If I have to do so, I will build my own Gulch.

"The reason why most cultures are in the backwards conditions that they are in is because they violate your stated premise."

Do they do so because of ignorance or because their cultural values are in actuality antithetical to those necessary for a free government? I knew several members of the military (officers) who were in Iraq and Afghanistan and noted that many there participated in the democratic elections with open pride. They wanted the freedom of self-rule. The problem was that their religious leadership and tenets were not compatible with the principles of a democratic/republican society and this was seen in their Constitution as well as the forced agreement of allowing the Shia to participate in what had been a Sunni-dominated government. Those elected to power (because they were now in the majority) were all too easily persuaded to then target those who had oppressed them in the past - aided in no small part by their ideological compatriots in neighboring Iran. It was a poisoned well to begin with and we did not identify that.

In contrast I would point to Vietnam, where recently that nation threw off the oppression of Communist rule and became a free-market and republican society. That they had been subjected to 40 years of Communism was because of the failure of the United States - and all those who espoused freedom - to fight on their behalf (noting that Vietnam was really a proxy war with the USSR and China). Now there certainly may be two arguments made here: one, that no freedom which isn't earned is real freedom. The other is that that nation truly wanted freedom in either case - all we did is allow an entire generation to fall under Communism by backing out.

I for one am well aware that without "skin in the game", no one appreciates what they have. It is what I watched when I was careful to park the bicycle I had worked so hard to earn in the garage while my brothers' bikes (Christmas presents I helped assemble) rusted in the rain. It may be that the Iraqi people after having fought this violent insurgency finally gain the collective will to establish and protect freedom. Or they may simply devolve back into the tribalism and religious zealotry which is the hallmark of the entire region. Only time will tell.

I am a firm believer that nothing should be given freely but I staunchly question the wisdom of inaction when it comes to an ideological struggle. In WW II, there was a coalition of nations who banded together to reject National Socialism (leaving Russia for its own discussion entirely). If that same struggle erupts today, however (and I believe that it takes the form of Islamic religious zealotry in ways even more dangerous than National Socialism), I am counting the number of erstwhile allies in ever-dwindling numbers. England in many cases refuses to call the most recent concert attack an act of terrorism. France has entire portions of its capital city which are off-limits to their own people. Sweden is awash with a rape epidemic due to the influx/invasion of "refugees" and even the United States is seeing similar things - especially when one factors in the drug gangs like MS-13 from across our southern border. Canada has passed "hate speech" laws that muzzle freedom and Australia revoked self-defense privileges from its citizens (via firearms). Our list of allies grows thin indeed. How much more before we cease to be a free nation entirely? I fear our end is not nearly as far as we think.

Your key point is "Please note that of course all of this remains contingent upon the new entrants' adherence to the rules of a market society, such as respect for intellectual property rights and value of trade relationships." That is the key premise. The reason why most cultures are in the backwards conditions that they are in is because they violate your stated premise. This is why America is (or at least used to be) unique.

Competition is part and parcel of a market society. It forces us to continue to improve and better serve our customers. One can either see a new market as an opportunity or as a threat. Please note that of course all of this remains contingent upon the new entrants' adherence to the rules of a market society, such as respect for intellectual property rights and value of trade relationships. I am not advocating for reverse exploitation (see your second point).

2. The nations of Africa can certainly point to the introduction of modern firearms as the impetus behind military juntas - which not only deny natural rights but redirect resources to the support of the few in power. It is a perversion of the appropriate role of government. I agree with you that there are inherent dangers in introducing certain technologies to the uninitiated. But there again the situation runs into the problems of who is going to restrain (or even identify) the items on the "banned" list? The Prime Directive moments are frequently about civilizations so technologically disparate that ignorance is the key to avoidance. No such tremendous difference (and therefore ignorance) exists in today's world, so the supposition that one can "hide" from other Earth cultures is unfounded. There is also the moral question: are we really doing any favors to those who's technological advancement is inferior to ours? While the thrust of the "Prime Directive" mentality is to not force the matter, does the opposite (allowing them to remain in ignorance) actually favor them? If the technological gap is becoming greater as time passes, under what circumstances would the inferior culture "catch up"? As a corollary, by doing nothing, we also allow the passing tyrant to more easily take advantage of the situation. I do not propose to have the answers, only that I don't see either course of action as a clear-cut moral "win".

3. If a government is instituted of and by the People, then it is the People who are creating the market even if the method is government. Now this is not to divert from the proper role of government which is to protect rights and can certainly devolve into coercion if not properly exercised, but that is what we face even within our own government: there is no guarantee. Does that give us the right to interfere in other nations without their permission? Absolutely not. But in nations where there is a legitimate question of which policies to pursue, we should absolutely back those forces which encourage adoption of limited governments which protect natural rights and market economies. Is it a tight rope to walk? Sure. But if we do not venture, we do nothing but allow for the forces of socialism and communism to win the day. It is an ideological struggle which can not be won by doing nothing.

The reasons you wouldn't want to share something with others are as follows:

1) In some cases, sharing something with others will not be in your best interest, particularly if the sharer becomes your competitor instead of your customer.

2) Sharing new technology with a culture not ready for it, either technologically or philosophically, is fraught with danger, as shown in the montage of Star Trek TNG Prime Directive moments, particularly at 6:54 to 8:00 of

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-qRR...

3) It is not the government's responsibility to create a market; it is your responsibility. When the government gets involved, some citizens may approve, but certainly others will not. This goes to the foundation of a limited government.

"It can certainly be argued that it is not our government's responsibility to do build capitalistic markets in other countries."

Sure, one can argue that standpoint, but one also concedes that that nation will turn to communism and actively oppose the formation of other capitalist societies. Capitalism does not happen by itself. The Founding of the United States was a freak anomaly resulting from just the right conditions - not the normal progress of civilization. I look no further than to the Western World since WW II to see descent toward socialism from a time in which true freedom (for the entire world) hinged on the outcome. The United States has been somewhat slower to descend than Europe, but we are descending nonetheless.

"Is building new capitalistic markets the responsibility of any government?"

The proper role of government is to protect rights and provide an atmosphere of limited government in which may be realized the expression of natural rights and a market economy. One of the failures in Iraq stemmed from the Keynesians in government who believed that if Government sets policy the People will follow. That is not always the case (and certainly wasn't the case in Iraq).

The government certainly must choose a foreign policy and among those decisions is the active promotion of market economics vs one of protectionism. And there are certainly enough foreign policy blunders on either side to provide cannon fodder for a robust debate. To me, the heart of the matter is this: if it is something you want for yourself, why wouldn't you want to share it with others?

Is building new capitalistic markets the responsibility of any government? It can certainly be argued that it is not our government's responsibility to do build capitalistic markets in other countries. At best, this enables the Orren Boyles of the world; at worst, we get what we have gotten in the Middle East and northern Aftica.

The choice is whether or not we want to encourage the spread of capitalistic markets and natural rights or simply allow other nations to devolve into socialism/communism and thereby become our enemies. If one looks at it in this fashion, it is indubitably in our best interest to engage other nations in the pursuit of true freedom. Since we destroyed the nation of Iraq (in all real terms) and we effectively controlled it, we had every opportunity to effect changes during its reconstruction (such as the terms we dictated to Japan), but as I outlined above, we had neither the political will nor was the entire process understood by which the changes would actually be effective.

To me, we absolutely had the right of the conqueror to do whatever we wanted. But we massively fumbled the ball in fundamentally misunderstanding what would be required and then mobilizing the will of the American People behind a long-term solution - and I will freely admit it was a dicey proposition at best. As it was carried out, it was a project doomed to fail from the beginning and we would have been better to ask Saudi Arabia or Kuwait to assist in the governance roles rather than allow Iran to gain control by subterfuge and intrigue.

There IS such a media blackout on this point.

From Rand's "For the New Intellectual":
Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict “It is.”

Rand's prescience on this point is one of her greatest observations on the condition of some "humans".

My brother, living in the UK, tells me the extensive media coverage for the Manchester attack has analysed the hell out of socio-economic background and psychological reasons. There has been almost no mention of his religious beliefs. As if there is some kind of media blackout on that point.

100% correct. Diplomacy only works if both sides are willing to be diplomatic. Look at Japan. While their delegates were in DC diplomacizing with us their military was planning and doing quite the opposite.

And as for the Middle East? They've been fighting and killing each other over religion, even between different sects of the same religion, for centuries upon centuries. Who in their right mind would ever presume to change that kind of thinking by "talking it out"? Only a politician with an extremely high opinion of himself. No, the only way to deal with a people like that is the same way you deal with schoolyard bullies. You stomp their ass into a mudhole and then you stomp it dry. Once that is accomplished most are usually ready and willing to "talk about it".

I agree with all that you said with perhaps one small difference. "until we have chosen a specific set if goals" is not something that should really take any thought as far as the initial goal, which would be to fully and completely defeat the enemy/agressor and its ability to wage any kind if war in the future. Much the same as was done with Germany and Japan after WWII. There should be absolutely no thought given to obtaining a truce or establishing red lines. Only the defeat of the enemy. Once accomplished if US forces are to stay in affected countries as peace keepers and/or to help with rebuilding efforts they need to be funded by those countries, if not immediately then by legal, enforceable contract at some point in the not too distant future. Most any country has some kind of resources, either natural or man-made that are of monetary value and can be used to pay off the debt of saving their country, their lives, and assisting in the continuing protection and rebuilding thereof.

Which brings a thought to mind; have we ever been asked to intervene in any of these situations or have we just stuck our noses in uninvited?

It seems that every overseas adventure has gotten us there via emotion.

I just plain have to agree with you.

That had to be one screwed up star system.

My point is that Switzerland was not involved in the world wars despite the fact that Germany could have easily conquered it. The idea that a few countries such as the Axis powers could take over the entire world is ridiculous. Even the United States, with its seemingly overwhelming superiority, cannot even subjugate a backwards country like Afghanistan, and neither could the Soviet Union. History is littered with the ashes of dynasties that thought they could take over the entire world.

Switzerland is too small and weak to get involved in a world war. If hitler wanted bswitzerland, he would have just takebvit

"Mind Your Business", as exemplified on Ben Franklin's first American coin, summarizes this whole thread:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugio_C...

Jbrenner, Herb, and all, I have thoroughly enjoyed this thoughtful and respectful discussion! It is one of the signposts of what we humans are capable.

My one comment on the entirety of this thread is that each of us individually, but of far greater potential consequence, collectively - especially taking into account the realities of today, should mind our own business. Self defense (individually and collectively) at the ready, retaliatory force whenever determined necessary and productive.

The Middle East would, dominated by those who collectively continue to make it home to primitive and savage societies, were we to end our political/military attempts at manipulation of their lives, quickly resume the slaughter of each other as they have for over 1200 years, with little remaining focus or concern with "us."

The personalization of such human suffering is an attempt to persuade us to use our emotions instead of our brains, and often such persuasion works on many people. In this case, the photos of such human suffering moved Trump to take action that, in the end, has only exacerbated the situation. That is the entire point of this post.

It is not adequate justification for an independent nation's government to require, by draft, that its citizens risk their lives for others. This is the foremost reason that America no longer uses a draft.

A position of neutrality in wars has always been worthwhile. Look at Switzerland. Did you notice that they evaded two world wars?

What are you...Sane?

So...all those images of human suffering, children being tortured and murdered don't make you feel as if we should do something about it? Ride into the Middle East mounted on a white Humvee pulling a canon that shoots small H Bombs that can blow up a radius of a mile and a heat wave another mile out from that which can turn all those miscreants (and everyone else) into roast.pork?

True