The Supreme Court May Finally Do Something Right!

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Sorry, radar, but where you missed the bus is that libertarian philosophy is a mighty ideological hammer to smash fascistic mental constructs, and it should be so used -- if you want freedom to spread generally across the globe. If.

This requires a nonpacifist point of view -- and you don't have to be a pacifist to be a libertarian. I am a living example of that. It's really a pretty good way to be, and definitely an improvement over taking your advice.

I concern myself with the rights of the people who do not deprive others their due rights -- which leaves the fascistocommunists out of consideration, as these are quite beyond the libertarian pale. It is also obvious that fascistocommunists or totalitarians (same number of syllables, fewer letters, same idea) necessarily initiate aggressions on their own hook. At that point, countervailing violence is justifiable to everybody, including those who are willing to allow the antilibertarians the first punch.

Which I'm not, on careful consideration. You've already heard why, even if you don't like it much because of the embarrassing light it puts you in. Any time I bring up an idea you don't like, you have real problems answering it intellectually, and you sulk. This prevents you understanding a damned thing, I must say.

So, because they're furriners, they never deserve help, do they? That, my friend, is xenophobia, pure and simple, and I've called you on it before. I am pleased to see you declaring it so explicitly. My mind has never been crippled by it. You could stand to become more like me. I consider that human liberty is of such importance that it is in no way less legitimatized by who may be involved in the liberation. You've never wrestled with this question either. Frankly, local populations trammeled by totalitarianism need external aid to overthrow the villains in charge, and this action is by no means immoral. If it's not immoral for the locals, it's no more immoral for outsiders either. Of course, I'm begging the question of whether it is as generally popular. Revolutions tend to divide the population in thirds anyway: a third loyalist, a third insurrectionist, and a third keeping their heads down waiting for the shooting to die out.

[DanaC]

You could stand to become more like me.

Could he? Really? I fucking couldn't.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Sorry, radar, but where you missed the bus is that libertarian philosophy is a mighty ideological hammer to smash fascistic mental constructs, and it should be so used -- if you want freedom to spread generally across the globe. If.

This requires a nonpacifist point of view -- and you don't have to be a pacifist to be a libertarian. I am a living example of that. It's really a pretty good way to be, and definitely an improvement over taking your advice.

Which I'm not, on careful consideration. You've already heard why, even if you don't like it much because of the embarrassing light it puts you in. Any time I bring up an idea you don't like, you have real problems answering it intellectually, and you sulk. This prevents you understanding a damned thing, I must say.

ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzinggggggggggg......

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Could he? Really? I fucking couldn't.

Oooww, such language, from an intelligent, educated, worldly, genteel, Englishwomen.

[DanaC]

lol actually, I was just this minute thinking that the word fuck* has found its way into quite a few of my posts the last few days :P

[Radar]

UG is so used to lying, he doesn't even know when he's doing it, so once again, I'll shed light on his ridiculous lies and outrageously stupid claims.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Sorry, radar, but where you missed the bus is that libertarian philosophy is a mighty ideological hammer to smash fascistic mental constructs, and it should be so used -- if you want freedom to spread generally across the globe. If.

Libertarianism isn't a hammer. Nor is it a gun, or any other weapon. Libertarianism is the recognition that everyone owns themselves, and they are responsible for themselves and for their own freedom. Libertarianism is about individuality. Libertarianism isn't about "spreading freedom", especially at the point of a gun. Those making claims that libertarian should be enforced through violence are violating libertarian philosophy.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

This requires a nonpacifist point of view -- and you don't have to be a pacifist to be a libertarian.

You don't have to be a pacifist to be a libertarian, but you do have to believe that it is NEVER alright to initiate violence, especially for political gain or social engineering, like "liberating oppressed people" or "spreading democracy".

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I am a living example of that. It's really a pretty good way to be, and definitely an improvement over taking your advice.

You are a living example that one doesn't need much brain cell activity to be able to make posts online. You aren't an improvement over anything, especially me. My political, social, and philosophical stance dwarfs yours when it comes to intelligence and the ability to work in reality. My stance provides the most freedom at the least cost in human lives and in dollars.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I concern myself with the rights of the people who do not deprive others their due rights -- which leaves the fascistocommunists out of consideration, as these are quite beyond the libertarian pale. It is also obvious that fascistocommunists or totalitarians (same number of syllables, fewer letters, same idea) necessarily initiate aggressions on their own hook. At that point, countervailing violence is justifiable to everybody, including those who are willing to allow the antilibertarians the first punch.

I concern myself with the freedom of all people, and don't try to misuse the American military or violate the Constitution to start unprovoked military action which is a gross violation of all things libertarian. America is the well wisher of freedom and liberty to all and the champion only of our own. This isn't xenophobic and it certainly isn't isolationist. War mongers always love to use these labels on those who would rightly use our military only to defend our own nation.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Which I'm not, on careful consideration. You've already heard why, even if you don't like it much because of the embarrassing light it puts you in. Any time I bring up an idea you don't like, you have real problems answering it intellectually, and you sulk. This prevents you understanding a damned thing, I must say.

Your libertarianism is on a par with that of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, etc. They all thought they were "liberating" people, and spreading freedom.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

So, because they're furriners, they never deserve help, do they?

Nobody said that. I said you should be free to volunteer your help and I commend you for doing it. Just don't use the U.S. military or the U.S. government to help you do it.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

That, my friend, is xenophobia, pure and simple, and I've called you on it before.

Don't call me your friend, and stop lying about xenophobia. You have lied about this and many other things before...like being a libertarian.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I am pleased to see you declaring it so explicitly. My mind has never been crippled by it.

No, your mind is crippled by stupidity, dishonesty, and war mongering attitudes.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

You could stand to become more like me.

In order to do that, I'd have to hit myself in the head with a sledge hammer until I was brain dead.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I consider that human liberty is of such importance that it is in no way less legitimatized by who may be involved in the liberation.

Which is why you aren't a libertarian. I consider human liberty the most important thing on earth. But before I volunteer to help others get liberty, I will try to earn it for myself at home. America is far from a free country and it's getting less so all the time. How about following the teachings of the bible and take the plank out of our own eye before we start worrying about the speck in the eyes of our brother?

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

You've never wrestled with this question either. Frankly, local populations trammeled by totalitarianism need external aid to overthrow the villains in charge, and this action is by no means immoral.

It most certainly is if you use the U.S. military to carry it out, and if you invade a country that has posed no threat to ours. America has neither the moral, nor legal authority to police the world and enforce what war mongers have determined to be liberty. As I've said, democracy isn't freedom, and even if it were, America has overthrown democracies before and propped up dictators and armed them to the teeth.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

If it's not immoral for the locals, it's no more immoral for outsiders either.

False. It is moral for all people to fight for their own freedom. It is immoral for outsiders to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Of course, I'm begging the question of whether it is as generally popular. Revolutions tend to divide the population in thirds anyway: a third loyalist, a third insurrectionist, and a third keeping their heads down waiting for the shooting to die out.

You are hardly a revolutionary. You are an anti-libertarian, war mongering, loudmouthed idiot who is dumb enough to think he's got the moral high ground when he advocates wholesale murder.

[TheMercenary]

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Could he? Really? I fucking couldn't.

He could if he had an open mind, I must say that. Rusted shut is bad for anyone, regardless of IQ number actual or claimed, or of maturity stunted or in flower.

As for why you "fucking couldn't," I simply cannot find a reason -- nothing real, nothing substantial, nothing substantive, nothing anything. But what I emphatically NEVER try for is a mental clone. Uh uh. No way. Exact replication is by no means called for: I am not Radar, and not quite so impressed as he with my own individual genius..

I'm not left of center -- there's the aphorism that has quite a lengthy history, reaching back in one version or another to England in the early nineteenth century and evolving in France before coming back to England again: "If a man is not a ________ at twenty, he has no heart; if he is not a _________ at forty, no brains." The earliest English version had it Liberal and Conservative. It spent time in France being updated with every revision. DanaC and I are both over the age of, say, twenty-two. One of us is a Socialist. Is this, then, the why "I fucking couldn't?" Shrunken horizons, Dana, shrunken horizons. This American won't tolerate them.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Here's something impressive from LiveJournal for the Fourth of July that really neatly expresses the view of foreign policy that I hold and radar rejects -- at, I believe, his peril:

. . .so I will just leave you with something to ponder and I hope you do before dismissing it outright. The groundwork is actually IN the philosophy of our founding fathers to support our country's current foreign policy. We believe that ALL men are created equal...that's not just Americans. Kennedy said "We are the watchmen on the walls of world freedom". That is why we fight for other countries independence...because of what our country is founded on.

[emph mine]

And that bit of founding father philosophy will be something radar will predictably deny, reject, or prostitute his intellectual integrity to avoid seeing, because he doesn't think a free people should lift their littlest finger to free other peoples. Thank you, Xenophobia [and bad cess to you, stumblefuck].

The thread is here on LJ.

[Radar]

I have never denied that all men and women are created equally, and that freedom is for all people. Our founding fathers most certainly didn't want us to become involved in entangling alliances, or to use the U.S. military to win freedom for any nation but our own. This is not an isolationist or xenophobic policy. Claiming it to be is merely a crutch for those who can't defend their own position...most likely because there is no valid defense for war mongering.

I'd be willing to bet that I can provide far more examples of our founders being against the insane and idiotic foreign policy supported by non-libertarians like UG than he can find to the contrary. But since he wants to quote other presidents, I can include them too.

Let's see what people far more intelligent than UG have to say on the matter.

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

"Force always attracts men of low morality."

-Albert Einstein

Originally Posted by Ayn Rand

"Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives."

-Ayn Rand

Originally Posted by Benjamin Disraeli

"War is never a solution; it is an aggravation."

-Benjamin Disraeli

Originally Posted by Benjamin Franklin

"There never was a good war or a bad peace."

-Benjamin Franklin

Originally Posted by Banjamin Harrison

"We Americans have no commission from God to police the world."

-Benjamin Harrison

Originally Posted by Clarence Darrow

"True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else."

-Clarence Darrow

Originally Posted by Congressman Ron Paul

"Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms."

-Congressman Ron Paul

Originally Posted by C.S. Lewis

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised "for the good of its victims" may be the most oppressive."

-C. S. Lewis

Originally Posted by Dale Turner

"Today the real test of America's power and wisdom is not our capacity to make war but our capacity to prevent it."

-Dale Turner

Originally Posted by David Friedman

"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations."

-David Friedman

Originally Posted by David L. Wilson

"War creates peace like hate creates love."

-David L. Wilson

Originally Posted by Dwight D. Eisenhower

"War settles nothing."

-Dwight D. Eisenhower

Originally Posted by Edward M. Kennedy

"Violence is an admission that one's ideas and goals cannot prevail on their own merits."

-Edward M. Kennedy

Originally Posted by General Smedley Butler

"There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights."

-General Smedley Butler

Originally Posted by General Vo Nguyen Giap

"Any forces that would impose their will on other nations will certainly face defeat."

-General Vo Nguyen Giap (Vietnam)

Originally Posted by George Orwell

"Political language. . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable"

-George Orwell

Originally Posted by G.K. Chesterton

"The only defensible war is a war of defense."

-G. K. Chesterton

Originally Posted by Hermann Hesse

"Every politician in the world is all for revolution, reason, and disarmament--but only in enemy countries, not in his own."

-Hermann Hesse

Originally Posted by H. L. Mencken

"I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty enough to want to force it upon anyone."

-H. L. Mencken

Originally Posted by Issac Asimov

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

-Issac Asimov

Originally Posted by James Madison

"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other."

-James Madison

Originally Posted by Jean-Luc Godard

"Killing a man in defense of an idea is not defending an idea; it is killing a man."

-Jean-Luc Godard

Originally Posted by John Adams

"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."

-John Adams

Originally Posted by John Quincy Adams

"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all."

-John Quincy Adams

Originally Posted by Justice Louis D. Brandeis

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."

-Justice Louis D. Brandeis

Originally Posted by Mahatma Gandhi

"Liberty and democracy become unholy when their hands are dyed red with innocent blood."

-Mahatma Gandhi

Originally Posted by Mahatma Gandhi

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"

-Mahatma Gandhi

Originally Posted by Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Nothing good ever comes of violence."

-Martin Luther King, Jr.

Originally Posted by Michael Gillespie

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power."

-Michael Gillespie

Originally Posted by Pope John Paul II

"Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of men."

-Pope John Paul II

Originally Posted by Congressman Ron Paul

"The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people."

-Congressman Ron Paul

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

-Thomas Jefferson

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine

"An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot."

-Thomas Paine

Originally Posted by Voltaire

"It would be easier to subjugate the entire universe through force than the minds of a single village."

-Voltaire

It seems as though our founders all agree with me that using the U.S. military to start unprovoked wars to "liberate" others is insane...and so do the most influential people who ever lived, including the giants of libertarianism.

[Radar]

Here's an article written by Libertarian Author, two time presidential candidate, and giant among libertarians... Mr. Harry Browne. It's barely too big for one post, so I'll break it into two.

Mr. Browne does a good job of explaining why there is no libertarian justification to use the U.S. military to "liberate" those in other nations.

Like myself, Mr. Browne does a great job of shredding the pathetic and poor excuses for such foreign policy frequently put forth by those lying about being libertarians. One can not support the war in Iraq and also be a libertarian. Nor can one be a libertarian while supporting any other "pre-emptive" or unprovoked wars; especially those that do not have a Constitutionally required declaration of war.

========================================

May 6, 2003
Libertarians and War
by Harry Browne

I've been surprised by the number of libertarians who have supported the war against Iraq.

The two principal arguments I've heard from libertarian war-supporters are:

1. Saddam Hussein is a threat to the U.S. We must remove him from power before he attacks us or gives weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

2. We libertarians should be the first to support the liberation of the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator.

The Threat

With regard to the first argument, supporting a politician's pre-emptive attack violates virtually every principle underlying libertarian thought – the simple truths that are taught in Libertarianism 101.

For example . . .

1. Non-aggression: Most libertarians believe you shouldn't initiate force against someone who has never used force against you. Force is to be used only in self-defense – not used just because you don't happen to like someone, or because someone doesn't like you, or because he might become dangerous in the future, or because some third party has attacked you and you want to prove you're not a wimp. The same principles must apply to our nation – that it shouldn't use force against a nation that hasn't attacked us.

2. Credibility of Politicians: The idea that Hussein posed a substantial threat to America is based entirely on claims made by the Bush administration. When did libertarians start believing anything politicians say? Politicians routinely lie about fictitious budget surpluses, "budget cuts," drug matters, crime statistics, and almost anything else. Remember the old joke?:

"How can you tell when a politician is lying?"

"His lips move."

The Bush administration has already been caught in numerous falsehoods concerning Iraq:

• claiming Iraq was consorting with Al-Qaeda (refuted by the CIA),
  
• saying Iraq was acquiring aluminum tubes to make nuclear bombs (refuted by scientists and UN inspectors)
  
• producing satellite photos of alleged chemical-weapons sites (that on-the-spot investigations proved to have no chemical weapons)
  
• citing mobile chemical-weapons labs (that turned out to have no chemical weapons)
  
• giving worthless leads to UN weapons inspectors
  
• claiming that Iraq was seeking enriched uranium (citing documents that turned out to be crude forgeries)
  
• referring to a British dossier as evidence (a dossier that turned out to have been plagiarized from a 12-year-old thesis written by a college student)

. . . and much more.

[Radar]

Even if none of these falsehoods had come to light, libertarians should always be skeptical of any claims made by politicians.

3. Government doesn't work: The federal government has devastated what was once the best health-care system in history, it is trashing our children's schools, its Drug War has pulverized the inner cities, it has left chaos in its wake in Afghanistan. In fact, you'd be hard put to think of a single government program that fulfilled the rosy promises made for it.

So why would you think the promises of Iraqi freedom and democracy will be fulfilled? This is the same government that's messed up everything else. Just because "national defense" is Constitutionally authorized doesn't mean the government will handle it effectively.

The Defense Department is nothing more than the Post Office in fatigues.

And beating up a third-world country after disarming it isn't something any self-respecting country should put on its résumé.

4. Power will be abused: The President has been given tens of billions of dollars to spend on Iraq as he chooses. Do you assume he'll use it wisely, without a hint of corruption?

The FBI and other law-enforcement agencies have been given enormous new powers to jail people without warrant and hold them without trial or legal counsel. Do you assume they will employ these powers only against America's enemies?

Do you really want to give government one more excuse to expand its size, its power, and its intrusions into your life?

5.Government programs never stand still: Every other government program has turned out to be far more expensive, far more intrusive, and extend into far more areas than proposed originally. Why should this war prove to be an exception?

Do you really think the regime-changers – after tasting the blood of innocents and the praise of the media and the citizenry – will go back to bickering about farm subsidies and school-lunch programs?

Or will they look for more "monsters to destroy" (as John Quincy Adams put it)?

6. Government is politics: Whenever you turn anything over to the government, it ceases to be a financial, medical, commercial, educational, or human-rights matter, and becomes a political issue – to be decided by whoever has the most political influence. And that will never be you or I.

Why should military matters be any different? Should we be surprised that companies like Bechtel and Haliburton have already received hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to rebuild Iraq without competitive bidding?

Did you really think this war would be fought with no regard for political gain or abuse?

7. You don't control the government: You can look at the previous six items and say you would have handled some things differently. But who asked you?

No one.

And no one ever will. You don't make the decisions.

The politicians use your support as endorsements for them to fulfill their objectives, not yours – in their way, not yours.

That's true for health care, education, regulation – and it's true for military matters.

In Sum . . .

Government is force, and libertarians distrust force.

They know it will be abused, they know force won't produce the results promised for it, they know politicians will lie about the exercise of force, they know force will eventually be uncontrollable, they know that power is inevitably abused, and they know that no government program achieves its purpose and then goes quietly into the night.

On every count of libertarian principles, we should demand that the use of force against foreign countries be reserved for response to direct attacks – not to be used for "regime change," not for "democracy-building," not for pre-emptive attacks, not for demonstrations of strength.

Freeing People

The second argument offered by libertarians is that we should do anything we can to free other people from a brutal dictator.

I won't even deal with the fact that most of our knowledge of Hussein's brutality emanates from the U.S. government – hardly the place a libertarian would look for unbiased, authoritative information about anything.

I'll also ignore the point that, while condemning Hussein's brutal dictatorship, the U.S. government is aiding dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, and many other countries. We shouldn't be surprised if we're told someday that we must go to war against those dictatorships, to free the people our tax dollars are helping to enslave today.

Let's deal instead only with the idea that we have a responsibility to free people in other countries.

Is it your responsibility to enter someone's home and beat up the man you believe is abusing his wife?

Is it your responsibility to go into a dangerous section of your city and protect people from drug gangs that engage in drive-by shootings?

You might say the Drug War breeds those gangs and shootings, and thus you're working instead to end the Drug War itself – rather than trying to alleviate the symptoms of it.

Why then wouldn't you be working to end the causes of the profound anti-American sentiment that has swept the globe and provoked terrorist acts – rather than trying to alleviate the symptoms by supporting the attacking of Iraq?


Responsibility

The answer to the question "Is it your responsibility?" is simple: that's for you to decide.

Each of us must choose for himself what he feels responsible for. If you believe you have a duty to help those fighting for Iraqi freedom – perhaps even to go fight yourself – you should be free to make that choice, and no one should get in your way.

But what gives you the right to make that choice for others?

Why should you have the power or moral authority to decide which countries I must free, which countries warrant extracting money from me by force, which dictatorships warrant provoking terrorist attacks that put my life at risk?

And what libertarian would believe that George Bush should have that moral authority – plus the power to compel all of us to obey that authority?

You will face the consequences of your acts and I will face the consequences of mine. But George Bush won't face the consequences of his acts; you and I will. Is that the way it should be according to libertarian principles?

I think not.

And thus there is nothing George Bush can say that will make me believe I should put my faith in him to decide how many innocent Iraqis it's okay to kill, how many countries it's okay to attack and invade, how many Americans it's okay to put at risk, or how many libertarian principles it's okay to violate.

[spudcon]

The Founding Fathers were not Libertarians. Freedom does not equal license.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And that bit of founding father philosophy...

Kennedy wasn't a Libertarian either. Nor was he a founding father.

This is from Ron Paul's site - it explains the philosophy of liberty, not as colorfully as Radar does, but it gets the job done.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by spudcon

The Founding Fathers were not Libertarians. Freedom does not equal license.

The founding fathers were indeed libertarians. In fact they were more libertarian than the people running the libertarian party.