In a perfect libertarian world, the 2003 invasion of Iraq would never have happened; ISIS probably wouldn’t exist; and if it did exist, there would be no suggestion that we’re obligated to go on yet another war. Unfortunately, we don’t live in that world—but I still don’t think more war is necessary or helpful.

Given the ongoing and inevitable fact that Washington is/will continue to be involved in trying to “fix” this mess, I’d rather food and medicine be the fix. Do I want government doing charity? No, of course not. But if we must act in Iraq, let’s at least try something that doesn’t kill people and make them hate us. (Emergency relief aid—not nation-building—would likely also be a heck of a lot cheaper.)

The extremist-fueled sectarian conflicts in Iraq and Syria are, by all accounts, unspeakably awful. ISIS has reportedly crucified peopleburied women and children alive, decimated historic Christian communities, and even beheaded children.

And so here in the States, the clamor for President Obama to do something seems to grow louder by the day. That’s largely why President Obama unveiled a potentially multi-year plan of air strikes in a nationally televised address on Wednesday. Even those who tend to oppose military intervention, like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, have argued that fighting ISIS is somehow different — that the president must take decisive action — that this, finally, is “the right war.”

In many less-hawkish circles, much of the desire to dosomething is motivated by the role U.S. foreign policy played in creating a climate in which ISIS can thrive. As Paul argued, “Our recent foreign policy has allowed radical jihadists to proliferate.” He’s right. The last decade of meandering, ill-justified war in Iraq in particular has made America complicit in ISIS’s rise. There would be no ISIS had America not invaded Iraq in 2003.

And while I appreciate Paul’s provision of a more measured response than has been supplied by the likes of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), I can’t follow him in his call for more war. Dropping bombs and trillions of dollars into a situation we clearly don’t understand and can’t control hasn’t worked yet, and it’s naïve to believe it will start working now. In the words of the Decider of the 2003 invasion, “Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — can’t get fooled again.”

Likewise, the refrain that ISIS, like past Middle Eastern monsters, is an existential threat to American security fails to convince. As Bruce Fein has ably demonstrated, it is laughable to suggest that ISIS could successfully make war on American territory — and it is equally ridiculous to listen to those very fearmongers who claim otherwise as they attempt to make further war inevitable.

Yet I, too, can’t shake the feeling of responsibility. Now, I never supported war in Iraq in any sense more meaningful than a 15-year-old’s ingenuous assumption that the president wouldn’t screw up so important an issue. Today, I (and a majority of Americans) deem the Iraq war a failure. But the long-term impact of American intervention can’t be negated by ignoring it or wishing it away.

So what can America to do help? And by help, I mean actually help, in a very literal sense of the word, not deploying drones for democracy or some such nonsense. What if, instead of sending bombs and weapons, we only sent relief aid: food, medicine, and evacuation opportunities? Indeed, continued humanitarian aid is a part of Obama’s strategy. But it should be the only part.

Read the whole thing here.

Posted in , , ,

This week I decided to go practical. (If you’ve been following me for a while, you may recognize some of this advice, but this is the Revised Version for Fall 2014.)

For many people, college is the first real introduction to politics. (Or maybe the second, if we’re counting your crazy uncle’s Thanksgiving dinner rants.)

Your roommate may be sounding you out on hot button issues. Your political science professors have probably let you know what their own perspective is. And—at least if my coworkers at Young Americans for Liberty are doing their jobs right—there are all kinds of political groups on campus trying to get you to join their club and share their views.

It can be overwhelming. But don’t panic.

When I got to college, I was absolutely clueless about political labels, frustrated that Facebook (at that time) only allowed you to choose from “conservative,” “liberal,” and “moderate.” At one point, I remember I agreed with a professor’s suggestion that maybe I was a neocon—mainly because I hadn’t the faintest idea what that meant.

But as time went on, I started researching my options.

The unlimited internet access of college—a step up from the never-ending AOL free trial scheme I had going on at home—was a big help, and the more I read and researched, the more libertarian I became.

If you’re in the same position of trying to figure out where you stand, here are a few suggestions for determining your own political beliefs:

1. Consider working on an issue-by-issue basis

What I mean is this: Pick a single policy area. It can be fairly broad (e.g. foreign policy, including our various warsdrones, etc.) or fairly narrow (e.g. the TSA).

Read up and follow news primarily on that single issue for a set period of time. Try to look at perspectives to the left and right of you, both modern and historic. Keep a running blog series or even just a Word doc with the important facts and interesting perspectives you encounter.

2. At the end of your set period of time, hash it out

Having looked at the evidence and persuasive arguments from people who disagree with each other, where do you fall? Don’t worry if right now, for example, your opinion on Issue A is more conservative and your opinion on Issue B is more progressive. Just make sure you’ve given all sides a fair shake and could explain to someone with no expertise on the subject you’re discussing why you think the position you’ve taken is the most convincing option.

Read the whole thing here.

Posted in , ,

6 more big lies the government told us

Posted on September 4, 2014 at 12.04 pm

This is the second half of a two-part series. Read the first half here if you missed it last week. American trust in government is at an all-time low. Last week, I pointed out six big lies the government told us. Here’s six more.

1. We’re here to protect your rights

As many Americans have learned recently, there’s an epidemic of police brutality in America. With the help of the federal government, America police departments have been militarized, and too often they treat citizens like an enemy to defeat instead of a population to protect. As Senator Rand Paul wrote:

When you couple this militarization of law enforcement with an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury—national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction forfeiture—we begin to have a very serious problem on our hands.

Police brutality is a systemic problem84 percent of cops say they’ve seen it happen—and it unfairly targets minorities. Protecting our rights, this is not.

2. Your stuff is yours to keep

Did you know the Supreme Court has ruled it’s legal for the government to take your house and give it to a business so they can use the land instead? Well, it did. While most people will thankfully never be subjected to this gross abuse of private property rights, the government could still legally take your stuff through civil asset forfeiture. Never heard of it? Most haven’t. As I noted a few weeks ago, civil asset forfeiture is basically a law that allows a police officer who finds you “suspicious” to just take your stuff. Once your property has been confiscated, the burden of proof is on you, not the police, to show that you didn’t get it from any criminal activity. You have no right to a lawyer and won’t get a day in court. Civil asset forfeiture happens a lot, because police conveniently consider large amounts of cash very suspicious indeed—but not too suspicious to dump it right into their own department coffers.

3. You can trust us with your future

More than half of Millennials believe we’ll never get any of the money we’re forced to pay into Social Security—and we’re right:

The management of entitlement programs, already weighted heavily in favor of the older population, has a very specific terminal point that coincides neatly with the Boomers’ deaths. The 2011 report by the Social Security trustees estimates that, under its current administration, the fund will run out in 2036, so there’s just enough to get the oldest Boomers to age ninety.

For Millennials, there’s nothing secure about Social Security. So when do we get to opt out and be responsible for our own futures?

Read the whole thing here.

Posted in , , ,

« Older Entries