San Francisco Libertarian Political Chat tonight

Discussion
1

In a message dated 10/22/03 10:45:25 PM, steve@... writes:

Steve, I think permanence is implied in that definition you found. For
instance, are Germany and Japan imperial holdings of the United
States, even
though the U.S. "controlled" them as distant territories for years
after World
War II?

I agree for the most part. But it remains to be seen:
1. if we will be there "permanently"
2. whether Iraqi's will be self ruled or ruled by a US backed puppet
regime

And the US seems to be avoiding any commitments requested by the rest
of the world to ensure that these two things do not happen. Given that,
and the US's long history of foreign intervention (which did directly
support French imperialism in the case of Vietnam) I think it's fair to
say that, on the face of it, the US actions do appear to be imperialist
in nature.

-- Steve >>

Steve, in my first response to Kelly I said.."It's much to soon to argue
that." I see you now agree, "it remains to be seen" is what you said. But now you
want Imperialist nations to decide for us what we should do?? When you say
"the US seems to be avoiding requests made by the rest of the world" I assume you
mean the UN security council, which is made up of the very evil imperialist
nations you fear we are? Please explain how France et al. is worthy of making
these decisions and why we are not?

Live free or die, Michael S.

Michael R. Sawyer
Trade Printing
1761 Kelly Street
San Mateo, CA 94403
USA
ph: 650-286-0970
fax: 650-286-1980

2

Michael,

  Did you see my recent post about distinguishing people from governments? Just wondering, since like the author of the email I was responding to, you refer to the United States government as "we." Do you believe that we (the people on this list, or LP members, or libertarians, or people under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, *are* the U.S. government?

  I certainly agree with you that the governments of France and other countries, whether taken individually or collectively under the auspices of the United Nations, do not constitute a moral authority higher than that of the U.S. government.

  It is the nature of one's actions which determines whether they are right or wrong, not how many people are backing you.

  Nor, I might add, is it true that a subset of the people who happen to live in a particular country will necessarily do the best job making decisions affecting people who live in that country. It may be that people who happen to be from another part of the globe will make better decisions for people living in a particular area, than people born in that particular area.

  Thomas Jefferson said, "That government governs best which governs least." Do those supporting the status quo jurisdictions of nation states propose that Jefferson ought instead to have said, "That government governs best which is composed of people most similar to those being governed?" If not, don't you think we should be looking at how rights are being respected in Iraq, rather than whether the people making decisions there are "American" or "Iraqi?"

  It is the nature of one's actions which determines whether they are right or wrong, not where you are from or the group you happen to belong to.

Yours in liberty,
                <<< Starchild >>>

P.S. - Should San Francisco residents complain because the 49ers football team is full of players who come from other parts of the United States?