HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

Kevin Drum first pointed out this slightly insane post today from Instapundit. Now... I don't normally read what he has to say, because frankly I don't think that posts consisting of a single link and the word "Indeed" or "Heh" are really worth paying much attention to. But Kevin's link got my attention, because well...

It seems that Glenn was arguing in favor of the West invading the Middle East for its oil. Or rather, to be more precise, that through his post he was showing the "vacuity of the "imperialist oppressors" language." Or something. I wasn't entirely sure, but it was odd enough for me to go take a look. At which point I found this second update:

I do think that seizing Saudi and Iranian oil would be entirely morally justifiable on terms usually approved of by the left: They didn't earn it, they inherited it (it's like the Estate Tax writ large!). They're extracting huge profits for fatcats at the expense of the poor. They're racist, sexist, homophobic theocrats! (Literally!) Surely if it's ever permissible to redistibute wealth by force, this is the case. Right? [...]But practicalities aside, the point is -- why isn't war for oil not only morally permissible, but morally required, if the forcible redistibution of wealth in other ways (including "windfall profit" taxes -- or Evo Morales' seizure of natural gas wells in Bolivia) is OK?

Somehow all of this nonsensical gibberish is meant to demonstrate that to the left, its "not about practicalities, but philosophies."

I'm sorry, but is this what passes for logic at the University of Tennessee? Really? I mean, I fully recognize that its what passes for logic nowadays on the right, but I would have expected more from a law professor at a major state university.

I don't have time for a thorough response to this nonsense, but let me try a short version:

Glenn's line of reasoning equating invasions for oil with the Estate Tax is only valid if the Estate Tax were to confiscate through the use of force 100% of a person's estate before they had died. Which, of course, it doesn't.

Furthermore... Yes, oil revenues fund some absolutely awful regimes. And yes, in an ideal world, we would figure out a way to cut off those funds. But only the most narrow minded of thinkers would suggest that we have but two option: life "as is" or invasion. Perhaps a third way would be better? Perhaps, oh, I don't know... Perhaps we could begin working to transition to a non-oil based economy?

--------