Constitution Class taught by Michael Badnarik

The Internet Archive ^ | ??/??/2003

[Montresor]

Libertarians have it figured out. They just need to be a little more reasonable and apply a realist foriegn policy to their platform.

Anyway check out this video http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?collection=election_2004&collectionid=Michael_Badnarik

Seven part series....quite good

also check out:

Living Within Our Means with Milton Friedman: http://www.archive.org/movies/movies-details-db.php?collection=open_mind&collectionid=openmind_ep494&from=BA

[malakhi]

Afghanistan is not in the Middle East.

We were discussing Iraq, no?

Afghanistan was targeted because it was the primary state host of al Qaeda.

My theory is that there is a group of Utopian ideologues who really did think that we would be greeted with open arms as liberators.

You're full of theories, I see.

I don't think they had any delusions about our situation. Their view wasn't as rosy as you make it out to be, and the reality isn't as bleak as you paint it. Most Iraqis are glad to be rid of Hussein. The opponents of the new regime are a minority, and are supported not by average Iraqis, but by jihadists from other countries.

Well how is that working?

Seems to be working just fine to me.

Our chances of pacifying the situation and staying there permanently are nil.

You really seem to have bought in to the MSM spin. Funny how paleoconservative rhetoric becomes indistinguishable from that of the anti-war left.

The notion that you can just uproot American style democracy and at the point of a gun plant it anywhere on the globe is Utopian and hopelessly naive about human nature.

Yeah, it certainly failed in Germany and Japan.

Why Pres. Bush was so easily dragged into this thing by his neocon war wing is what I do not know?

He was "dragged" into it? He doesn't think for himself? Perhaps the President has a different outlook on the world than you do.

I just think we need to expose the utter foolishness of the neocon dogma and return conservatism to its isolationistic roots.

Good luck with that.

Would you support invading Iran and/or Syria?

If necessary.

I don't think it will be necessary.

[Red Phillips]

How do you know that the only people who oppose us are foreign jihadist, former Bathist, Saddam loyalist, etc.? Because that is what the Administration and Fox news tells you? Almost all Shiite and Kurds are glad to see Saddam gone certainly, but that does not mean they are glad we are still or ever were there. Not sure what percentage of Sunnies are glad he is gone. If America was invaded by Canada so they could impose universal health care on us, would those who resisted occupation be terrorist, or HMO loyalist, or former Republicans. No they would be what we call patriots. How do you know the resistance isn't just your man on the street Iraqi who wants the foreign invader to get out of his country? Don't we still look with contempt on the French who cooperated with the Nazi occupiers?

Germany was historically Christian, Western and European. But like the rest of Europe it has very quickly drifted to Socialism. Japan was none of those things but it was a stable, ancient, ethnically homogeneous, hierarchal society. Asian countries other than China have proven themselves capable of democracy. Although there is a great deal of state intervention in the economy, a different emphasis than European Socialism, but still certainly not American style free market conservatism. But neither happened without a great deal of time and treasure from us.

Regarding the situation in Iraq. It is not really one country. Its current lines were drawn on a map as the British departed their ultimately unsuccessful occupation as well. It is a Kurdish north, Sunni center, and Shiite south. It is inherently unstable an was held together by a strong armed dictator. When we leave, it is bound to break out in civil war just as the former Yugoslavia did when Tito died. We should accept this and go on and divide it up and quit trying to protect its "territorial integrity" which is a fiction anyway. Of course we will not because the Shiite south would ally or merge with Iran and the Turks would not stand for a Kurdish homeland, because it would cause further unrest among their oppressed Kurdish minority who are yearning to be free. Gee. This making the world safe for democracy is complicated stuff.

What would make invading Iran or Syria necessary? If Iran gets the nuke, would you invade? I still am not sure you have answered the question about what necessitated war on Iraq.

[malakhi]

How do you know that the only people who oppose us are foreign jihadist, former Bathist, Saddam loyalist, etc.?

I don't recall any reports of Tibetan Buddhists or Australian aborigenes being killed or captured in Iraq.

No they would be what we call patriots.

Go read the reports coming out of Fallujah, and tell me with a straight face that these terrorists are "patriots". The "patriot" label, by the way, is exactly what Michael Moore called them back in April. Thought you might like to know what sort of company you are placing yourself in.

What would make invading Iran or Syria necessary?

If they are perceived as posing a serious threat to our security and interests.

I still am not sure you have answered the question about what necessitated war on Iraq.

You know the answer, you just think -- with the benefit of hindsight -- that the answer was wrong.

[malakhi]

Oh, and I personally would have no objection to the partitioning of Iraq and a redrawing of the borders along more reasonable ethnographic lines. But there are practical reasons why such is unlikely. The Turks would oppose a Kurdish state in the north, and a Shia state in the south would likely fall into the sway of Iran. We have to deal with realities, not how we wish things would be.

[Commie Basher]

I agree we were largely isolationist until 1889 if you don't count that little invasion of the free and sovereign nation of the Confederacy.

Ah, a LewRockwell.com reader, I presume? :-)

[Red Phillips]

malakhi,
You are being evasive and a bit too clever. Obviously you know I was not suggesting that the insurgents were Tibetan. Here is a simple question which you can evade if you like but it would really help out the debate if you would not. If Canada invaded the US and you were part of the resistance, would you be a terrorist or a patriot?

Micheal Moore is a liberal and his treatment of a senile Charlton Heston was despicable. But he is an honest liberal. I have more respect for honest liberals like Moore or Nader than I do liberals who claim to be conservatives like Frum, Brooks, Goldberg, etc. Maybe you should be concerned with who you are associated with.

CB, is it always this lonely on this forum?

[ohioman]

The fact that you have respect for a traitor like Michael Moore, says a lot about your own character. Being of such a low character, You will always feel lonely here on FR.

[Red Phillips]

So I guess you are OK with Brooks who just wrote a big piece on the future of conservatism. How we should give up our fixation on small government. There is no conservatism without small government. Brooks is a traitor to conservatism. I said I have more respect for liberals who admit they are liberals than I do liberals who lie and claim to be conservatives. What does that say about my character? That I like honesty and hate deceit. My reference to loneliness was, is it always so lonely for us foreign policy isolationist, the real conservative position?

Don't quickly read something and then be so hasty with your judgment. The point of my remark was clear within the whole context of the thread.

[malakhi]

If Canada invaded the US and you were part of the resistance, would you be a terrorist or a patriot?

I guess it depends if I acted like a terrorist or a patriot. If I fought against the invading army to defend my country, I'd be a patriot -- or a militant or resister, from the standpoint of the invading army. If, on the other hand, I and others seized a middling-sized city (say, around 300,000 people), and proceeded to impose my rule by murder and intimidation of the civilian population, that would make me a terrorist.

The thugs who controlled Fallujah the past several months did so against the will of the people, using brute force to impose a Taliban-like regime. I have no problem calling these people "terrorists".

Question: do you accept the legitimacy of the Allawi government?

I have more respect for honest liberals like Moore or Nader

Honest? HONEST? I'd hope you are joking, but from your previous posts on this thread I know better.

[Red Phillips]

They are honest meaning not that they never lie, although I have no reason to believe Nader lies any more than the next guy, but that they are honest about who they are. (Nader did exaggerate the dangers of the Corvair.) They are liberals and they admit it. Not something I can say for Brooks, et. al.

There is more danger to the conservative movement from wolves in sheep's clothing than wolves in wolves' clothing.

No I do not accept the legitimacy of the Allawi government any more than I would accept the legitimacy of a post Canadian invasion installed leader in America. That is part of the problem. It is impossible to install a government after you invade some place that has any legitimacy in the eyes of the people. Would you accept it if they installed Kerry or Hillary?

We have no way of knowing to what degree the people of Fallujah or any other city do or do not support the insurgents. I do not accept at face value characterizations like that coming from the administration, since they obviously have a reason to characterize it that way. The man on the street Iraqi does want us to leave. Polls have shown that.

[malakhi]

There is more danger to the conservative movement from wolves in sheep's clothing than wolves in wolves' clothing.

How do you, personally, define "conservative"?

No I do not accept the legitimacy of the Allawi government any more than I would accept the legitimacy of a post Canadian invasion installed leader in America. That is part of the problem. It is impossible to install a government after you invade some place that has any legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

How about after elections are held? Will you accept the legitimacy of the government then?

Was Saddam Hussein's government "legitimate"?

The man on the street Iraqi does want us to leave. Polls have shown that.

You reject the "characterizations" of the administration because you suspect them of bias. Yet you accept these polls at face value. What makes you think those taking those polls are free of underlying motives?

[CWOJackson]

Do you recall that Freeper who used to teach a Constitutional Class; the one who murdered the police officer. What was his name?

[malakhi]

Took some digging, but I found it. His name was Don Matthews. This thread discusses the murder and contains links to additional threads about it.

[CWOJackson]

Thank you. I've long found out that many who drape themselves in the Constitution are it's greatest enemies. I have no reason to believe that Badnarik is any more principled then Matthews was.

[Red Phillips]

Defining conservative is difficult because it has two senses. Technically it means generally favoring the old and established against the new. In a very technical sense, meaning the rigorous maintenance of the status quo, The GOP is profoundly conservative. It likes leaving most things just the way they are and not rocking the boat. But their is also an ideological sense to the word. In America it has generally meant favoring small, limited government, free markets, and Christian moral values. So if it is about preserving the old, part of the question is where do you draw the line. I believe part of the problem is that people have been drawing that line more recently. Does it start with Goldwater, or Reagan, or the Contract With America. If it should be before that, and I say it should, then another problem is just where do you draw the line. I happen to be one of those conservatives who believes the Anti-Federalist were closer to correct than the Federalist. I would be happy to bring back the Articles of Confederation. But that is a debate for another thread. Since I am a reasonable man, I will concede that the Constitution should be one of the places where we draw that line. I do not believe following the Constitution is optional. If the Constitution doesn't authorize it, and it doesn't authorize the vast majority of what we spend now, the Fed. Government shouldn't do it. So some good litmus tests would be real conservatives want to abolish Social Security, pseudocons want to reform it. Real conservatives want to abolish the income tax, pseudocons, want to cut marginal rates. I could go on but you get the point. (I much prefer the term pseudocon to neocon because neocon now has so much baggage and it is misleading since they are not conservatives at all.) Another thing that all conservatives in the American tradition should agree, and this has gotten me in trouble on other threads, is that they must concede the right of secession. So ironically, since real conservatives want to preserve or restore this ancient tradition that we have gotten so far away from, they actually are radicals. Sounds contradictory but it is not when you think in terms of the idealogical sense of the word.

An elected gov. of Iraq would be about as legitimate as it could get under the circumstances, but I would not be happy until it protected the rights of the Christian minority and it must allow for secession of the Kurds and Shiite if they so desire.

No I do not consider Saddam's regime legitimate. I just think it is the duty of Iraqis, and Iraqis alone, to overthrow him.

And you are absolutely correct, I have no reason to believe the poles other than trusting the integrity of the pollster. The Admin. clearly has a self interest in presenting things one way, the pollster may or may not. Maybe they are an antiwar liberal, I don't know.

[malakhi]

Good post, Red. In terms of domestic issues and strict constructionism, we are very much in agreement.

[Republican Wildcat]

It is not providing for our common defense to topple dictators we don't like in distant foreign lands.

A very wise view - if this were the 18th century, which it is not.

[Republican Wildcat]

I just think it is the duty of Iraqis, and Iraqis alone, to overthrow him.

LOL! You are kidding, right?