Washington Is Making the Same Blunder Regarding Taiwan That It Did in Ukraine

[Natty C]

You've reminded me of a "Patriot Act" that stripped us of rights and freedoms.

Yeah, that was bad.

While I had the intervention vs isolation comparison on my mind, I started thinking about tariffs and the division among the electorate and empty suits in DC with regard to those.

Particularly given the extent in which government has completely screwed up an economy and strategically undermine the ability of our companies to compete. Their traditional solution has always been to destroy or keep all of the competition out of the picture, rather than getting the government off the backs of those companies by lowering taxes, lowering regulations and refraining from devaluing the currency, etc, so that these companies, and ultimately our country is able to compete again.

Instead, they manufacture a scenario whereas it's almost impossible for us to compete when they ship jobs overseas, then barriers go up and they say, hey, we're not gonna let anything in, and if they do, we're paying three or four more times for it.

A lot of people are all for tariffs. I've never understood that logic.

[Natty C]

I've never argued about it or heard of arguments on that level. I just see that it can't work for The US. We're too large and have played too huge of a role to bow-out.

What was the founders' take on it?

Well you have the Hamiltonian view and then you have the Jeffersonian view.


Unfortunately, Hamiltonians are as thick as thieves in DC today.


Largely speaking, they were in strong favor of free trade, communication and free travel among nations with as little turmoil as possible. Constitutionally speaking, we were never given the authority to be the policemen of the world.

That's the country simple version anyway.

Anyway. I've been on here too long today. I'm hungry. We can pick it up later, if you want.

At the end of the day, it's not necessary that we all agree on everything anyway. And nobody ever really does. As long as we all agree that we should all be free...

[OldSchool]

More on topic: I'm looking forward to the day when it's Trump's fault again.

DeSantis' fault doesn't have the same ring to it.

[MisterVeritis]

I do think it is a mistake for us to have only lower-level relations with Taiwan.

Still, it remains an ally--to treat it otherwise is the sort of thing that the left would simply love--and we should, therefore, treat it as an ally.

Taiwan is not an ally.

[old dog]

@Sunsettommy

I read your Michael Anton link. He cites more ancient irrelevant history than you do. You constantly harp on laws, policies and diplomatic recognition. Diplomatic recognition is not a 'till death do us part commitment. Please answer: Why should policies enacted by Tricky Dick and the Peanut farmer from the cold war era apply today?

China is incremental. Hong Kong, Taiwan, South China Sea, Western Pacific. You wanna wait until they are conducting naval exercises off Honolulu?

Anton doesn't know jack about anybody's navy; The U.S Navy is too far away so we would have to resort to nukes. That is one of the most absurd statements I have heard in a long time. it makes Big Joey look rational. Furthermore, we always have naval presence in the South China Sea, Guam or the Western Pacific. Even without us Japan's navy would likely beat China's.

What is our interest:

1. Freedom of navigation in the most important sea lane in the world.

2. Our commitment to the Quad4 and also South Korea.

3. Our dominance of the Western Pacific. The control of the two oceans is crucial to our national security.

4. Semiconductors. TSMC has the most advanced facilities in the world. The possess technologies that are beyond those of American semiconductor giants. Losing them would be a long and painful road to recovery.


If you don't believe they are our enemy, please read their own words in the PLA manual "Unrestricted Warfare: China's Master Plan to Destroy America".

All I hear are crickets.

[pjohns]

The United States needs to stop the totalitarians from taking over the United States.

Please elucidate.

Oh, and please explain, also, just why it might be improper for us to promote democracy elsewhere.

[pjohns]

China wants control of the South China Sea, and they won't wait ten years to get it.

Which is a problem for other countries...

Specifically, it may be a problem for Japan, as China sent missiles into the waters that Japan claims as its own.

[pjohns]

Isolationism has been a term that's been thrown around rather arbitrarily for a very long time, and like so many other philosophical and political isms in the American lexicon, it's completely misrepresented almost 100% of the time.

And it's not by accident.

Opposing diplomacy...opposing free trade...that's isolationism in the literal sense of the term.


Unfortunately, the war lobbyists in DC (many of whom are elected to office, unfortunately) and malfeasant media have twisted the term and Jefferson's thoughts on "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none" is suddenly blasphemy.

Dictionary.com defines "isolationism" in this way:

"the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities."

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary says this, in defining "isolationism":

"a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations"

[Natty C]

Dictionary.com defines "isolationism" in this way:

"the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities."

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary says this, in defining "isolationism":

"a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations"

Yeah, I imagine it likely does define it that way. Most of those kinds of platforms are very generic. Very collectivist in theme. By collectivist in theme, I mean that generic definition platforms so often disregard the relevance of principles involved with Individual nations.

The Federalist is a more relevant source, respectfully. It is widely regarded as the blueprint for the constitution as well as the traditional American philosophy of governance specifically, from the perspectives of the Framers themselves with regard to such matters.

This is the same constititon, btw, that our elected ones swear an oath to defend, I'd add. The same constitution that no place gives government to authority to be the policemen of tha world. Though few who take that oath seem to have any semblance of understanding of its function and the originalist principles of strictly limited government, which guide its function.

[pjohns]

Yeah, I imagine it likely does define it that way. Most of those kinds of platforms are very generic. Very collectivist in theme. By collectivist in theme, I mean that generic definition platforms so often disregard the relevance of principles involved with Individual nations.

The Federalist is a more relevant source, respectfully. It is widely regarded as the blueprint for the constitution as well as the traditional American philosophy of governance specifically, from the perspectives of the Framers themselves with regard to such matters.

I have enormous respect for The Federalist.

But the proper definition of a word should not be determined by "traditional American philosophy."

Rather, it is determined by the way the word is used currently.