Richard Salsman - "'America First' as Egoistic Foreign Policy"

Speaker 0 00:00:00 Yeah, we are, uh, here today, uh, with senior, uh, Atlas society, senior scholar, Richard Salzman, uh, talking about America first as egoistic foreign policy. Uh, you know, we're, uh, we're just getting started with no further ado, Richard, uh, I very in, in hearing this, especially in the context of your discussion tomorrow, Speaker 1 00:00:25 Thank you, Scott. And, uh, this is a, uh, in a way a kind of preface to what, uh, Rodinsky and I will do tomorrow. Um, we're gonna have a discussion moderated by David Kelly on the Russia Ukraine war. Um, it takes place at nine 30. This is a different time, usually for us 9:30 AM. Uh, but I believe it'll be recorded and made available later. So, uh, so that will, I think be more focused on, um, the application of these principles and how Rob and I may differ to the specific case of Ukraine, Russia. So not today that I, and, and even when I set this up originally, I thought I would focus more on broad theory and principles, uh, that I think should be guiding foreign policy. Now, I, I, I use the word America first, cuz that's obviously the, the, the Trump language, but, uh, whether we agree or not with Trump's, um, policy is including foreign policies. Speaker 1 00:01:24 The, the, the sentiment is right. The idea that's that even on an individual level Eagle women tells you putting yourself first, which is a hierarchical thing. It's not an issue of putting yourself only, or putting yourself in a position that's necessarily antagonistic to others. So, uh, I think it captures it nicely. Now I speak about egoistic foreign policy. The backdrop of course, should be obvious that egoism itself is not a respected, uh, ethical code. Um, either in academia or in philosophy. Generally I, Rand is unique in her defensive egoism, especially by bringing into play the, I idea that it has to be rational egoism, that it has to be long range, that it has to be fully contextual. And there are so many, uh, caricatures really crazy cartoonish caricatures of the self-interested person that this manifests itself, uh, in foreign policy as well. But, uh, and so a lot of brush has to be cleared in, in that regard. Speaker 1 00:02:26 So I believe the same kind of, uh, suspicions that, that moralists and others have about whether the individual should be acting egoistically trans, uh, is transposed into the foreign, uh, field that the relationship not among individuals, but among nations and, and cause same kind of havoc, not only not recognizing what egoism is, but PR it's op I wouldn't call it it's opposite PR altruism. The idea that the moral thing to do is to sacrifice yourself well, if a country's to do that. And if it's to do that, especially because it's in a more superior, strong position, which the us typically has been, it's just an atrocious, uh, result. And I'll, I'll go through some of those. But again, the, the idea here is to speak more on principles and maybe in the Q and a people can ask about specifics, but just to put it of put a teaser out there. Speaker 1 00:03:20 I, I have been saying for many years now, and it's somewhat provocative, but I think it's undisputable the USS, uh, can't win wars anymore. The us has lost five wars in a row, um, starting with Korea. And I, and I define that in a specific way, you know, as the original aggressor still in place afterwards and, uh, all sorts of other things, but that is quite shocking actually and remarkable, but I think it's traceable to, um, the suspicion of E egoism and the fact that it should not be guiding us foreign policy. Now there is a separation worth making between foreign policy and call it war policy, uh, a foreign policy, obviously deciding not, not only relations among nations, but whether to go to war or not and win and with whom, but then there is also an issue of once you're at war, once you're in war, how do you conduct the war? Speaker 1 00:04:11 And they're the same thing. If you are guided, even though you go to war seemingly in your self-interest, if you go to war with an altruistic approach, uh, that makes you tie your hands, that makes you, uh, less than fully committed to winning the war, uh, that leads to disasters. And I think that's exactly what's happened with the last five, uh, us wars. So quite apart from whether the us should have been in those wars or not, once they were in them, they didn't really execute them in a vigorous, uh, in a kind of total war, uh, approach. Okay. So back to a foreign policy, uh, it sometimes I think, uh, troubling or, or, um, confusing to the individualist, to the capitalist, maybe even to the objectives to speak of a nation's national self-interest, it just doesn't sound right. It sounds too collectivist, but I think it's objectively demonstrable that if you can identify the identity of the United States of America, then you and, and its essence, and then you can start speaking about what is in its fundamental interest. Speaker 1 00:05:16 And then you can start speaking about how it deals with other nations. We do have nation states, that's unavoidable. We do have, of course non-state actors like terrorist groups and groups like the UN and stuff. So, but we are in a realm of nation states, and I think it's not too far fits to use them metaphorically and realistically as, as the equivalent of individuals on a national stage, but there is no overarching government, as we know. And so as David Kelly and others have have noted, you could characterize international relations as what political the is call a state of nature, uh, in effect anarchy, um, would note if there's no overarching government. So all the more important I would say that each nation needs to figure out what its essence is, what its, uh, self interest is, and then act accordingly in one word, the essence of America is Liberty. Speaker 1 00:06:10 I mean, we can flesh out all the other aspects of it, meaning including rights, including how government is cons institutionally restricted. Um, uh, and you could certainly go through, uh, you know, the, the, the holy Trinity of life, Liberty pursuit of happiness. I, I would put in their property as well, but, but really manifestations of Liberty, the, the, the idea is the person in America is free and that is the sole obligation of go to preserve, protect, and defend the freedom of its citizens. Now in the, in the objective NOIC, libertarian monarchist view, you're probably familiar with the idea that, well, this in function, if that's the purpose to preserve Liberty, the key functions, the three key functions to serve the purpose are domestic police courts and a military. Now let's, so let's focus on the military. It's really national defense with an emphasis on defense. Speaker 1 00:07:09 It's not offense, it's defense, it's not defense of non Americans. It's defense of Americans, it's defensive Americans, citizens, it's the defense and the preservation of their rights, uh, uh, not, and by the way, this is in the constitution as well. Uh, not the rights of others. We can care about the rights of others, of non-US citizens of other countries. Um, but fundamentally, if you don't start with this America first approach, you can, you can easily sacrifice and dilute and adulterate the rights and, and including the power, the rights of citizens and including the power and prestige of America, which indirectly undermines its ability to protect the rights of citizens. Speaker 1 00:07:54 Um, I stress defense here, uh, also from, to just distinguish this from the typical critique of capitalism as imperialistic, the critique of capitalism, as colonialist as, as outward aggressive, that's just a Marxist myth. And, and actually it's a leftover of the pre capitalist system called muralism muralism, which was dominant as a theory. And PR just, uh, prior to Adam Smith, writing the wealth of nations in 1776, it was muralism, uh, basically the argument against free trade. The, the premise that nations are necessarily antagonistic at each other's throats, zero sum game. That is actually what led to, um, the more imperialist, uh, empire building and, and war promotion of, of that era. We, we had eras of peace after it was, it was argued and shown that, uh, rational and free nations, uh, only benefit by trading with each other and dealing with each other now, um, um, the, the issue of, uh, I want to talk now about the issue of once Uher, I'll use America, as an example, identifies the essence and, and, and says, this is what's going to guide our foreign policy. Speaker 1 00:09:17 The next important step is to char characterize very scrupulously, actually the status of all other nations in the world, Vivi your self interest. I mean, this would be equivalent of if you knew your own character and you knew your own interests, and you're not living in isolation and, and we're not arguing for informed policy isolationism, the hermit life. You know, we wouldn't have that personally. It is necessary to judge who you deal with. Um, friends, family, acquaintances, strangers, uh, according to what, according to that same objective standard, namely, who is good for my I freedom, who was good for my values, who, who, and, and likewise identifying those who are, uh, not good now, not good is kind of mild, but what if, what about threats? That's obvious you need to identify your enemies and, uh, act accordingly and basically have a foreign policy with, uh, you know, the friends, family, and others that you deal with. Speaker 1 00:10:18 So we all have personal foreign policies, if you think about it and alliances, and these may shift over time because people change their character and people change their interests. So it's not something that's fixed in time in the issue, uh, in, in the issue of foreign policy, therefore it becomes incumbent upon and really the state department, uh, a nation state department, a perfectly legitimate agency, by the way, uh, and, and originally an agency, uh, of us government when it was formed, needs to identify, uh, and characterize all other nations and identify them as now, is this gonna be black and white? I, I would hope it could be back black and white, but it often can't be, but to characterize them as friend or foe for the purpose of guiding foreign policy and for the purpose of guiding, um, every other aspect of it, including say diplomacy Sies, whether there's any military aid or alliances, whether there's economic packs or not, there is, there is a treaty provision as you know, in the, in the us constitution. Speaker 1 00:11:23 So that's legitimate as well. Uh, but remember the abdomen AB of, uh, Washington, our first great president, uh, endorsed by, uh, Alexander Hamilton who advised and heavily on foreign policy as well, no entangling alliances and no long term permanent ones. So this wasn't the idea that the us foreign policy should be capricious and unpredictable. It was that the us should not tie itself to others who were capricious and unpredictable. And in this case, particularly, they had in mind, Europe, very Spain, Britain, and others in Europe who, um, had the us or France and, and had the us alive with any one of them, would've been problematic. Uh, to my knowledge, the state department really does not do this. It does have things like terrorist lists. It does have other certain things like lists of nations that do, or don't respect religious freedom and things like that. Speaker 1 00:12:18 But, um, I I'm just laying out the basic principles here that that has to be a necessary part of a government's designation, uh, uh, of friends and allies now, uh, friends and folks. Now, one of the other reasons for doing this is, is for having policy toward call it, trading with the enemy. It, it, it's very unclear to many people, you know, like right now, someone might say, should the us government do anything about, uh, businesses that trade with China? Well, if China is not designated as a threat or a foe of the United States, the answer would be no, there should not be, uh, gov the government preventing that it hasn't been designated as an enemy. Now, might it be designated as an enemy? Might there be a rational basis for doing so set that aside, if there is, then I believe it's legitimate on the part of the government to restrain private citizens for literally aiding and abetting an enemy, but short of that, um, there should not be restrictions. Speaker 1 00:13:18 I think it's very interesting. If you look up one of the, one of the few essays that Iran wrote on foreign policy, um, there isn't, there is not a lot of writing on foreign policy. If you, if you know, she said something, uh, I, I think I'd have it in front of me. Um, that, that one of the key principles of in policy, the quote, the essence of capitalism's foreign policy is free trade. The abolition of trade barriers are protective tariffs of special privileges. The opening up of the world's trade roots to free international exchange and competition among the private citizens of all countries dealing directly with one anothers that's from the roots of war. Isn't it interesting that, that the essence, I mean, she said the essence is an economic, uh, aspect to it. Uh, very interesting. And, and in that regard, you could classify, um, Hoover in the twenties and Trump during his reign as, uh, violating the basic as sense and principles of a foreign policy by being protectionist. Speaker 1 00:14:21 Um, I think it was Boje once who said, when goods can't cross borders, uh, armies will, and this is an, this is an unre, I think, an unrecognized part of, um, the foreign policy mix, uh, how economic trade and, uh, interactions and, you know, and it's not just trade and goods, it's trade and labor capital, the movement of labor, capital, and goods across borders at any rate. I, I think that's the beginning of a, of a, of an answer to the question of, well, how does the government deal with its own citizens and companies in regards to others? It has to first designate these other states objectively and carefully, and then, and then go from there. Speaker 1 00:15:04 Now, uh, I, now I wanted to say something about, and, and I'll stop. I think it's about four 18. Now. I was aiming to stop about 4 25, 4 30 at most, and then I'll open it up for questions. Okay. The issue of, uh, I, I wanna say something about the issue of now, once you have designated states as friends, then the question becomes how, how friendly and how, how much should there be an, I still think the principle that the government's, uh, essential soul goal is to protect the rights of its citizens, the issues of whether to have alliances with other like-minded proli countries, uh, is important. Uh, but I think it can't be a kind of permanent thing. I think it has to be, uh, based on circum stances. So for example, uh, Britain being faced with, uh, destruction by Nazi Germany, uh, you could, no matter how, uh, how interventionist, how, um, um, mixed economy Britain had become by world war II. Speaker 1 00:16:08 And so had the us, of course it still, uh, was objective an ally and the extermination, which was not, I an impar probable thing, uh, Britain was against Amer I would say, would it be against America's self-interest? And so I don't believe this issue of egoism driving our foreign policy means we never lie with other true allies and, and including militarily. And by the way, in the background of all this, let's just stipulate. None of this is done with a draft, no capitalist system of foreign policy and military prowess kidnapped its own citizens and forces them to go to war. So I assume that's understood by everybody, but the capitalist foreign policy and, and war policy has to include volunteerism and a, a well paid professional standing army. I mean, that was disputed between Hamilton and Jefferson, the Jeffersonian approach, which was there should be no permanent standing army. Speaker 1 00:17:10 His, his view was that it would lead to too much war, but Hamilton and Washington had the view that you had to professionalize this. This was a key function of government, and these people had to be professionally trained. And that means, and then also paid well, just to go on the negative side. Now, if you are motivated, uh, is if the nation is not, if the government is not motivat by egoism, but rather altruism, it's not going to see if the rights of its citizens as a primary. It's going to be very open to the idea of sacrificing them, cuz they think it's noble, uh, sacrificing. And for the sake of helping others in, in including others and maybe even, especially others who don't deserve it. Other nations who are, um, exposed other nations who are under attack, other nations, who haven't taken the effort to defend themselves or create their own alliances, that's going on with the Ukraine now I believe. Speaker 1 00:18:11 And, uh, it's a very dangerous approach because if this is what's considered moral, it's going to involve the United States in a whole bunch of conflicts that it either, uh, shouldn't does not advance itself interest or actually undermines it, uh, by going into a fight. It, it, uh, it doesn't want to, it, it, it, it doesn't really want to win. And I think this is one of the reasons why Korea and Vietnam and the Gulf war in 1990, then the Iraq war and the horrendous performance in the Afghan war after 20 years, the us left cabal with, I, excuse me, left Afghanistan with a, uh, the Taliban still in power and even greater in greater force and leaving something like 80 billion in, in armaments and military, uh, in, in that place, it it's just that a dis it was just a disgusting performance that only could be explained by a refusal to, uh, win the war quickly. Speaker 1 00:19:11 And in America's self-interest national self-interest I have other things to say, but I I'll I'll stop there. Well, let me just, one more thing about as alliances NATO, I'll talk more about NATO tomorrow, but to me, NATO is an example, even during the cold war, NATO was formed in 19 four, there is an example of an Alliance. The us was in the us was central in creating the Alliance. It began with, uh, 12 countries, and it was purportedly to restrain, uh, this and defend against the Soviet union, uh, after world war II. But the us had built up the Soviet union during world war II by lying with the Soviet union. So, so the, the original policy of, of bringing the Soviet union into the fight against Germany and arming and, and, and the lend leach and all the other things the us did for Stalin was itself a disgusting display of non egoism. Speaker 1 00:20:13 And so notice that afterwards, the negotiated settlement was giving over many, many Eastern European countries to the Soviet union. And then the felt need to say, well, since they're very powerful, uh, we need to create NATO, which amounts to what the United States committing to provide national defense to a range of other countries. To me, it that's just self-sacrificing, that is not either constitutional or rationally egoistic. And we could talk more about this, but, um, once you get into the issue of first deciding whose friends and enemies are, even if you find friends, some of the alliances may not be rationally egoistic, and I certainly don't think NATO was all right. I, I will stop there, uh, because I, I know there's probably some questions and Speaker 0 00:21:00 Comments. Okay, great. Uh, well, uh, let's get right into it. Uh, Clark, thank you. Uh, go ahead. Speaker 2 00:21:10 Uh, yes, Richard, thank you so much for this presentation. Uh, I had a very specific question. It has to do with, uh, congressional declarations of war. Uh, my understanding is we haven't actually had one since, um, woo war II. And so, so I'm, I'm wondering, you know, right now it looks like Congress has voted to send literally billions of dollars of military and economic aid to Ukraine yet there's no declaration of war. So what are your thoughts on that? I mean, it seems like if, if we really needed to have a declaration of war, uh, to do this, uh, we would, uh, I mean, we, we would actually commit more of our resources and instead of just doing what we're doing now, which is kind of sending aid, becoming a co belligerent in this fight, which is kind of dangerous all without any kind of, uh, congressional declaration, Speaker 1 00:22:05 Uh, Clark, I think that's a really important point. And I, I totally endorse the, the sentiment I'm hearing from you. It is in the constitution that it's for Congress to declare war. And of course, there's the commander in chief is the president. So the separation of powers there is very clear and is very important. And I think absolutely that quite apart from the principles I named, which is to, you know, designate countries as friends or foes, that the, the idea of declaring war brings with it, the idea that there's a debate, the idea that it's discussed, the idea that it's not something that's just unilaterally entered into. So it, it gives, you know, gravity to the situation. And, uh, and that is a source of avoiding error. I mean, if you can have a really, you know, robust debate, it really quite amazing actually, when you think about it, because most military people do not want, uh, the pros and cons of war or the possible strategies and outcomes discussed openly in the public. Speaker 1 00:23:10 But you're right. When the us did that in prior wars, it did better in the wars. And so I do think it's a check on, on going into the wrong wars. I do think the draft itself is a, is the volunteer army. I should say, putting a positively is also a check on this, because if you can just draft people in kidney, nap them and send them any, any crazy conflict that will also get the us into, uh, self-sacrificing wars. So the draft, uh, has been, I think the draft was dropped by Nixon in 1973. So that was AMA, that was an important thing to do, but notice bad wars can still be done on a voluntary army, but you're absolutely right. The fact that there's no declarations anymore. These resolutions that are done on the side, it's giving the executive branch really, and the Pentagon, uh, on all near on unlimited power to engage in war and, and, and frankly, uh, they, they're already engaging in war by sending military aid and advisors, you know, all over the world to a range of different places. Speaker 1 00:24:16 So, you know, um, the, the lack of a declaration and a quote unquote starting point for mobilization, you is a real problem because, um, the things are done gradually and surreptitiously, and nobody really knows about it and there's no accountability. And the next thing, you know, you know, one of our, one of our, one of our battalions or one of our ships is blown up and people are saying, why, why were we in the middle of that? We didn't know that was going on. So, yeah, so we really have to get back to that. That's like a bare minimum that it actually be discussed and there be a formal declaration. One more reason for declarations. Um, they usually entail, um, declarations of emergency giving the government, you know, kind of extra legal powers. So it's, they're dangerous itself to be in war time. That's when liberties are most at risk, uh, you're, you're going to war presumably to preserve people's liberties. Speaker 1 00:25:11 So you really want a case where you've been attacked or likely to be attacked. It's really gonna be a self-defense thing, but, but wars are also dangerous because, uh, you know, in a way they militarize society and you risk losing your liberties. So one benefit that comes from declaring war and then knowing you're on a war standing is at some point you end the process at, at some point you terminate the conditions and that's not what we have today. We have not only no declarations, but open ended commitments, uh, of the kind, you know, 20 years in Afghanistan, that kind of thing would not have been allowed. Had there been a declaration and the declarations, I believe if you look closely, it actually says in the constitution that the declarations can, that, that the war can only last two years and then it has to be renewed. I mean, that is amazing. Um, and an amazingly good kind of a sunset provision in there. That's been Andd, uh, for years I should know. So a good, good point. Uh, Clark, Speaker 0 00:26:13 Good stuff. Thank you, Roger. Thanks for joining. Speaker 3 00:26:18 Yeah, no, I, I love joining in the room when Richard's here. Um, Richard, you're one of my favorite people to talk to about thank you, Speaker 1 00:26:25 Rod. Thank you, Speaker 3 00:26:26 Roger. But I, I say when it comes to foreign policy, I have yet to find somebody from the Atlas society that a hundred percent agree with. Um, and I, and I'm looking forward to the day that you and Jason Hill can, uh, hash out your differences, uh, as it relates to the, uh, conflict in Ukraine. But, um, that aside, I, I, I think this America first thing is interesting, right? Because, uh, to frame it as, uh, egoistic foreign policy, that's one way to look at it. But I, I, I also think that we need to remember that, uh, voluntary associations can happen, uh, you know, that that are in your rational best interest to use, uh, a ran term. And, and I think that countries can do what's in their rational, uh, best interest. And so the self-interest of, of, of America could absolutely be to partner with, um, with, with, uh, other nation states that decide that they have common goals. Speaker 3 00:27:32 Now, I would agree that we have to be very careful with these entanglements and make sure that we're, you know, entering voluntary associations, that make sense, but there's been a lot of critique, you know, that I've heard of NATO. Um, that to me doesn't make sense because it, it, to me, it feels like we forget the, the threat that the Soviet union had and the ambitions, uh, that I would argue are still there within certain people within, uh, within Russia today, there was a reason why NATO was created informed. There's a reason why additional countries that, that were on the border of, of, of Russia and, and, and were former war PAC countries that know this, this, this threat better than Americans ever will. And, and for, to voluntarily choose to join this organization. I don't think that is a weakness. And so I guess to frame it in a question is what do you have against voluntary associations as it comes to, uh, a lot? Speaker 1 00:28:41 Well, I'm not against voluntary associations. I want the us for and policy to be driven by rational egoism. And I don't believe that the us involvement in NATO does that. In fact, it does the opposite. It sacrifices America, uh, both in terms of prestige and, uh, wealth and other things. Now, let me just say quickly that why, I would say something like this, uh, when NATO was formed in 1949, and there were 12 countries, including the United States, you're right. There was a Soviet union. So there's a case where, how do you identify the Soviet union? I, I would've identified it as a threat to the United States. They, they were known for being, um, uh, driven by motivated by Marxist view of internationalism idea of, uh, being against capitalism and then therefore being against America as the quintessential capitalist country. So they, and when with nuclear weapons. Speaker 1 00:29:35 So they were clearly an enemy of the United States. And I think the United States, uh, it becomes a, a matter of calculation, whether joining with other nations, uh, helps America defend itself against the Soviet union, but that's not how NATO was put together. NATA was put together with the idea that the non-US members would get their military protection from the United States and for, they did not spend as much as they would or work as well together in defending themselves. So here was a case where America was basically violating the constitutional obligation to devote its military and finances only to protecting Americans, that the commitment was to pro to protect Brits and Canadians and the French and the Belgians. And, and to me, that's just not proper. That is not, it is not proper for the United States to be, to have it, to have others outsource their foreign, their, their military, basically to the United States, to have American taxpayers, uh, forced to spend on helping defend, um, foreign citizens. Speaker 1 00:30:40 Now looked from a non-US perspective. It's a standard thing, Roger, that, you know, if you're a grown up country, you have a military, you, you don't become a colony of the United States in effect. That's what it is. It is colonialism. It's, it's France saying we're not gonna spend much on the military. We'll just have the us do it. And you, and they become basically a client state of the United States. I'm against that. And it actually makes Europe more vulnerable. Now, when there was NATO, even if you supported NATO, you could at least say, well, it was up against the Warsaw pack. So in other words, an equivalent Alliance on the other side, the Soviet union, plus all the Eastern satellites. But, uh, we'll talk more about this tomorrow, but once the cold war did in 1991, it was even more ludicrous, I believe to have NATO, cuz now you had NATO up against not the Soviet union, but a severely degraded Russia, a Russia that was barely, uh, getting back on its feet, uh, after disillusion, after the so, so they, they, they changed in character enormously. Speaker 1 00:31:41 The, the Russia put 1991, especially for the first decade was nothing like, um, Soviet union under Stalin Che and others. So that wasn't recognized by the United States. Here's a case where just the identification process was wrong. They couldn't even get the identification process right as to what now, uh, the Russians were to us. You, they were not any longer imortal enemy of the United States and yet they were treated that way by keeping NATO not only up and running, but then expanding for the next 30 years. That's actually what's happened. NATO was now 30 countries, not 12, uh, and up again, moving east ever eastward toward Russia in a, in a very, uh, a combative way. So I I'll leave it at that, but I, I know what you're saying. You could say that NATO is a voluntary association, but of course the non-US members would gleefully want to join a group where its military defenses being paid for by the American taxpayers, but it's not voluntary to the American taxpayer. Speaker 0 00:32:46 All right. All right. Thank you for that. Uh, Lawrence, thanks for joining us. Do you have a question for Richard Lawrence? Are you able to unmute? He may be in, uh, let's go to John. Speaker 4 00:33:08 Hello. Um, Richard, when you opened and, and the indeed the title of this program is about egoistic foreign policy and how there's been, uh, a cultural zeitgeist opposition to that since the mid 20th century. And that's why we lost all these wars. And I think that the reason is that the zeitgeist is fundamentally egalitarian and frankly, that's why I support the Atlas society. It's because of individualism and of, um, the dysfunctionality of the egalitarian ethic, which I believe is primarily motivated out of a sense of envy. And what we're really talking about is an argument over property and property rights, and envy is about out stealing somebody else's property and jealousy is about keeping your property. And I think that's what all of the political arguments at their roots are about. I'll leave it at that for the moment. Speaker 1 00:34:19 Uh, thank you, John. That's an interesting take and I think there's some truth to it in the fall. Um, just as there's animosity, uh, you know, domestically say toward those of unequal wealth and, and the premise and the, the, some that some assumption that the rich got that way by, um, impoverishing, the poor that there's an in class antagonism of the Marxist variety. And, um, and that egalitarianism is the idea that, uh, you know, whether it's equality of opportunity or equality of result or what now is called equity. Yeah, the it's it's felt that the just and proper and moral thing to do is to level and especially level downward. If you can't level up word on the inter on the international stage, John, I think it's true that if you apply this to the international stage, the idea is well, because the us is what do they used to call it after the cold war, the soul superpower. And there are theorists in foreign policy who, even though they may have welcomed the fact that the United States in effect won the cold war and the Soviet union did not, would still say it's an unstable or unfair or unjust arrangement because it's unequal. And they would dismiss the idea of, well, what, who cares if it's unequal, as long as the United States is a Liberty loving rights, respecting Republic, why do you care? You know, why should anyone care that it's, you know, bigger, more powerful? Uh, yes. Speaker 4 00:35:53 And I would add that there's an epistemological aspect to that. Speaker 1 00:35:57 Okay. Speaker 4 00:35:57 That's particularly with regard to Ukraine, that is, for example, if I'm walking across, uh, down a busy street in the evening, and I look across the street 150 way, 150 feet away, and I see some guy, it looks like he's getting mugged. There's a couple of guys who had costed him. Yeah. I don't know on what's going on, but I may feel like I need to run across the street and help that poor guide, but maybe I don't know that they're costing him because he raped their sister yesterday. Yes. Or because he's a bad guy. And so that's my feeling when I thought talking about Ukraine or all kinds of other international things where we're supposed to get involved, or somebody is advocating it. I, well, you know, I don't really know what's going on and we see the propaganda war that's going on now over Ukraine. And it's it, it's, it's, it's almost like global warming, you know, or climate change or any of the other, you know, transgenderism, I don't know. What's right. You know, it, it, it, it's hard. I'll leave it at that. Okay, John, thanks. Speaker 1 00:37:08 Thanks, John. I, I think, Speaker 1 00:37:13 Um, skepticism, you know, that the only reason we're not intervening is we just don't know enough. It it's interesting. The, uh, I'm not sure the metaphor carries because if you're in the United States and you see someone being beaten up on park avenue and, and I think you're absolutely right, you don't know what's going on. What is that fight all about? Um, but notice what would be the normal, um, uh, result that the police are brought in and on the inner international scale, what is that equivalent to there isn't any international police, you know, there isn't, that's a whole point of international relations or in a, what's called a state of nature. It's anarchy in the sense that there's no, there are states, but there's no overarching state to make sure all the other states behave. Now, I believe actually this is one of the reasons why the, I call 'em the interventionist. Speaker 1 00:38:01 That's not really the right word for them. Uh, want the us to be the policeman of the world, um, and make the world safe for democracy. And all these other phrases you get from the, uh, what's called the idealists school in foreign policy, as opposed to the realist. And, uh, and so it, I think it's an understandable, um, desire because it's seen as, so workable domestically, you know, that you have to have police courts and law and order. So the idea of if there's no law and order internationally, let's get that. I think that's, I think that's behind the sympathy for the United nations now, but these tend to be impractical institutions. And the key here though, is even if the us could play this role. And I think increasingly it can't because it's at war with itself, really, but even if the us could play that role, it's not that that's in the self-interest of the United States because it isn't just Russia, Ukraine, there are conflicts and wars going on civil and otherwise all the time that there would be no end the us, um, playing policeman of the world and to the total sacrifice, I believe the United States. Speaker 1 00:39:12 So that's a whole separate question of, uh, should there be a policeman of the world and, and how and why, and, and should the us be any part of that? So that's, that's a good question. It was a good point. Speaker 0 00:39:26 Great. Lawrence, thank you for coming back. Speaker 5 00:39:30 Hello. Can you hear me now? Speaker 0 00:39:32 Yes. Speaker 5 00:39:34 Okay, perfect. Um, so Richard, my question is sort of along a slightly different line of this, but it relates to, um, I know, you know, back in the day, president Eisenhower was talking about the military industrial complex and the concerns about it, but nothing really happened as a result. And now when we talk about these large amount of weapon shipments going overseas, especially, you know, Jalin missiles and other things, and the ramping up of the military industrial industry to support those needs it, we've seen in other areas of our government, where there is this alignment of interest between private and public sector, especially when it comes to like big tech and the government. Um, is there anything that we should maybe be considering or be, even being concerned about when it comes to this app, this industry for a war more or less, that they would have an influence in making us go and actually use the things they create? Speaker 1 00:40:36 Good question. Uh, I've changed my view on this over the years when I first heard about this doctrine and I, I was born in the late fifties, so I didn't hear it real time, but when I, I first came to learn about the military industrial complex and I Eisenhower's warning, that was his farewell warning. Um, I, I tended to just classify it and dismiss it as a kind of Marxist, a snarky criticism of, you know, the capitalist war, war profiteers, and all that. And, and that it would come from a military hero and giant like Eisenhower, uh, actually made people sit up and say, wow, does he know something? Uh, we don't know. And, but he can't be in the pay of communist. Can he be, uh, or in Marxist ideology? Can he be, and it seemed like just a, an unfair smear now, fast forward. Speaker 1 00:41:22 That was what, 1960, when he said it fast, forward 60 years. And I have come to believe that this is a problem that you do see, uh, munitions makers and not just that of the whole constellation of Pentagon officials, uh, are, and I would add the media now. So to me, it's, it's the media and military industrial conflict. The media loves wars. They love if it bleeds, it leads all that kind of stuff. And if it's international, they love it. And it's, uh, it's, it become like a sport to them and they get more eyeballs. It's kind of disgusting. And it's understandable because war is, you know, an outlier it's news, it's truly news, but I do believe there's a problem with, um, the, the interaction between the Pentagon <affirmative> and the military, uh, munitions providers and the motivations. But this is something that I, it it's proper for a capitalist country, not to nationalize its munitions industries. Speaker 1 00:42:28 They should be independent companies. They should be privately owned companies, but, but it's a very delicate thing because they negotiate contracts to provide things to the us military. And you don't want a case where, um, that the, where the Pentagon is basically getting involved in things in imitable and heavily costly wars, because it's also in the interest of the munitions makers. I think I saw an estimate that six to 7 trillion was spent by the us on Iraq and Afghanistan alone. That is, uh, one fourth of the national debt. That is just incredible. And, and when you see things like leaving $83 billion in war material created by the us on the tarmac in Afghanistan, and when you hear store, you know, and why, why, why is that? Like, why didn't they bring it back? And or when you hear stories of, you know, let's have Poland send things to Ukraine so we can get around the fact that Ukraine's not in NATO, but then us armament makers will, you know, re arm Poland. Speaker 1 00:43:36 It's almost like it's a, it's a racket almost. It seems almost like a racket. And imagine if you said to these munition makers, uh, we're not gonna have NATO anymore. Let, let, let the non us NATO members provide for their own national defense. They would be scared. Uh, they would be scared terribly that their business would collapse. So NA NATO and the us leading NATO and, and being in the biggest part of NATO is something that the munition makers really like now, it isn't as if France, Germany and others couldn't buy munitions from us munitions makers, but, but they probably would buy far less. They would probably have a much less robust mil Terry if there was no NATO. Speaker 0 00:44:18 Yeah. They're not paying their fair share as it is. Right. Uh, thank you, Carl. Uh, thank you for waiting. Do you have a question? Are you able, you click your microphone to unmute. I tell you what, while you're figuring that out, we're gonna go ahead to, uh, Atlas society, founder, David Kelly. Thank you for joining us. And, uh, go ahead. Speaker 6 00:44:47 Um, thank you, Richard. That was a very, uh, uh, astute analysis of foreign policy. And I appreciate it. And thank David. We try to be brief here because we'll have a chance tomorrow to, uh, air these issues more fully in the discussion about with, uh, Rob jinky about debate about you Ukraine. Sorry, I, I just wanted to push on two, two points. One is that, um, you know, the understanding of, uh, defense is that the, the us, um, any country, but the us in particular should defended citizens against, uh, aggression or the threat of it. And I, my, is that a lot of differences in foreign policy depend on how you define threat, what you regard and interpret it as a threat. Yeah. Um, and, uh, the other wiggle room, the other issue that, um, is kind of open, uh, and, uh, source of disagreement is, uh, going back to Rand's point about free, free trade, to what extent, um, if that is the most important aspect of foreign policy, um, trade international trade is, is, you know, truly important on, on, in a positive way. Speaker 6 00:46:09 Uh, defense is a negative function, but, um, trade is a very positive one, um, for all the reasons, you know, and summarized, um, and know perfectly well as an economist. Uh, and in that respect, um, having, uh, a foreign policy that encourages trade, um, is, uh, can lead to alliances create and so forth. Um, so NATO is, uh, a defense agreement, um, against what was a threat that went away, uh, after the fall of communism, but is now, it seems like it's back, uh, with pein and his, you know, what he's done in Russia and become a more significant threat than, um, than, you know, 20 years ago, uh, 30 years ago, rather. But, um, also we have, um, expanding trade and the desire of, um, Eastern European countries and now Ukraine in being part of that commercial, uh, the commercial freedom of create seems it is one issue that, uh, people on, on the other side of this issue from you would cite as a positive reason for us to be involved. I, I'm not arguing one side or the other, I just wanna know here are these seem to me like the two issues, um, the definition of what counts, the threat and the definition of what, um, how much we should invest in promoting free trade. Um, would you say those are, are, uh, the important issues that we should be that should help us understand and, and more fully refine our sense of American self interest? Speaker 1 00:48:08 I would, I don't, I do endorse that. And, uh, on the first point, David, um, the dis distinguishing aggression from threat, uh, well, we know in domestically, you know, the right of self defense includes not only, you know, once you're punched, but if you're threatened to be punched, you know, attempted murder, attempted murder, that kind of thing. Um, you know, so aggression would be, uh, Pearl Harbor, uh, in cases where they, uh, or nine 11. And, but, but even threats like Germany, declares war against America, um, that's a threat. And if it's coming from a Nazi Germany, uh, the us turn around and we declare war against you and you're at war. So that's a, though it wasn't Germany that, you know, directly hurt the us. But I, I think yes, in cases where there's a threat or now a Murier case might be something like Iran that continually says, you know, death to America or death to Israel. Speaker 1 00:49:06 Now you could say that's a threat, but you could, you can also say, well, there, they're not like Nazi Germany. They're not like the Soviet union, even, they're not likely to carry out the threat, but I would lean in the direction of saying, okay, is that a declaration of war we get to, then we get to go to war against Tarran. Uh, I don't know how often they'd be saying if that were the case. So I, I agree with that. I don't, I think those are ways in which the foreign play policy, you know, shifts into military policy. The second one I think is interesting because it is true that the more trade you have, and if that is the goal of a foreign policy, the more you entangle yourself in a way, but in a good way. And I think David, one of the difficulties I have is working through the idea of the good side is your trade with more countries. Speaker 1 00:49:52 But now also, if there's any military conflict between any of them, you, you are maybe in a situation of saying, well, should I protect my trading partner? I mean, what, what, it's not true, but suppose we got half our grain from Ukraine, Russia didn't actually attack us, but it act our trading partner. And it might actually, you know, interfere with the Americans being fed. That might be a reason to intervene in the Ukraine Russia thing, but it would, but notice it would be driven by American. Self-interest it wouldn't be driven by, you know, we feel sorry for these Ukrainians or exactly. We feel sorry, cuz Russia is a bully and Ukraine is a victim. You know, that the altruism that goes with these things is so overt. It's almost like overt, someone's suffering. Therefore we have to get involved. Someone's a perpetrator. Therefore we have to get involved. Speaker 1 00:50:44 Um, that kind of thing. So I, I hope that helps, but I, I, um, things like the WTO and others that attempt to promote free trade, um, I'm generally of the view, although people do disagree about this, that the more you trade with other countries, the more the exchanges you have back and forth, the less likely you're going to go to war with them. And there is, as we've talked about this before in other webinars, there is a fascinating literature called the capitalist piece, or sometimes it's called the democratic piece. There's a, there's a book, uh, that was first published, called never at war where political scientists have well documented that free con generally freer countries just don't go to war against each other. And, um, that, that was actually the motivation for the George W. Bush policy of the forward strategy of freedom. Now that was unique to the middle east. He wanted to promote, uh, democracy and freedom in the middle east, but it's the premise is interesting. He started with this premise of well free countries don't address. So let's try to make them free countries Speaker 6 00:51:46 <laugh> yeah. Speaker 1 00:51:48 But, and, and, and there's a certain twisted logic to that, but if they have no cult as you, and I know they have no cultural or philosophical, uh, grounding for that, then, uh, it doesn't matter. You can, the Arab spring was what many elections in the elected autograph. Speaker 6 00:52:04 Yeah. One, one election one time. So, um, yeah, no thing. Thanks, Richard. Uh, appreciate that. And we'll continue tomorrow. Speaker 1 00:52:12 Thank you, Dave. Speaker 0 00:52:13 Great. Um, yeah, I just wanna take, uh, one quick bite at this. What about, uh, for example, Ukraines, um, you know, agreement to give up their NUS 30 years ago when they became independent in exchange for hell, if you know they were attacked. Speaker 1 00:52:31 Yeah. So that was a perfect example. That was us Britain, Russia, and Ukraine. And that was a good example of my point about if you're a true grownup or in that case, they were learning to become a grownup. They become independent the Soviet union, but all the satellites that became, uh, in dependent the Soviet union, it was incumbent upon them to put in new institutions, not just, uh, military, but courts, independent courts and even tax systems and things like that. And so for, at that stage for the Ukraine to have given that up is just ludicrous. Now, I don't think they were in a very good negotiating position. They did have the third largest supply I'm told of nuclear weapons at the time. And the concern was that rogue officers would make off of these things and destabilize the whole place. But the quid pro quo, when you think about it, was this, get rid of your nukes and we'll promise to protect you from the, from, uh, well, not now the Soviet union Russia, but again, it was an act of the United States and Britain saying, you know, we'll provide your national defense for you that that led Ukraine on a 30 year, uh, uh, path of basically being vulnerable ha had instead Ukraine spent 30 years, you know, freeing its a economy, diminishing its corruption, building up its military. Speaker 1 00:53:50 It would, it could be as it, it would be bigger than the Soviet union. Uh, I keep saying the Soviet, it would be bigger than Russia today. It, but it didn't do that. It, it, again, it, it, it it's even today is almost as corrupt as Russia is. And if you look at economic freedom in this sees, it's no freer than Russia. They're very similar in terms of corruption and economic freedom. I most people don't know that they, they, they think, uh, Ukraine is the equivalent of, of, uh, I don't know what Ireland or something like that. And they just aren't, but this, this doesn't justify them being attacked, but I'm just saying they spend 30 years not really making themselves an independent sovereign country. So they left themselves exposed to Russia. And in, and in the process of all that kept saying, we wanna be part of NATO. And to Russia, you just have to understand Russia's interest. Russia has no interest since the cold wars over to have this NATO pressing ever east. And then having the last two Georgia and Ukraine right up against its border. That's really, to me, the nature of the, the more recent con, really the conflict since 2014. Speaker 1 00:54:58 And I, and I would put NATO as even though I was opposed I'm opposed to NATO, even when it was formed, the best light I could put on would be, it was a defensive Alliance until the cold war ended. And then afterwards, because it didn't disband, even though the Warsaw PAC did, it's an offensive, it's an defense and offensive Alliance, it's it was no longer purely a defensive Alliance after 1991. And certainly by adding to its members and moving east word, it was more literally offensive. I that's, my that's a controversial take. I know, but that's my view. Speaker 0 00:55:35 Well, I'm really looking forward to hearing more about this tomorrow, uh, quickly, any kind, uh, you know, preview for, uh, what we can expect tomorrow. You, you know, just going at it, no pre uh, <laugh> Speaker 1 00:55:51 Well, I would say, I would say not to, uh, uh, no, no, uh, plot spoilers, Rob and I differ, uh, on, um, some of these points, but what I think will be interesting about it and, and so wonderful that David Kelly will be moderating and hopefully contributing as well. Is we both agree with the premise that us foreign policy should be driven by America's rational self-interest. So it would be a very different debate. If, if you know, it was an alts versus an egoist per a perspective. Um, so at the Atlas society, you know, we're pro-American, and we're pro constitutionalism and we're pro Liberty, and we want the right foreign policy. So then to differ on applications and to differ in a gentlemanly way, I think will be nice, but we definitely differ Speaker 0 00:56:38 Good. It's part of the, uh, open approach that that can happen. Uh, I plan to, uh, you know, have some breakfast with, uh, good discussion. Good. Uh, that's gonna be tomorrow at nine 30 Eastern and 9:30 AM Eastern. It's gonna be Richard Salzman along with Rob. Truns both take with their different takes on, uh, Ukraine with, uh, TAs, founder, David Kelly moderating. So, uh, you wanna tune into that? There are [email protected], so, uh, thank you everyone for joining us. And, uh, we, uh, hope to see you next time. Take care. Thank Speaker 1 00:57:17 You. Thank you, Scott. Thank you.