Posted on 03/09/2003 7:22:31 AM PST by dennisw
Llewelyn Rockwell, the leading intellectual influence of the paleo-libertarian right, was interviewed last night by Bill Moyers on PBS, and if any doubts had remained about the character of Rockwell and movement he leads, they were settled by this program. Asked his principles of when war is justified, he gave as an example of an unjustifiable war the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, which he said was carried out for no other reason than to strike out at somebody, anybody. Asked if he thought Saddam Hussein was evil, Rockwell said, of course he’s evil, he’s a politician. Asked if he feared nuclear weapons in the hands of Hussein, Rockwell pertly replied that he also feared nuclear weapons in the hands of George W. Bush. Asked what he would advise President Bush to do about Iraq, Rockwell answered: “Read a book.”
While I cannot speak for Lew Rockwell or even FR Libertarians, I am always mystified by the non-arguments that pass for debate in many threads.
It seems to me in the post 911 world there were Libertarians who argued for the use of Letters of Marquee and Reprisal as provided in the Constitution.
I offered the observation in another thread this whole "debate" about UN resolutions is meaningless since Hussein and the Iraqi Army signed a "Capitulation", a contract if you will, between two Armies and that the Iraqi side has violated the terms and thus is subject to punishment with no further discussion or debate necessary.
I have also observed in various places and various times that simple economics can be used to good effect in place of brute military force. For example, word on the street is the going rate for Osama Bin Laden's escape from Tora Bora was $15 Million Dollars. With the aid of the Northern Alliance we could have simply outbid him and taken him into custody for say, $20 Million Dollars. Do the arithmetic to calculate the equivalent in cruise missiles and deployment costs.
Having said all the above,I still agree with the premise advanced by Libertarians that one fundamental reason we get our tail in the wringer so often is that this society has ignored Washington's admonition to "avoid entangling foreign alliances" and Eisenhower's admonition to "beware the Military Industrial Complex"
I will cheerfully debate these points in a CIVILIZED,POLITE and EXPOSITORY manner with anyone who cares to do so.
For everyone else I will don my asbestos underwear and build an addition to the official Copernican "Time-Out" booth for wayward Freepers.
And of course, I can only respond as time permits. Unlike many of you I can only check in here periodically over the course of a day for brief periods.
Best regards,
I also recall some of the early discussions about constitutional means for dealing with OBL and the Taliban. The concept of privateers dealing with this type of situation is absurd. Furthermore, when pressed about how to withdraw from the current foreign entanglements there was never anything approaching realistic plans.
A commonly held theme about self-defense was that military intervention was not justifiable unless directly attacked. That may very well be a Libertarian position but it is one that will assure a whopping 1% of the electorate for years to come.
In general, my disagreement is not with some of the L ideologies but with the totally unrealistic means of accomplsihing them. It is very easy to argue points that will never be realized and never have to be defended in actuality. It becomes arguing for the sake of arguing and knowing that one will never be held accountable for the results of one's arguments.
I do as do most white southerners which is largely why you are not watching Al Gore lead the nation right now. Happy?
Well, I don't know with whom you have discussed this but the standard withdrawl technique for centuries has been to pack up the equipment, demobilize the troops, tip your hat and remark in an offhand way:
"The blessing of technology have made the defense of the United States easier, faster and cheaper than to maintain expensive field battalions in every nook and cranny of the globe"
"From now on we are going to keep some nuclear submarines sailing in international waters and if any little thing comes up over here we will throw a few mushroom clouds in your direction to calm things back down" "So you all just behave yourselfs and play nice ya hear?"
Then just sit back and watch France and Germany and Beligium and all those other annoying whackos countries have a cow and wring their hands about "what to do now".
The concept of privateers dealing with this type of situation is absurd.
I guess I don't see the difference between forming an "alliance" with the tribal warlords known as the Northern Alliance and just paying them outright. For all we know they would have efficiently captured Osama and delivered him up with no hassle.
A commonly held theme about self-defense was that military intervention was not justifiable unless directly attacked.
We were directly attacked and as I noted before Hussein and the Iraq Army are in violation of the Capitulation and thus subject to immediate and thorough reprisal.
It becomes arguing for the sake of arguing and knowing that one will never be held accountable for the results of one's arguments.
It is hard to imagine anything more accountable than sitting next to someone on a plane who is doing his level best to kill everyone aboard.
Libertarians have argued the necessity for arming pilots and yes, even the passengers, something an 18th Century Patriot would not have considered debatable.
There have now been two attacks stopped by the (unarmed) militia- Flight 93 and the Richard Reid shoebomber Flight.
It is Sovereign citizens, not government, who are equipping themselves with smoke hoods to better evacuate from burning buildings and it will be Sovereign Citizens who will rush from their homes with commercial grade firehoses to douse flames in their neighborhoods should the "authorities" fail to respond effectively.
It is overreaching government that got us into this mess and it is overreaching government that has refused to consider a long laundry list of effective means to get us out.
I hope this helps.
Best regards,
Yes. If necessary.
I'm libertarian, and I think Iraq should just be a start. Let's do Iran, North Korea, perhaps give the Saudis a thumping, Venezuela and take out that b*stard Mugabe, too.
Then we can talk about a peace dividend. Maybe.
At one time - like before towel heads blew up several of our buildings - I would have been for pulling all or most of our troops home.
Now that position is modified. Pull them all home except for where we are using them for our benefit. France, Germany and Europe can go **** themselves.
And I'm sure there are several other places in the 100 foreign nations where we have troops that they could be put to more effective use killing Islamists.
BTW, the Texas Constitution EXPLICITLY lists the right of secession in its state Constitution.
Well, that's where we differ then. I believe in projecting power until the Islamists have only rocks left for weapons.
More nonsense. Most of us here are more Hawkish than libertarians in the general populace.
Or in eminent danger. If intelligence indicated that an enemy has the ability, motive and desire to attack us, then preemption is moral.
I'd like to know who you think you're referencing.
BTW, we were directly attacked.
He's right.
And Lincoln had no legal justification for attacking the Confederacy. And absolutely no moral justification. (The bit about slavery was an afterthought for political expediency.)
It's just that "L"ibertarian is so-- oh ---so limiting. I prefer to strap on the ol' classical liberal, with a little hand-to-hand on foreign policy...
I was born and raised in Illinois, the "Land of Lincoln," and was taught as all Illinois schoolchildren are to venerate the Union and excoriate the horrid slave-driving Southerners. But when I did graduate study in history in the archives of the University of Illinois, I began to see things differently. I've come to believe that if it was okay (nay--heroic! noble!) for the American colonists to make war on and demand independence from Great Britain, which asked for little enough from them in exchange for protection, then the Southern people who wanted to govern themselves had every right to do so as well. If a people want to govern themselves, they should have the freedom to do so. I don't consider that "destroying the country" since the United States would have still continued to exist, its government and laws unchanged, if the South departed.
You confuse the principles of the mid-nineteenth-century Democrats with those of today. The Democrats of the 1860s favored minimal government interference, supported an agrarian economy, and disliked a strong central government. In particular, they loathed paying high taxes (in the form of tariffs) to a central government when they did not receive compensatory benefits. The modern Democrats of course espouse just the opposite views. I fully support your hatred of modern Democrats, but nineteenth-century Democrats shared many of the opinions of modern conservatives.
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.