The suggestion that past actions should not have consequences in the present (it’s just not FAIR!) is a mutation of Moral Relativism: “They didn’t do anything wrong in any real sense; that’s just our opinion, and thus not a valid basis for discussion.”

Your problem is you have yet to provide a superior alternative which is empirically verifiable.

Unless:

Empirically Verifiable = Based entirely on Faith

Why?

I thought the idea of a republic was that representatives were supposed to do as they saw fit and then voters could turn them out at their discretion.

I like this: “If there’s anything a libertarian should know, it’s that the apparent reason for action by a politican is rarely the real reason.” I’ve been wanting to say this forever but couldn’t put it into words, thanks!

In other words, just because someone walks out of a bank holding cash in his/her hand, doesn’t mean he/she just robbed the bank.

I would like to remember you that for Christmas make an intelligent present is mandatory.

I would like to remember you that your company may grow up if you promote it doing something good for all.

By the way instead of making silly presents or nothing at all, you can help people spend only few money buying presents in good ethical products made by people of poor countries.

By the way instead of giving a diamond to your wife you can give a surgical operation to a child that absolutely needs it, or a year of scholastic education to a whole children class in India or Africa.

I give you one of the many possible chances that I like, whith no intermediates and wastes: just go to the site of The Shantidhara Social Servcice Society, (click here
http://www.shantidhara.org/) and let you give a school to thousands children with a small donation;

they are used to do everything with only few money.

Here many other ways to start immediately and be useful to everyone: http://www.liberaassociazioneilpopolo.it/inglese/attivazioneimmediata.html

I know problably you know and do these things, but don’t be afraid to talk about it with your friends!

So do your own act; because it’s easy to talk to stop wars, but where you don’t sow love, there is only hate that grows up.

Domenico Schietti
2010 Poverty Elimination
http://www.liberaassociazioneilpopolo.it/

I think it is perfectly reasonable to take this into account when handing out contracts. Wayne is correct in his assertions.

In terms of Haliburton, it seems like there’s a degree of double standards being used here as concerns business ethics. In the private market Andersen:Enron scandal, the prime problem was tied to several factors. Lack of appearance of and actual independence, lack of objectivity and conflicts of interest even appearing to stretch back to the Federal Government. Those standards that are applied to private firms do not seem to be regarded for Haliburton due in part to the extensive links between it and senior government figures.

Moderate libertarian philosophy itself calls for a limited state and separation of it from interest groups that both promote socialist objectives, as well as business interests that promote ‘rent-seeking’ – the currying of economic protection and favour against free market objectives. Haliburton falls into this category.

So in terms of Haliburton, their own behaviour and involvement is inherently not free market. The allegations and reports are then symptoms of the well documented and often repeated trait of rent-seeking and political corruption that is an inherent risk in all government contracts. Haliburton therefore should never have been involved in these contract in any regard, in the same way that several sectors of private economies are either required by law or private policy to avoid wanton nepotism. Nepotism that then feeds back to destroy the free market ideal and efficient government.

In terms of the barring of companies from France and Germany from bidding several people have argued about over-subsidizing of those companies by those governments. Essentially what I understand rankles most is a perception of the French and German governments having taken a morally idealistic stance on the war (while actually having ulterior political motives), and then sitting back and reaping profits from US lives and taxpayer expense on the war with Iraq.

When it comes to awarding of these government contracts, the example of Haliburton demonstrates a need for the awarding to be properly regulated to prevent corruption. This can include inserting stipulations that companies receiving these contracts must not receive any government subsidies, before or after, or carry either a perceived or actual lack of indepence from governments to qualify. This is after all a great aid to libertarian principles of forcing the Federal State to be more efficient as well as promoting proper competition in these contracts – which then benefits taxpayers. It would also allay concerns about ‘immoral’ French or German officials and prominent personalities unfairly profiting on the blood of US soldiers and the taxes of US citizens.

The problem is whether many of the countries whose companies that are allowed to bid, would qualify either based on this. It is after all not just France or Germany that supply socialistic support to their companies after all, but includes those countries allowed to bid as well. It would also be richly ironic if such governments attempt to subsidize these firms with, say, $51 million, to win a $50 million contract where there is very little profit margin and high risk of loss. That is then the destruction of value, a well known flaw of socialism I’m sure that is known by many here. This is tied to the philosophy of how the free market and free trade leads to prosperity and the above opposite destroys it.

French and German companies that are therefore distinct and fully independent from their government should therefore be able to compete – as it should apply to those already allowed to bid. Further, nations, peoples and companies are not one homogenous mass – it is socialistic policy that sees it this way and those companies that are independent did not necessarily vote for or win political power on the back of encouraging anti-American feeling. The primary concern should therefore be how wasteful those firms that are competing for the contracts are, which is tied to the above.

So in conclusion, the US shouldn’t entirely exclude German, French, Russian or Chinese companies from the process. However it should bar those with links to their governments regardless of the matter of Iraq itself – the same as it should do with its own companies and those of its allies – and as it should have done with Haliburton.

Then again, as others have also suggested, perhaps a wider political gambit is under way.

What a hoot! This is the best entertainment I have had in a long time! Somebody pass the popcorn…

It’s corrupt for the Goverment to use that money for patronage purposes.

Of course, It seems to me that to the extent that you can spend the money using an Iraqi labor force, and Iraqi materials, it does double duty. So that probably ought to be the priority whenever possible.

Radley Balko over at the Agitator makes a very persuasive libertarian case for opening contracts to everyone. From a market perspective, he’s right. His argument is here. This is where I break off from my normal free market leanings. We have a pool of …