(originally posted on MySpace: Friday, March 18, 2005)

Iraq, altruism, and the "it's just about oil" argument


In the past two years, I've been arguing relentlessly that the war in Iraq is an altruistic "welfare program" by which American citizens are taxed in order to support the liberation of foreigners, and that "fiscal conservatives" and "economic libertarians" should oppose it on those grounds.

My roomate, Rick, is also opposed to the war in Iraq. However, he has sometimes disagreed with my view that the cause of the war is primarily philosophical. Instead he states an argument I have often heard and that I do not support: Namely, that the Iraq war is "just about oil". Yesterday, after I had come home from a lecture dealing with just this issue (see my previous blog entry), Rick made this argument once again. This time, he said the war is "selfish" and once again that we are "just doing it for oil". In the morning, he gave me several papers he had printed out off the internet claiming that the U.S. government had supported several non-democratic governments in the past and that therefore they really didn't care about "spreading democracy". Thus, according to him, the war in Iraq is actually not intended to help Iraqis and is merely a "selfish" ruse to get oil. The following was my response:

Ok Rick, here’s the things I agree with you and disagree with you on.

First of all, I would not be surprised if the CIA helped Saddam Hussein come to power back in the 1960’s, nor would I be surprised if the U.S. supported a bloody dictatorship in Iran or a ruthless puppet regime in South Vietnam. Most of all, I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that foreign intervention involves long-term dangers and today’s world needs to learn that lesson. I am completely against "foreign intervention" if by that we mean an attempt to impose some type of "pro American" government on people without their consent. The only time it would be proper to engage in "regime change" would be when America is attacked, and the only concern we should have then is to install a government that won’t attack us again.

Having said that, I think you misunderstand the concept of altruism. Your argument that the U.S. acted out of self-interest misses the entire point. Of course, it is true that altruists always want things for themselves in a kind of petty way. They want to live in big mansions and have monuments to themselves erected all over the place. They want to round people up and torture them for fun, or kidnap women and rape them. They want to exert absolute power over everyone around them and make everyone worship and/or fear them. You can call that "selfishness" I suppose. But there are fundamental differences between it and the "Rational Selfishness" that Ayn Rand advocated. In fact, that kind of behavior actually represents the concept of "altruism" (by Augusta Comte’s definition) in many fundamental respects. The only difference is that they want you to be altruistic while they remain "selfish".

Nevertheless, the fundamental distinguishing characteristic of altruism is the concept of "sacrifice". An altruist always believes that someone must be sacrificed to someone else. It could be that he thinks he should sacrifice himself for others or it could be that he thinks you should sacrifice yourself to him. Either way, it’s still altruism. You’re either advocating altruism for yourself or altruism for others. But altruism is still altruism.

There is an element of hypocrisy in the very concept of altruism that is inescapable. If "selfishness" is evil and self-sacrifice the good, then that means it is good for me to sacrifice myself but bad for others to accept my sacrifices. Thus, there is no way to practice altruism consistently. That is why you will always see hypocrisy in every person who advocates altruism, and that is why it so devastating to a person’s integrity. It is literally a moral code that is impossible to practice.

As such, when you point out that the U.S. supported a puppet regime in South Vietnam that the people didn’t support, or that they helped Saddam Hussein get into power, or that they supported a brutal dictatorship in Iran, that only confirms the fact that altruism by it’s very nature is hypocritical. As Ayn Rand once said "Whenever a man speaks of ‘sacrifice’, you can bet there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Whenever a man speaks of ‘service’, you can bet there’s someone being served. The man who speaks of ‘sacrifice’ speaks of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master."

There is another sense in which these people are even more fundamentally altruistic though. Despite the failures of the interventions, the truth is that these people really do have a grand vision for creating a "New World Order" dedicated to "Democracy". Even those things that you’ve talked about, creating bloody dictatorships, etc., were all things done for the greater goal of creating this world. It was to "stop the spread of Communism" that we entered Korea and Vietnam, and setting up puppet regimes was considered o.k.. in the short term in order to accomplish that goal. The same goal was used to justify bringing the Shah to power in Iran and bringing the Taliban to power in Afghanistan. In addition, in America they are willing to run up huge deficits, increase taxes, pass laws like the Patriot Act that take away our civil liberties, and massively increase government control over our lives in order to accomplish these things. And yet, these are American citizens. They will not be in office forever. Eventually, they will have to go back and live in the private sector like everyone else. They will have to live under tyranny and oppression. And yet, they don’t care. That is just a sacrifice they will have to make for the good of the world.

I have spoken to many neocons and seen this phenomena over and over again. Many times I will ask them, "Do you want your taxes to go up to pay for all these wars?" and they say "I don’t mind if my taxes go up". Keep in mind that these are conservatives who are usually virulently opposed to tax increases.

Why do you think that is? Why do you think there are so many people who are willing to give up their own freedom in order to support this "New World Order"? Do you think people who had grown up in an Objectivist society that teaches that self-sacrifice is wrong would hold these views? Do you think the fact that Christianity has dominated the field of ethics for the past 2000 years has nothing to do with what’s going on in the world right now? I personally find that hard to believe.

Just yesterday, I was in a Literature class in which my professor was arguing that we have a "civic duty" to help our fellow men and that a military draft should be enacted to teach young people that moral principle. He also advocated that smoking be outlawed.

When several students told him that smokers are responsible for their own actions, he replied that it was "selfish and immoral" to hold that view. And yet, this is not a "conservative" making this argument, but a "liberal" who believes in "internationalism".

I agree with you that interventionism is wrong, and that altruists are hypocritical. I even agree with you that oil was a factor in sending us into war. But if you think the only thing that is going on is that we are protecting oil interests and do not look at the underlying philosophical problems then I have to say you’re seriously misunderstanding the situation. What is happening in Iraq today is only the latest incident in a series of events that began with the United States invasion of Germany in World War I. It was there that Woodrow Wilson enunciated the policy of "making the world safe for democracy", and we have been living –AND DYING-- by that policy ever since. But that policy itself is simply an application of Christian morality. Without attacking the moral principles behind the war in Iraq, but simply making it seem like it’s just a transient issue over oil, you trivialize the very real problem that we are facing. Eventually, there will be alternative sources of fuel and we will no longer rely on oil. But when that day comes, the neocons will still be around, oil or no oil. You can’t fight them by ignoring who they are or what they are trying to accomplish.


-------------------------------Tom