We all know what caused the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, right. We all know because we have been told (ad nauseum) by this lot among others that the root causes lie with America’s wrong-headed foreign policy, its empire-building and its constant meddling in other people’s business. If one accepts that argument then the solution presents itself: America should mind its own business, stop arming foreigners, bring troops home and quietly get on with the business of building a peaceful, free, non-interventionist country. Then the worlds bad guys and bullies will simply leave America alone and go off to look for someone else to haunt.
In other words, America should be more like Switzerland. After all, nobody ever attacks Switzerland. Why should they? There’s no reason to. Switzerland is neutral and peaceful and prosperous and…under attack:
“Switzerland is facing the risk of sanctions from the European Union over failures to lift its banking secrecy laws and co-operate with Brussels over a new savings tax”.
Nothing to do with Swiss foreign policy then. Nothing to do with Swiss meddling in other people’s conflicts. No, it’s everything to do with the exceedingly domestic policy of banking secrecy which means that Switzerland is a living, breathing bolt-hole for those desperate Euro-serfs who want to hang on to whatever precious capital they have left and shield it from the endless predations of Brussels. The conclusion, therefore, is that Switzerland must die. Well, more accurately, its sovereignty and independence must die because it cannot be allowed to continue to flourish in the face of those who have altogether different plans for Europe.
Now, I do not expect missiles to be raining down on Geneva any time soon or at all but that is largely due to the fact the EU countries don’t really have the cojones for that sort of thing. However, if the EU were just a bit more aggressive and a bit better armed then that vista is not inconcievable if the Swiss steadfastly refuse to buckle.
But the attack is both political and diplomatic and may soon degenerate into economic blockade and in case anybody thinks that that threat is just smoke and mirrors they would do well to remember that economic blockade (itself an act of war) is exactly the threat that was used by the EU to strong-arm little countries like Malta, Liechtenstein and Andorra into abandoning their lucrative tax-haven status and toeing the line on the EU’s ludicrous ‘campaign against unfair tax competition’.
The Swiss have played by the rules exactly as they are written by the isolationists and they have played them both sincerely and immaculately. Their reward for doing so is that the barbarians are now at their gate. The Swiss may choose to either surrender a big chunk of what makes them so prosperous in the first place or make a stand against the barbarians. Ignoring them is no longer an option.
Now before anybody flames back with affirmations of the obvious, yes I do realise that threatening the USA is a very different proposition from threatening Switzerland but just because your protagonist is militarily weaker doesn’t mean that they can’t make life very nasty for you, as Al-Qaeda have so graphically proved.
The peaceful, neutral, non-interventionist, money-making Swiss are under siege because they are, comparatively speaking, a beacon of light amidst a sea of darkness and they threaten that darkness by sheer dint of their existance. This should serve as an object lesson to those who are naive enough to believe that, as long you mind your own business, then the bad guys will respect your privacy.
Creating a free and prosperous society places you in the cross-hairs of those who harbour less laudible ambitions and turning the other cheek just gives them a golden opportunity to punch your lights out. As far as they are concerned, you must change or die. You may refrain from intervening in their affairs but they are compelled to intervene in yours whether you like it or not.
If you want to rant about Switzerland, fine–but the best example I know of for non-intervention being no guarantee of safety is the attack on Bali.
Well said David. If your views werea “rant”, as Nancy says in the comment line above, then rant on, dear fellow, rant on! The ongoing campaign of tax harmonisation is nothing more than the desire by high-tax policymakers to create a tax cartel. If a private industry behaved like that, it would be hauled before the EU competition minister Mario Monti.
Actually Nancy, as it has been argued by many dismal Idiotarians such as Robert Fisk (of course) that Bali was bombed because of Australian support for the USA, citing that as the best example of “non-intervention being no guarantee of safety” is not correct.
So the EU trying to bully Switzerland into changing it’s tax/banking rules is analogous to Middle Eastern terrorists murdering thousands of American civilians in the name of American foreign policy change? hmmm…
A_t: in so far as both are attempts to change the foreign policy of others via coercion, yes, they are indeed analogous. Obviously one could push the analogy to far.
…but surely this banking issue’s a domestic policy… (to the degree that you can separate out the two anyway).
I see your point, but it’s a bit of a catch-all analogy, which could be turned on the US/Saddam just as easily, & hitched to a variety of causes.
A-t
“but surely this banking issue’s a domestic policy”
Yes, correct. Switzerland is being threatened with possible blockade because of its domestic policy not its foreign policy.
What if the EU started to turn rather nasty and rattle their sabres? Countries have been invaded for less reason
but surely this whole domestic/foreign distinction’s somewhat academic anyway, given the world we live in.
Farm subsidies? Ostensibly a domestic policy, but in practise, can be just as devastating to another country’s farmers as high import taxes or a naval blockade.
I realise most posters to this site are broadly anti-taxation, but for the moment, within the EU, tax rules apply, and are enforcable by law. By evading taxes, people are breaking the law as it stands, and furthermore Switzerland then profits from their law-breaking. If this were any other crime; say bank-robbing, would your reaction still be one of sympathy for the Swiss non-cooperation stance?
A_t
You have spectacularly (or more probably, deliberately) missed the point.
Stick to what your know and get started on that rapproachement with Mr.Al Masri, there’s a good chap.
That’s right David… i deliberately try to misunderstand things, ‘cos i think it makes me look really smart. Do you have any opinions, or are you just here to troll?
actually, i take that back. forgot you’d written the article in question.
HOWEVER, why do you persist in hounding me? I came here, knowing that i would not agree with everything that was said, but respecting your philosophical positions, and hoping for some interesting & enlightening debate. Please explain to me how your constant jibes are in any way useful.
& If you’re going to mock me, at least try and make it funny.
If you’re not interested in spreading your libertarian ideas beyond the small clique who already share them, then fair enough, but I’ve come here with an open mind, and I express my opinions honestly. I don’t expect to be summarily mocked because I don’t conform to the majority thinking.
I notice you’re one of the official posters on this site. I hope you don’t reflect the opinions/methods of the others.
A_t: you brought up the domestic / foreign issue, and now you’re saying there’s no difference. Huh? I think David takes the analogy way too far in this case, but he’s making a valid point. Nonintervention doesn’t lead to peace. Of course that doesn’t prove that intervention didn’t lead to war, if you follow. I think that even my proverbial Philosophy 101 student could see that.
If our policy in the middle east lead to war, that doesn’t mean it’s a bad policy. It might be the right policy, and war was an inevitable consequence of acting morally. I don’t think our middle eastern policy is particularly moral, but there are a lot of issues which need to be separated that usually aren’t.
Regarding David’s “trolling,” starting two responses with “but surely” is a crime in and of itself. 😉 I agree that the Al-Masri thing was old the second time he did it. You seem to mainly attack the hawkishness of the board here, and not the actual foundations of libertarianism (political and economic freedom). They are separate, though finding libertarian doves is difficult.
Tax is always and only theft.
Other people’s opinions to the contrary are as irrelevant as those of the catholics who believed in the sun-circles-earth astronomical model.
Political surrender will not spread libertarianism, it will merely invite a lot of tax-and-welfare conservatives to mislablel themselves libertarian.
To hell with the lot of them!
Thanks Lucas. I appreciate your approach. I know I’m by no means faultless (observe me thinking-myself-round-in-circles on the foreign/domestic thing, though to be fair, it *is* a very grey area at the moment, particularly regarding what type of actions it is legitimate for another nation to respond to), and I certainly reserve the right to change my opinion; I wouldn’t bother discussing things if I didn’t think there was a chance my opinion might be changed.
… & ugh! hadn’t noticed the ‘but surely’… damn, stone me or something; that’s pretty terrible!
& yeah, i take your point about the nonintervention thing, but on the other hand, how many major conflicts do the Swiss get into?
I think in the end, we’ve proved nothing here, aside from ‘nonintervention can never spare you entirely from conflict’, which was pretty obvious, even just on an intuitive level, in the first place, to all but the most soppy of hippies. However, this doesn’t at all mean that many, if not most, conflicts could be avoided through this course of (in?) action. Switzerland’s long period of peaceful existance should attest to that (athough having a male population that’s armed to the teeth, many powerful people with a strong financial interest in your continued stability, and awkward-to-invade terrain almost throughout the country certainly didn’t detract from this peaceful atmosphere!).
A_t
My dear chap, I am not ‘hounding’ you, I am merely pressing a point and I do so because it is one to which I have not yet had a response, satisfactory or otherwise.
I do not mind in the least that you disagree with me but what I do find tiresome is the relentless exhortations to try jaw-jaw instead of war-war by people (not just you incidentally) who seem to be unwilling or unable to act on their own counsel. If you are not willing or not able to start a dialogue with the likes of Hamsa Al-Masri then why do you expect anybody else to?
That said, it was not my intention to upset you or chase you away and I hope I have done neither. What I do hope is that I have established my point.
By the by, I know its not easy but do try to be a bit more phlegmatic. I welcome your contributions but if you insist on throwing your hat into the arena then you must expect it to be trampled upon.
All the best
that’s cool… & to respond finally, I’ve no interest at all in setting up a dialogue with the man; he sounds pretty unshakable, & i’d just end up hitting him and/or or having a fatwa declared against me!
I was only saying that he should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, & that throwing generic anti-arab etc. insults into the debate doesn’t make it any cleverer or nearer a solution.
In fact, looking back, i never suggested he was a man you could maybe have a few quiet negociations with. My objection was more to the general mood which seemed to suggest (along with a significant portion of the UK/US media) that perhaps most Muslims support these terrorist acts. Personally, I find the idea stupid and annoying, hence my tone. There are plenty of Muslims who are highly amenable to compromise & dialogue, but who will be much less so if those seekig ‘peace’ go on Coulter-esque rants about their religion as a whole, or indulge in easy, angry racial stereotypes.
And yes! by all means trample my hat… just in less repetitious ways!
Congratulations for making the lamest pro- war argument in a very strong field. You seek to rebutt the claim that armed non-intervention is the most effective foreign policy for avoiding foreign military attacks. You then demonstrate that some countries are threatening to peacefully cease trading with the Swiss because of their tax policies. The hysterical comparison between this and war is like comparing my refusal to buy your car with invading your house, bashing you, and raping your wife.
The Swiss have avoided wars that cost hundreds of thousands of British lives without ever being attacked largely because of their non-interventionist foreign policy. Nothing but a catastrophic attack could bring their long-term foreign policy performance down to the level of the interventionist US and British. Do you feel like a bet on which nation actually suffers the next violent attack?
A-t, good to read your final comments on this postings as there certainly is common ground between our opinions. We do enjoy a bit of a fight, as you might have noticed, but we do try to fight fair.
In order to have a good, productive fight, both sides need to get the original point first. Otherwise, they are just barking at the tree they put up themselves and not arguing with the author of the argument.
So, hope to see more of your comments on this blog. I understand that sometimes it is tempting to react to certain trigger words that may lead you to conclusion that we are adopting one particular position or another. However, give us the benefit of the doubt as we certainly do not follow the ‘mood in the media’ or any pre-defined arguments you might encounter in your environment. We mostly make them up as we go along…
Eddie
It was neither a pro- nor anti- war argument. It was an illustration of the point that self-declared neutrality is no defence whatsover to the attentions and predations of other others
Thank you for your contribution to the debate
Sorry. An extra ‘other’ sneaked into the last line
Wow!
One of the better debates on this site.
Keep it up David. You keep writing and I will keep reading (with my hat on the rack by the door in Newport Beach, California USA.)
Great site!