A Plea for Sanity From Liberty Study

Vladimir Putin recently wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times regarding the threats the U.S. government recently levied against the Syrian government:

A Plea for Caution From Russia

Lew Rockwell blogged a great response to this article.  Here, Rockwell exposes the true nature of "American exceptionalism" in practice- aggression against governments who don't conform to standards that the U.S. government puts into place until they do conform or until they have been removed, and can be replaced with a more compliant set of rulers:

"...his NYT op-ed is better than anything to come out of the White House in some time. And he is right, though he is a nationalist himself, about how the world views American exceptionalism. This is the doctrine that the rules that apply to others, and are brutally enforced by the US on others, do not apply to the US. According to this notion, the US has the right to rule the world, and to attack anyone anywhere in pursuit of that goal, using any weapon, including depleted uranium, white phosphorous, agent orange, napalm, mass starvation, etc. Not to speak of atomic bombs."

As this strategy plays itself out continually, the U.S. government becomes increasingly exposed, both morally and economically, perpetuating the inevitable decline that must follow extravagances such as being at war for an entire century!  As Chris Rossini points out:

The Fed has made it to 100 years, and the Military Empire can be traced back to the Spanish/American War in 1898. Or if we're really nitpicking, when Lincoln's North invaded the South. In any case, both ideas of Empire & Central Banking began roughly at the same time. This is no coincidence, since The Fed finances The Empire. The former is the beating heart of the latter.

But what have been the results of this seemingly endless source of control in the world?  Has the light cast off the "shining city on the hill" brought the nations world out from the darkness of despotism, and yielded a century of peace?  Putin correctly points out that this behavior has, in fact, had the counter-effect of creating instability in the world:

"It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan 'you’re either with us or against us.'

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes."

Furthermore, the logical result of this type of bullying stimulates an arms race, as countries seek to protect themselves against potential aggression.  Putin again:

"The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded." 

Putin's analysis of the aggressive nature of the U.S. government, and of the effects of U.S. foreign policy is clearly correct.  Unfortunately, his solution is to apply diplomacy in these situations and adhere to the United Nations framework, a process that is seemingly intended to be a sounding board for the world's people.  Can this type of organization ensure compliance from countries that may seek to violate its proclamations?  It has been proven time and time again to fail in this most basic function.  The only way to gain compliance from someone who is transgressing these laws is to force them to comply!  Now we are back to square one...

The fundamental issue at hand is- as that familiar old phrase reminds us- power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.  If the "power" were to move to an international sphere, we can be assured that all of the ills that the U.S. empire spawned would only be carried out on a grander scale, and- even worse- policies pursued in this context would have the ultimate rubber stamp of "legitimacy" as a UN approved policy.  Indeed, the coherent super-state (i.e. the UN, at the moment) is the worst possible outcome for mankind.

Power, like grains of sand in a dust storm, should settle in to its natural state- with individuals making voluntary choices.  Removing these giant organizations called "states" from the picture leaves us with many people, all with different motivations, just as we have now.  However, the state is a major tool for dominance; when removed from the scenario, those who are intent upon controlling others are rendered largely impotent to achieve such goals by force.  Most people do not support violence outright, and (absent coercion) do not participate in such ventures.  Naturally, the only way one can attain influence on people without force is to provide utility to them.  A much more peaceful coexistence-as well as a much clearer path to happiness and human progress- would neccissarily occur in such a framework for coexistance.  It is to this end we should strive.