“We have no problem with the police intervening to end a criminal shootout. So why do we so passionately oppose having the U.S. federal state intervene in Syria and other places? There are multiple reasons. The Feds have a really bad track record (you can read a summary here); Tend to support bad guys and establish dictatorships; Constantly create new enemies; Force all Americans to support these interventions, even when they offend personal conscience. But does this mean that we have to sit idly by and watch bad things happen to good people overseas? We don’t think so. Instead, imagine what would happen if we had a Separation of Intervention and State.”
http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/whom-would-you-hire-to-intervene-in-syria
Related posts:
Never Hand Over Your Gold To The Bank Of England For "Safekeeping"
Higher Education Cartel, Meet Creative Destruction
Hacking Law and Governance with Startup Cities
Voters Interviewed at Gun Point, Realize the Shocking Facts of Their Political Views
John Whitehead: Orwell Revisited
Jim Bovard: How 'Food for Peace' Hurts Foreign Farmers
Charles A. Burris: War Crimes, the Holocaust, and Today’s National Security State
Bitcoin, Encryption, Drug Use, and the FBI's Own Bitcoin Wallet
Warren Buffett: How inflation swindles the equity investor [1977]
Canada’s ban on e-cigarettes makes no sense
What Real Independence Looks Like
Profiles in Pork
Chris Hedges: The Day That TV News Died
The Disturbing Truth Behind Your Next Income Tax Return
Michael Hastings: A Non-Conspiracy Theory
