Defense of Liberty

Yup. I am not saying it's desirable, just that it is not a violation of rights.

OWK and I have a little project: an oath of citizenship needs to be reintroduced, so that those who reach maturity, regardless of place of birth and the status of the parents, would swear their consent to the constitution. Those who don't consent don't enjoy the benefits of citizenship. For example, the police department sends them a bill for the amount of police protection they consumed, and they can't vote or get elected.

Combine that with a national ID card, and you get a wholly legitimate system form the perspective of rights, although I suspect that a class of conscientious non-citizens will be quite large.

Maybe it's the streak of anarchist in me that makes me shiver over oaths of citizenship and any form of national ID. Not sure if its a violation of rights or not, but it sure is not conducive to freedom as the founders would view it, either, IMHO.

Robert A. Heinlein wrote somewhere, probably in the notebooks of Lazarus Long, that anytime a place gets crowded enough to require IDs, social collapse is not far away and it is time to go elsewhere. Of course his "elsewhere" was somewhere space travel could take the character he spoke through, so we really don't have an "elsewhere" to go to. I would rather fight for bringing the country I live in back to it's constitutional roots and bring back the individual freedom the founders fought for and sought for its citizens.

Maybe it's the streak of anarchist in me that makes me shiver over oaths of citizenship and any form of national ID.

I myself have not advocated oaths of citizenship, or national ID cards.

I have however, advocated voluntary confederations for the mutual defense for rights (entered into by voluntary contract upon reaching the age of majority).

The only moral means of interaction among men is by mutual consent. In order for any governmental structure to be morally legitimate, it must be consented to (and funded) voluntarily by all it's participants. One potential method by which a structure might be administered, would be to afford each potential participant the opportunity to enter into voluntary constitutional contract (promising to make himself available for defense, jury duty, and even funding for example) upon reaching the age of majority. In exchange, he might recieve the voting franchise.

There would remain many details to work out, but I think this basic framework is the ONLY morally valid method by which men might be governed.

afford each potential participant the opportunity to enter into voluntary constitutional contract (promising to make himself available for defense, jury duty, and even funding for example) upon reaching the age of majority. In exchange, he might recieve the voting franchise.

This is exactly what I remember you advocating; an "oath of citizenship" is what in my mind describes it, but the choice of expression is mine.

The thing with a system like that is, there has to be very strong protections against a government overstepping its authority. Such that has happened under the Constitution.

Either that or, you must allow someone who has done whatever to pledge his support to withdraw it if the government fails to live up to its end of the bargin.

I see the present Constitution as just such a system, short of a formal declaration of support. The government has failed to live up to its end of the bargin and it's time to either change it, or withdraw from it.

I, personally, feel that many have already done that. In my eyes, that is the reason there are over 100 million eligible voters out there who don't participate. The only thing is, the government will not allow them to withdraw and it forces them to continue to support it whether they want to or not.

How to make a change such as you suggest is the question of the day, I guess. It would almost take a completely new government from the top down to make that kind of change, along with some major changes to the Constitution, if not a new constitution.

Such a system seems like it could be workable, but there would have to be some very strong protections for anyone who chooses to participate and for those who choose not to participate, as well.

The present system doesn't approximate the Lockean government by universal consent because there is no place to withdraw from it. The formality of the social contract is not an absolutely necessary requirement; an escape clause is.

The formality of the social contract is not an absolutely necessary requirement; an escape clause is.

Absolutely.

Stuff that: They only time I want a "bill" from the police department, is if
#1. I CALL them, AND
#2. They CATCH the bugger.

Filing a report in triplicate should not be a billable service.

But then again; I haven't read your contract. Will it be posted soon?

## 1 and 2 is then the "amount of police protection you consumed".

The "contract" is in my editorial plan.

In fact, when the President speaks of America as a force of good, hated because of her freedom, -- he speaks of libertarian values.

Huh? What he speaks of is a mythical and nonsensical assertion that has no basis in reality. America is not hated by Moslems because we are free.

We are hated by Moslems because they believe that we are helping Jews occupy land that they believe they own. Whether or not they have claim to Palestine is not the issue.

They (the Islamic Jihadists) want to impose Islamic rule world wide and that is their stated goal. We have most certainly meddled in the middle east and have done some things we shouldn't be proud of. Things which absolutely do not have anything to do with libertarian principles.

And most certainly the Islamic Jihadist movement is not accepted by all Moslems everywhere. In fact in their own countries they are not trusted which is why you find terrorist camps situated all around the middle east.

I'm sorry to come in here and pick a nit but this just bugs me. We have to face the fact that for at least 100 years we abandoned the libertarian principles this nation was founded upon.

7,000 innocent men, women, and children were slaughtered in an act of total war on 9/11.

Not that this makes the attack any less heinous but the number has been steadily declining and is no where near 7000. More like 2400.

If you look at the basis of our support of Israel, and the Arab hatred for Israel, you discover the same thing, and that is the system of values which is the western civilization. Individualism, rule of law, government by consensus, respect for property rights, tolerance of diverse opinions, -- all these things can be summarized in one word, freedom, and that is what separates us from the militant Arabs and unites us with Israel.

It is true that we've done many things I wish we didn't. I wish we had stayed completely out of Yugoslavia and had found some radical resolution of the conflict with Iraq, in particular. That doesn't change the fact that in this war our cause is just.

It is also true that our enemy is militant Muslim civilization that permeates many Middle Eastern nations without wholly comprising any nation; that is to say, the so-called moderate Muslims are our natural allies.

If you look at the basis of our support of Israel, and the Arab hatred for Israel, you discover the same thing, and that is the system of values which is the western civilization.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that. Most of western civilization is overwhelmingly socialist. And again, while accusing libertarians of being myopic, you fall back on the position that Arabs in general hate western civilization. That is demonstrably false and evidence can be found in virtually every Cab and convenience store in America.

I don't wish to make too much of a generalization here because Arabs aren't exclusively found in Cabs and convenience stores. But I think you should get the point.

And rather than wild speculation about why Arabs in the middle east hate America, it would seem that the proper thing to do would be to ask the Arabs.

Individualism, rule of law, government by consensus, respect for property rights, tolerance of diverse opinions, -- all these things can be summarized in one word, freedom, and that is what separates us from the militant Arabs and unites us with Israel.

Does it really? When we annexed Iran during WWII and then finally installed a dictator friendly to us, how was that sticking to the ideals of freedom? If you think it didn't make an impression on the Persian people who lived there you weren't paying attention in 1978 when students finally had all they coiuld take and stormed the U.S. Embassy.

It is true that we've done many things I wish we didn't. I wish we had stayed completely out of Yugoslavia and had found some radical resolution of the conflict with Iraq, in particular. That doesn't change the fact that in this war our cause is just.

I don't recall arguing that retaliation is unjust.

When we armed and trained Iraq soldiers so they could murder thousands of Persians who we had forsaken and had finally grown tired of our petty control, how was that "standing for the principles of freedom?"

The Arabs in the middle east know us only by our actions. And our actions are absolutely not representative of the principles this nation was founded on.

It is also true that our enemy is militant Muslim civilization that permeates many Middle Eastern nations without wholly comprising any nation; that is to say, the so-called moderate Muslims are our natural allies.

Right, and we seem to have very little understanding of Arabs. When our business people wanted to compete with the Japanese and make business alliances they learned to speak Japanese and learned Japanese customs. It was extremely valuable.

It would be extremely valuable here as well but what I keep seeing is the insistence that it is totally unnecessary and we should hold on to the absurd belief that Arabs hate freedom and therefore hate us. Poppycock. Nobody hates freedom excepting those who withold political power from the people who deserve it.

The Western civilization embraces libertarian values of individual freedom in a mix with communitarian values, such as government by consensus, and I enumerated both kinds. So, the western values are not exclusively libertarian; in particular, the 20 Century saw an erosion of property rights by the indirect means of taxation and regulation. In our domestic policy disputes with statists we often accuse them of socialism, but that is rhetorics applied loosely. From a wider perspective, the Western values remain antithetical to government ownership of means of production and in that precise sense are not socialist. Compared to the Muslim world, our system of property rights is still freer by far; we also believe and for most part practice freedoms of speech, assembly and conscience unparallelled in the Muslim world.

The contrast holds if you look at our concrete deeds in the Middle East. An Arab Israeli can hold property, vote and make speeches on the street or in the Knesset (in Arabic, too) against his own government. Not coincidentally, we support Israel. During the Shah's regime in Iran Iranians could wear whatever they wanted, go to beaches in bikinis and watched and listened to whatever entertainment they liked. That was the regime we supported, to be replaced by the ayatollahs that banned all that and shot everyone with money or from the wrong party. In Saudi Arabia we have a military base because we have a treaty with the Saudi government, -- we didn't go to war with the Saudis to get that base. When Iraq invaded a weak neighboring country, we sided with the weak, and traditionally Arab, Kuwait. Our record in the Middle East, although reflecting for most part our self-interest, also reflects our values.

I agree that the Arabs in general adopt the western values whenever they have a chance. The warrior Arab civilization is small, in decline, and spread thinly. I talk more about the nature of our friends and enemies in the next article: Defense of Liberty: The Contours of Victory

During the Shah's regime in Iran Iranians could wear whatever they wanted, go to beaches in bikinis and watched and listened to whatever entertainment they liked.

And our CIA helped the Shah dispatch his political enemies. And you left out an important part of the puzzle. The Shah was the leader we decided was proper for Iran. That is absolutely not an American value. An American value would be self-determination and sovereignty. So our involvement was difinitively anti-American in nature.

That was the regime we supported, to be replaced by the ayatollahs that banned all that and shot everyone with money or from the wrong party.

And I haven't said that the Islamic hardliners who came to power weren't creeps. But their rise to power was helped along because of our interventions.

In Saudi Arabia we have a military base because we have a treaty with the Saudi government, -- we didn't go to war with the Saudis to get that base. When Iraq invaded a weak neighboring country, we sided with the weak, and traditionally Arab, Kuwait.

Please, when Iraq was invading Iran we sided with Iraq. Explain how that represents American values. Fact is, it doesn't. It was a cynical show of support which eventually backfired when Iraq used weapons and training we provided during their war with Iran to invade Kuwait.

Our record in the Middle East, although reflecting for most part our self-interest, also reflects our values.

If you really believe that, then what you have to believe that the initiation of aggression and the support of totalitarianism is an American "value." You can't seperate the one or two things that we did that reflected American values from the things we did that did not reflect those values.

Again, from what's available in the political leadership of various countries, we by and large back the lesser of the several evils. So, we backed the Shah over Khomeini, and Iran was better off with the Shah, as any Iranian refugee here will tell you. Similarly, during Iran-Iraq war Iraq looked like a better one to support, given the Iran's sponsorship of Hezbollah and the hostage crisis.

In the context of the Cold War we supported totalitarian regimes that were on our side in that War. Since the whole Cold War was a war for the western ideals of freedom, tactical alliances with some unsavory characters were justified. The only way to have an active foreign policy in the Third World is to pick one S.O.B. over the other, since wise freedom-loving statesmen just don't exist out there. The proper question to ask is, why the Muslim culture so consistently produces dictatorial thugs as leaders.

Again, from what's available in the political leadership of various countries, we by and large back the lesser of the several evils. So, we backed the Shah over Khomeini, and Iran was better off with the Shah, as any Iranian refugee here will tell you.

That is simply a silly assertion. Khomeini was not a factor until the late 70's after the Shah had been in power for 30 years.

We installed the Shah shortly after WWII. We had taken control of Iran in order to keep supply lines open to the Soviets. We kicked his father, who was the leader of Iran at the time out into exile.

Our help in ousting the Shah's potential poltical opponents included stirring up dissent and encouraging violence. Our CIA did that. And rather than promote the seeds of liberty, we were promoting a totalitarian regime which supplied us cheap oil.

But you keep saying that we've been displaying "American values."

The only way that you can continue that position is to put on blinders. George Washington warned of what can happen when we entangle ourselves politically. That's American values. There was no reason for us to stay involved in Iran after WWII. None. Yet we did and the backlash from the Iranian people came from that intervention.

Similarly, during Iran-Iraq war Iraq looked like a better one to support, given the Iran's sponsorship of Hezbollah and the hostage crisis.

We supported Iraq as punishment for Iran's rejection of American intervention. American values?

All this is simply a foreign policy based on national interest as understood at the time, -- a valid function of government. When there are two S.O.B.'s to choose from, we choose the one we think will serve our interests at the moment. A clear, contrasting conflict of values is only present in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and we chose the right side. It might have been a smarter policy not to choose anyone in their S.O.B. struggles, but when we do choose sides, that is no aggression. 9/11, on the other hand, is a clear act of aggression.

You are right that everybody in the Middle East has a concrete grievance, such as our support of Israel, military presence in Saudi Arabia, support for the Shah, or the modernization inflicted on them by the global economy. The common denominator in all that is their propensity for being ruled by thugs. Their revolutuionaries, unlike the revolutionaries of the West, seek a greater tyranny, never freedom. To summarize: collectively, they hate freedom. Those who might choose freedom individually do not have a political mechanism to achieve it in their home land, they either emigrate or keep quiet.