I spend a fair deal of time attacking sacred cows of the left. A recent discussion I had convinced me that it wouldn't hurt to point out an example of hypocrisy that conservatives often hold.
For those who don't know, I have an identical twin brother. He's currently in the United States Marine Corps. Now, my brother [i]calls[/i] himself a libertarian but admits that he has more hawkish tendencies. I would personally label him as a neo-con, but that's just me.
I was having a discussion with him earlier today. According to him, the United States has a responsibility to the world to be a guarantor of global order. He claimed that this responsibility stems from being the world superpower. This is a common idea of the right -- the U.S. is strong and has a responsibility to ensure global tranquility.
Held alone, this idea isn't necessarily hypocritical. I disagree with the idea, but I don't find it contradictory.
Here's where there's a contradiction. My brother (we'll refer to him as RidingTime, since I know he has a b.net account) contests that the U.S. holds a responsibility to the rest of the world. That's a common right-wing idea. However, RidingTime also holds that the U.S. does [i]not[/i] hold any responsibilities towards illegal immigrants. This is also a common idea on the right.
A libertarian can see the hypocrisy. We function under a social contract. We forfeit certain natural rights (remember that any conceivable action is a right) in order to gain corresponding protection for others. We try and eliminate the overlap of natural rights. I lose my natural right to kill in order to have my natural right to live protected. RidingTime cedes that this makes sense, assuming that we believe rights exist.
So, as our Constitution says, the state has the power to protect and maintain the borders of the nation, as well as provide for the common defense. RidingTime acknowledges this. The state's power to do this is derived from the necessity of protecting our lives and property from foreign power. We've submitted into the social contract,
Let's look at the topic of illegal immigration. RidingTime asserts that, by virtue of being a superpower, we owe foreign nationals the guarantee of global order. He also asserts that we do not owe illegal immigrants anything, despite being a superpower.
Illegal immigrants and foreign nationals (in some cases they're the same thing) are similar in that they have not submitted to the social contract. This is why foreigners suspected of terrorism don't receive constitutional protections -- they haven't lent the state some of their natural rights. By being the guarantors of global order, the state is granting the promise of certain protections to people who aren't living under the contract. By acknowledging that the state does not owe illegal immigrants anything, we are acknowledging that they have not submitted to the contract.
Do you see the hypocrisy? In one case, RidingTime advocates for extending the state's protections to people who don't function under the contract. In another case, he believes that it is unjust for the state to extend protections to the same class of people (non-citizens).
I find the two notions to be contradictory, and it's usually the right that holds these ideas. What do you think?
-
Isn't the question about whether or not it promotes American interests? Let's not kid ourselves. We don't intervene militarily for altruistic reasons. We're the world police because someone has to police our worldwide economic system.
-
4 RepliesOr it's more like: We prevent/intervene in conflicts that could affect the prosperity of our own people in the long run. And Want to remove immigrants that are breaking the laws of our country, to which I am completely willing to help any who enter using the system outlined by law. I don't feel like a hypocrite
-
I don't care enough to read this. It can't be very good seeing how it's from b.net forums haha
-
I want a transgender restroom in every republican backyard!
-
5 RepliesMaybe it's like the idea of: We need to take care of ourselves first before we can take care of others? Like if the plane is going down, put your mask on first before assisting another. Otherwise, if something happened to you without the mask, then you can't help yourself and, by extension, others either.
-
1 ReplyIs it hypocritical that a police officer is in theory protecting their fellow citizens, but doesn't want a homeless person moving into his shed?
-
I see where he's coming from. To him it's our job to protect our allies. That doesn't mean our "clients" can sneak into our home though.
-
Too much reading
-
I was more going for Mitch McConnell and his obstructionist buddies blaming Obama for causing gridlock while shutting down the United States government .
-
3 RepliesI think maybe he means we have an obligation to our allies. In a sense, our allies are a part of the contract, right? We cannot guarantee world order, only protection of our allies. Would that change anything in your mind?
-
2 RepliesBump. Please don't just vote to protect the reputation of your ideological trenches.
-
6 RepliesIn my opinion, if you couldn't tell by the name, I believe that we, as a government should assist other countries in eliminating threats to the nation and the world. We are not responsible for people who wish to escape that country. At least until the global threat is taken care of. [spoiler]tell your brother that Navy SEALs are better just to piss him off[/spoiler]
-
2 RepliesI think the right tends to be bigoted, and the left seems to be more about setting people up who have potential to support their ideas. Either way you're fuсked.