Parties weigh in on Iraq war. Libertarians, Greens, others take dim view of U.S. action

WorldNetDaily ^ | April 9, 2003 | Jon Dougherty

[ClancyJ]

The libertarians are going the way of the dictatorships, the democrats and all the socialistic, communistic governments. Where are their ideals of the Constitution?

They have aligned themselves with the underbellies of society. They have always cared nothing for anyone but themselves, their ideas, their views. How like them to ignore children kept in jail, torture of others, potential attacks against the U.S., any security measures for Americans.

[Frances_Marion]

Harry Browne is just one Libertarian...he doesn't speak for all Libertarians..

[FairOpinion]

He did run as a Libertarian candidate for President, so his opinions do reflect upon the LP.

But I did notice that now there is a disclaimer on HarryBrowne's page, http://www.harrybrowne.org that his opinions are not necessarily those of the LP.

[lavaroise]

Dim view is an understatement here. I cannot believe the rhetorical excrement coming from these people. They smear the US and Bush like Hitler would. I had a dim view of the LP, but now, sheesh... losers.

[lavaroise]

He did run as a Libertarian candidate for President, so his opinions do reflect upon the LP.

Some people say the same thing about Stalin and Communism. It hardly is a proof. What is sure is that Libertarians are pro-China in many cases and their antigovernment stance is used as a stance against America itself to the profit of enemies. Worse, Libertarians promote dependencies (such as their disregard of the effect of drugs) while clamoring for near anarchic independence. THey are the leftist anarchics dream come true.

[Drammach]

Just quick prediction;

Harry Browne's stance on the war will cost him the Libertarian Party nomination in 2004.
As the disclaimer says, his views are not necessarily the view of the Libertarian Party.
I think You will find that the vast majority of Libertarians in fact, do Not Agree with Mr. Harry Browne.

[Roscoe]

Harry Browne's stance on the war will cost him the Libertarian Party nomination in 2004.

He didn't lose anything of value.

[Bonaparte]

What I [Harry Browne]want is for our government … to quit pretending it knows what's best for other countries..."

Lemme see if I've got this straight, Harry. If the Iraqi people decide that what's best for them is to be free, to no longer suffer under a brutal dictator and to welcome the US as their liberator, you think that's a bad thing? And if the overwhelming majority of Americans support liberating them, you think that's a bad thing also?

[hellinahandcart]

James Clymer, chairman of the Constitution Party National Committee

oh dear oh dear...

[sauropod]

Oh man.... Well every party must have it's assh*le i suppose...

[William McKinley]

Birds of a feather...

[KantianBurke]

"Any U.S. military policy should have the objective of providing security for the lives, liberty and property of the American people in the U.S. against the risk of attack by a foreign power. This objective should be achieved as inexpensively as possible and without undermining the liberties it is designed to protect."

Don't see anything to disagree with here.

[tnlibertarian]

Gee whiz, why do we keep having this same argument again, and again. Are you people really that dense? Sure, Harry Browne is wrong on this one. I think the libertarian party is also wrong on the immigration issue. But where in the world do you get the idea that libertarians have an "antigovernemt stance"? Libertarians are pro-government. It is just that the government they support is one that is founded in and bound by the Constitution. And promoting dependencies? You are kidding, right? Individual responsibility is the backbone of the libertarian philosophy. If people make choices that result in their ending up dependent on something, that's their business, but they would not end up dependent on the American taxpayer, as many are today. And anarchic independence? If you believe that a Constitutional government is anarchy, perhaps you should consider that maybe you have become comfortable in a government with ever increasing power on the slide to socialism.

[Reagan Man]

>>>Actually, I would expect libertarians to agree with conservatives on about half the issues and liberals on the other half. Social conservatism, no. Fiscal conservatism, yes.

Not really. I'd say about 25% at best agree with traditional conservative fiscal policies. Most Libertarians, especially small "l" libertarians are political fringers and have extremist views on all the relevent issues, including fiscal policy. When you get down to it, most libertarians would rather opine about the issues, while conservative Republicans have actual legislative accomplishments.

[gcruse]

So I guess that makes them WORSE than irrelevant?

If they can do damage to you, they are relevant.

[gcruse]

this anti-war stance shows that they are either off on the side of the liberals, or that they lost their common sense and realism.

Fair enough As a small 'l' libertarian, I am not inherently anti-war.  The notion of pre-emption
gives me pause, though, and I was in favor of our going through the motions, at
least, with the UN to put some cloak of respectability on what we were about to
do.  We gave it a shot.  I see destablizing the ME  as a worthy goal in breaking up
that nest of vipers.  The other reasons given for attacking Iraq  -- ties to OBL, WMD's,
and a Hussein threat to the US remain to be proven.  Going to war hoping for
retroactive justification rattles my cage and should disturb conservatives, too.  The fact
that it doesn't is one reason I will remain in the libertarian camp.

[gcruse]

what does the Liberatarian Neal Boortz say?

"Some libertarian-minded pundits wholeheartedly support the war against Iraq.

"Author and syndicated radio host Neal Bootz says, "The real pity is that the United States and Great Britain, with some help from a group of willing allies, have to go this alone against Saddam Hussein. … Here is a man who idolizes Stalin. He murders tens of thousands with poison gas. He gouges the eyes out of children to teach lessons to their parents. He builds weapons of mass destruction and secrets them for some future purpose. He defies demands from the international community to disarm and behave. Then, when push finally comes to shove, much of the world takes a powder. Pathetic.""

[the Deejay]

How can anyone deny the happiness of the Iraqi people? They have been so horribly oppressed and tortured for so many, many years! My heart is so full of happiness for them today! And my heart is full of pride for our troops and the coalition troops!!!

[gcruse]

But, wait a minute, do you REALLY agree with ALL of the LP positions ; do you even KNOW all of them ? LOL

                       I know I am against gungrabber/drugwarrior/lifestylepolice.
                       That is sufficient to place me more into libertarian views than
                       either liberal or conservative exclusively.  What I am for,
                        individual liberty to the max with concommitant self-responsibility
                        fixes it in stone.

[gcruse]

Hateful rhetoric won't bring the libertarians into your tent anytime soon, either. And as long as the electorate remains divided at 50/50, little things will continue to have big effects.