Friday, February 19, 2010

LIBERTARIANS ONLY: This is a hypothetical scenario, a civil society excercise.

In order to assure Haiti's recovery the United States government has appointed a civilian team to run the island nation after the United States took it over to assure that Cuba did not lay claim to the disaster ridden population. Because Republicans and Democrats especially in Congress are to worried about holding onto their seats in this election cycle the President called on the Libertarian Party to appoint members from across the nation to serve in the new governance of the decimated military territory and renew it into a thriving western 1st world economy.

The team has been selected for all levels of government now it is your turn to list in what will be done and in which order to clean up and rebuild this occupied territory. Please do your research and then comment below with the first ten steps then the second ten steps, this will be a scenario played out over ten ten step plans and with eventual analysis and results. Enclosed is some basic reading material. Have fun.

WIKI | CIA World Fact Sheet |
NOTE: I started this on my personal FaceBook page:

14 comments:

Robert Enders said...

In your scenario, the Republicans and Democrats give us the task because they don't want to take the blame for any possible solutions. I can only think of two: Grant the Haitians asylum, or abandon them completely. If Haitians are people with the same rights as anyone else, they should be allowed to leave their country and resettle elsewhere. If they don't have rights, then who cares what happens to them?

Daddy said...

Immigration should be beneficial to our voters. We better import qualified doctors and nurses than folks who did not bother to learn how to build their own houses right.

Let them get loans to open schools to learn building quake proof houses. Anyhow I question their announced fatality rate, as it is _not_ historically typical with an earthquake of this strength.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_21st_century_earthquakes

In any way we should not give in my opinion legitimacy to two self proclaimed "major" parties who, again in my opinion, on purpose discriminate against us. 10% voter count came to mind. Besides why Haiti and not for example Sudan, Somalia, Bangladesh etc. Why not to think first about our seniors who die in larger numbers every year due too long time to balloon in some hospitals or not enough spending on cancer research. Lets stay closer to home issues that resonate well with our voters, and not play populist ball of someone else with, again per my current opinion, their own self interest.

AA Wulf said...

I find it truly disappointing that the big wigs of the party can't even engage in a simple political exercise using critical thinking skills to showcase the abilities of libertarians to solve a practical nation-building issue that we are currently experiencing all over the world, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and potentially very soon our own homeland. Our infrastructure is becoming disastrous, it's only a matter of time before our largest cities end up like our Haitian neighbors.

Daddy wants to discuss things close to home, let's talk about Katrina, quakes in Cali, and the potential catastrophes waiting to happen as our economic depression results in 75-100 year old infrastructure risking collapse all over the nation.

It is sad that when posed a hypothetical problem that has practical applications to a national and local political platform, that no one in the party is willing to actually tackle the issue, instead resorting to the standard anti-partisan rhetoric and whine about the two-party system rather than addressing any issues with practical solutions.

You've officially lost my vote until you pull your heads out of your anuses.

AA Wulf said...

Oh and on a side note, in response to Daddy's comment about questioning the fatality rate...

Take the city of New York, cram it into the space of Fort Wayne. Now hit it with an earthquake and see how much higher the fatality rate is going to be than anywhere else in the world. That's effectively what happened in Haiti, the city was designed for a population of less than 500,000, and they had well over 2,000,000 living there. Of course the fatality rate is going to be much higher than expected! Learn-to-math.

Daddy said...

AA Wolf,
please check your 'facts'. There is no nation of Iraq and Afganistan, but artificial British border drawing out of the blue. Twice as much Peshtuns, the Taliban tribe live in Pakistan than in Afganistan, and have been militant for centuries towards tribes in northern part of what Brits decided to call Afganistan. Kurds, Sunnies and sourtern shiites of Irag, if left alone, would not be willing to live in the same country.
Cali is not in US, the last time I checked.

There is no reason to believe that much stronger earthquake 7.4 in neighboring island of Martinique, also populated by French speaking folks of African decent had only one fatality while this one 200000. Giving Haiti long history of much higher corruption compared to Martinique, a reasonable comparison, I hope you agree, and unusually high claimed amount of fatalities, it reasonable to suspect these numbers.
The best way, to adress someone's despair, is to help that person to start caring about him/herself better, not to put him on welfare.

AA Wulf said...

Daddy, Cali = California, which is most definitely in the US. I understand the slang probably confused you.

The rest of your commentary makes little sense. Last I checked there weren't gigantic New York style high rises 10 times overcrowded in Martinique. Your analogy is a nonsequitor. As is the question of welfare. Who was talking about Welfare, we are talking about a hypothetical situation where civilians within the LP are being asked to rebuild an occupied nation from the ground up. I believe the exercise was meant to showcase how libertarians might solve some of the very same issues the US is currently dealing with at home and abroad by using the recent tragedy in Haiti as a starting point for engaging in ideas on how to build a third-world nation into an asset and ally.

Your responses simply showcase how the LP is completely against such ideas of investing in the rest of the world to bolster our own economy. I'm sure you'd rather go back to a gold standard than invest in the true assets we have available to us in foreign policy.

Also the lack of the LP's willingness to showcase ideas on how to fix a crumbling infrastructure leads me to be extremely skeptical of your abilities to fix our OWN. If you can't even fix Haiti, how can I be confident that you can fix the US or even Indiana or at that, even just Allen County? I'm sure you agree that I have all reason to be skeptical, using the same logic you use to be skeptical of the Haitian disaster. I'm simply utilizing the facts; the track record speaks for itself. The LP is all talk and no action.

Get off your asses and do something. You're not getting a single vote from me again until you have a platform with some sort of substance rather than ideological rhetoric. Anyone can tell the other parties that they are doing it wrong. The only third-party that has a chance to change that is one that has a PLAN on how to CHANGE it!

Daddy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Enders said...

AA Wulf
1. In January I did propose on this that Haitians be allowed to resettle in the US. This would help alleviate the overcrowding in Haiti and help lower the number of neglected vacant homes in this country.
2. Rebuilding Haiti itself is not the responsibility of the US government. That is the responsibility of Haitians and NGO's such as the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders. Invading a country with good intentions is a bad idea.
3. The aftermath of Katrina shows that America must learn to competently manage its own disasters. Immediately after the storm hit New Orleans, the state government assumed that the federal government was responding, and the federal government assumed that the state government had it under control. We do need effective contingency plans that say who is responsible for what in certain given scenarios.
4. Haiti should adopt building codes patterned after California's.

AA Wulf said...

I understand your point of view, Robert, as you made it abundantly clear in your first response. Bullet points and further expansion doesn't change the fact that your stance on the matter does little to engage in the exercise. It was a hypothetical, and it's quite apparent that you feel no reason to put ideology aside to engage in it.

This is the exact point I'm making, for over 12 years I've watched as the Libertarian Party of Allen County has stood behind the same rhetoric and inaction, failing to move forward and adopt a platform that is practical with the progression of the world as it has become, rather than pining for the world the way it was in the 1800s.

This is not the Wild West, the South lost the Civil War, and until the party can adopt a stance on addressing issues ranging from foreign policy to crumbling infrastructure, health care reform, the economic downturn, and so on that are more substantial than "keep our nose out of other people's business, cut all the socialist programs, cut taxes, give more power to the states, etc." than I must say that the party as a whole, from the local to the national level, is a sinking ship that is up to its bough in salt-water but none of the crew have seemed to notice.

I'm tired of rhetoric, and solutions to problems that border on elitism or cold-hearted ultra-conservatism. Give me substance, it's what America is looking for right now!

Robert Enders said...

Which particular parts of my last comment do you disagree with? Perhaps I can explain myself further, or you can share your ideas.

To be honest, this is not a foreign policy blog. None of our active local members have run for Congress, but we have run for state rep and city council. We usually focus on domestic issues on this site, since that is where we can have an impact. A good place to read about libertarian views on foreign policy is Reason.com

AA Wulf said...

Robert, you are entirely missing the point. This isn't a foreign policy issue. Although the hypothetical situation posed is one of a foreign dilemma, it could easily be supplanted with our own local issues.

Change "Haiti" to "Fort Wayne" and change the situation to "FEMA has requested us" and you can see that although the scenario has moved location, it hasn't changed. If you can't fix Haiti, you can't fix us. This is why you've lost my vote.

Also, the part I disagree with is this: when we are already in the situation the solution is not "we shouldn't be there to begin with." The solution to fixing the infrastructure in Iraq from this party was "we shouldn't be there." The problems in Afghanistan are easily supplanted with "we shouldn't be there." And the solution to this hypothetical situation is "we shouldn't be there, let them relocate." The fact of the matter is, we are in Iraq, we are in Afghanistan, and in this hypothetical scenario, we are in Haiti. You can't just solve the problem by saying "we shouldn't be here" and leaving. It's NOT an option.

Also, you concede that we handled Katrina wrong, but you don't offer any sort of insight as to how to handle a disaster of such magnitude.

Your solution for Haiti is build more reinforced buildings and let evacuees come here. Where will the money come from? Who will build them? Where will the refugees go? Who will pay to house them until they are able to return or decide to immigrate? In the scenario YOU are in charge of this project, YOU get to decide how it happens.

Maybe the issue is that you can't wrap your mind around the situation because you disagree with the situation. Tough shit. If the nation has decided to do something, your solution can't just be to say "piss off!" I admit, it's not the greatest scenario, but you should, I would think, after this lengthy of a conversation, being the chair of this county's party, be able to come up with some sort of a practical hypothetical response!

I re-iterate, if you can't fix one big city in Haiti, how will you fix the US? How will you fix Indiana? How will you fix Fort Wayne? What happens if we have an epic-scale disaster in Fort Wayne. What happens when a terrorist sets off a bomb downtown at the Summit building and blows all the bridges so that the only means to travel between ends of the city across the rivers is essentially Parkview's helicopter. What do you do? Wait for FEMA and the National Guard to fix it? It's going to take them a week to organize a strategic plan to get temp bridges and helicopters and such set up. What do you do?

The fact you can't solve the hypothetical situation in Haiti leads me to believe you can't solve a real situation here. Based upon your responses to the proposed exercise, your response to mine would be: "we should let people on the north end swim across the rivers to the south where they can reach the air base if they want to leave for another country. If not, to hell with them, let them starve. This isn't our problem, what really needs to happen is the other parties need to get their heads out of their asses and fix it. FEMA will probably drop the ball again, they handled Katrina wrong, sucks to be those victims. Oh, and we should rebuild the Summit building to be more bomb resistant."

Do you understand now why you look like a fool? Scenarios like the one Fozy proposed are a dime a dozen, they happen all over the world, they could happen right here. You were being supplanted into a situation that was happening and asked how to solve it; not being asked how you felt about the situation or why the situation should never be happening. It's a critical thinking exercise, and obviously no one in this party has the ability to do so.

AA Wulf said...

I'll now gladly share how *I* would handle the situation, utilizing what I've learned from bad examples through history, and use it to demonstrate what you unfortunately missed the opportunity to do: display your competence on practical applications of your political ideology!

1) Working with the military occupation to maintain order, I would first work to establish the basic infrastructure necessary to maintain supply chains from ports to the rest of the country without the threat of raiders. This would entail utilizing the military and civilian police forces to protect civilian workers while they restore electricity, water, etc. to the facilities most in need. During this time, large temporary dwellings would need erected around the disaster area to provide homes and services. Those with severe medical injuries should be evacuated back to the US to be treated to reduce stress on the Red Cross and other relief agencies. The agencies would, during this time, remain working with the military occupation, so there would be no confusion as to where the clear chain of command lied. Although the military would now be reporting to and ultimately answering to our team via executive order, we would keep our nose out of their business and allow them to do their job until the occupation could be lifted.

2. With the infrastructure back in place, THEN and only THEN can the occupation be lifted and local civilian governments be elected, as now the fear of a Cuban takeover should be quelled. Military forces could then be reduced and replaced by civilian business investors and planners, working to build both the Haitian government and economy out of the third world. Some military forces would stay to put down rebellions and help the new governments establish legitimacy, as well as continuing to train Haitian forces for police and military defense of their borders.

3. Once local independent governments were in place, those governments could then elect representatives to a national level where a constitution could be drafted and legitimacy established. Once the national military and policing forces were sufficient to maintain order within the new government and economic sectors, the remaining forces could be pulled out.

4. Civilian leaders would remain behind advising businesses and the government until such a time that their nation saw itself out of its time of disaster. Once more reinforced buildings and infrastructure were completed in the disaster zone and other potentially dangerous areas, once loans were being repaid and Haiti was becoming a profitable trading partner, then these civilian advisers could be sent elsewhere or transitioned into US ambassadors to/from Haiti for the State Dept.

AA Wulf said...

And finally, as I won't be responding any further, I'll explain that my response is very libertarian and can be applied here at home.

First, utilizing the military both abroad and at home when building infrastructure is the wisest thing to do. They are expertly trained engineers and problem solvers. Use them. There is nothing un-libertarian about this. They are already there in the scenario, use them. They are already here at home, use them.

Second, establishing strong and independently sustainable local and provincial governments is essential to a strong nation as evidenced by our own constitution and virtually every representative democracy the world over. It is also extremely libertarian. Here at home, we should be striving to achieve more independently sustainable local and state governments rather than whining about how our federal government just gets more and more centralized and powerful. You can't decentralize power without taking initiative on the local level to ween away from dependence upon centralization!

Thirdly, rebuilding security threats (in this scenario, Haiti had become a security threat to our own borders because Cuba was looking to invade them, hence the occupation) into allies and trading partners seems not just libertarian but also morally sound. We should be obligated as the superpower we are to bring the third world up from its downtrodden corruption or starvation and build them into nations who support us and offer us free trade. It's a sound investment for the future, particularly if these nations are ultimately national security threats. These threats present us with the opportunity to meet our obligation without international incident, and to invest in our former enemies to bring them into the fold of allied free trade partners. It's sound both economically and ethically.

So there you are, practical solutions, practical applications of our ideals, and practical means to bring the scenario back home to local and domestic issues.

Maybe *I* should be running for office. But then, I'd have to deal with party members who have neither a practical application for anything nor a backbone to leave their comments up when backed into a corner.

Robert Enders said...

Rebuilding Haiti is a completely different differently scenario than rebuilding Fort Wayne. The language barrier is less of a problem here. Haiti has less infrastructure to begin with. Haiti is on an island while Fort Wayne is on a continent. The US military cannot be used as law enforcement on US soil.

The reason why I would decline an appointment to make decisions regarding Haiti is because foreign policy is beyond my area of expertise. Responsible adults leave certain matters to certain experts.

A terror attack on Fort Wayne (extremely improbable IMHO) would be something I'd be able to deal with. Take your bridge scenario for example. I am an EMT and a private security officer, so this is something I can talk about without sounding like an idiot.

If we lose all the bridge in town, that would mean an emergency in which all nonessential travel would stop. We argue about what's "essential" later, but let's focus on dealing with those Summit building casualties. We'd have to set up a triage center nearby, maybe in the library. Normally trauma patients are sent to Parkview, but in this case they would have to be routed to St Joe Hospital. Stable patients could be transported by boat. How's that for a start?

If you really want to run for office, I am open to the idea. What office did you have in mind?