Tyler Durden wrote:
As far as I can tell, we've been actively meddling in foreign governments since the early 1950s.
I haven't been; have you? If not, then you shouldn't use the term "we".
One of the mind games that state worshippers play on the populace is to get them to identify with the state -- and so emotionally defend its foreign adventures -- through the misuse of "we" when they really mean "the government."
Exactly.
(I don't claim to be perfect--there are times when I have used the words "we" and "our" in connection with the United States. But I've also used "we" and "our" in terms of what the Founders very obviously meant, in contrast to what later rulers like Lincoln, Roosevelt, and the rulers of the past 50 years have claimed to represent.)
One of the clearest statements of what libertarians usually support came from P.J. O'Rourke when he put it this way: "Would you kill your grandmother for this?"
Meaning, anytime a law or a foreign involvement is contemplated, ask oneself whether the law is just enough to warrant killing someone close to you for it. The implications for the vast number of bullshit laws we have in the U.S. (and worse in most parts of Europe) are clear, I think.
As for foreign wars, I don't support having tax collectors take my money (substantial amounts of it, but that's another topic) and use it to protect oil company interests or to engage in humanitarian efforts. If my neighbor wishes to contribute to the Ruwandans or the Iraqi Liberation Front, he is welcome to.
(Modulo the fact that Americans are no longer to fund the charities of their choosing, as a few hundred citizens in indefininate detention can attest to, were they able to speak to lawyers or others.)
--Tim May
