More on Neutrality from Planet Potato:
We were neutral because we could afford to be. Because other countries would have sent their young people off to die to defend our culture and our way of life. Because we were on the far flung end of Europe, and if the Soviets made it that far we'd have no chance anyway. We did it because we are selfish and cowardly.
If you are walking on the street and you see someone being mugged you might turn a blind eye . You might decide not to intervene because you don't like violence. Because you're a pacifist. Because it's not your problem and you're not on the receiving end. Really whatever rationality you wrap your decision in you are just trying to avoid the thought that you do it because you are afraid and would rather be a coward. Ultimately this is the same as when we proclaim ourselves as "neutral" and brag about the policy, when in reality we should be ashamed of our position.
"What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?" (Captain Zapp Brannigan)
OK, so it's not a serious contribution to the debate, but the point needed raising...
Posted by: J.Cassian | July 26, 2006 at 05:22 PM
Excellent stuff!
Posted by: Frank McGahon | July 27, 2006 at 11:34 AM
Why on earth are so many "irish libertarians" just ciphers for neoconservatism, that bastard child of trotskyite intellectuals, and liberal hawks? Neutrality is a perfectly morally justifiable for a state, and is certainly compatible with a libertarian mindset - going right back to Washingtons' Farewell Address. The purpose of a State is to first safeguard the welfare of its own citizens, not to cover itself with glory; nothing is so disgusting as the chickenhawks who scribble about duty and honour while conveniently sending other men to their deaths. You want to fight the infidel so badly? Join up then, put yourselves in harms way. No one is condeming the Swiss for their high mountains, not the Russians for their harsh winters, but apparently the Irish are always to be sent on an eternal guilt-trip for something or other; we just exchange one group of obnoxious, finger-wagging tub-thumping high-priests for another.
Posted by: E. Goldstein | July 31, 2006 at 11:09 AM
Why on earth are so many "irish libertarians" just ciphers for neoconservatism, that bastard child of trotskyite intellectuals, and liberal hawks?
Why on earth don't people Read. Things. Properly before bashing out the boilerplate on their keyboards? Go and read this other discussion at least please before you start whaling on that big strawman you got there. As it happens, I actually don't describe myself as a libertarian and I'm certainly not a neoconservative or a cipher thereof.
The purpose of a State is to first safeguard the welfare of its own citizens, not to cover itself with glory
I can agree with that. My problem is when this amoral self-interested stance is elevated as some kind of high moral principle and exemplar for others.
Incidentally, "obnoxious, finger-wagging tub-thumping high-priests" is a pretty good description of the Neutrality-boosters.
Posted by: Frank McGahon | July 31, 2006 at 11:31 AM
as an immigrant song by led zepplin tells me to say i did remember bobby sands 8 and who could eat after that since 1848 i believe my politicl stance in the europa theatre is this cork is ok isnt it your friend juliaof 4f fair fabrics for females
Posted by: julia galetti | August 04, 2006 at 03:47 PM