the past. I thought of Japan but I realized the US has been heavily politically and economically involved with Japan for almost a century.

[SSArcher11]

The problem is that founding fathers like Washington are viewed by some as though they were fundamentalists in their political beliefs.

The fathers were intelligent men who could adjust their views as conditions changed.

They could easily be internationalists today.

[FistsOfFury21]

"Give me liberty or give me death"- P. Henry.....Liberty not safety, I would rather be free and in danger than live in a paranoid police state that spreads its military to thin and bankrupts itself roaming the globe acting like it can somehow tell people what to do and how to live their lives, it will fail. Enemies are killed but even more are made as the whole world begins to hate the bully. Our country was founded on independence and freedom not globalism, entangling alliances, and militarism.

[JohananRaatz]

How to achieve Objectivist results in foreign policy: /watch?v=tHGHT1BQNu4

[stater68]

that guy is creepy

[Vebinz]

So the speaker is an advocte of "pre-emptive war"?

I thought Ayn Rand's disciples shared the same anti-war principals as liberariants? I guess not.

But then, don't Objectivists disregard morality? Maybe that's why they've no problem with war then.

[stater68]

@Vebinz No, they believe in protecting American citizens above the nonsensical principle of unapologetic pacifism.

[Vebinz]

@stater68

So Objectivists, being so smart, blindly believe the government whenever it tells them that this war or that invasion is for "protecting the American people"?

[LuqmanNaq]

@stater People who oppose modern US foreign policy aren't necessarily against war in principle. Alot of objectivist do beleive unquestioningly the gov's assertions about foreign gov's and the scare mongering and psuedo patriotism of fox news, etc. They also dehumanize non-americans, muslims, and non-israelis. Oists don't see how the current political climate in the US is creating a culture where it is acceptable for civil liberties to be infringed and dissent stifled.

[AliceInWonderlandSyn]

@stater68 These people don't know their history or possess any common sense! They think that radical muslims just sprung up for their love of Islam and innate hatred for the US and the UK. GIve me a break, the resentment is a result of 100 years of colonialism and meddling in the internal affairs of their homelands! Remember the 500K Iraqi children that died (the UN reported this) as a result of the sanctions the US placed on Iraq during the 90's! It's shit like that makes them hate us!

[tothemax01]

the question-asker so sounds like the voice of Steven Hawking!

[jbfla2006]

I love this video. I must now research this Dr. John Ridpath, as I have never heard of him but really agree with the way he handled this question. Love that ending statement!

[sweetsweatyfeet]

I've seen Ridpath lecture and debate in Toronto. He demonstrates genuine thoughtfulness along with an intellectual and benevolent style of lecturing. He is a wonderful teacher who genuinely cares about his students and what he lectures.

[RodCornholio]

Isolationism, economically, means a policy/actions that are largely non-dependent on or non-pro foreign trade.

Politically, extreme isolationism would imply not meddling in the affairs of other countries in all cases, short of being invaded.

The point the host makes in the video is that preemptive military action is a REQUIRED & morally good function in national defense.

[FreiheitKampfer]

Something I believe Rand would disagree with. Rand supported defense, but pre-emptive striking has a whole host of problems. 'one cannot simultaneously prepare for war and prevent war'. If one nation can predict a 'pre-emptive' attack on their nation then they can justify a 'pre-pre-emptive' strike on the same grounds. Hence we have wars based on nother but a flawed ideology.

pre-emptive military action is not required and morally WRONG from an objectivist standpoint.

[RodCornholio]

I cannot speak for Rand, but it would seem in her character to agree that if the U.S. had the intel and the ability, it would have been justified to destroy the Japanese planes that would have been launched for the infamous Dec. 7, 1941 attack -- PREEMPTIVELY; before those aircraft ever took off.

A defense based on letting the enemy attack first is unsound at best. Strategists would call it "stupid".

[FreiheitKampfer]

If some nation.. let's say 'Iraq' were a powerful nation, you would be VERY afraid of it considering a 'preemptive strike plan'. It means that a RUMOR of an attack can mean the death of MILLIONS.

A 'strategist' who doesn't consider morality is stupid because that is a primary motivator for military action. A BELIEVED unjustified preemptive strike can turn the world against you.

A 'civilized' society is one that you don't want to attack because you can be certain that it wasn't going to attack.

[FreiheitKampfer]

a good foreign policy is empathetic

[RodCornholio]

Intelligence is not rumor or faith. It's foundation is reason.

A.) Rand believed that the moral value is derived from the standard of a man's life.

B.) That life should not be deprived of by force, except in defense.

C.) You -- nor a country -- is required to wait for an aggressor to START shooting before you are legally or morally allowed to attack -- that is you can PREEMPTIVELY strike.

Obviously, lashing out at someone because you have a FEELING or WHIM is wrong.

Goodnight

[FreiheitKampfer]

Recognition that a nation is nothing more than a group of individuals brings to light just one of the problems with this.

If you can justify killing an armed man who threatens you and your friends, how can you justify killing the people who just happen to be near him as well?

This is the issue: Is pre-emptive striking moral, individually? And then: Should a demographic suffer for the choices of some other group or person?

1st moral issue is entirely relative to certainty and options.

2nd: NO!

[RodCornholio]

There are hypothetical ethical scenarios like this one I made up...

A.) Your loved one's life is in mortal danger, there is a 100% chance a kidnapper will kill them, but the only way to save them is to take a sniper shot through an innocent's shoulder. If the shot is takern there is a 50/50 chance the innocent bystander will die, but a 100% chance your loved one will be saved. What is your decision?

[FreiheitKampfer]

Making an exact declaration of morality would require omniscience.. if this bystander was going to go on and cure cancer, and save millions, I think my choice would be to not take the shot.. Don't get me wrong: I am pragmatic, and an off-chance regret won't keep me from acting, but I am not prepared to declare universally preferable behavior on this situation, OR, ESPECIALLY, on pre-emptive attacks. I think that a single person choosing a pre-emptive attack is their prerogative, BUT:...

[FreiheitKampfer]

Committing/tying a nation (ie: willing and unwilling individuals) to the choice of a commander/politician to pre-emptively attack is almost certainly immoral because, not only the chance that unnecessary lives were lost, but unnecessary lives could be lost in retaliation as well.

You see? I am not saying 'all pre-emptive strikes=evil', I am saying that individual strikes should be left to be individually determined morally.

[RodCornholio]

It is rare, in the Western World, for one individual to have all the power to commit an entire nation to a pre-emptive attack. That would certainly require near omniscience for that individual to make a sound decision.

Under (I think a Geneva Convention or Nuremberg Principal) a soldier can refuse an illegal order which satisfies the need for individual moral determination.

Maybe dictators should be assassinated to prevent bad strikes.

[FreiheitKampfer]

Indeed. In that case: I think we agree.

Therefore: It is my position that: Pre-emptive striking should not be part of of foreign policy, HOWEVER, it should be available and reserved for extreme circumstances, in which there are individuals accountable for the morality/immorality of just such a strike.

Agreed?

[RodCornholio]

Pre-emptive striking is, in my opinion, within the realm of military strategy and is best left to those in that profession. However, there is the "Clausewitzian" viewpoint that military action is merely an extension of foreign politics (after it has failed).

A politician should certainly not push for a pre-emptive strike based on political squabbling. A gentleman doesn't draw his sabre by only a bully's name calling.

[FreiheitKampfer]

Theoretically, I think that with sufficient intel and precautions, a pre-emptive strike would be just.. But, in practice, I think it should make anyone shudder, because of the extent to which it can create new problems. (major run-on)

Happy Santa-Day! =D

[trehansen]

point B contradicts point C

Defense is NOT pre-emptive, but reactionary.  Pre-emptively striking requires a BELIEF/FEELING that they will attack. Rational reasoning and predicting "what might happen" are contradictory. Coming to that conclusion is done with a belief or feeling and NOT with reasoning.

[RodCornholio]

Yes, pre-emptive strikes are a reaction to an enemy about to attack.

This is very similar to a cowboy-style shootout where one individual draws FIRST, the other draws next but FASTER and shoots pre-emptively, hopefully ending the conflict.

[trehansen]

What about the allies of your enemy, would you assume that they would idly stand by and watch this happen? And you are assuming we even know what the enemy is. Stop trying to reduce foreign policy to a simple and very stupid metaphor. By doing this you show you do not understand the intricacies of the matter.

[trehansen]

Your analogy blatantly disregards the Cold War stand-off and the fact that we did not "shoot first" and no war occurred. With you at the helm we would be enjoying a nuclear holocaust.

[RodCornholio]

No. The Cold War stand-off had nothing to do with the advantage of pre-emptive strike. That is a non-sequitur. However, if the U.S. had detected an eminent nuclear attack, I certainly would have appreciated a U.S. pre-emptive move as a defense. Whatever keeps me alive.

Another way to look at it is: With me at the helm, you wouldn't be dead.

[RodCornholio]

P.S. It isn't wise to strike pre-emptively if there isn't a really good chance you'll win. In other words, if the enemy can still hit back, doing substantial damage, it's generally not a good idea.

This is why Israel may indeed attack Iran to nip-in-the-bud the alternative; Iran creating and using a nuclear weapon against them.

It isn't pretty, but that's the way the world works.

Best Regards

[Gloomshadow1]

Pre-emption and suprise on a stratigic and tactical level is the conerstone of every victory in the in history. The secret of success is in the details. If you are threatend by an enemy and he has the means and will to carry out the threat you should aways strike first. This strategy breaks down only when you dont strike hard enough. The problem with modern warfare is that they no longer target civilians along with those who complain about the targeting. Civilians MUST be targeted for it to work

[WarVideo]

Thats all ive ever heard them advocate.

[Kurtyoungblood]

Sick Burn at the end.

[Beethovens7th]

Bingo.

"Just beware of unintended consequences."

Sit down, turd. If you don't care to identify the meaning of the vague generalities you assert then just keep them to yourself.

[chopsky]

Haha. Precisely.

[RadicalForLiberty]

The purpose of government is to protect liberty and property. A government can't protect property by taxing us like livestock, mortgaging the futures of our children, and abandoning a gold standard to finance an extravagant foreign policy, and a government can't protect life or liberty by kidnapping and enslaving innocent individuals and condemning them to death on a bloody field somewhere. Our involvement in WWI and WWII were extremely destructive towards the ends of life, liberty, and property

[RodCornholio]

I like the way you think. Someday, in the future, many others will agree with you. It will take a while before they look at history with fresh eyes.

[RadicalForLiberty]

In fact, the single most destructive human activity to the ends of life, liberty, and property is war. Not only do governments mercilessly condmen hundreds of thousands of the very people they claim to protect in war, but there is always a massive expansion of government during wartime and following. A consequence of WWI and WWII was a massive expansion of government, far exceeding pre-war time levels. The government involved itself in nearly every social and economic aspect of society.

[Nelapidae]

This is from the Q&A from America Under Attack: What Would The Other George Do?.

John Ridpath remains one of ARI's strongest speakers and his passionate presentation of the stark contrast between our current administration and this country's first president is one of ARI's best lectures!

5 ***** and Favorited!

[qtronman]

I vote Dr. Ridpath as the "greatest Canadian"!

[RodCornholio]

Ironically he has more American spirit than the Americans.

[Bigturns33]

What about Peikoff ?

[MrRob1967]

I hope the Americans keep him.

[qtronman]

Dr. Ridpath!!! :-)

[SatanicCod]

Can't agree more.