tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post2264848658328039661..comments2024-03-26T04:21:43.535-05:00Comments on Free Association: Again, the Isolationist SmearSheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-53936374591385329292014-07-17T14:12:53.871-05:002014-07-17T14:12:53.871-05:00Further, he implicitly endorses massive military a...<i>Further, he implicitly endorses massive military aid to Israel by calling on the Obama administration to cut off all aid to the Palestinians without even mentioning the $3 billion that American taxpayers send to Israel every year.</i><br /><br />And, why must he mention it? When was the rule established that every mention of Palestinian perfidy must be equaled on some cosmic scoreboard with a boilerplate mention of Israeli misadventure? Vu ist geschrieben, Sheldon?Heroic Mulattonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-51492374457637802952014-07-17T09:44:15.181-05:002014-07-17T09:44:15.181-05:00Great points, Eric. Bryan Caplan makes the same so...Great points, Eric. Bryan Caplan makes the same sort of argument in his pragmatic case for pacifism. I've long been a big fan of Kauffman. Somewhere he says something to this effect: the difference between a republic and an empire is the difference between an American taking his girl to a dance on Saturday night and his paying for a a night with a Saigon prostitute.<br /><br />I note that some noniterventionists, like William Graham Sumner, embraced the label "isolationist." Who wouldn't, he asked at the turn of the 20th century, want to isolate himself from the strife in Europe? Yet, of course, he was a devote free trader. Sheldon Richmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-66945080226371059102014-07-17T09:31:15.259-05:002014-07-17T09:31:15.259-05:00Good article, Sheldon. Coincidentally, I recently ...Good <a href="http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/again-the-isolationist-smear/" rel="nofollow">article</a>, Sheldon. Coincidentally, I recently finished reading Bill Kauffman's <i>Ain't My America</i> (I know, it's been out since 2008), which, after making the same point about the isolationism smear that you did, proceeds to half-ironically appropriate the label for his brand of conservatism. Bill is a fervent localist who expresses some disdain for globalization. In his view, America went off the rails with the Louisiana purchase, which made the country too big to be governed with sensitivity to regional differences.<br /><br />I would add a couple of points to the noninterventionist case, which I think you would agree with:<br /><br />1. When the U.S. intervenes in other countries with force (or sometimes even just with money), this causes a lot of death, misery, and property destruction.<br /><br />2. It seems really difficult for the U.S. government to choose allies whom it doesn't later regret helping. For examples, the Mujahideen or Saddam Hussein. Even if there are some interventions that a philosopher king might use to make the world a better place, it's too much to expect a real-world government to correctly identify them. A noninterventionist policy is easier to get right. (I think David Friedman made this point in MoF.)Eric Hannekennoreply@blogger.com