Llewelyn Rockwell, the leading intellectual influence of the paleo-libertarian right........

View from the Right ^ | Lawrence Auster at March 08, 2003 | Lawrence Auster at March 08, 2003

[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.”

[nicollo]

Ooh, yeah, go crazy! A Von Mises scarf, Hayek blouse, and a Bandow belt with matching Thoreau socks. You can really turn heads with your Atlas Shrugged stick pin, and that mysterious hanging John Galt pendant.

But go easy on those Rockwellian heels. Waay high, and fundamentally unsound; renowned for causing wearers to trip over themselves.

[nicollo]

...with a little hand-to-hand on foreign policy...

Classic! ... you... subversive, you!

[austinTparty]

I do try... *wink*
Time for my war/nowar tango lessons...

[wardaddy]

LOL...

I cannot understand why there are probably around 2-3 dozen posters who we have nicknamed the Walt Brigade who feel compelled to dump on the South and her heritage at every opportunity and meanwhile....they NEVER examine their own skeletons....never.

If they even have a heritage here that dates back further than a few generations...but no....they simply must continuously shout from the rooftops how damned noble they are and constantly point out something that anyone today would view as wrong but yet they act as though "they are on to something".

These preening moralists wish to feast their appetite to feel good about themselves from the bones of my kin and I'd have to be the world's softest chump to simply "take it".

On the other hand, me??...if Yankees would STFU about my peculiar region of the country then I would have nothing but decent things to say about them.

This tension predates our inception as a nation and from the looks of it shows no sign of abating.

BTW....I just got back from seeing Gods and Generals..(went by myself..my wife4 is not big on 4 hour war movies).my first movie in 9 months....I thought it was fairly balanced and sort of played on everybody's "sensitivities" as well as could be expected.

Lang's role as Jackson was incredible. Duvall plays Lee with ease...like he was made for it. Daniels as Chamberlain was good but damn ...Daniels has been eating a bit since Gettysburg...lol

I did see one flaw....a stainless Ruger Black Powder pistol which although similar was not authentic as a replica.

Anyhow..enough of my rant and I apologize if my tirade at Grand Old Peckerhead was over the top...(it was)

Regards!

[johniegrad]

I think you and I might agree on most of this. However, there have been others (since banned like DD) who held only that a direct attack would justify intervention. So it may be nonsense to you and to me but it wasn't nonsense to others.

Or in eminent danger

This is precisely the point I was making. The Libertarian ideas started to fall apart when trying to define "imminent danger". "Imminent danger" ranged from soldiers on our soil, to soldiers staging attack from Canada, to missiles in the air, to anything that might be brought up.

So, if were directly attacked on September 11, 2001, was the action in Afghanistan the only action that was justified? How about invasion in Iraq? How about Saudi Arabia or Iran? At what point are we no longer in imminent danger from the geopolitic instability of those nations that appear to be linked with terrorist groups?

[Copernicus]

So, if were directly attacked on September 11, 2001, was the action in Afghanistan the only action that was justified? How about invasion in Iraq? How about Saudi Arabia or Iran? At what point are we no longer in imminent danger from the geopolitic instability of those nations that appear to be linked with terrorist groups?

Excellent questions. Germany and France currently appear to be terrified we will discover their fingerprints all over mobile NBC labs and other equipment which could be used to wreak havoc and destruction by interests hostile to the US.

France was a sanctuary for Aytollah Khomeni before he returned to Iran and took our diplomats hostage in 1980.

Do we get to bomb France and German manufacturing facilities?

George Bush did say "If you are not with us you are against us".

I remain very interested in how much our entangling foreign alliances will continue to entangle us.

Best regards,

[johniegrad]

Take a look at this one!!

[headsonpikes]

France....next year! ;^)

[SCDogPapa]

All good posts!

[Poohbah]

The concept of commissioning privateers to deal with terrorists falls flat because of one simple issue: money.

Privateers could expect to make a profit if they captured an enemy merchantman.

Would you kindly explain how a modern privateer would make money fighting terrorists?

[billbears]

What? Big government? National banks? Internal improvements? Tell us more Grand Old Partisan. Tell us more!! The original Republican party was a remasking of the Whigs and the other Hamiltonian ilk

[DoctorMichael]

Sounds to me like he's using that stash that Libertarians think is so important.

[strela]

Daniels as Chamberlain was good but damn ...Daniels has been eating a bit since Gettysburg

I caught that too. But, since the events in G&G were a prequel to Gettysburg, I figured that Chamberlain burned off a lot of flab in the intervening time between the Battles of Fredericksburg and Gettysburg. A regular diet of hardtack (not fit for man nor beast) and not getting regular, uh, "meals" from that bouncy-bottomed little wife of his probably burned some lard off as well.

[billbears]

Thanks!!! Already got my ticket and will be seeing you there I hope. Unfortunately they will be sharing truth and probably will not be spending much time in keeping the myths alive

[dirtboy]

Hey, Justin, you still running around calling those who support war against Iraq traitors?

[jimt]

Lew Rockwell is no leader of THIS libertarian. I've met the guy in person. He's a jerk. And last I heard, he was NOT an LP member. He shouldn't be - he is nearly as divisive as his mentor, "Typhoid Murray" Rothbard.

[x]

No one questions the right to rebel against tyranny. But the US was far from a tyranny in 1860. Therefore it would have been better for dissident Southerners to work within the political system. Their grievances were not so great as to justify rebellion or separation. Some of their complaints strike us as unjustified and abhorrent today, others were easily resolvable by normal political means.

Even if separation were the only solution, there were all manner of practical questions to resolve and they ought to have been handled within constitutional channels. I suppose most Americans at the time would eventually have let those Southern states that wanted to leave go, but the formation of another national government, the call for a mammoth army, the repudiation of debts, the seizure of federal property and the assault on Sumter constituted a chain of provocations that couldn't help but bring war.

There was much bravery and virtue among many who fought for the Confederacy -- as among those who fought for the Union -- but the political leaders who launched the rebellion aren't to be celebrated. Their motives were hardly laudable and their methods were not the best either.

Rockwell is a con artist. He seems to assume that had the Confederacy suceeded we would have much greater freedom without forfeiting all the benefits of union. No one can say with authority what would have happened, but I think he's wrong on both counts. Whether we would become two hostile governments struggling to maintain their authority or a dozen smaller squabbling countries, it's not at all clear that we would be freer than we are now. Had Davis won it's entirely possible, that we would be poorer, more divided, more hostile towards each other, less secure and less free.

History is a fascinating subject, and there are few periods of our history of greater interest than the Civil War, but Rockwell had done us a disservice by reopening old wounds.

[Grand Old Partisan]

What big government program could be bigger than the ante bellum South's enslaving one-third the population and whipping them to pick cotton?!

[wardaddy]

reopening old wounds.

Yes...some things are best left alone.