krishjaanis (![[info]](http://klab.lv/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} krishjaanis) rakstīja, |
viņam visu laiku vajadzēja rīkoties praktiski, šķietamā pretrunā saviem principiem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_B
tajā citā rakstā to nosauca par "applied" libertārismu:
"Sounding very Cato Institute-ish, he speculated that America, having not yet clinched its independence from Britain, might be better off without sea power:
"Perhaps, to remove as much as possible the occasions of making war, it might be better for us to abandon the ocean altogether, that being the element whereon we shall be principally exposed to jostle with other nations."
Yet even if his innate libertarianism was fully intact, as commander-in-chief he had to shoulder profound practical duties; hence, Applied Libertarianism.
Specifically, within a few months of his inauguration, Jefferson faced a genuine foreign threat, the Barbary Pirates. And that threat arose, not from a military intervention of the sort that libertarians deplore, but rather from the peaceful commerce that libertarians champion. In their avarice, the Barbary Pirates were eagerly preying on US merchantmen.
Thus it was that Jefferson, who had once mused about the advantages of not having a navy, undertook a major shift: Now practicing Applied Libertarianism, he launched the greatest overseas military operation that the US had ever seen, projecting American power all the way to the Mediterranean, “to the shores of Tripoli,” in the words of the Marine hymn. The conflict, lasting from 1801 to 1805, involved the fighting capabilities of some twenty US warships. And the result was an American victory, although it would take a second war, a decade later, finally to subdue the pirates and safeguard American shipping.
For his part, President Jefferson was still a libertarian, but as we have seen, the imperatives of statecraft impelled him to apply libertarianism in new ways. For him, the constant was the well-being of the American people: He knew that if they were safer and more prosperous, they were also likely to be more free.
Thus we see that it’s possible to be both a Theoretical Libertarian and an Applied Libertarian, albeit at different times, according to the exigencies of circumstance.
tajā citā rakstā to nosauca par "applied" libertārismu:
"Sounding very Cato Institute-ish, he speculated that America, having not yet clinched its independence from Britain, might be better off without sea power:
"Perhaps, to remove as much as possible the occasions of making war, it might be better for us to abandon the ocean altogether, that being the element whereon we shall be principally exposed to jostle with other nations."
Yet even if his innate libertarianism was fully intact, as commander-in-chief he had to shoulder profound practical duties; hence, Applied Libertarianism.
Specifically, within a few months of his inauguration, Jefferson faced a genuine foreign threat, the Barbary Pirates. And that threat arose, not from a military intervention of the sort that libertarians deplore, but rather from the peaceful commerce that libertarians champion. In their avarice, the Barbary Pirates were eagerly preying on US merchantmen.
Thus it was that Jefferson, who had once mused about the advantages of not having a navy, undertook a major shift: Now practicing Applied Libertarianism, he launched the greatest overseas military operation that the US had ever seen, projecting American power all the way to the Mediterranean, “to the shores of Tripoli,” in the words of the Marine hymn. The conflict, lasting from 1801 to 1805, involved the fighting capabilities of some twenty US warships. And the result was an American victory, although it would take a second war, a decade later, finally to subdue the pirates and safeguard American shipping.
For his part, President Jefferson was still a libertarian, but as we have seen, the imperatives of statecraft impelled him to apply libertarianism in new ways. For him, the constant was the well-being of the American people: He knew that if they were safer and more prosperous, they were also likely to be more free.
Thus we see that it’s possible to be both a Theoretical Libertarian and an Applied Libertarian, albeit at different times, according to the exigencies of circumstance.
Nopūsties:
