Connect with us

Everything

The libertarian isolationist case for North Korea is shallow

Published

on

Looking back there have been a number of tactical errors by the President with both parties sharing some blame. Earlier this year, Trump bombed Syria for their alleged use chemical weapons trusting the word of Al-Qaeda linked rebels and White Helmets. That was an error seeing that the evidence that Syria conducted the attack is weak. Also in the Arab Spring, Obama participated in the toppling of the Libyan regime. The country is now a chaotic breeding ground for Islamic terrorism. The very rebels armed were likely also the very rebels who killed Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi. This was a stupid idea at the time. Obviously, mistakes were made in the handling of Iraq. Libertarians often use examples like these in their anti-war cases, but for North Korea I have observed libertarians resorting to talking points that are ultimately misused and shallow.

Quality of Life

Arguing that intervention will not improve the quality of life or will hurt the quality of life in a country is a fair point looking at Syria, Libya, Iraq, and even Afghanistan but to make the same argument in regards to North Korea, you would have to be out of your mind to suggest things could get worse for the North Koreans. The only advanced thing about North Korea is the fact that they achieved nuclear weapons. Aside from that, North Korea is a communist dictatorship that brainwashes its people, has no regard for personal liberty, and has some of the world’s worst prisons for those who dissent. Zero percent chance America would make their lives worse.

Self Defense

A nation has the right to defends itself. Absolutely, Noth Korea included. Any action against North Korea would be addressing the explicit threats they have made to America and its allies.

North Korea poses no real threat

This used to be true and is a definite contributor to the prolonging of this issue. But after two presidents ignored the issue with this reason, North Korea has steadily expanded their capabilities. North Korea is ultimately striving towards ICBMs. This is a credible threat and while the American military has innovated to address such threat, nuclear war is a risk we don’t want to take. This argument was once valid but is since obsolete.

America is the aggressor

This point is meant to blame America for North Korea’s actions going back to the point about self defense. It shows a lack of an informed opinion and no regard for America’s allies or history in the region.

Free Market is the solution

I wish we could trade with North Korea but what do they have? This is a nation that has to import food because they can’t support themselves. And would North Korea even allow American products. North Korea is the epitome of the failures of communism as it is right next to South Korea, one of the world largest economies.

Regime change only fails

Unlike, Iraq, Libya, and Vietnam, the reunification of the Korean Peninsula is a much more well thought out transfer of power. The challenges would also be shared by South Korea, Japan, and even China. Therefore, America would not be alone in nation building. If there ever was a successful example of nation building in the past, then it is South Korea. Perhaps that sheds light on the future.

In the last year, it has become clear that waiting for North Korea to change its ways is never going to happen. A regime change needs to happen. The time to act is at hand. Libertarians sometimes cling to America’s failures as evidence for the purpose of establishing foresight credibility. I have observed these classic arguments be made in the latest potential war. These arguments are either shallow or being misused. Military intervention is a subject where we the people should judge on a case by case basis weighing the merits. We should ignore the hawks in congress that want war at every opportunity, but we should also ignore the hippies that want to wait for the next Pearl Harbor. Continuing to use these arguments against intervening with North Korea in 2017 only hurts your credibility and makes one look like an out of touch isolationist.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Judiciary

Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court case

Published

on

Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court

The judiciary is supposed to have one guide when forming fresh perspectives: the Constitution. As they examine the constitutionality of laws and other government actions, they often refer to previous rulings as precedent while looking for similar rulings as justification for leaning one way or another, but at the end of the day it’s the Constitution alone that is supposed to guide their judgments. That’s why we should look for judges who have originalist perspectives, not necessarily conservative ones (though, let’s be honest, the vast majority of originalist perspectives will align with a conservative perspective).

Part of conservatism is conserving the original intent of a law, or in the case in question, a treaty. The Yakama Tribe signed a treaty with the United States government that gave them control of a huge amount of tribal land in Washington state. Part of the exchange included the ability for Yakama traders to use U.S. highways for free.

Washington charges per gallon for fuel trucked in from out of state. One Yakama company claimed the 1855 treaty meant they were not to be charged this tax. The decision in the Supreme Court went mostly along expected political leanings with the “conservative” Justices wanting to charge the tax and the “leftist” Justices siding with the Takama Tribe. The tiebreaker turned out to be Neil Gorsuch, who went to the “leftist” side but with the only conservative reasoning to drive a vote.

The dissent claimed the treaty allowed for free passage on highways just as any American citizen can travel, but that the taxes set by Washington must still be paid. Only Gorsuch recognized that the original intent of the treaty was to grant the tribe free passage, as in free of charge regardless of what the U.S., state, or local governments wanted to charge. This is the right perspective. It’s the conservative perspective.

Should the other Justices who voted like Gorsuch get kudos as well? Probably not. I haven’t read their statements, but it’s safe to assume they ruled based on the party politics of supporting Native American rights whether they’re justifiable or not. Gorsuch ruled based on a proper interpretation of the treaty.

Conservatism and originalism go hand-in-hand when judges take the politics out of what they do. It’s hard. I’m not a judge so I shouldn’t… judge. But this seems to be a case where party politics played too much of a role. Gorsuch was right.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Snopes downgrades truth about Beto’s arrests to ‘mostly true’ because a meme got his band’s name wrong

Published

on

Snopes downgrades truth about Betos arrests to mostly true because a meme got his bands name wrong

Fact checkers are all the rage in the age of fake news. Unfortunately, all of the major fact checkers are left leaning at best, downright progressive at worst. That’s why I make it part of my daily routine to check the checkers to see what they spun today. This latest installment is minor in the whole scheme of things, but it highlights the intense need to protect Democrats whenever possible.

Snopes took on the task of fact checking the following statement:

Beto O’Rourke was in a band called the El Paso Pussycats and was arrested at least twice in the 1990s.

This is true. Beto was arrested twice, which makes him an ideal candidate for the party of lawlessness and disorder. But Snopes, in their certified fact checking wisdom, decided to pick the statement about the arrests that included the name of his band. The statement they chose had the wrong name for the band, using their album name instead. This was enough for them to downgrade the statement from “True” to “Mostly True.”

Not a big deal, right? Actually, it’s bigger than one might think. When people search for Beto and look only for things that are true about him, they will not be shown information about his arrests. The site could have picked literally any other claim about the arrests to fact-check, but had to dig deep to find an internet meme from his failed Senatorial bid last year in order to find one with a statement that included something incorrect in it.

Beto ORourke Arrest

You’ll notice they made sure to mention that both charges were dismissed. The circumstances behind the dismissals seemed to do nothing to negate the crimes he actually committed.

This is just another example of the “fact-checker” running cover for a Democrat they like. The meat of the fact, Beto’s arrests, won’t be found on this site as “True” because they were selective in how they wanted to frame this narrative.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Education

‘Academic’ journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers, fails miserably

Published

on

Academic journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers fai

An under-reported story last year revealed multiple “academic” journals, where only the highest levels of academic thought leadership is allowed to publish, put nonsense hoax articles in their publications simply because they perpetuated radical progressive thought. These peer-reviewed journals were willing to publish utter garbage as long as the garbage smelled like the hyper-leftist garbage they normally publish anyway.

Libertarian pundit John Stossel tried to interview the editors of these prestigious journals which were hoaxed, and was only able to find one willing to go on camera. Roberto Refinetti from the academic journal Sexuality and Culture came on air to discuss the hoax and the problems with academic journals. But even he was unable to come up with a valid response about why these journals were so easy to fool.

Stossel read some of the reviews from “experts” in the field that were used to determine whether or not the papers should be published. When Stossel noted that one of the reviewers was an idiot, Refinetti rushed to the defense by blaming the hoaxers and said, “They made up data that he or she [the reviewer] wished he had but he didn’t, so when he sees, ‘Wow, these people did this study that I wanted to do and they got the results that I thought should be there, this is great!'”

In other words, Refinetti came to the same conclusion as the hoaxers and Stossel: Some if not most of those who review these papers make their decision based on whether or not the conclusions fit their worldview, not whether or not the papers were actually correct.

This is just one of many examples of why leftist academia, which is the vast majority of all academia, operates with the sole goal of reinforcing their biases rather than informing students or giving the education system proper facts about the world.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report