What leaps out of every paragraph of this article is the impressive level of thought shown by each of the two disputants. Can one think of any two similarly intellectual, deeply knowledgeable political figures (say any of our current cabinet secretaries) today, who could in a matter of a few weeks reply to their President’s request for advice on such a weighty matter, as these two men did? Stunning!
What this shows is just how difficult it is to apply Objectivist moral and political principles to a world that doesn't understand them philosophically. And this obviously continues today. Not that Hamilton and Jefferson were Objectivists, but they were (and probably still are) the best representatives of a political philosophy of individual rights that have ever run a government. And yet, they and George Washington were obviously having great difficulty honoring a legitimate debt to a government that was the antithesis of a protector of individual rights. Their country wouldn't exist without French help, but they couldn't in good conscience support such a regime's quest for power. They also couldn't in good conscience deny the very real indebtedness to the people who had literally rescued them in their hour of need. Until 'protecting individual rights' becomes the dominant reason and purpose for governments in the real world such difficulties will continue to arise.
What strikes me is the contrast between American politicians of the 18th and 21st Centuries. In the contemporary debates over America's obligations to its "allies," I see virtually no reference to moral principles nor any recognition that our treaty obligations derive from a universal moral standard governing all human actions. What politician today could connect the sanctity of a commercial contract to the validity of a promise by one government to another? Washingtonian moral principles may have ruled then, but Machiavellian duplicity dominates today.
Would that this sort of intellectual firepower be applied to the current situation in Europe. Are the UK, France, and Germany still the democracies that we made the NATO treaties with? Do we have a treaty with Ukraine at all? If so it is a secret treaty like the ones that helped trigger WW1 and later published by the Bolsheviks. One can argue whether the war in Ukraine is defensive or offensive on the part of NATO but Ukraine is definitely a non-signatory which would seem to make NATO's actions offensive in nature. And NATO's actions in Serbia and Libya were definitely offensive as neither constituted a threat to any NATO member. So is it appropriate to continue to define NATO as a defensive treaty? The Russians certainly don't think so but then they never have.
Ukraine, w/all its problems, is Western or moving in that direction. Russia, on the other hand, is medieval nationalist/globalist Christian. Thus the virtually treasonous support for Russia by US nationalist Christian conservatives. Russia must be militarily humiliated because its Christian. Crucifixion is not the basis of individual rights. God wants mindless, selfless lambs, not rights-possessing rational man. Your deception fails.
Its absurd to assume wide knowledge of narrow, technical ideas, eg, WEF. Wisconsin Eel Foundation? Why is "admit" remarkable? Russia split from the Western Church in the Renaissance because the Western Church was influenced by the new rational culture. Even Stalin compromised w/its barely underground Christianity. Note the speed of the return of overt Christianity after Marxism fell. Putin seems to have no Marxism left in his soul. Russian Orthodox priests now bless nuclear weapons. May they all go to their well-deserved Hell.
I think like Richard, "Would that this sort of intellectual firepower be applied...," I'm not sure that we have two capable of a Hamilton/Jefferson-type exchange. Sadly. If we do, they don't appear in government, it seems. Then to Hamilton's argument; "the Americans’ treaties with France in 1778 “were made with His Most Christian Majesty, his heirs and successors.” Over the course of the last few years, however, the French government had undergone several revolutions: most importantly, the King had been dethroned, executed, and replaced by a succession of increasingly radicalized governments..." In our first Civil War, the French supported the rebels, as rebels; conversely our treaty was with the French as a nation-state. That alone would have supported the idea of suspension/postponement in my mind; limited as it is.
What leaps out of every paragraph of this article is the impressive level of thought shown by each of the two disputants. Can one think of any two similarly intellectual, deeply knowledgeable political figures (say any of our current cabinet secretaries) today, who could in a matter of a few weeks reply to their President’s request for advice on such a weighty matter, as these two men did? Stunning!
What this shows is just how difficult it is to apply Objectivist moral and political principles to a world that doesn't understand them philosophically. And this obviously continues today. Not that Hamilton and Jefferson were Objectivists, but they were (and probably still are) the best representatives of a political philosophy of individual rights that have ever run a government. And yet, they and George Washington were obviously having great difficulty honoring a legitimate debt to a government that was the antithesis of a protector of individual rights. Their country wouldn't exist without French help, but they couldn't in good conscience support such a regime's quest for power. They also couldn't in good conscience deny the very real indebtedness to the people who had literally rescued them in their hour of need. Until 'protecting individual rights' becomes the dominant reason and purpose for governments in the real world such difficulties will continue to arise.
What strikes me is the contrast between American politicians of the 18th and 21st Centuries. In the contemporary debates over America's obligations to its "allies," I see virtually no reference to moral principles nor any recognition that our treaty obligations derive from a universal moral standard governing all human actions. What politician today could connect the sanctity of a commercial contract to the validity of a promise by one government to another? Washingtonian moral principles may have ruled then, but Machiavellian duplicity dominates today.
> many Americans of a more conservative bent turned hard against the [French] revolution.
Why conservative? Why not individualist? Did Americans know the the Fr Rev was collectivist?
Would that this sort of intellectual firepower be applied to the current situation in Europe. Are the UK, France, and Germany still the democracies that we made the NATO treaties with? Do we have a treaty with Ukraine at all? If so it is a secret treaty like the ones that helped trigger WW1 and later published by the Bolsheviks. One can argue whether the war in Ukraine is defensive or offensive on the part of NATO but Ukraine is definitely a non-signatory which would seem to make NATO's actions offensive in nature. And NATO's actions in Serbia and Libya were definitely offensive as neither constituted a threat to any NATO member. So is it appropriate to continue to define NATO as a defensive treaty? The Russians certainly don't think so but then they never have.
Ukraine, w/all its problems, is Western or moving in that direction. Russia, on the other hand, is medieval nationalist/globalist Christian. Thus the virtually treasonous support for Russia by US nationalist Christian conservatives. Russia must be militarily humiliated because its Christian. Crucifixion is not the basis of individual rights. God wants mindless, selfless lambs, not rights-possessing rational man. Your deception fails.
You seem to be in the service of the WEF. At least you admit that Russia is Christian.
Its absurd to assume wide knowledge of narrow, technical ideas, eg, WEF. Wisconsin Eel Foundation? Why is "admit" remarkable? Russia split from the Western Church in the Renaissance because the Western Church was influenced by the new rational culture. Even Stalin compromised w/its barely underground Christianity. Note the speed of the return of overt Christianity after Marxism fell. Putin seems to have no Marxism left in his soul. Russian Orthodox priests now bless nuclear weapons. May they all go to their well-deserved Hell.
I think like Richard, "Would that this sort of intellectual firepower be applied...," I'm not sure that we have two capable of a Hamilton/Jefferson-type exchange. Sadly. If we do, they don't appear in government, it seems. Then to Hamilton's argument; "the Americans’ treaties with France in 1778 “were made with His Most Christian Majesty, his heirs and successors.” Over the course of the last few years, however, the French government had undergone several revolutions: most importantly, the King had been dethroned, executed, and replaced by a succession of increasingly radicalized governments..." In our first Civil War, the French supported the rebels, as rebels; conversely our treaty was with the French as a nation-state. That alone would have supported the idea of suspension/postponement in my mind; limited as it is.