LIBERTARIAN RHETORIC, COLLECTIVIST PRACTICE

THE LIBERTARIAN ^ | Jan 28, 2003 | Vin Suprynowicz

[elfman2]

”Not all of them are convinced that he is a threat which justifies this action at this point”

If someone accepted that Saddam has extensive links to international terrorism in general (which is documented), and that the war on international terrorism (not just on al Queda) was proper, I wonder how they would expect to make progress to win it while Saddam remained empowered.

[elfman2]

”This applies because one of the arguments put forth (amid the many) for the invasion of Iraq is that Sadaam is a cruel and murderous dictator. Therefore, if this is reason for war, then it stands to reason that all murderous, cruel dictators are subject to forceful removal by the US military.”

Hint, the reason that you statement is false resides in the emphasized words.

[missileboy]

...politicians promoting ideals while behaving in such a way as to be electable simply looks like they’re doublespeaking to him.

So you still can't admit that doublespeak is doublespeak? Does it "look" like doublespeak or "is" it doublespeak? No anger here, just insisting that words mean something. So which is it? Getting back to the points made in the article, if we can try to steer it back there, how is the author's characterization of Bush's doublespeak wrong?

And we see that any use of the phrase “real word” triggers a pavlovian response to claim the speaker simply doesn’t posses the intellect to understand the imaginary system he promotes.

No, huh-uh. Not sure why you felt personally attacked on that one. It's not that the speaker (i.e. you) doesn't possess the intellect (though you may not, but I'm not drawing conclusions on that at all). I'm objecting to your magical creation of a totally arbitrary collective, true for each speaker, known as "the real world", used to somehow justify what you believe. Again, how can that argument not be used by anyone seeking to justify, say, rape?

...recognizing that his supporters are unpersuasive, powerless and loosing ground in a political system running away without them.

My supporters???? If I can now speak for "the real world", I submit that the ones with the power are the ones in office, not me, and not you or "your supporters" who may have voted for them. Unfortunately, an election is not a lottery, and you didn't win a prize for picking the winner. I have ideas, and you have ideas, and that's all we have, though I suspect you feel special for belonging to a winning team.

Question is, did you win? I know you have your team's jersey, but G.W. proposes taking your money and sending it to Africa for humanist causes. He's talking about a hydrogen car. He's expanding the scope of the federal government, and it has been expanding since the early part of last century. So isn't the "political system running away without you", too?

[missileboy]

One of the arguments put forth for invasion is not that
Sadaam is a murderous dictator?

[Protagoras]

You need not try to pick a fight with me over this issue.

As for international terror, I don't sign on to the concept because it is too large, I'll stick with the one's who terrorize us, you can advocate attacking Ireland if you want to make it that broad. I'm in favor of hunting down and eliminating every swine who is involved with the scum who attacked us. One at a time if necessary. That goes for eco-terrorists in this country.

Saddam is an evil force, I don't have enough info to know if he is a threat, so I have to trust our government on that right now, but trusting the government is a risky business at best, and perilous at worst.

[elfman2]

”One of the arguments put forth for invasion is not that Sadaam is a murderous dictator?.”

Bush specifically said in his big justification for disarming Iraq speech about 4 months back that (paraphrasing) “We do not do this for ant single reason, but for a collection of factors that have come together in Iraq.”

[ActionNewsBill]

If you can fix a broken toilet or replace a part on an old car, you can keep a spouse from being at the mercy of a $60 per hour professional. I don’t remember who to call, perhaps a reservist station or recruiter

Do you get to wear a uniform?

[missileboy]

In light of this, how is my statement "one of the arguments put forth (amid the many) for the invasion of Iraq is that Sadaam is a cruel and murderous dictator", false? I am claiming that this is one of many arguments.

[elfman2]

”As for international terror, I don't sign on to the concept because it is too large.”

The administration doesn’t sign onto the concept of war on only those responsible because tracking a few dozen or hundred people across the world is too disruptive, and would insight more against us if we pursued policies to force it (like sending assault teams into Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or God knows where else one guy might be hiding.

The Ireland analogy is an absurdity because Bush has stated several times that we are going after terrorists with international reach (not to mention that the Irish government is not complacent AFAIK).

[elfman2]

”In light of this, how is my statement "one of the arguments put forth (amid the many) for the invasion of Iraq is that Sadaam is a cruel and murderous dictator", false? I am claiming that this is one of many arguments.”

You did more than that. Your logic in #20 was flawed. I’ve got to go. Will check back later.

[elfman2]

”Do you get to wear a uniform?”

No, but if these Libertarians have their way, you can drive up in a tank.

[Kevin Curry]

Therefore, if this is reason for war, then it stands to reason that all murderous, cruel dictators are subject to forceful removal by the US military.

Certainly they are subject to removal. But wisdom and limited resources demand that we choose carefully which ones to forcefully remove. Take out one, and the others tend to get the message. It's efficient leadership and it helps to avoid 9-11s by nipping them in the bud before they can ripen and spread noxious seeds.

[missileboy]

Considering the arguments separately, it doesn't necessarily follow that a dictator is a threat to the US just because he is a dictator. Surely the US feels this way, it does business with them all the time.

But more to your post, it doesn't seem to be a question of limited resources - it seems more to be about hitting those that have no way of harming us (else we'd surely hit China, which has openly advocated terror against the US, and Korea, which has openly threatened to do the same with their nukes), which means that the target was not a threat to the US in the first place.

We can argue until the cows come home about that, and as you can see above, it doesn't tend to get anywhere. The bottom line is, I do not ascribe to the doctrine of a preemptive strike based on what someone might do. I do support striking proven threats.

If the US has the luxury to decide who to attack and when to do it, and can talk about openly doing so for a year without receiving a preemptive attack from Iraq (since Sadaam would have nothing to lose at that point) that speaks more to a political cluster f**k than it does a true national emergency.

If the administration can show that Sadaam was involved or aided in the 9/11 attacks in any way, you won't find me, nor will you find many libertarians (save Harry Browne) who will drag their feet on calling for an immediate, decisive and devastating strike.

The article is primarily about economics, though. It is critical of Bush - yes. But as a conservative, do you find the points about economic policy to be wrong?

[Kevin Curry]

The bottom line is, I do not ascribe to the doctrine of a preemptive strike based on what someone might do. I do support striking proven threats.

Must Americans die to persuade you?

[Kevin Curry]

If the administration can show that Sadaam was involved or aided in the 9/11 attacks in anyway,

If the administration could do so without compromising sensitive sources and methods, I am confident they would do so. I have been involved on the secrecy side of such matters in a prior professional life. I well understand the need for absolute discretion when dealing with deadly serpents such as Saddam Hussein.

If you do not trust Bush, fine. I do. I do not trust Saddam Hussein. I believe I am on far more solid ground than you are. I do not expect Bush to stupidly compromise intelligence sources just to satisfy some motley squad of libertarians--who likely wouldn't be persuaded in any event.

[Kevin Curry]

And why must Bush prove Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11? Would it not be enough if he is convinced Hussein is aiding and abetting in the hatching of new 9-11 slaughters?

I do not understand why any rational person would consider it immoral to strike a coiled snake until the snake has struck first.

[AUgrad]

This is a complete, total lie. The Confederacy was a socialist institution.

Bull$hit. They were a loose confederation of states, barely cohesive. Hell' they couldn't even build railroads of the same guage between states. How you can call the Confederacy "socialist" is beyond me.

[AUgrad]

(RE the thrilling patriotic war, the author was belittling us as just being prone to having our buttons pushed by BS.)

I thought you didn't read it.

[Not worth reading a second sentence from this embittered little jerk off.]

Typical.

[Billthedrill]

This applies because one of the arguments put forth (amid the many) for the invasion of Iraq is that Sadaam is a cruel and murderous dictator. Therefore, if this is reason for war, then it stands to reason that all murderous, cruel dictators are subject to forceful removal by the US military.

With respect, I don't think you quite grasped my argument. It is a logical fallacy that if fact A is a motivation for action B, then you are committed to action B whenever fact A occurs. This is especially true if fact A is only one in a large number of such motivations for action B.

That Saddam Hussein is murderous dictator is undeniable and is certainly one good reason for intervention. That does not imply that we are obligated to such intervention every time there is a murderous dictator. Were that the only motivation for intervention one might complain that to do so in case 1 and not in case 2 is inconsistent, barring other considerations such as practicality, but it is not logically false. This is the "foolish consistency" that Emerson quite rightly termed "the hobgoblin of little minds."

[P_A_I]

The concept of a 'war on terror' is far too generalized.
We need to stick with the nations, groups, or preferably the high level individuals who terrorize us.
If we hunt down and eliminate every leader who is even 'involved' with those who attack us, eventually this type of activity will be abandoned by semi-rational politicans.
- The few crazys are the exception, and will never be controlled.
Surely, Saddam is an evil force, but if faced with certain death, I doubt his personal courage.

The administration, or indeed all governments in the world, have 'signed off' on the concept of personal war, - assassination, upon the leaders responsible, - because no individual can be protected totally.
Thus, in effect, we have a sort of 'gentlemens agreement' that protects terrorist leaders.

Sure enough, tracking a few dozen or hundred people across the world is disruptive, and no doubt would instigate retribution if we pursued such policies like sending assault teams into Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or wherever.

But it would also put an end to tin pot terrorist leaders & dictators.