Why is there a refugee crisis in Europe now? Why wasn’t there a refugee crisis a few years ago? What happens to anything government intervenes in? How bad does something have to be before people reconsider their ideas about government? Many who claim to support a free market and claim to be “conservative” will point out since the end of World War II the poverty rate was in a steady decline, before the government began its War on Poverty and bottomed out a few years after the policies of The Great Society were implemented but later, after the War on Poverty began, poverty rates began to increase. Many claiming to be “liberal” will point to political unrest around the world and its violent consequences and see U.S. military intervention as the cause. For a brief moment it appears there may be agreement between “liberals” and “conservatives,” one sees the Welfare State as harmful to the citizens of this country and the other sees the Warfare State to be harmful to citizens of the world. We’re done. Government is harmful. Now we can get on with our lives and voluntarily interact with our friends, families and neighbors and lend a helping hand to foreign citizens as we see fit.
No, the Contrarian has to point out the inconsistencies of both sides and point out that at the heart of the government’s soul is coercion and violence. Should it be surprising that, with such a corrupt soul, government brings about harm at home and abroad? When encountering a liberal [sic] bemoaning the hardships of the poor I know he/she is not overly concerned; as they are just standing there bemoaning it, crying for a an inefficient agent to intercede on their behalf. I suggest that perhaps if they were really concerned they might take in and care for the poor or invite a bunch of strangers from other countries to camp in their backyard and let them watch their children while they are away at work, providing for these unfortunate people. When encountering a conservative [sic] declaring “we” can’t withdraw from the world militarily, I encourage them to grab one of their cherished guns, travel to whatever part of the world they see that needs “fixing,” pick out the “good-guys” there and help them to defeat the “bad-guys.” Not surprisingly I draw ire from both sides.
It was not all that long ago there was no policy of regime change being supported and promoted by Western governments. Mauammar Gaddafi ruled Libya, Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq and Bashar al-Assad ruled Syria without foreign governments working to have him over thrown. No these countries were not and are not libertarian paradises, what countries are?
But was there a mass exodus from these countries under their rule? There never seems to be any analysis of what brings about such things, excuse me, serious analysis. One can hear Neocons blather all day about killing these furr-inners and killing those furr-inners, there never seems to be a shortage of foreigners they want killed. Neo-con, what is new about killing and what is conservative about wasting the public’s treasury doing it?
What is striking is the fact that Western governments (emphasis is on Governments) spent the first part of the last century arbitrarily dividing up the “countries” of the Middle East and the latter part propping up totalitarian regimes to maintain them. Now these countries, arbitrarily formed, must be instantly switched over to “liberal democracies.” Question, what are liberal democracies, and are they the answer to prosperity for the people of the Middle East? Gauging by the way most Western governments operate they are clueless as to what truly brings about prosperity, as if along with ballots comes betterment for all. I would say ballots haven’t helped the West.
Rev·o·lu·tion: a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system.
The American Revolution, a conservative revolution, a grassroots rebellion with people attempting to repel a foreign power interfering in their institutions and ways of life. The French Revolution, a radical revolution, a tearing down of institutions and ways of life, to be rebuilt by overly enthusiastic Jacobins. As with most societies, the people of The Middle East are going to have to find their own way, they will have to build themselves up from the ground up. The U.S. has had its own problems, I have yet to come across a historical tract telling of blue helmeted U.N. peace-keepers at Gettysburg and I am sure if there were such peace-keepers they would have tasted Yankee lead along with Confederate.
Outsiders looked and continue to look at the Middle East and believe “something” needs to be done. As with the War on Poverty, shall we keep score? How’s that foreign intervention working out for you Mr. Neocon? Killed enough furr-inners yet? Governments always have their ruling classes making decisions that they are isolated from, but the rest of the world has to live with. Not a single roadside bomb has touched one senator, congressman, or president. They decide to have their countries take in the refugees created by their decisions, but not one refugee will be camped out in their neighborhood. The headline reads “Why Angela Merkel is so Generous to the Refugees?” Really? She is generous? She is not paying for the cost; no furr-inner is going to be shacking up at her place. If there were true justice the Bushs and Obamas of THIS world would have to side step IEDs, dodge sniper fire and have groups of displaced refugees living with them.
No Gaddafi, no Hussein, and a weakened Assad…oh, things looks much better now. What is the next entity, after ISIS, that will need to be suffered through? That will really be something to see. Stop looking to governments for solutions. Governments are like natural disasters, they are to be endured not lauded not even in the arena of welfare or warfare.