Wednesday, August 31, 2011

A Challenge to Republicans

I have found that many people are quick to throw stones at the other side, particularly those in the deep red South. If you are like me, I had just not been seriously challenged in my views or critically considered my views on policies such as the minimum wage all the way to using nuclear weapons and foreign policy. So, just wanted to throw a quick challenge to the Neo-Conservatives out there who condemn welfarism but embrace military interventionism. Well, the following excerpt is part of a letter from Don Boudreaux:

Most modern “liberals” believe that domestic economic problems are caused chiefly by unsavory characters – “business people” – who impose their destructive rule on masses of innocent workers and consumers yearning for more prosperity, and that the best solution to these problems is government force deployed using armies of regulators to subdue these bad guys and to keep close watch over them and their successors. Failure to intervene is immoral. These same “liberals,” though, believe that foreign problems are typically the result of complex forces that can be understood only poorly by American-government officials; it is naïve to suppose that even well-intentioned foreign intervention by Uncle Sam will not have regrettable unintended consequences.

Most modern conservatives believe that domestic economic problems are typically the result of complex forces that can be understood only poorly by government officials; it is naïve to suppose that even well-intentioned economic ntervention by Uncle Sam will not have regrettable unintended consequences. These same conservatives, though, believe that problems in foreign countries are caused chiefly by unsavory characters – “dictators” or “tyrants” – who impose their destructive rule on masses of innocent people yearning for more democracy, and that the best solution to these problems is government force deployed with armies of soldiers to subdue these bad guys and to keep close watch over them and their successors. Failure to intervene is immoral.


It is an interesting paradox introduced by Dr. Boudreaux that many people
tend to not think about. What both visions have in common is that there are
valid reasons to impose one's will on another. Both sides just disagree on the
reason to. Are the two intentions much different than each other? What do you
think?


Glad to return to the blog,
Blake


No comments: