I was reading the Wikipedia article on Noam Chomsky last night. This came as a result of talking about Aleppo and what we should do.
The premise of my argument is that in the general case, whenever the US gets involved with just about anything, the situation is worse off when we’re through with the operation.
Much of what I was basing my arguments on were from reading (well, listening to) Hegemony or Survival years ago, which is how I got on the Chomsky kick in the first place. As I was reading, I realized that my general belief system matches, to a great part, those of Mr. Chomsky.
The idea that people should generally be left to do whatever they want, but at the same time, prevent people from getting too much power. The idea that we should not be overly interventionist so as to not leave things worse off than before we started anything.
“So, what should we do?”
I think much of this plays out like WW2. Either go in — really go in — or don’t bother at all. If you start to wage total war, you have the option to win. If you don’t go in, you can’t be blamed for the outcome. Half measures only leave you picking a side to support — making everyone on the other side despise you for that.
Then again, when we started this most recent wave of intervention, women were going to college in Kabul. Look how well that turned out.
That brings us back to the title of the post: Libertarian Socialism. It’s not socialism like communism is. It’s libertarianism with a social safety net and prevention of concentrated power. Much of the criticism of traditional libertarianism is that you wind up with too much of the survival of the fittest the losers eventually dying in the streets.
Anyway… just a ramble.