Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Libertarians Join Anti-War Protests
Libertarian Party website ^ | January 21, 2003

Posted on 01/29/2003 10:51:42 PM PST by Commie Basher

[January 21] Libertarians took part in a major anti-war march in the nation's capital on January 18.

More than a dozen Libertarians carried signs and chanted slogans as they marched with more than 100,000 other demonstrators from the National Mall to the Navy Yards in Southeast Washington, DC.

"We can't let the liberals and lefties be the only ones getting the message out," said Carol Moore, who coordinated the Libertarian effort.

According to the group that organized the rally, A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism), the goal of the march was to show opposition to "[President George W.] Bush's criminal war that seeks to conquer the oil, land, and resources of the Middle East."

Speakers at the march included Rev. Al Sharpton (National Action Network), Jessica Lange (actress), Ron Kovic (author, Born on the Fourth of July), Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Free Palestine Alliance, the New York Youth Bloc, and the Partnership for Civil Justice.

The march included "lots of peaceniks who'd be open to libertarian ideas if anyone ever told them they exist," said Moore.

In Nevada, Libertarians joined more than 500 other protesters at an anti-war demonstration in Reno on January 18.

The rally, sponsored by the Reno Anti-War Coalition, was held at the Manzanita Bowl at the University of Nevada.

Libertarians participated to show opposition to the USA's interventionist foreign policy and to the fact that U.S. troops are stationed in about 100 countries, said Nevada LP State Chair Brendan Trainor.

"We have troops in Iceland. Are we protecting them from Greenland?" he said. "The military shouldn't protect foreign investments."

If some Americans want to topple Saddam Hussein, they should volunteer to fight the Iraqi dictator, as individuals did with the Lincoln Brigade to fight fascism in Spain from 1936-1939, said Trainor.

Protesters at the rally carried signs that said, "American's don't shoot first" and "Peace is patriotic."


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: libertarians
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720721-729 last
To: Commie Basher
"War now, or the entire planet will be speaking Farsi, or whatever they speak there."


You've obviously never read some of the Islamic writings. YES they want and envision an entire planet of Islam, not just a nation. And according to them, the Q'uran states that they have to kill all non belivers or converts to the faith.
721 posted on 02/01/2003 9:38:19 PM PST by txradioguy (HOOAH! Not just a word, A way of life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: CzarChasm
the LP is seriously divided over the war on terror and/or the upcoming war on iraq; most favor both, but the magrin is thin

You're wrong on that. I've been a dues-paying LP member for some 15 years. While most bloggers who enjoy calling themselves libertarian favor war, a clear majority of card-carrying, dues-paying LP members favor peace.

722 posted on 02/01/2003 10:39:35 PM PST by Commie Basher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 718 | View Replies]

To: Commie Basher
Wow! "More than a dozen Libertarians carried signs and chanted slogans as they marched with more than 100,000 other demonstrators from the National Mall to the Navy Yards in Southeast Washington, DC."
That's the first time such a large number of libertarians agreed on anything before!
723 posted on 02/02/2003 3:04:46 PM PST by thegreatbeast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

To: Commie Basher
You're wrong on that.

Info source: Libertarian Party News [the national LP newsletter], January 2003, Page 23, "The Pulse":

...LP News readers disagreed with the assumption that a first strike on Iraq is unlibertarian. Loudly. In fact, fully 45.5% of respondents said they support such military action...[caveat: unscientific poll]...Meanwhile, another 45.5% of readers agreed that the party should work to stop an attack on Iraq...and 9% gave ambiguous answers, or said the LP should duck the issue altogether.

Let's hear it for the ambiguous 9% ;-)

One of the attractions of the libertarian view is that it is possible to work out one's position on most issues from first principles; this is easiest to do with complete information regarding direct causes and effects. Unfortunately in this case we have incomplete information and indirect causes and effects. Personally, I believe that Iraq has been supporting terrorists for years, and even exporting terrorism to the US on occasion. In addition, if Iraq was behind the attempt on Bush-41's in Kuwait a few years ago, that alone was an act of war.

Therefore we're already at war with Iraq (and others to be announced as we go along, of course), so we should finish it before Saddam gets any stronger. Perhaps this will inflame others to seek retribution, perhaps this will influence others to seek more peaceful means of cooperation, perhaps it will inspire others to throw off their repressive regimes instead of blaming their troubles on us. Perhaps it will set off Armageddon. Or perhaps it will prevent it, for a while. Such considerations are infinite and yield nothing but analysis paralysis; IMHO time is not on our side.

I don't like where this might lead [c.f. Orwell], but see no alternative at present that is not significantly worse. The problem with waiting for a 'smoking gun' is that it usually means someone got shot.

724 posted on 02/02/2003 7:58:28 PM PST by CzarChasm (My opinion. No charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

To: CzarChasm
I attend libertarian meetings in southern California about twice a month -- have been doing so for years. The hawks are largely outnumbered, yet always nervously insisting that the war is something that libertarians are divided over.

I was at a debate on the war, that was being audiotaped. A hawk was speaking, and asked for a show of hands of those who supported the war. He then announced, "So, a clear majority." Yet I counted less than half the room for the war.

I wasn't quick on my feet though. It didn't occur to me that the meeting was being audiotaped. I, or someone, should have stated for the record that the hands did not represent "a clear majority." Yet now his statement is on the taped record, with no other evidence.

The LP hawks are a devious bunch. I assume that unscientific LP poll was taken by a hawk.

725 posted on 02/02/2003 10:42:22 PM PST by Commie Basher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: Commie Basher
I assume that unscientific LP poll was taken by a hawk

You know what happens when you assume... ;-)

P.S. California is not the nation. Thank God.

726 posted on 02/03/2003 9:00:13 PM PST by CzarChasm (My opinion. No charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 725 | View Replies]

To: ravinson
but it's not "voluntary" for Americans who don't want to end up penniless and in federal prison for refusing to pay for it.

On the bright side, America will never have to worry about dealing with a "Libertarian Revolution." Who would finance such a thing? No self-respecting Libertarian would want to be accused of paying for anything beyond his or her own immediate personal needs.

727 posted on 02/05/2003 2:24:23 AM PST by powderhorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: powderhorn
On the bright side, America will never have to worry about dealing with a "Libertarian Revolution." Who would finance such a thing? No self-respecting Libertarian would want to be accused of paying for anything beyond his or her own immediate personal needs.

You couldn't be more wrong. The American Revolution was much closer to a libertarian revolution than the socialist revolutions you obviously favor. The Reagan Revolution (i.e. lowered taxes and decreased regulation) was also largely libertarian. Only a socialist like you would believe that people are more likely to help others and look beyond their immediate needs when they are forced to by the government.

728 posted on 02/05/2003 4:36:43 AM PST by ravinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | View Replies]

To: powderhorn; ravinson; CzarChasm; txradioguy; Commie Basher
"America will never have to worry about dealing with a 'Libertarian Revolution.'" ~ powderhorn

Actually, the headline should read, "LiberTINES Join Anti-War Protests".

To have an orderly, decent society there must be standards.

America's founding fathers were *Christian* libertarians, believing in INTERNAL (self) restraint.

Laws are only for the lawless, and UNrestrained - those will no self-control - those with no rule over themselves.

The rule is simple: Control yourself, or BE controlled; there *is* no liberty without personal responsibility.

"In terms of population alone, a high percentage of the pre-revolutionary American colonies were of Puritan-Calvinist background. There were around three million persons in the thirteen original colonies by 1776, and perhaps as many as two-thirds of these came from some kind of Calvinist or Puritan connection" (Douglas F. Kelly, The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern World — (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992), p. 120.

"The U.S. Constitution is a Calvinist's document through and through."

And because of that, they made sure that in America, one man’s liberty will not depend upon another man’s (religious) conscience (as in Europe)!

Dr. George Bancroft, arguably the most prominent American historian of the 19th century — and not a Calvinist — stated:

"He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty"

The 55 Framers (from North to South):

John Langdon, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Nicholas Gilman, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Elbridge Gerry, Episcoplian (Calvinist)
Rufus King, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Caleb Strong, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Nathaniel Gorham, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Roger Sherman, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
William Samuel Johnson, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Oliver Ellsworth, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Alexander Hamilton, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
John Lansing, Dutch Reformed (Calvinist)
Robert Yates, Dutch Reformed (Calvinist)
William Patterson, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
William Livingston, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Jonathan Dayton, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
David Brearly, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
William Churchill Houston, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Benjamin Franklin, Christian in his youth, Deist in later years, then back to his Puritan background in his old age (his June 28, 1787 prayer at the Constitutional Convention was from no "Deist")
Robert Morris, Episcopalian, (Calvinist)
James Wilson, probably a Deist
Gouverneur Morris, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Thomas Mifflin, Lutheran (Calvinist-lite)
George Clymer, Quaker turned Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Thomas FitzSimmons, Roman Catholic
Jared Ingersoll, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
John Dickinson, Quaker turned Episcopalian (Calvinist)
George Read, Episcopalian, (Calvinist)
Richard Bassett, Methodist
Gunning Bedford, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Jacob Broom, Lutheran
Luther Martin, Episcopalian, (Calvinist)
Daniel Carroll, Roman Catholic
John Francis Mercer, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
James McHenry, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Daniel of St Thomas Jennifer, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
George Washington, Episcopalian (Calvinist; no, he was not a deist)
James Madison, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
George Mason, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Edmund Jennings Randolph, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
James Blair, Jr., Episcopalian (Calvinist)
James McClung, ?
George Wythe, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
William Richardson Davie, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Hugh Williamson, Presbyterian, possibly later became a Deist
William Blount, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Alexander Martin, Presbyterian/Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Jr., Episcopalian (Calvinist)
John Rutledge, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, III, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Abraham Baldwin, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
William Leigh Pierce, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
William Houstoun, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
William Few, Methodist

Even some "four score"-odd years later, the supposedly "non-christian" Abraham Lincoln offered the positively Biblical and very Reformed covenantal view of the Sovereign of the Nations and Ruler of history:

"It is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon. And to recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord." (Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation, October 3, 1863. bold emphasis mine).

INTRODUCTION TO THE LIBERTY PRINCIPLES IN AMERICAN POLITICS
by Stephen L. Corrigan - http://w3.one.net/~stephenc/fun.html

The founders of the United States of America believed that all men were created with equal authority. Thus they declared the following principle as the foundation of their political union. They said:

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The founders also believed that this concept of equal authority was taught in the Bible. They used Sir Walter Blackstone’s Commentary on Law to explain and illustrate this Biblical concept. The following is from Blackstone's "Commentary on Law" concerning the equality of mankind at creation:

"If man were to live in a state of nature, unconnected with other individuals, there would be no occasion for any other laws, than the law of nature, and the law of God. Neither could any other law possibly exist; for a law always supposes some superior who is to make it; and in a state of nature we are all equal, without any other superior but him who is also the author of our being."

This phrase "law of nature" was explained by Blackstone a little earlier in his "Commentary on Law" in the following manner:

"This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."

The founders identified the 13 colonies of their union as "Free Protestant". As Protestants, their Declaration in 1776 that "all men are created equal (in authority) " was consistent with the doctrine of their founder, the man who first openly protested the hierarchy of men (the pope and priests in the Roman Chatholic Church) over Christians. His name was Martin Luther. He was a Roman Catholic priest from Germany who began the "Protestant Reformation". He stated the following:

"I say, then, neither pope, nor bishop, nor any man whatever has the right of making one syllable binding on a Christian man, unless it be done with his own consent.

Whatever is done otherwise is done in the spirit of tyranny...I cry aloud on behalf of liberty and conscience, and I proclaim with confidence that no kind of law can with any justice be imposed on Christians, except so far as they themselves will; for we are free from all."

As Protestant Christians, the founders believed that all Christians were in a covenant relationship with God the Father made possible through Jesus Christ. Because of that covenant, they felt that every Christian was obligated to follow at least the minimum of God 's Revealed Will (THE TEN COMMANDMENTS) found in His Holy printed Word. This belief was to be the foundation for order in all communities in America. This belief that God revealed his will directly to all believers regardless of sex was later known by the Free Protestants who came to America in 1620 as the "Priesthood of the Believer".

By accepting God's precepts as the standard for their consciences, they believed that God alone gave them liberty.

Because dictionaries did not exist at the time of the Declaration of Independence, the only way one could determine how Liberty in America was defined both religiously and politically was to look at the only religious source that was to be accepted by all free Protestants. Once that source was determined and an examination of the political documents that had been written at that time had been made, it was a very simple task to determine how the founders applied their religious liberty politically. The only religious book at that time was the "The King James Version" of the Bible.

Let us see how Liberty is defined in this version of the Holy Scriptures. It is found in Psalms 119:45 :

"And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts."

Because the founders were "free Protestant" concerning their view of the Gospel and how it was to be spread in the world, they adopted a form of political union for their colonies that was taken from the Old World. It was not inconsistent with their religious views concerning associations. The type of political Union that was adopted by the first colonies in America was the "Confederation". This type of union allowed them to unite as a single union FOR SECURITY but allowed them to retain their right of sovereignty as Christians and their right of sovereignty to exist as 'free Protestant" colonies.

The first Confederation was formed in 1643. As we examine a portion of their Charter , we can gain a clear view of how they viewed their religious liberty politically. Again because there were no dictionaries at that time, this is the only source to see how liberty was view in America.

It proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that they continued the belief of the pilgrims identifying God not man as the author and giver of their liberties.

The following portion in that Charter clearly reflects the purpose of the American Confederation and souce of their Liberties. This, by the way is the same Confederation that fought the Revolutionary War:

Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace;

For our founders, one man’s liberty did not rest upon another man’s conscience. Each citizen had the right to program his conscience according to the standards he felt were true and to live his life as his conscience dictated in his pursuit for happiness. Again Blackstone speaks on the subject of pursuing happiness.

"For he (God) has so intimately connected, so inseparably inter-woven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former; and, if the former be punctually obeyed, it cannnot but induce the latter."

They believed that God gave life to all men and with that life the opportunity to follow him. As believers, they believed that they had a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of their fellow Americans against all tyranny and that each citizen should have the right as a priest to pursue happiness according to the dictates of his own conscience.

"League of Friendship" identified the religious and political principles that were in their Confederation as colonies. Those same principles are identified when they again refer to their Confederation of free States as a"League of Friendship" (see Articles of the Confederation). As Christians, they defined the obligation of their sacred friendship in the following manner. In John 15:13 of the New Testament, Jesus made this statement to his followers:

"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."

Those founders considered the cost of belonging to the Union that they had created and determined that the treasure for their children was well worth the price. Thus they asked God for the following condition as they pledged their support to one another to protect the Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness of their fellow Americans. They asked God to keep them honest by holding them accountable for what they were about to pledge. They then pledged the following:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare:

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Rights of Conscience is the foundation of American Politics. Many Christians in America were worried at the time when the U.S. Constitution was passed and feared that their right to let God govern their conscience might be replaced by the authority given to Congress as the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Thomas Jefferson was aware of their concerns and wrote the following:

"No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the power of its public functionaries..."

(Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church at New London, Connecticut, Feb. 4, 1809).

In America, one man’s liberty is not dependent upon another man’s conscience!

729 posted on 02/14/2003 7:04:26 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Male pacifists have been feminized-Pacifism doesn't come *naturally* to MEN.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720721-729 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson