Corporations, in my view, have one basic obligation, and it is to those who invested money in them. That obligation, in most circumstances, is to make money for their investors — not to promote freedom and not to ensure the well being and comfort of corporate employees, except as doing so increases their earnings. It is for those who invested in the corporation to decide whether and how to use their own resources to support worthy causes. A business corporation has no mandate to diminish the gains of its investors by using what should be their money to support what its officers and directors consider to be worthy causes.
The United States Government is, in many respects, similar to a corporation. Her primary obligation is to her citizens, which she should meet by keeping them safe and otherwise generally staying out of their way. In most circumstances, the United States Government should offer support to, or oppose, other governments only when that benefits her own citizens. On this basis, if Country A attacks Country B, and there are no pesky treaty obligations standing in the way, the United States Government should normally intervene only when it appears to be in the best interests of United States citizens for her to do so; no matter that Country B may be a democratic, freedom loving country or that Country A may be a dictatorship lusting after the resources of Country B.
The problem here, as I see it, lies in the words "in most circumstances;" those words suggest that there may be cases in which the United States Government should seriously consider doing things not likely to promote the safety of her own citizens — directly or even indirectly. Such cases are probably uncommon. They may include providing relief to people in other countries suffering from natural disasters. They may include spending money to support literacy and medical efforts in other countries. Some would probably say that they include sending food to the people of North Korea, many of whom are starving, even though this may help North Korea to keep her armed forces well fed and better able to attack our ally South Korea. These things cost money and detract, pro tanto, from the ability of the United States Government to ensure the safety of her own citizens and otherwise to stay out of their way. Contrary to the apparent opinion of some, the United States Government's supplies of money and other resources are finite.
Most of those now protesting the Iranian election are not starving, nor are they the innocent victims of a natural disaster. Still, I think it the obligation of the United States Government to come to their aid in whatever way is within her means and is likely to assist them. There are times when even a country should strive to encourage those freedoms which she claims to hold dear — even if it costs money and even if a consequence may be to irritate an existing, already hostile, Government such as that of Iran.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Joanne Huspek
Well said. I totally agree and to do less is not only hurting us, it's hurting the Iranian people.
2 - roger nowosielski
I have only one thing to add, Joanne. It eases the conservative's conscience.
3 - El Bicho
The Government hasn't been neutral. It's not good to start an article with a flawed premise, but then you appear more focused on playing with the Bold button.
4 - roger nowosielski
Atrocious habit. The editor should be shot.
5 - El Bicho
btw, it's hysterical to see a conservative ask Obama "to provide whatever assistance [the new Iranian government] may request". That side usually chastises Obama for all the assistance he tries to give the American people, which is sending the country towards bankruptcy.
6 - roger nowosielski
Isn't there a proverb saying that it's easier to be generous with a stranger than at home?
7 - doug
Haha. First you reveal in the comments that you don't understand the region or the situation and now an entire article. Obama making claims he can't back up will only make your nation look weaker. Do you not remember how you guys hung out the kurds? Why is it americans in general seem to know so little about world history?
8 - El Bicho
The Congressional resolutions from last week certainly weren't neutral.
9 - STM
This is not just Iran's problem.
This is a genuine, grass roots freedom movement against real tyrants masquering as friends of the people (makes the events that set off the American revolition look like a Sunday-school outing) ... with no agenda other than to shake off the yoke of a sham government ruled by unelected clerics and a puppet president who does their bidding.
The US must do whatever it can to help them succeed, and so should everyone else. Educated Iranians are rather a sophisticated people politically, and understand they are being shafted right now.
The problem is, the movement has to spread out from Tehran and right across the country if it is to have any chance of success - and therein lies the problem.
Once outside the bigger cities, the level of political sophistication goes back to: "That's what it says in the Koran".
10 - Cindy
Dan(Miller),
Did you ever consider that if you were to engage in a sword fight with a fellow who had an eye patch, a peg leg and a hook arm, it probably would not make you look too good? You'd likely be guilty of picking on the handicapped.
(I know it has nothing to do with your article...but that corporation thing just gets to me...you know how people can just accept that. And I just happened to be thinking about pirates.)
11 - Dan(Miller)
Roger, El Bicho and Doug -- thank you for your insightful comments; they are exactly what I had expected. You may be right that we "conservatives" should just shut up and go away, having nothing useful to bring to the table. I shall consider the source and perhaps go crawl under a rock.
I considered the source, and decided, Nah; it's just too much fun.
Dan(Miller)
12 - Bliffle
The article states "Corporations, in my view, have one basic obligation, and it is to those who invested money in them. That obligation, in most circumstances, is to make money for their investors --..."
No obligation to obey the laws?
13 - Bliffle
The article states: "Most of those now protesting the Iranian election are not starving, nor are they the innocent victims of a natural disaster. Still, I think it the obligation of the United States Government to come to their aid in whatever way is within her means and is likely to assist them."
Would that include staying out of the fray in order to avoid the protesters being labeled as tools of the US, and thus undermine their authority?
14 - Dan(Miller)
Bliffle, yes -- corporations, like the rest of us, should have to obey the laws. In my view, the laws which should have been enforced, such as the anti-trust laws, haven't been, for a very long time. I would very much like to see vigorous anti-trust law enforcement. I have felt that way for more than four decades.
I understand the danger of getting into the Iranian fray to the extent that we undermine the protesters by having them labeled as lackeys of the U.S. I should hope that the sorts of thing I suggest in the article, perhaps accomplished by the wise people in Washington, could minimize that. The little baby steps thus far taken in that direction by President Obama have already caused some squirming by the Iranian Theocracy, along with the suggestion which you indicate should be avoided. Other countries have gone further, and it does not seem to have undermined the Iranian protesters. In any event, I am less concerned about what the current Iranian Government will say or think than I am about what those legitimately opposing it will say or think.
Dan(Miller)
15 - roger nowosielski
#11
The idea is not for conservatives to shut up, only to speak when speaking is meaningful. It's easy to be defending the rights of those where granting those rights costs you nothing. It's a different situation entirely when you're speaking with a united voice against those at home who, for a variety of reasons, may be less fortunate than you. It's the empty talk and hypocrisy that I object to. Be human beings on the domestic front, where possibly, just possibly, your own interests may stand to suffer somewhat as a result of compromise, and I'll start believing that you're high-minded when it comes to foreign affairs.
Not before.
16 - Dave Nalle
What I find amusing about this whole situation is that I am now getting emails from the fools at moveon.org urging me to support the Iranian people and encourage Obama to intervene. These being the same hypocrites who for years supported Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs and railed at Bush for opposing them and kept up a constant barrage of fearmongering about Bush's plans to invade Iran.
Dave
17 - roger nowosielski
How do you explain that? This is odd.
18 - Robert M. Barga
Dan, have you read my newest post, if not, it covers this.
19 - Robert M. Barga
now, what do you think will happen when the government takes an official stance? The moderates, who are the people we need to court, are not goign to be too happy with that
20 - roger nowosielski
You're not going to sway Dan with your articles, Robert. He's got an ax to grind and he's grinding it.
21 - roger nowosielski
Robert,
I don't believe Dan is concerned here with the fallout or the relative utility of US making a stand. I believe he's more concerned with making a personal statement. That's what I find so ironic.
There may be a secondary motive, that of strengthening America's prestige in the world, but under the circumstances, a strong moral stance on the part of US, without our being able to back up our words with resolute and decisive action, wouldn't do very much, I'm afraid, to strengthen our prestige. In short, it's just the opposite of the optimal situation where we should speak softly but carry a big stick. We're very far from being there.
There's a third underlying motive, no doubt: to provide the Iranians with a show of support. And with this I cannot argue. So if this happens to be the main point of the article, then I cannot disagree. But I do have reservations concerning the first two points alluded to earlier.
22 - zingzing
someone made the point that america's stance on the current iranian gov't is already obvious. obama doesn't need to stick his unilateral nose in there. we aren't going to (and shouldn't) invade them, so what's the damn point? he already stated that the difference between the two candidates is minimal, and that's true. both were vetted by the ruling council as easily malleable, weak leaders, willing to spend a few years under the thumb of the religious leaders of iran. both would just follow orders.
what's happening in iran must happen organically, from within. letting this thing continue as it is, with the ruling council flailing about, arresting each other, arguing, showing their collective ass, losing credibility with the people and generally destroying themselves is the absolute best idea.
we have no place in this, and any action we would take would only slow the progress by giving the leaders of iran a common enemy in the u.s.. right now, they are doing a better job at bringing democracy to iran than we ever could. (and obviously, iraq, we're pretty bad at "spreading democracy.)
remaining neutral, at least to the point of not making any serious blunders, is absolutely the smartest thing we can do. anything else is monumentally stupid if anyone wants to see democracy in iran.
at least for now.
23 - roger nowosielski
But we're not neutral with respect to Iran, zing. We're definitely against the mullahs and the Islamic regime; and the state of Iran is an undeclared enemy. So the position is more touchy than what meets the eye. US would like to see the regime topple over. Can it afford to aggravate the already strained relationship and make waves about undeniable human rights violations - that is the big question. And it's all the more poignant in light of the US failure to do anything about stopping Iran's nuclear development program, compounded no doubt by what Iran must view as US unwelcome presence in Iraq.
24 - El Bicho
Only speaking for myself, nowhere in my comments did I tell you to either shut up or go away. I simply pointed out that your position on this matter was wrong.
However, the demonstration of your poor reading comprehension would explain why you think the U.S. government is neutral. I'll consider the source next time.
25 - Ruvy
It is claimed by some that, due to her horrible record in the past, the United States Government has no moral authority now to encourage freedoms elsewhere. I don't accept that basic thesis,....
That, Dan, is my precise argument.
....it seems very unlikely that remaining indifferent to the situation of the Iranian protesters will help the United States Government to regain any moral authority; to the contrary, it will further erode what little she is said to have.
When the United States government stops trying to screw us over in Israel and bully us out of our own land (King David was born in Bethlehem long before any "poor Palestians" came along to steal the land; King Saul, his prededcessor, came from the mountains of Binyamin a few klicks south of me), when they undo the damage they have done us by forcing shit borders on us, by corrupting our politicians and institutions, then maybe, they can claim some moral authority.
Until then, the United States government has less moral authority than a pile of horseshit near a fence. At least the horseshit comes by its stink honestly.